Mr. G
Chieftain
And.....? What happened?Chieftess said:
Jumpstarting our Partcipation levels
- Thread starter Strider
- Start date
Mr. G said:
Well, a demogame site, like say, Apolyton would post a thread in the main demogame forum. People from Apolyton would post their updates and other messages there. We would do the same on other sites. It was part of the fun of those demogames then.
[sarcasm]Hey! I know what to do to increase participation! Let's do something reptitive...something we've only done 6 other times before...hmm...hey, let's do an Epic game![/sarcasm]
Mr. G
Chieftain
I'm sorry, what I mean is, did it work?
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Mr. G said:
The evidence is borderline. The threads I looked at rarely went over 20 posts, and seem to be limited to DG I and II only.
The answer would be to ask if any current people were brought into the CFC DG's because of an embassy established at another site. I do not know the answer to that question.
-- Ravensfire
1 turnchat a week would quickly asure that the game lasts atleast a year, not to mention the long waiting times. What about those times when we meet a civ every other turn? Or when we're in a peaceful stretch of the game when nothing is happening anyway?
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
How about more turns per session, then? One thirty-turn session per week? We'd have time to catch up and plan well during that week, I think.
Octavian X said:
I think that's a bit too long, especially in the early stages when you have to plan your first few cities. Besides, you can only have 10 builds in a build queue, and even then, you might not have 10 things to build.
At least 15-20 turns in the ancient age would work.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Octavian X said:
This is something Daveshack and I have been talking about, we haven't really come to any conclusion yet, but were trying to somehow find a balance.
I was actually going to propose the following:
We use Daveshacks suggestion of making the President more of a team leader, who makes the differant officials work together (or as it called it interdepartment relations or something along that line). I was planning on doing this by taking Octavians idea of the President (it was actually the Prime Minister in his idea) compiling all of the leaders instructions into a single plan (instead of 8-12 differant plans like we usually had). The President then submits that to the Turnchat Instruction thread, where's it done later on by the DP.
I'm hoping, that this will make our planning *much* more singular, then you can find out whats going to happen, how, etc. alittle bit easier. Instead of having 12 differant people posting instructions that have no mind for what the others are.
This is still a plan in progress though, so give me awhile to hammer out some dents.
In the old days, it was done by posting and pm's. 
Department leaders would post in other departments saying things like, "Since we're going to war in 25 turns, I'd like your province to build 15 of XYZ units", or, "Since we're going to war in 25 turns, and the Egyptians are between us and Persia, don't renew Persia's trade deals, as Egypt blocks their roads and ports.".
Another thought - if it's more singular, then what's the point of the turnchat thread all together? Or even turnchats? :/
My worry is that this will further water down the other advisor positions (and what the origanal game intent was -- to have them represent the Civ3 advisors) in that they have less and less to do, making the position seem less desirable.
Department leaders would post in other departments saying things like, "Since we're going to war in 25 turns, I'd like your province to build 15 of XYZ units", or, "Since we're going to war in 25 turns, and the Egyptians are between us and Persia, don't renew Persia's trade deals, as Egypt blocks their roads and ports.".Another thought - if it's more singular, then what's the point of the turnchat thread all together? Or even turnchats? :/
My worry is that this will further water down the other advisor positions (and what the origanal game intent was -- to have them represent the Civ3 advisors) in that they have less and less to do, making the position seem less desirable.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Chieftess said:In the old days, it was done by posting and pm's.
Another thought - if it's more singular, then what's the point of the turnchat thread all together? Or even turnchats? :/
My worry is that this will further water down the other advisor positions (and what the origanal game intent was -- to have them represent the Civ3 advisors) in that they have less and less to do, making the position seem less desirable.
That's why I pointed out that it was unfinished. I was hoping someone would have an idea to help it get along, sense I'm at a stand still.
RegentMan
Deity
Man... if all of these people would sign-up and join, we'd have a whole new crop of ideas and members.
Nobody
Gangster
i wonder how much the 5cc will cut particpation
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I say by a whole bunch, Strider said that he had some PMs from potential newbies stating that they wont join DG7 if it is a 5CC game.Nobody said:
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
And you're going to lose people if it stays Epic, CG.
-- Ravensfire
-- Ravensfire
greekguy
Missed the Boat
CivGeneral said:
it's not going to be a strict 5CC. it's going to be a 5BCC. there's a difference.
Stuck_as_a_Mac
Aptenodytes forsteri
I;m getting sick and tired of the "potential newbie" line. I want to see these PMs and see these names. It's a 5BCC where it looks like we'll get a max of 12 cities, 5 of which we build. It's happening and we've somewhat agreed on it.
M'kay?
M'kay.
M'kay?
M'kay.
Similar threads
