Anarchy Game discussion thread

[Flotorius]

Today, I took part in a most interesting CIV game which was started, played, and led by Argh

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148063

Throughout the game we came up with naming that kind of game
"Anarchy Game":
It is very similar to the Democracy Game. But instead of voting and endless discussions that guarantee that every person's voice will be heard, an Anarchy game just makes the first voice the decisive one.

While playing this game we encountered some issues related to the destructive power of anarchy, e.g. beelining for techs. Therefore I've opened this thread so we can discuss the rules of any future Anarchy Games. AG is still about playing and winning a CIV game but adding a new flavour.

In addition, AG is extra hard because only the DP is seeing everything. There is no savegame distribution.

Here are suggestions that might be a discussion starter:
1.The DP fields questions (w or w/o) options in the style
"What do you think the Warrior should do?"
to get an order from the crowd. The first order showing in the thread after the question was fielded will be implemented in the game.

2.Batch orders shall not be permitted, e.g.
Q: What do we research next. options being animal husbandry, mining, IW
A by first person who answers: AH then IW.
-> AH will be researched and once it is done a new question is fielded.

3. The DP should field a Peace/war question at first contact and in reasonable intervals.

4.Outright silly orders like "disband settler" will be ignored.

5. Gameplay: Maybe an advance notice should be given when a game will be continued. So there was a "crowd" to make it an AG.

I hope to get some input from you.
Till then, enjoy CIV-

PS: AG Rules in 2nd post.

 

[Flotorius]

Here is the list of the main RULES of an Anarchy Game:
1. Giving orders is done on a first come first served basis.

2. Nobody can countermand another person's order. (So, you can't countermand someone's order, but you can adjust it, broaden it, find a loophole round it with orders of our own. All part of the fun.)
Amendment: Only the person who gave the order can nullify it.

3. No game ruining orders like "disband settler"; "gifting a city" (in 99.99% of the cases); "having a worker discover the entire map/scout" (with workboats that's alright); etc. allowed.

4. Anyone who edits a post that included an order will loose his/her rights to participate in the AG.

5. If or when an order becomes invalid at a certain point of the game, it will be discarded, e.g. "take the Russian city Moscow" will be discarded when Moscow falls under the reign of another civ (no longer Russian).



And here something about GAMEPLAY:
1. If you disagree with someone's order, try to convince her/him nicely. DO NOT behave like an anarchist.

2. Variant rules shall be written down in the first post.

3. The host of the AG decides whether any rule was broken by an order (and then rejects that order as invalid).

4.

If an order of yours is missed out, and no reason is given, then this was done by accident. Please remind the "puppet", and he/she will try to accomodate. If this becomes impossible, then just take it like a man/woman, and think of something else. You are not allowed to get angry, cos it's a game

 

[IamSid]

Seems really good, maybe their should be a subforum for this?

 

[Argh]

Hello, I thought I'd pop in and add my thoughts. Yep, this was my idea. At times it was very chaotic, and crazy, which was fun. At other times, particularly when less people were putting in orders, it was more organized and thoughtful, which was also fun.

Overall, it was a lot of fun. (We haven't finished yet, but with barbarians literally beating down the gates, it'll be all over for the English before too long).

Flotorius was my main contributor, and whilst he is an advocate of reducing the anarchy slightly (by taking out some of the more drastic long term orders like beelining), he was also very cunning and resourceful in finding ways to play around "damaging" and "restrictive" orders from other players.

As the person making the moves and asking for the orders, I am happy to see it unfold literally however it does. But, Flotorius could be right that to guarantee there is actuall some flexibility to play games such as these, some rules are needed.

In my (our) game, the first rules I made were that nobody could countermand another person's order, and that giving orders was done on a first come first served basis. I think these two should always remain core.

So, you can't countermand someone's order, but you can adjust it, broaden it, find a loophole round it with orders of our own. All part of the fun.

I allowed people to place orders like "build a warrior, name it after me and then I alone control what that unit does". Personally, I think this is fun, but, with an essentially rogue unit running around, this might harm Flotorius' vision of a more "playable" Anarchy Game (tm).

Running this game was a lot of fun. It was hilarious doing it, knowing that earlier orders had doomed it, yet hoping someone might still pull it out of the bag!

I recommend that someone else runs one soon, and I'll pop in and place a few orders of my own (no settler disbanding, lol).

Enjoy,
Argh

Edit: One thing that is ESSENTIAL, actually...Finding a way for the person running the game to keep the state of it visible to the "commanders" (that's everyone else by the way).

Need a format for showing what standing rules there are (someone in the stone age might have popped in and said "in the future, you will use nukes on America (as someone did in my game)).

Need a format to show what is currently happening, what MIGHT happen and what HAS TO happen because of orders submitted previously.

 

[IronMan2055]

go argh (maybe i should start a religion like with daft) go argh and the arghanists

 

[Flotorius]

In my (our) game, the first rules I made were that nobody could countermand another person's order, and that giving orders was done on a first come first served basis. I think these two should always remain core.

IMO, this should be one of the basic rules since that is what it makes an anarchy.

I allowed people to place orders like "build a warrior, name it after me and then I alone control what that unit does". Personally, I think this is fun, but, with an essentially rogue unit running around, this might harm Flotorius' vision of a more "playable" Anarchy Game (tm).

The problem comes with "I alone control". That implies the owner of the unit had to be around all the time or otherwise the game would stuck. Maybe a first order for the unit would give that player a certain power but would also leave the game playable.

 

[Flotorius]

I propose an amendment to rule #2:
"Amendment: Only the person that gave the order can nullify it."

 

[IronMan2055]

that's okay with me

 

[IronMan2055]

the people who were in it should put this



l
l
\/

 

[Flotorius]

the people who were in it should put this



l
l
\/

Got it! Long live CIV.

Here's the code:

I participate in the first ever ANARCHY game[SIZE] [url].

[url="http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148422"]Anarchy Game "How to..."[url]


Add slashes in front of closing "size" and "url"s.

 

[Pie-es-Tasty]

I must say, Anarchy is very fun, and we all should endevor the continue it.
Since it is Anarchy, there shouldn't be many rules at all. However, there should be a rule against blantant game ruining orders ("Disband the Settler!"), but a lot of the fun comes from the silly orders that people come up with, and part of the challenge is trying to hold on as long as possible with this system (or lack thereof). It is anarchy after all.

 

[Flotorius]

I must say, Anarchy is very fun, and we all should endevor the continue it.

Yes.

Since it is Anarchy, there shouldn't be many rules at all. However, there should be a rule against blantant game ruining orders ("Disband the Settler!"),

Agree again.

but a lot of the fun comes from the silly orders that people come up with, and part of the challenge is trying to hold on as long as possible with this system (or lack thereof). It is anarchy after all.

Depends on how you see it. IMO, the term anarchy foremostly applies to the way of decision making and does not mean complete destruction of the goal of any game : to win it. Yeah it's fun to have silly orders and find a way around them BUT two players changing civics forth and back would be one thing that really annoys me.

 

[Argh]

I'll go by whatever rules you guys come up with, as long as you keep it anarchic!

Another idea i've had is that we could start anarchy games at different stages.

How about I (or someone else, even) play a game through to the middle ages, THEN convert to Anarchy!?

That way, every SINGLE game won't be a mad, desperate struggle against barbians.

Just a thought. Although, starting from the start is not a problem either.

Hey, it's Anarchy.

 

[Flotorius]

I'll go by whatever rules you guys come up with, as long as you keep it anarchic!

Another idea i've had is that we could start anarchy games at different stages.

How about I (or someone else, even) play a game through to the middle ages, THEN convert to Anarchy!?

That way, every SINGLE game won't be a mad, desperate struggle against barbians.

Just a thought. Although, starting from the start is not a problem either.

Hey, it's Anarchy.

Should be up to the host. Kind of a variant that is not included in the generic rule set.

 

[Andygal]

I agree that thee should be a limit on "Disband the Settler' type orders because that just makes the game unfun for people (not to mention short).

 

[Argh]

Can anyone devise a good system of showing the state of the game to the players? A simple format to present as much of the info needed as possible. And something that will remain fairly constant, so that people can get used to it? - One thing I need to do is write things down more, rather than trying to look back over 22 pages of posts to see what German Applesauce is supposed to be upto this turn.

Not to mention we also need a good format for showing what orders are coming up, or already in place.

 

[Lapoleon]

I agree, orders should at least make some sense. Otherwise you'd just have people who'd spam the story with insane requests. But be carefull that you don't ignore too much, it is, after all, still anarchy.

 

[Argh]

How do current players rate the amount of anarchy in the current game? I'd say it's been a successful *first* attempt myself...

 

[Argh]

Also, if a player has given a standing order which down the line, means we need to ask him something before the game can proceed; then we need to set a time limit in which he has to speak, before the NEXT anarchist to post on that subject DOES get to countermand his order so the game can progress.

I can't think of such a situation off the top of my head, but I guarantee it will happen.

 

[Argh]

Two more rules:

- If an order of yours is missed out, and no reason is given, then this was done by accident. Please remind the "puppet", and he/she will try to accomodate. If this becomes impossible, then just take it like a man/woman, and think of something else. You are not allowed to get angry, cos it's a game

- Sometimes your orders will become redundant because of something someone else does. Again, this is part of the anarchy, and if you don't take it with good grace, then you're out.