Civ4 Demogame IV

[Cyc]

Let's not blame anyone anymore, gentlemen. Let's throw all that in the back seat an drive on. Who gives a horsehocky? Spilt milk. Water under the bridge. Old news. Boring.

Let's talk about the future.

 

[DaveShack]

I have no interest in blame. What I do have interest in is setting appropriate boundaries. The following come to mind immediately, others may be added.

1. Election polls must list individuals
2. Terms must have a predetermined end point
3. No player may be excluded

Taking a hypothetical game with multiple civs acting as a team against multiple AIs (thus not a competition per se between the human civs), #3 means to me that every player can choose to participate in one or more of the human civs. If you must, think of it as that player controlling multiple independent RPG characters. So no need for "migration periods" -- if someone stops participating in one of the civs due to lack of interest in that style of play, then their RPG character just decided to retire from public life.

Now, in terms of pure game mechanics, I have very serious concerns about how to physically play a multi-civ game. A pitboss style would be way too slow. As Chieftess pointed out above, the most successful demogames took 6 months or so from creation day to victory. Any longer than that and things move too slowly to keep people interested. On top of the physical concern is keeping decision points for multiple civs in sync.

It's not about liking or not liking a game style. I want it to succeed, whatever it is. When I ask questions about how something will work or point out potential or real pitfalls, it is because it kills me to have one of these games fall apart, not because I have a vendetta against a player or six.

 

[civplayah]

Wow, lots of posts here. I like TCN's idea, Provo's idea, and AT's idea put together. DaveShack did have some good points, and I think that we should follow his ruleset. I think that emigration and immigration should be a little restricted because with a lot of people flocking to one civ would cause it to be a traditional style game and not what it was intended to be.
As for the number of teams, I'd say three is the optimal number. It's just that four seems too many and two seems too small. I think that civs should vote on their government when the civs are formed. If they agree on a dictatorship, let them have it. If they like a democracy, that's fine, too. I also think that the game should exclude oligarchies and aristocracies. There should be a term agreement on how long the leader is in power.

I think this'll take off very smoothly.
I've started a poll in the polls sub-forum.

 

[thecommonnate]

I also like DS's points. However, I would be worried about early flocking to a certain civ. And whats to stop that same person from sharing his civ's land, current tech & troop #s, etc. with his new governing body?

Setting up a "don't ask don't tell" rule will most likely be enough to deter the second problem, but even then the first still remains.

 

[Black_Hole]

Wow it's been awhile since I've posted here...

The multi team idea does seem a little interesting, but I agree with DaveShack's main concern, that being it would take very long for games to move. The MTDGs take much longer than I would want the single player DG taking.

Also I think we should use Civilization III instead of IV because it just seemed to work better; I haven't really analyzed why but it just did.

 

[Provolution]

I think we could have both Civ3 and Civ4 demogames, as there are thriving MTDGs for both. I would also like to remind people that this is a Civ4 area of the forum, for the record, and that we had two polls on what people wanted. I see that a few veterans have trouble with Civ4 as the chosen platform, and that they would like to revive the traditional template. I suggest that we can open for both options, with those liking the traditional ways make a great Civ3 demogame, but not blocking us that want a more different Civ4 demogame. So, the message is, Civ3 veterans are more than welcome to start a civ3 demogame with traditional ruleset, but should not hinder or impede a different civ4 demogame from taking place.

The multiteam challenge can be handled by concurrent pitboss, with 3 players (one from each team) playing 3 different teams at once concurrently at pitboss, with 10-15 turns for a turnchat, agreed on as a standard framework. No migrations should take place before Paper is invented, to maintain privacy of the different teams as well as staying in character with that people cannot emigrate to civs they never even heard about, even less live in several nations at once. The game could also be handled with turn based, a turn per day, which is perfectly possible.

 

[ravensfire]

Now, how about the Demogame? You know we want you back.

Obviously, it depends on the game and the format, Cyc. I'll lurk at a minimum though!

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Also I think we should use Civilization III instead of IV because it just seemed to work better; I haven't really analyzed why but it just did.

Ultimately, I think because the game itself it simpler. Civ IV has more options, more strategies and, well, just plain more! Civ III is pretty straightforward in terms of options - on tile X, you do Y improvement. This helps limit the options to the players, so the discussions tend to be more focused.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

No migrations should take place before Paper is invented, to maintain privacy of the different teams as well as staying in character with that people cannot emigrate to civs they never even heard about, even less live in several nations at once.

I think this point was handled above. If it's meant to be competitive, then we already have a competitive game going with 5 civs. If it's not competitive, then there may not be any restrictions on who can join a civ.

 

[Provolution]

I think this point was handled above. If it's meant to be competitive, then we already have a competitive game going with 5 civs. If it's not competitive, then there may not be any restrictions on who can join a civ.

You state it in absolutes what is doable or not, and I politely disagree. This is a hybrid of the multiteam demogame (proposal). It is not meant to be "competitive" as in a normal MTDG, but competitive in the sense that we allow a game subculture to emerge, without having some players going all over the field, seeking to influence all 3 civs at once. This will ensure that some playerstyles are sheltered and conditioned a bit, so more players get the opportunity to influence their context a bit more. With all players being allover the place at once, you will see a handful of experts influencing all civs at once, trying to make all the civs in their own image. Compartmentalization reduces individual influence to a particular civ. The "competition" will not be as strong as in a normal MTDG, as we will have several AIs on board, and there will be room both for collaboration and conquest, even war, but less so than in a traditional MTDG, and more so than in a traditional or factional demogame. Having other player civs to compare to at all stages, will also make good gaming rewarding. If some team want to explore roleplay more than a team some players would consider bland and unspiring, they are free to do so. This enables gametechnicians like Dutchfire and Fed1943 to play a very solid, technical without roleplay civgame in one civ, whereas Vandalwarrior and TheCommonNate and others could play a more roleplay inspired game and finally a group of traditionally inclined players with some roleplay and some gaming could be in a third.

Sectioned immigration and emigration will give each team a courtesy period to develop their own internal story, culture and discussion, and when the populations are reshuffled prior to election times/migrations, it will be very interesting to see what other players have experienced as a new immigrant.
Immigration also allows you to vote with your legs, if there are playstyles and individual players you want to seek out, or get away from.

 

[fed1943]

Just to check if I understood Provolution's last post:

Three human teams allied among themselves; one of them should only have tech
players, trying to play the best they could with no other concerns.

Some AI teams allied among themselves (nine would be a nice number, as the
AI doesn't make an efficient ally).

Did I read it right? If yes, you can count on me.

Best regards,

 

[Provolution]

The three teams can indeed be allied, but they do not have to, and there is no need to have locked alliances between the nine AIs. But yes, the idea is to allow very different playstyles and teams to coexist in the same universe, at the same pace, for example, I can see that a team of "game-technicians" can play the best game they want, with no concern for roleplay, where another team play a more roleplay inspired game.

 

[DaveShack]

You state it in absolutes what is doable or not, and I politely disagree.

Certain people need to be onboard before it will be doable. One of them is not too fond of the idea of users being able to exclude users, and it's a fairly good bet that one or more of the others agrees. You should be able to figure it out from there.

... allow a game subculture to emerge, without having some players going all over the field, seeking to influence all 3 civs at once.

And if someone chooses unwisely, has no influence, and must wait until a "migration period?" Must that person leave the game out of disgust, or will you allow someone to change their mind? Hint: if you are willing to let them leave, it's probably a wrong game framework setup with the wrong motivation.

This will ensure that some playerstyles are sheltered and conditioned a bit, so more players get the opportunity to influence their context a bit more. With all players being allover the place at once, you will see a handful of experts influencing all civs at once, trying to make all the civs in their own image.

You make two assumptions, that someone would want to do this, and that it would be damaging. Let's dispel the myth that it can be damaging first. In the first MTDG, the mods added a "good atmosphere" rule. Basically, actions which are within the forum rules but detrimental to the atmosphere of the game are treated as infractionable and ultimately bannable offenses. I suggest we use that for this game. So if Joe or Sally Gameplayer jumps into the roleplay civ and starts contaminating it with lots of gameplay stuff, (s)he gets "gentle reminders" to be nice and time on the bench if that doesn't work.

As for whether someone would want to participate in two places, the obvious example is someone who likes to both roleplay and is a game technician. Frankly, the roleplayers need every story line they can get. So we let the individual who wants to do both start up a storyline in the roleplayers civ, but still post complex game analysis in the gameplayers civ. And maybe even sit on the bench in the legalists civ. As long as that player lives in each civ according to the rules of that civ, what is harmed?

 

[Cyc]

As for whether someone would want to participate in two places, the obvious example is someone who likes to both roleplay and is a game technician. Frankly, the roleplayers need every story line they can get. So we let the individual who wants to do both start up a storyline in the roleplayers civ, but still post complex game analysis in the gameplayers civ. And maybe even sit on the bench in the legalists civ. As long as that player lives in each civ according to the rules of that civ, what is harmed?

I believe you're missing the mark here, DaveShack. Maybe competetiveness is the wrong word here, but there is a question that seeks to be answered. There are environments that need to thrive in their own sunlight, just because. Individual players need to choose, and choose wisely, before the game starts. Cross-mingling between the human tribes will not be a good idea. Set up a list of players for each human tribe and keep it that way, say until after the Ancient Age. Then if certain people want to migrate, they must post a request and give their reason for switching teams. If a problem is apparent, the majority can show approval, and the switch can be made.

But floating between games is not a good idea.

 

[Furiey]

I can see that floating between teams would not be a good idea, but I'm not convinced we should restrict players to a team until a certain time period, unless it's a very short period. If a player can post a good enough request/reason to move and it is accepted by the team they want to move to then they should be allowed to do so.

I also feel that the team forums should be visible to all to allow particularly new players see what is happening and decide which team to belong to. If you can't see what's happeneing in a team how do you know if it's right for you? Another thing that blocks new users from joining is them not being able to see what is going on. If they can't see the team forums they will have even less chance of seeing the discussion/decision making process in action.

 

[Provolution]

I think a player can only be on one team for one election cycle, otherwise I would consider it "floating", if they could vote several teams at once. There should also be a real commitment to a team they choose, and they need to have an interest in that team at least for a month/2 months, before they can emigrate. Elections should be announced in the main forum though, and with it, they can present their team and civ, and what they have done the last 60 or so turns (2 month election cycle).

 

[thecommonnate]

I have to say, I feel the (lack of) organization here is threatening the survival of this idea.

We should agree upon what DGs we are going to sponsor, and how many teams will be included in each before we have real discussion on how people migrate (or if they migrate) between the teams.

 

[Strider]

I like the multi-team idea, but you'd have to appropriately separate it enough from the normal MTDG. A few ideas that pop into mind immediately.

We play, in essence, as one civilization under one banner. Teams should have their own private forums, but citizens should also be able to move from team to team (although not to often; were need to put a limit on this). We can paint this as moving to a different area of the country. It may also help simulate the miscommunication issues that distance has (not being able to see each others detailed planning).

 

[DaveShack]

I also feel that the team forums should be visible to all to allow particularly new players see what is happening and decide which team to belong to.

This should be considered another of the required conditions for the game.

 

[Provolution]

I disagree on team forums being open at all stages. Possibly prior to a migration period, which should coincide with the election period. Otherwise we would have all players floating around all places, and the idea have no merit.