CIV4 PBEM Enhanced

[Boogaloo_Shrimp]

dude this thing is unbelievable! get me in on this!

 

[Great_Scott]

Well, thats another 2 in today, 4 in yesterday... at 3 per day we'll get there pretty quick. (heh good timing Boogaloo... you're in.)

And!!!! We've enough people for 1 Civ!

 

[potatokiosk]

A one civ game? I didn't know actual full scale civil wars were possible in civ4.

 

[Great_Scott]

A one civ game? I didn't know actual full scale civil wars were possible in civ4.

Civil wars... oh man that would be good... imagine a Civ about halfway though, in the renaissance period or something.. As the game progresses, it becomes clear there are 2 groups with completely opposing views of what direction the Civ should go in, making up the Top 10.

Then, a big decision arrives... and 1 group gets their way... and the other group can't take it. They stage a coup! Man, I gotta figure out a way to make that possible.

Thanks for the inspiration!

 

[potatokiosk]

Or they secede. And they commandeer forces and choose their own civics. The government, trying to stop the rebels, would be allowed to declare war on the seceding people with no reprecussions. And third parties would have the option of recognizing the rebels. This would only happen if there was a general divide withn the civ in the game itself.

 

[Great_Scott]

Or they succeed. And the commandeer forces and choose their own civics. The government, trying to stop the rebels, would be allowed to declare war on the succeeding people with no reprecussions. And third parties would have the option of recognizing the rebels. This would only happen if there was a general divide withn the civ in the game itself.

Hmm, I like the idea of this, it's a shame we can't induce Anarchy when this happens, ie no production, cities rioting etc. Hmm, I'm not too familiar with world builder, but I believe it's not possible for the games administration (so far, just me) to actually take the 1 Civ in Civil War, divide up the cities and units, and watch them go for it. That would be.. BRILLIANT. Someone PLEASE tell me it's possible.

 

[potatokiosk]

Personally, I think that it would be hilarious to watch people carve up an empire they had worked so hard together to build.

 

[Great_Scott]

Personally, I think that it would be hilarious to watch people carve up an empire they had worked so hard together to build.

Oh the importance of putting their civ ahead of your own interests... it's PERFECT. Anyone know if we can jump in mid-game and split a Civ in 2, much like what happened when you took over an enemy civs capital back in the day?

 

[cloudraine]

Hello Great Scott, just received your message. This looks intriguing! Sign me up! 60 people.. I shudder at the thought!

 

[Great_Scott]

Hello Great Scott, just received your message. This looks intriguing! Sign me up! 60 people.. I shudder at the thought!

We have 11... and I started this only a few days ago

Make sure you vote on what starting era you want...

 

[Great_Scott]

Wow. Pitboss has arrived.

The game just became a hell of alot more playable!

 

[mabeco]

I'm interested in getting in one of the teams.

 

[DaveShack]

We have a somewhat less structured democracy PBEM in the works over in the DemoGame. We're getting the SP game going and waiting for patch stabilization before pressing to get started.

What's the point of having so many leadership positions per team, with the highly structured voting mechanism? There have been two inter-site team PBEMs and one intra-CFC game without this much detail. Would you mind if each team decided how to organize itself?

Another place to advertize is in the Civ3 demogame, in the multi-team DG subforum.

 

[White Elk]

I'm starting to become interested... though I'll need to better understand the time commitments involved and get a handle on my schedule after the new year.

Have you considered allowing intersite civs? Might add a whole new aspect to the political intrigue of the game. Could get intense. Especially with the possibility for double agents or secret alliances etc.

 

[Great_Scott]

We have a somewhat less structured democracy PBEM in the works over in the DemoGame. We're getting the SP game going and waiting for patch stabilization before pressing to get started.

What's the point of having so many leadership positions per team, with the highly structured voting mechanism? There have been two inter-site team PBEMs and one intra-CFC game without this much detail. Would you mind if each team decided how to organize itself?

Another place to advertize is in the Civ3 demogame, in the multi-team DG subforum.

Personally, I find Democracy too infinite in it's choices. Like, you literally begin a government from scratch. Then there's the rules... it actually seems alot more confusing to me.

The point of having so many leadership positions is that while all 10 members are doing their best in 1 sense to ensure their Civ is progressing competitively in the world, in the other they are all competing for their own positions.. whether it be battling to stay in position or to get a better position next term. Let's face it, most of us will want to be Leader... plain and simple. And I've made it that way that the Leader of a Civ is what we all strive for. But not everyone will get what they want, and it will make this VERY interesting as the game progresses. Throw in backbenchers (members of a Civ who currently aren't serving in a position) no doubt very keen to grab a position of their own, and the possibility of spying, and double agents... and I think this game will be a real mind-trip...

So much co-operation & teamwork, and so many political 'complications'.. it's a perfect mix of good and bad.

The voting is structured simply to have tiered positions. Leader is the best, others are reputable, others are merely fillers, or experience earners... it's set that way so only a few get the better say... and that elite sense will be envy of all...

We're friends... but in a small (or possibly big) way, we are foes. I hope that sums it up.. it's late.. and i could be rambling now.

P.S. I promoted this in the Civ 3 Demogames forum.

 

[Great_Scott]

I'm starting to become interested... though I'll need to better understand the time commitments involved and get a handle on my schedule after the new year.

Have you considered allowing intersite civs? Might add a whole new aspect to the political intrigue of the game. Could get intense. Especially with the possibility for double agents or secret alliances etc.

Time commitment? well it all depends.. sometimes you will need to be quite active when real pressing matters are at hand. As for voting, if you are unable to vote for a few decisions, you simply wont have your vote counted.. which now and then i'm sure will be understandable... since you have 9 other players sharing the slack. However, I guess if one is absent too much.. it'll look bad come next elections.

As for multi-site? Bring them on... this isn't confined to any website.. or anything. However, it's not like they'd get their own Civ... they'll simply have to band together and try and ensure come start of game, their all in the same civ.

 

[White Elk]

As far as time.. I've been trying to imagine exactly how a turn works. Will the players on a civ team get together and play the turn as one? Later turns may take a long time to complete. Especially with having to vote on multiple matters per turn. Civ teams could make decisions ahead of time, but then there are certain to be times when the actions of other civs will cause a change in tactics/decisions. Things that will not be known until the turn begins. So decision makers will all need to be present at every turn wouldn't they?

And for a website affiliated civ... Would it be possible to get a full set of players together and then sign up? Effectively guaranteeing that they'd all be on the same civ? Other players from other websites could still enlist in open civs with no website ties. Might be interesting to have a couple Apoly and CFC civs, along with a few single civs from smaller sites. And then a few civs of non-site affiliation to round it out. This might make for some pretty interesting and unexpected occurances like defensive pacts, trading alliances, war allies etc..??

 

[potatokiosk]

I imagine that in later parts of the game, people would vote on general policies as opposed to individual decisions.

 

[DaveShack]

I guess what I was trying to say is that a team of people could join the Civ4 MTDG and organize their team using this system. That way you'd only need enough people interested in it to form one team, not the 60 or so needed to get at least 4 teams and make it interesting.

Alternatively, have your game be a contest between the systems. Have 1 or more teams which are organized using this system, and one or more civs populated by people who want it to be less formal.

It will be awfully difficult to get enough to fill 10 formal positions per team. Sure in the MTDG we have ~25 people signed up per team, but some teams only have 5 or so actives, the rest signed up but then couldn't handle the low interest levels of PBEM speeds so they dissapeared.

Actually, there is no reason you can't have your game, and also organize a Civ4 team into the DG using this system.

BTW, I'm interested.

 

[Great_Scott]

As far as time.. I've been trying to imagine exactly how a turn works. Will the players on a civ team get together and play the turn as one?

Each Civ will be given a particular amount of time to play their turn. When it is their turn, they are regarded as the Civ 'in turn' or 'in play'.

Alot of decisions will be easy and predictable.. especially early on I presume. During the time where the other civs are 'in turn', a Civ can always plan ahead, and of course, vote ahead. For example, when you know a Barracks has 1 turn to go in your previous turn, then of course, you'll be able to plan ahead and discuss what you'll play next. Using the time effectively whilst the other civs are in turn will be paramount.

Things that will not be known until the turn begins. So decision makers will all need to be present at every turn wouldn't they?

Yes.. well, the leader (or someone appointed by the leader) will recieve the turn, and present in a post the decisions needed to be made. Then the Civ has between that point and the turn deadline to vote.. and discuss where necessary.

And for a website affiliated civ... Would it be possible to get a full set of players together and then sign up? Effectively guaranteeing that they'd all be on the same civ?

Like I said, the elections will start, and people must vote for the civ they want. If a group of players want to work together, they will vote for the same civ together. And well, if they vote, say Mongols, and they get it, but also have 4 other players from this website in, well i'm sure they'll have ways of controlling the majority, no doubt until those 4 players get sick of Mongols and join another civ. As in, if say, CFC have 10+ players in the Mongols, then theres no way those other 4 will ever get an position.