Civ4 Demogame IV

[DaveShack]

At its most basic, it is CivFanatics vs AI. What changes over time is how decisions are made.

There are almost as many ways to approach a demogame as there are demogame players.

The latest game tried to emphasize two points -- role playing over game mechanics, and a pseudo-parlimentary style in which the election is between groups instead of being between individuals.

The balancing act is between having officials with power vs. the people having power. We have had setups from extremes where officials had almost total power within the predefined rules, all the way to the other extreme where officials had almost no power at all and nearly everything was polled.

The constant factor seems to be that it works well when the population is up, and falls apart quickly when the population drops. Go too far one way and one group loses interest, too far the other and a different group leaves.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

could you get more participation if you had multiple civs, all on one team, against a lot of AI opponents, each civ with a different style? Or is that just too out there?

 

[Furiey]

could you get more participation if you had multiple civs, all on one team, against a lot of AI opponents, each civ with a different style? Or is that just too out there?

I think we did consider using locked alliances for a Civ3 game at one time to do just that, but for some reason (which escapes me at the moment) we decided it wasn't viable.

 

[DaveShack]

A team of allied human civs should clean up against AI's even more than SP mode. One of the difficulties is getting the difficulty level right. We want it to be a challenge, but not so hard that the lower level players are intimidated out of the game.

 

[Cyc]

I think we did consider using locked alliances for a Civ3 game at one time to do just that, but for some reason (which escapes me at the moment) we decided it wasn't viable.

Yes, this was an excellent idea (good thought AT), but I don't remember locked alliances being the snag. I don't remember locked alliances being a strong point either.

The main idea was just as AutomatedTeller suggested. That two or more groups with different ideologies about how to play a Demogame would each get a tribe and add some AI to a new style game. Let's say Provolution chose to be the Russians and used his dictatorial style game with his group of people. Civplayah chose to use a Factional style for his group of people and wanted to be the Romans, let's say. Then Ravensfire chose to be a traditional style game with the Persians. These three human tribes would play three or more AI tribes with normal victory conditions. Not an ALL WAR or anything like that. Just to see who would have the most successful game.

The problem at the time was only traditional games with variances were used. Not as harshly different as the examples used above, but still some major differences. Because the different groups would be all traditional, privacy became an important issue. Just like the Multi-Team games. Because all groups wanted confidential disscussions, and the thought of private forums was not a popular idea at the time, discussion on this type of Demogame faded away. No one really knew how to make it work.

 

[Furiey]

I think it may have been out of that dicussion that the first multi-team game was born which became a game between competing teams rather than the AI. Other Demogames continued as before.

 

[thecommonnate]

I'll join this game under the traditional system as well.

Maybe we should do a vote and continue this along?

 

[GenMarshall]

Well, here's our chance to switch back to a Civilization 3 Conquests Democracy Game!

Only if I can play it in windowed mode and can force it to run in 32bit mode (I have Vista 64)

 

[civplayah]

I like AT's idea of there being more than one civ in the game, that way everyone can choose which ideology they want, and that ideology will always be in power because it's it's own team. Maybe we should have three human civs and start a multiple choice poll where you chose 3 of the people that you like the best. And maybe it should be a rule that you can't vote for yourself...
EDIT: If there's a vote like this, I'll be happy to host it.

 

[GenMarshall]

Hmm, sounds more like a variant of a Multisite Demogame

 

[Chieftess]

Only if I can play it in windowed mode and can force it to run in 32bit mode (I have Vista 64)

You can with Microsoft Virtual PC (just install Windows XP and Civ3 on it).

A viable game would need a lot more people.

I think you should start by discussing what kind of game it should be. I'd be unlikely to even try to participate in another game with group elections, or elections that don't end on predetermined fixed terms. Also consider something which allows a broad range of player types to participate without feeling like they are unnecessary or unwanted. The last game ended up with an exclusionary atmosphere, which can be fun if you're "in", but extremely unfun if you're "out".

You might also want to recruit some people to help organize.

And looking at the amount of posts within the last few months, I'd say it's almost dead... and the MTDGs are doing much better. Civ4 demogames haven't been faring that well either. C4DG1 ended in a "draw", and C4DG2 sort of just fizzled out. This game was fortunate to have a good starting position. And ever the Apolytonian Demogames are begging for players!

I think Ravensfire and you would be pretty good at that. (And maybe me). I think that we should try a traditional game, because the faction game destroyed all of the faction members that were voted out of power. I think there should be positions for everyone, so that way, everyone contributes, everyone's happy, and the civ prospers even more with 40 genius minds at their best.

This was probably the original reason factions were never allowed (if anyone wants to search 5 years worth of posts for it), since it leads to exclusionary play - technically against the forum rules.

Well, here's our chance to switch back to a Civilization 3 Conquests Democracy Game!

Here I go agreeing with Cyc again! I think Civ3 is more fit for a demogame, since it allows for variations in gameplay. There've been so many times we were headed for one victory condition, then switched at the last second (Civ4 being the most notorious, I think). In the early games, we finished them fairly quickly (4 to 6 months).

The only problem I see is just how many people would be wiling to play a Civ3 DG? We'd need at least a dozen people. (advisors, governors/mayors and "cabinet members" - i.e., "Office of Infrastructure...").


You know, sometimes I play Civ3 to relive those DG glory days.

 

[Chieftess]

I've created two polls.

Civ3 Interest Poll
Civ4 Interest Poll

I think it would be safe to say that if there's no interest, then the SPDG would be on life support. (The #demogame and #turnchat rooms in IRC, too)

 

[Furiey]

Without raising the visibility of this I doubt that we will get many votes other than from the people who have already expressed an interest anyway. I certainly would not think that many Civ 3 players would spot the poll for a Civ 3 game with it hidden in a Civ 4 forum. Can we get an announcement out asking for people to express their interest?

Happy Christmas everyone!

 

[civplayah]

I voted for Civ3 and Civ4. I like them both, and I think they're both very interesting and exciting games. I honestly don't understand where people are coming from with this criticism. But if majority votes no, I guess we'll just have to let the Civ4 DGames go. I think Civ3 would be as just as interesting as Civ4.
EDIT: I just had an idea. I do admit that the LFR and the COA factions were a bit too complex for just a faction. But what if we did a traditional CIV4 game based on the setup and positions of them. If people vote that down, the AD had a great setup, too and maybe we could use that.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=295285 That's the LFR, and http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=283564that's the COA. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=272558&highlight=Arkadian+Dynasty That's the AD.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

The apolyton game is a MTDG, and they started with 7 or 8 teams.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I'd actually be interested in a Civ4 (BTS) demogame, although hopefully it could follow the model of the previous Civ3 DGs. I never really understood the faction system...

 

[fed1943]

I would play a Civ4 (BTS) demogame, IF
It is a Civ game and not a RPG/Faction/Leadership/Rebellions game, where people post
about everything but the game, and the debates should be (for me to play it,that is) about
how to do a good game and not about... to settle a city to take bath at the seaside.
Best regards,

 

[GenMarshall]

You know, sometimes I play Civ3 to relive those DG glory days.

Feeling a bit nostalgic are we?

 

[Ball Lightning]

I would be interested in playing.

 

[Chieftess]

I think that to keep up interest, the next game shouldn't take 3-6 months deciding a ruleset before the game even begins. There's 10 rulesets (10 demogames) to choose from now - any one of those could be used as a template.