Who's interested in a PTW Multiplayer Demogame?

The Idea is have one Forum and another play at the same time. There are problems with this but I'm hopeful they can be overcome.

So assuming that we can overcome the problems we would face (most notably the problem of maintaining Secracy with practicality) who's interested in it?

BTW: Thunderfall told me earlier that he encourages us to try a Internal PTW Demogame before we even attempt one with Apolytonia.

that would be kool, we could have an internal multiplayer demogame. I don't know if this is possible, but TF can make a password to get into a certain nations forums.

Maybe... one thing is for sure, the "root" or base Demogame threads would have to be open, for "official" contacts between the two nations.

But General - should there be contacts before there is contact? I realize communication will be needed, like, *hey guys it's your turn* but that really won't amount to much will it?

I guess part of it will depend on how the "realtime" play is set-up.

But yes, we would have to make sure we have the same turnchats times.

I'd love to see an inter-forum demogame, mainly b/c of the "CFC are wimps thing they posted in our embassy there"
Show'em who's a wimp gosh darn it!

There would need to be a random draft type thing to put people on teams randomly or you'd have all the really good players on one team and all the bad players on another.

the problem will be: how to keep information secret?

just imagine: you could be a virtual spy! even for both sides!

I'd love to be a spy!

It could involve the new website but then that might mean more work for everyone setting that up
I think its a cool idea otherwise

What new website??

He meant making a new website for the game, since TF is not too excited with allowing them to play multi-site democracy.

I'm quite interested, although I think we would probably want to make sure that the system of government is a bit more streamlined than the unwieldy demo game I've been watching on CFC.

To be ultracool, you could set up different systems of government for each: a parliamentary system for the UK, a congress/exec for the US, a Chief Speaker with cacique advisors and sacrifices to make decisions for the Aztecs, a consensus-type system for the Iroquois, a Politburu with candidate and voting members for China and Russia...

I'm not proposing twenty civs here, but I am proposing that you choose two or three different countries with very different systems to mix it up a bit.

R.III

oh yeah, like we don't have enough trouble getting simple democracy to work!!
nice idea though...

Originally posted by Almightyjosh
oh yeah, like we don't have enough trouble getting simple democracy to work!!
nice idea though...

Click to expand...

That's exactly my point.

- One government would have the challenge of democracy (but with fewer citizens, jesus, please!)

- Another the challenge of authoritarianism, with appropriate rules for "purges" and "forced succession" of course. The citizens pool is instead a small number of party members who can wait and maneuver for nice jobs.

- Another the challenge of religious doctrine. I'm rootin' for the Aztecs on that one. Your system could be:

Huitzilopochtli - a high-scoring, militaristic civ player is appointed as the Aztec War God, and allowed to answer sacrifices in his honor with strange one-sentence aphorisms only, which must be treated as law. For example, the civ needed to know if it should go to war with the Americans. It could agree to sacrifice a McChicken sandwich, or 10 posts on their CFC post-count, or an American worker. Or a metaphorical sacrifice of 10 virgins. Whatever. Huitzilopochtli would respond with something like "A river cannot flow until the ice has melted."

Chief Speaker - has final say on all decisions - but he/she is expected to make a sacrifice before major decisions, and then to consult a council of his advisors (one high priest, plus the Caciques) about the meaning of Huitzilopochtli's musings before making decisions. But the Chief Speaker handles all game mechanics personally.

High Priest - permanent advisory post; assists Chief Speaker with arranging councils

Caciques - (to use the Spanish word for Aztec city chieftan) similar to the regional governors in a Demo game, but also serving as the advisory council to the Chief Speaker. Only one Cacique per city is appointed.

If the Chief Speaker takes a step that is in OBVIOUS conflict with Huitzilopochtli's musings, then the War God is expected to inflict "an act of god" on the Chief Speaker, killing him/her and forcing the Caciques to elect one of their own to replace him/her (the new and old would switch jobs, essentially, unless the Caciques agreed to sacrifice the poor CFCer personally). The system would be interesting but much easier, since Citizens would be unnecessary, except for sacrifices, of course .

(hell, that sounds so good, I think I will organize a Civ3 Sacrifice Game thread right now just to see if anyone wants to test it).

Make it far more interesting: although the non-democratic systems would probably be easier to play in.

R.III

R III, why would anyone wanna play if they can't be active in the government? People have no say in real government, why extend it to a game?

Originally posted by Myartar
R III, why would anyone wanna play if they can't be active in the government? People have no say in real government, why extend it to a game?

Click to expand...

Why would they have NO say? Arguably, ordinary citizens have only a little say in the Demo game; here, fewer players would have some say.

See my Civ3Theo game thread for a better explanation of the Aztec game concept. There, I think players would actually be fairly involved in debate about the right choice

Maybe it's just my political experience, but persuading a Chief Speaker to do x can be much more interesting than sitting around waiting to be polled on whether x should be done.

R.III

There's also another Idea, have the Demogame play against one of the elite players (if they're able to, say Aeson, Bamspeedy, or Sir Ralph.)

Ohh and there's also the possibility of a Default Alliance between the two nations. This would make secrecy unimportant but wouldn't allow the challenge of Demogame vs. Demogame situations.

Your second idea is one very much worth considering, Falcon.

Although it would remove one aspect of the game, that being competition, it would make for one less worry, that being the so-called site-wars.