A More Perfect Union

[darknight66071]

And I was this close to becoming a senator too.

Oh well that is the life and times. I vote we continue this little experiment, either with rebooting AMPU or just keep playing.

I think our biggest problem was with our senators and representatives not showing up in the beginning, when we should have been passing bills for social policies, build orders and tech-tree orders of priority. As it was the Executive Order power had to be used and abused just to keep the nation running. I think if we do this again EOs will be more valuable for responding to emergency threats and allowing for diplomacy with newly found civs. The members of congress will have to be foreward thinking to insure that the President has the military forces to respond to threats with.

 

[GreyWithAnE]

I vote for #1, but I'll be here either way. Although perhaps the "political consensus and reasonable debate" line I've been toeing won't fly as well with the Aztecs...

I think Sparthage's proposed changes from a couple posts ago are a great place to start with the "streamlining" that you mentioned you wanted to do, yahzuk, with the notable exception of #2 (doubling bills and EOs). Doubling EOs = maybe OK. Doubling bills = chaos and a fundamental break from a philosophy of the game.

Also, I do seem to be in the minority here, but I really think we should turn down the difficulty. Considering the constraints of the rules heres -- which add great fun to the forum game, but great difficulty to winning a game of CiV -- I feel like we should shoot for Prince, at most.

And finally, maybe it's impossible, but I'd love to add a little more "reality" to this game, possibly even by playing on an Earth map. I mean, maybe it's just me being a stinky American, but I think it would be totally cool in this game to have to make diplomatic decisions in dealing with natives (Iroquois, maybe even Aztecs & Incas), sailing across the sea to meet the great European powers...just a thought, if it's at all feasible.

 

[Ceskari]

Oh well. Back to frontier moose hunting then. Thanks for the game!

 

[Jehoshua]

NUMBER 2!!!

Huitzilopochtli demands sacrifice!

-

I would argue for number two primarily because a repeat of this, even if streamlined would just sort of be, well stagnant. I am one for dynamic development of games, and simply repeating the old one, as the same civilisation does not appeal to me. Number two also seems to be encouraging to a lot of fast paced excitement, and to bode well for RPG action, and I just don't get the same feeling looking at option 1. Overall I must say doing something new is much more exciting, and every sane person should love the atzecs with their sacrificial ways.

Furthermore, and just for the record, I am highly skeptical of your claim to option two's "complexity", GaP was billed as complex but really it turned out to be fairly easily understood once it went on for a little bit. I am thinking that it will simply be different rather than actually hard.

-

PS: I hope people here are not afraid of change, and difference. Sure people may be used to the old mantra of "reasonable" debate and "political consensus" but surely people can mix it up a little and delve into the wondrous world of old-fashioned intrigue with all its bloody glory.

 

[Ceskari]

Maybe it is now an opportunity to take stock of what America became. My objectives were pretty much fulfilled - I thought it amusing and ironic that we had a Communist president and that the Communist Party controlled 50 % of the government. So you could argue that we had a multi-party America with the Communists in power.

But this may not be as far fetched as one might think. Looking at the real America in the industrialized era, there was a great worker's movement, and communism was a part of a valid gamut of ideologies. The founding fathers had in fact something like this in mind when they founded the Nation, as a "right to bear arms" was included as a way for citizens to overthrow any corrupt form of government. The first few sessions of the Congress however moved to steer the nation toward supporting the nascent "American Dream" where individual enterprise and hoarding one's piece of the cream pie was as much a part of the Manifest Destiny as the migration toward the West.

I have been reading Philip K. Dick lately, and he is really a master of these parallel universes. Of course we can look back and see that not a lot of what he surmised in his books ever materialized, but anyway, "what if...?"

By the way, I am all for Aztecs in the next game as well.

 

[Jehoshua]

huzzah, Ceskari despite his communist leanings has shown himself to be sane *gestures wildly with a recently removed human heart in his hand*

 

[filli_noctus]

I vote Aztecs. I look forward to ripping out the still beating hearts of my political advers... er.. captured enemy warriors as an offering to Quetzalcoatl.
I'd be against an Earth map, half the fun is the exploration.

 

[clearmurky]

This is tough, but Aztecia!

 

[yahzuk]

So, the Aztecs it shall be!

Next question - length of council sessions.

Was the fixed Friday deadline helpful? Or should we go back to the deadline being X days from when the update is posted? if so how long should X be? Probably in the 2-4 day range... thoughts?

 

[Jehoshua]

It depends on how busy you are. I would lean for four days between councils presuming RL things, but it really depends on how much free time you have to do GMing on the game.

As to a fixed deadline, I understand it with RL stuff, but a week generally leaves a lot of lag time which detracts something from the game in my opinion, ergo its not optimal.

 

[yahzuk]

To clarify - I'm asking how long you players need/want from the time I post the update until the deadline to turn in your orders. The time for me to process the orders and post the next update is not included in that.

 

[christos200]

A little more RPGish due to a society class structure and specific character actions - but still strongly centered on the CIV game

What do you mean by that? Also i vote for the atzects.

 

[Jehoshua]

Theres more opportunity for role play gamish sort of actions, since there is a more individualistic paradigm within the game, and more room for tensions due to an ingrained social structure, thus allowing you to RP as say a merchant, or a noble, or the Tlatoani even.

 

[Ceskari]

I have this premonition that I am spread-eagled on a slab of stone with the sun right above me. I am being held in place by strong men, each limb straining to get free of their grip. a terrible axe rises to partially obscure the rays of the blazing sun. It is the hour of new moon...

 

[Jehoshua]

I had the same premonition, except I was holding the axe

 

[JohannaK]

I vote for the Aztecs, and think that 4 days would be better then a week, as that's a bit more time than optimal, and better than 2 days, just in case RL made it impossible for someone to reach the deadline

 

[Ceskari]

I had the same premonition, except I was holding the axe

But you weren't expecting the total solar eclipse...

 

[yahzuk]

No promises, but I'm trying to finish cleaning up the rules in order to launch the game this weekend.

One point that I keep going back and forth on:

During each council session, each character gets to make 2 actions.

Should both actions be due at the same time, and then update made and results posted? Or should the 1st action be due, results posted and then the 2nd action due and full update made and results posted?

The advantage to making both actions due at once is the game moves faster because we don't need to stop for results mid-council session.
The advantage to splitting them up is it gives more flexibility to react to what other people are doing.

Any thoughts?

 

[filli_noctus]

I would say make them seperate, it shouldn't affect the update schedule.

 

[JohannaK]

I think that making them separate would allow the progress of the session more clear