Formula51
Go Leafs Go!
Placeholder for rules list.
City States - A New Idea (Discussion)
- Thread starter Formula51
- Start date
Formula51
Go Leafs Go!
So tonight, after finishing my latest Civ4 game, I decide to check out the stories forum for some ideas on new variants. I then noticed the "anarchy" games that seemed to be much fun for all. However, those (at least to me) seemed to be lacking a little structure. 
And so, I thought, how could people come together (preferably on the forum) to improve each other's playstyles, in a form different than the anarchy games, or the SGs?
City States!
Each person who participates gets to control every aspect of their city.
That's right, from production to military units, the leader of the city can tell me exactly what they want to do with their power.
So here I am, in the discussion forum, and this thread will be an attempt to hammer out rules for a future game in which forumites will be the leaders of many city states.
So far, this is what I have:
1) Government will consist of a "senate" in which all cities will have a say in overall nation's progress
2) Cities will be in control of all units produced from their respective cities.
3) The "senate" will elect advisors (diplomatic, military, colonial) to offer suggestions which the senate can approve or turn down.
4) The map will be an huge, epic-speed continents map (the size is to allow as many cities, and thus players, as possible.
We need things such as how to dictate how money is allocated, but that could be handled by the senate. As for actual playing, city owners can send me (or others if I am unable to play) orders to say what their city will be doing, and can vote in senatorial matters. As well, anything else you guys can think of, would be appreciated.
Time for a brainstorming session!
I left a post open at the top which can be used to contain all the rules we think of, if the idea is popular enough.
EDIT: Before beginning this discussion, is this too similar to the Democracy game (which I looked at AFTER I made this
).
And so, I thought, how could people come together (preferably on the forum) to improve each other's playstyles, in a form different than the anarchy games, or the SGs?
City States!
Each person who participates gets to control every aspect of their city.
That's right, from production to military units, the leader of the city can tell me exactly what they want to do with their power.
So here I am, in the discussion forum, and this thread will be an attempt to hammer out rules for a future game in which forumites will be the leaders of many city states.
So far, this is what I have:
1) Government will consist of a "senate" in which all cities will have a say in overall nation's progress
2) Cities will be in control of all units produced from their respective cities.
3) The "senate" will elect advisors (diplomatic, military, colonial) to offer suggestions which the senate can approve or turn down.
4) The map will be an huge, epic-speed continents map (the size is to allow as many cities, and thus players, as possible.
We need things such as how to dictate how money is allocated, but that could be handled by the senate. As for actual playing, city owners can send me (or others if I am unable to play) orders to say what their city will be doing, and can vote in senatorial matters. As well, anything else you guys can think of, would be appreciated.
Time for a brainstorming session!
I left a post open at the top which can be used to contain all the rules we think of, if the idea is popular enough.
EDIT: Before beginning this discussion, is this too similar to the Democracy game (which I looked at AFTER I made this
).
Yes, it's pretty close to the Demogame, and the MP Demogame. You could, however, make this an open succession game where players get to decide how to control the cities. If you want to make it a succession game, I can move this to that forum for you.
Formula51
Go Leafs Go!
Well, that was my original idea, so that would probably be warranted. I just wasn't sure if it was SG-relevant or not.
Thanks again
Thanks again
It's also similiar in ways to Realpolitik, which is linked in my signature.
Additionally, check out this thread : http://www.strategamer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157
Someone else proposes a game format by the same name, City States, and there is brief discussion about what that would entail. This has never gone anywhere, but I'll bet most of the players in that thread would be game if you threw some ideas out there.
Additionally, check out this thread : http://www.strategamer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157
Someone else proposes a game format by the same name, City States, and there is brief discussion about what that would entail. This has never gone anywhere, but I'll bet most of the players in that thread would be game if you threw some ideas out there.
Formula51
Go Leafs Go!
It is similar, but not totally. I was thinking even more decentralized, where cities could choose to attack each other, and have their own militaries (which, in a war they don't support, they could withdraw their militaries). As I see it, in the realpolitik game, the city governor has little/no power beyond managing it's tiles and voting. In my vision, the advisors (military, scientific) suggest possibilities that the city leaders may or may not act upon.
Some more ideas to throw out there, however, I can do.
Game:
Players will take control of one city in an empire created by the game master (the person who inputs the commands, maybe myself) who is not in command of a city, and thus is neutral and will not put one city above others. Players, at the end of the game (we will be playing for a time victory) will be awarded points depending upon the amount they have achieved divided by the amount of time the city has been existing (to give late-game cities a chance). Points can be awarded by things like commerce, science, culture, wonders, military (units and amount of victories with army, to encourage fighting), vassals (ie. cities can have dominance over other cities) as well as a "diplomatic vote" where every city will have a vote as to whoever is the most liked of the group (you can't vote for yourself).
Government:
Similar to the demogame, realpolitik, etc., there will be a gathering of city leaders, who will vote on issues such as: Science priorities as advised by the science advisor or otherwise, targets to attack as advised by the military advisor (or otherwise, again). Perhaps diplomatic, civics and the treasury slider could be included as well.
As for the aspects of city-specialization:
For commerce-related cities, products from GP farms or production cities could be bought, as well some sort of bonus for contributing heavily to scientific research could be had.
For production-related cities, products from production (buildings, units, etc.) can be sold for other commodities (culture, commerce, etc.)
For GP farms, GP's can be sold to others for commodities.
This is just after a short 10 min brainstorming session, there can and will be much more, but I would like some input so far.
Also, there can and will be civil wars. (using units to pillage other cities improvements, "hiring" barbarians to attack other cities, etc.)
So it should be a heck of a lot of fun.
Some more ideas to throw out there, however, I can do.
Game:
Players will take control of one city in an empire created by the game master (the person who inputs the commands, maybe myself) who is not in command of a city, and thus is neutral and will not put one city above others. Players, at the end of the game (we will be playing for a time victory) will be awarded points depending upon the amount they have achieved divided by the amount of time the city has been existing (to give late-game cities a chance). Points can be awarded by things like commerce, science, culture, wonders, military (units and amount of victories with army, to encourage fighting), vassals (ie. cities can have dominance over other cities) as well as a "diplomatic vote" where every city will have a vote as to whoever is the most liked of the group (you can't vote for yourself
).Government:
Similar to the demogame, realpolitik, etc., there will be a gathering of city leaders, who will vote on issues such as: Science priorities as advised by the science advisor or otherwise, targets to attack as advised by the military advisor (or otherwise, again). Perhaps diplomatic, civics and the treasury slider could be included as well.
As for the aspects of city-specialization:
For commerce-related cities, products from GP farms or production cities could be bought, as well some sort of bonus for contributing heavily to scientific research could be had.
For production-related cities, products from production (buildings, units, etc.) can be sold for other commodities (culture, commerce, etc.)
For GP farms, GP's can be sold to others for commodities.
This is just after a short 10 min brainstorming session, there can and will be much more, but I would like some input so far.
Also, there can and will be civil wars. (using units to pillage other cities improvements, "hiring" barbarians to attack other cities, etc.)
So it should be a heck of a lot of fun.
Just a thought, but why not turn this into a MP game where everyone has to play with OCC checked? You can still have AI civs.
Edit: Even as a MP game with OCC checked you could make it so that all of you are on the same team. It does sound interesting.
Edit: Even as a MP game with OCC checked you could make it so that all of you are on the same team. It does sound interesting.
Formula51
Go Leafs Go!
It's a damn good idea. The only problem I see with that is that the logistics of coordinating an MP game. If we find enough willing participants, it is an option, and would solve the scoring problem. However, therein lies the problem. We need enough people willing.
If you do (or are seriously considering) going the MP route I suggest you bring this idea up in the MP forums. You might get more hits there. You can leave this thread open for discussion to keep the option of going your original route of the discussion type. Just link both threads together so the readers have the option.
BTW, I pm'ed you formula.
BTW, I pm'ed you formula.
Formula51
Go Leafs Go!
The problem I just thought of for MP is that no map would have civs start next to each other. Also civs would have many troubles researching technology with only one city (although this is a minor concern, b/c of tech trading).
If the game is set up with everyone as a team, than everyone starts off knowing everyone, so thats not a problem. True, we may not be close to each other, that I don't believe we can do anything about (unless a neutral party went in a set the starting locations using world builder). Tech trading would be non-existent with team play, as whatever one person knows so does everyone else. So if you wanted to be able to trade techs between each city state than each city couldn't be on the same team. Also, if you wanted city states to be able to war with each other, or not support another city state during war than you couldn't use team play either, as with team player if one player is at war with someone we all are.
Researching in an OCC is no problem at all. In fact rarely do I ever move the slider off of 100% with my OCC games. I often hit over 1k
/turn with my OCC games.An MP OCC game sounds interesting (with or without teamplay), but will adjust your original plans. Choose what you prefer, since after all, its your game. I'm simply suggesting ideas as you asked in the OP.
This is an interesting idea and I'm curious how best to implement it.
The multiplayer occ sounds good. You could have a 24 hour 'got it and play' for all palyers. If you miss a day, well bad luck.
With the other way, it would depend so much on the land you got to settle. Just the food count would determine what you could do with it. Also slider? Would that be set by vote, or the game boss?
It would affect people's citis very much. Who gets the capital?
All that said I'm keen to get involved.
Edit: just remebered multiplayer needs all of the starting players to be online at the same time, is that right?
With the other way, it would depend so much on the land you got to settle. Just the food count would determine what you could do with it. Also slider? Would that be set by vote, or the game boss?
It would affect people's citis very much. Who gets the capital?
All that said I'm keen to get involved.
Edit: just remebered multiplayer needs all of the starting players to be online at the same time, is that right?
