Citizens Discussion: When Should The DP Stop The Game?

[Immortal]

This is a list in progress for situations where the Designated Player (henceforth known as DP) is obligated to discontinue the current round of play for which he/she has recieved instructions for.

Discuss specific points making sure to indicate which points are being discussed. A master copy will be placed after this post which is subject to change. Removed situations will be indicated in red at the end of the list.

 

[Immortal]

- When War is Declared upon us (player nation) by a hostile nation or alliance of hostile nations.
- An Alliance/embargo/Mutual Protection Pact is Offered to us by a friendly nation.
- Peace is offered to us by a hostile nation.
- A great Leader is obtained in combat.
- Another nation completes a Wonder we are currently working on.
- Our nation descends into anarchy due to war weariness.




*subject to change*

 

[Noldodan]

Some situations: Declaration of war by an AI.
Offer of an alliance by an AI.
A trade is offered by an AI.
We are asked by an AI to "move your units or else."

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

I may stay.. I like being a reformer...

Add: When a Great Leader emerges from battle.
How about: When another Civ enters the next age? Remember DG2 when we suddenly were viewing Calvary?

 

[Zarn]

You might not like my suggestions, but I will give them, anyway. I don't know if they are practical or not.

when an ROP runs out (unless citizens already approved to continue it)..

mpp offered by AI...

AI completes wonder that we are constructing...

 

[Immortal]

trades and rop's are something that planning can accomplish in advance. except for ones offered by AI nations, but with a dilligent trade advisor the chances of those happening are remote.

For example: in mine and chieftess' trade instructions, all trades were dependant upon the AI, if they chose to end the deal. then it had been considered beforehand. often it was left to the dp to decide whether to attempt a renegotiation.

 

[Cyc]

Oh, good. Stuck is staying.

I'd like to recommend the situation that CT found herself in just before she plunged us into war and basically cripled Term #2. Unfortunately those pop up screens are hard to save on . Therefore, I guess we should have all possible scenarios outlined and discussed by F/A prior to the possibility of them happening.

 

[Immortal]

please be as specific as possible in your recommendations

 

[Eklektikos]

Originally posted by Noldodan
We are asked by an AI to "move your units or else."

AFAIK it's not possible to save during diplomacy, so that possibility needs to be planned for by FA and instructions posted in the instruction thread. This should be pretty easy to do, since incursions into foreign lands or settler stalking should also have been discussed in the fora beforehand....

 

[Immortal]

the same goes for demands, the terms administration is tasked with deciding whether demands against us are to be accepted or rejected and under what circumstances.

In short it is going to fall on the leaders to be as in-depth and thorough in their goals and instructions as possible.

Our leaders are going to be tasked with much more responsilities then they have grown accustomed to in their instructions and outlines.

 

[Veera Anlai]

I believe TC's should be ended when a majority of the citizens in the chat vote for it to be ended, in addition to the other conditions named above.

 

[Immortal]

and if the turn chat ceases to exist?

 

[Veera Anlai]

Well obviously, the citizen vote assumes public turn chats continue. Heh.

 

[Eklektikos]

Originally posted by Veera Anlai
I believe TC's should be ended when a majority of the citizens in the chat vote for it to be ended, in addition to the other conditions named above.

I disagree with that one. If we have a decent set of chat stopping events defined then this will be redundant.

 

[Zarn]

Ekle- If an event we didn't think of comes up, then it can be used to stop the chat for that event.

 

[Veera Anlai]

Better to have redundancy than a disaster. Or, as the NRA says, better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Not that I'm a fan of the NRA or anything :-/

 

[Eklektikos]

Originally posted by Zarn
Ekle- If an event we didn't think of comes up, then it can be used to stop the chat for that event.

If an event we didn't think of comes up it ought to be sufficiently unusual that the DP will fall off his chair with shock and immediately return to the forum to tell us of the startling news - if we do a proper job here and our leaders do a good job with their instructions. As far as I'm concerned giving any official powers to the spectators in the chat is little more than an excuse for half-arsed planning.

 

[Cyc]

I would have to agree with Eklektikos here. Lately I haven't seen any new or unseen before catastrophies pop up that haven't been part of any of our previous discussions, and I play a lot of Civ3. Once we get the group of standard situations discussed and planned for (even though the action to take in any of those situations may be changed by vote), the chances of "anything we didn't think of" coming up are extremely thin.

 

[Immortal]

now that this is settled can we please get back to the task at hand and give some suggestions?

 

[Noldodan]

Well, I do not have a suggestion, but an amendement to a previously stated reason to stop play, the one about GLs. In one turnchat last game we obtained 5 GLs. No one wanted to stop the chat for this reason, namely because we had decided not to do so. Therefore, would it not be a good idea to include an exception clause like "unless the citizenry present votes to stop play"?