A Civ3Theo Game? Sacrifice Here!

[Richard III]

I was writing on another thread to express interest in a Cvi3 Multiplayer Demo game, and made the suggestion that different forms of player government should be encouraged in the other civ or civs, so democrats would be competing with communists and so on.

Frankly, amongst other things, I think communist, theocratic, monarchist or parliamentary Demogame systems would be simpler to run; citizens wouldn't have all of these tedious "rights," for starters, so there wouldn't be quite as many of them involved.

But on that thread, I outlined a model form of government for my favorite civ, the Aztecs, who are groovy.

Is there any interest in starting a test of new forms of government through a Civ3Theo game as the Aztecs in a week or two? If so, or any other comments, please post...

The proposed system of government is outlined on the next post.

 

[Richard III]

The Aztec CivTheo system, like its real world counterpart, would be expected to live by certain values. The Mexica would prize agriculture, prioritize religious construction, demand tribute often and pillage and loot weaker civs at every opportunity.

CONSTITUTION

Huitzilopochtli
A high-scoring, militaristic civ player is appointed as the Aztec War God. He is allowed to answer sacrifices in his honor with strange one-sentence aphorisms only, which must be treated as law.

For example, imagine the Mexica/Atzec civ needed to know if it should go to war with the Russians. The council (see below) could agree to sacrifice a McChicken sandwich, or 10 posts on their CFC post-count, or an American worker in the game. 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 making those decisions. He/she must then consult a council of his advisors (one high priest, plus the Caciques) about the meaning of Huitzilopochtli's musings before making that decision. But the Chief Speaker handles all game mechanics personally.

High Priest
A permanent advisory post, freed only by resignation (at which point, the incumbent can appoint a successor); assists Chief Speaker with arranging councils and is to be respected when interpreting godly musings.

Caciques
(To use the Spanish word for Aztec city chieftan) would serve as the representative of each city, and only one per city is allowed. all are automatically on the advisory council to the Chief Speaker. Only one Cacique per city is appointed. The Chief Speaker may delegate minor decisions on a regional basis to the Cacique or an appropriate regional group of Caciques if need be.

If the Chief Speaker or any Cacique 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 offender (and maybe a few others just for fun), killing him/her. If it is the Chief who is the offender, then the Caciques elect one of their own to replace him/her, and then raise up a citizen in the place of the lost Cacique. If it is a Cacique who is the offender, then a citizen replaces him/her.

Citizens
Excess game members would be Citizens. They could wait, for jobs, or otherwise volunteer for various tasks. The Chief Speaker does have the discretion to sacrifice any Citizen if he/she feels that this would appease the War God at difficult moments.

Other comments:

Owing to the nature of the Aztec civ, players would be expected to create a Heroic Epic ASAP with any GL and dedicate that epic to Huitzilopochtli.

Citizens could volunteer to become a slave to the state to temporalily serve on a particular task at the whim of the Chief, e.g. Historian. Or the Chief Speaker could use sacrifices to coerce the same behavior. But otherwise, no formal "titled" cabinet positions will exist to make the game system cleaner than the Demogame.

Also, in any major battle, a Cacique would be appointed to lead the armies to battle, which entitles him/her to ADVISE the Chief Speaker on deployments. Failure in battle might result in death, or sacrifice, depending on whether the Chief or Huitzilopochtli gets to the Cacique first.

Some provision for a bloody civil war to depose a terrible Chief is also needed.

Comments? Volunteers? Cool "sacrifice mod" graphics?

R.III

 

[Eklektikos]

This is definitely... interesting. That's the word... interesting.

Oh, and mad as a spoon, too... but count me in because I'd be intrigued to see if the system's actually viable!

 

[Shaitan]

It would need a much smaller pool than a demo game, that's for sure. Would sacrificed players be booted? That's a bit harsh when so many sacrifices are required.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Shaitan
It would need a much smaller pool than a demo game, that's for sure. Would sacrificed players be booted? That's a bit harsh when so many sacrifices are required.

Well, since the reaction so far doesn't suggest we will have 1,000,000 players, so if we only get enough to have a few citizens and the required number of Caciques, then we could have a rule banning sacrifices of players until new ones appear, and failed Caciques would just get demoted.

Even then, I would suspect player sacrifices would be a rare thing, and done more in jest than anything.

But McChicken sandwiches? Hell, I sacrifice one of those every day. The main thing would be to get the War God talking one way or the other.

I guess in theory we can get started once we have a God and about six or so players, since it will take us a few centuries to build up enough cities to run out of citizens at that stage, eh?

We can all elect the first high speaker and the Chief, and select Caciques by lot or something.

R.III

 

[Shaitan]

Maybe sacrifice would just entail losing a position. The god would be the only one who could sacrifice the big 2 when they mess up. How do you get rid of a bad god? Say 2/3 of the populace plus the big 2 decide to worship somebody else?

So there wouldn't be terms, you keep your job until you get sacrificed (or the peeps stop worshipping you).

 

[disorganizer]

you get rid of a god if start believing in another god. maybe the citizens will just ignore what their old god says and hear on a new one.

 

[Richard III]

I don't think you can get rid of a bad god. That's the point. The poor government has to work around the bad god by finding ways to intepret His wishes in ways that don't conflict with the wording but do what the government wants to do.

Let's try it with one god before we bounce him for another, eh?

As for terms, yeah, the idea is not to have fixed terms. Again, the plan is to have a totally different flavor from a Demogame, but be as participatory; so persuasion and wisdom becomes more important than titles or votes. I think the whole concept of who dies/sacrifices/replaces who when needs a bit of firming up, but as I'd said, once we have a god and (assuming all posting here are willing to play, with one exception) maybe another 2-4 players, we can work those details out and start by trail and error.

It will make a hell of a thread to read, anyhow.
R.III

 

[Shaitan]

Run the turns in an open turn chat? With a much smaller player pool there might not be much advantage to that. If the Chief plays offline then he would have to stop at any point where the god's input is needed (or possibly face the god's wrath). Those places could be loosely defined or not (gods are fickle).

 

[jdd2007]

i think it would be awesome! you could have a seperate game for each civ, each with its own rules. you could be in up to 16 different games, a lowly peasant in one, and mighty war god in another. this way it wouldnt be so bad if you 'died' in one game.

 

[jdd2007]

any comments, then ... ?

 

[Toasty]

I would absolutely love to be in this . In fact, it would be interesting to design different government systems for each time we play (like the Bourbon nobility for France, the Samurai code for Japan, etc. etc.). This would not only streamline things, but also REALLY spice things up for each game!

I think we should have a group of "constitution writers" to develop a new constitution based on a system of the country for each civ, or something similar.

But yes, you can count me in entirely !

 

[Toasty]

Considering the Theocratic system proposed by Richard, I would like to suggest a Monarchial system like that of Bourbon France. Would most certainly prove interesting, as it would have to involve marriages for any peasants to advance--a bit of role playing, if you will, so that nobility members may have offspring to send off into marriages amongst powerful noblemen and to bring citizens into their family.

King
The King plays the game and makes most military decisions. However, any alterations to law dictated by him must be recorded by the Provincial Parlement (see Provincial Parlement). Also, the King has the ability to pass judgement on any trials that do not involve himself, but may also pass it on to the Estates-Generale (see Estates-Generale), in order to seek the support of the peasantry.

The King remains in rule after elected by the Noblesse (Nobility) until he either abdicates or is forced out of rule by the Noblesse.

(Also note: Parlement is spelled correctly, in French).

Noblesse
Select members of the game who would be chosen at random at the start of the game. Hold most political power in the Kingdom, and vote for new Kings and may force a King out of power by vote. Has family members that may marry peasants or other nobility in order to increase influence and political power. Elects local and Political Parlement.

Also voices concern towards Parlement. Only the oblesse may hold political positions above mayorship and outside the Troisième Estate. Only Noblesse of the King's line may hold position in the D'abord Estate.

The Noblesse can force the King from power by holding a referendum. If two-thirds or more of the Noblesse vote to have him expelled, he will be expelled and a new King and D'abord Estate will be elected.

Each Noblesse has 2 offspring which they may marry into other Noblesse families or can marry to a peasant.

Census Officer
This person would keep track of Noblesse families and the status of each person (Royal Line, Noblesse, or Peasant), and would also determine the seperation of the Noblesse and the Peasantry at the start of the game.

Estates-Generale
The Estate-Generale consists of three Estates--The D'abord (first) Estate, which consists of 3 Noblesse of the Kings line, The Seconde (second) Estate, which consists of 5 Noblesse, and the Troisième (third) Estate, which consists of 7 peasants. The Estate members vote on all Royal decrees before it is handed down to the Provincial Parlement. However, should 3 votes from the D'abord Estate against a proposal be made, it will be removed. Similarly, should 5 votes from the Seconde Estate, or 7 votes from the Troisième Estate be recorded, the motion will be removed before reaching Provincial Parlement. If a majority in favor is found in two of the three Estates then the Royal decree will pass to the Provincial level. Livewise, should a majority against be found in two of the three Estates it will not pass to the Provincial level.

Members of the Estate-Generale hold a term for 30 days.

Provincial Parlement
A council of 3, 5, or 7 Noblesse or Peasants (the number is based on provincial population) elected by both the Noblesse and the Peasantry. Records Royal decrees, but may refuse to record some, reulting that the edict will not be enacted in the province. Decides all building queues for cities, though Mayors may influence the decisions of the Parlement. All laws passed by both the King and the Estate-Generale. They will only have to vote when they deem it necessary.

Members of the Provincial Parlement hold a term for 30 days.

Mayors
Mayors are not elected but are volunteers. They may influence the Provincial Parliament on decisions and on their city's build queues. They may be either Peasants or Noblesse.

Peasants
Peasants are the commonfolk, factory workers and farmers. The cannot hold positions that are required to be filled by the Noblesse, including the D'abord Estate, the King, or the Seconde Estate. Also, they cannot vote for the election of the King. They can however join the Noblesse by "marriages of convenience," marrying the offspring of a Noblesse (each Noblesse is provided two offspring). Only then may they hold such high positions in the government. They may hold positions in Troisième Estate, Provincial Parlement, or as Mayors.

---

Obviously, this system would require several players (also note, offspring are not gender specific ). However, I'd enjoy playing it.

Also, because of the seperation of the classes, there would not have to be limitations to the number of positions you could run for, and would also reduce the factor of "Bob Newbie" running for every position avaliable.

All citizens who join after game launch would be places as Peasantry, though a reasonable argument might change my mind .

Proposed name: Civ3 MonarchGame .

 

[Almightyjosh]

Well, I think democracy is the most involving form of the game, but if you have multiple games at once with different systems!! Wow!! I think if in a ptw match you had more than, say, 5 teams, it would be best to give up secrecy altogether and just play on the assumption that everyone else knows what you are doing.

 

[jdd2007]

i dont feel like writing a constitution at the moment, but the roman game would be very, very fun. the government system changed all the time in RL, but it would have an emperor, a large senate, the praetorians and the mob...

 

[Shaitan]

How about a Civ3 group game where there is a different rule set depending on what government is in use in the game? Start out as a despotism (maybe theocracy would work here) and move up from there.

 

[jdd2007]

i think that has been discussed, shaitan, but never acted upon.

 

[Eklektikos]

probably because of the inordinate amount of effort that would go into setting up the various rulesets... it's taken us months to get just our democracy ruleset close to stability.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Eklektikos
probably because of the inordinate amount of effort that would go into setting up the various rulesets... it's taken us months to get just our democracy ruleset close to stability.

In part because it is a soft democracy, where people have been allowed to whine about things that they are not well informed enough to complain about...

With that thought in mind, maybe Darkshare would make a fine god.

 

[disorganizer]

toasty: isnt your proposal almost like our first constiution
?