CIV4 PBEM Enhanced

[Great_Scott]

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.

Well it would be nice to have seen this type of game in action first, know it works, and then jump into the MTDG! When does MTDG start? The thing is, who gets chosen out of the many we have here to join the MTDG? I guess I'd like to get this game up and running, quickly, and then when MTDG is almost ready to start, we can take volunteers to take part in the MTDG.

If people disappear, as in, if less than 10 people are in a Civ, well, 1 or more people are going to be holding more than 1 position.. should be interesting!

I've recieved a few emails, I need to add them now.. but I think we're pushing for almost 20 people now for this game...

It's Xmas day here, so when things quieten down a bit i'll approach the other websites to get interest. Or, if anyone else is a regular there, and on the list here, perhaps they could do some spruiking

 

[realn]

A game like this with 60+ people would need to be run on its own website or something.



Let me know what you think.

 

[azzaman333]

If I'm allowed to, i would like to control a civ by myself. It could be an experiment, testing whether a group of people is more effective in a game than a single person.

 

[Sigma]

Count me in!

I agree that the Classical age would be the best place to start.

My only worry with this game is player retention: if you imagine the time frame for a turn is 1 day (a reasonable amount of time), it's going to be extremely hard to keep all 60 players interested if they only have about 1 turn per week. There would have to be some way to replace someone who disappeared, without notifying us of course.
Maybe if it's been two turns without a peep from someone (no votes, nothing), then the inactive player is put on a 'probation status', and a temporary replacement is chosen as a proxy (casts all votes as if he were the person in the position). If the inactive player is still inactive 2 turns after he was put on probation, the replacement is permanently elected to that position.

 

[Great_Scott]

A game like this with 60+ people would need to be run on its own website or something.

Let me know what you think.

That, or the fine people at CivFanatics may give us our own dedicated section...

 

[Great_Scott]

If I'm allowed to, i would like to control a civ by myself. It could be an experiment, testing whether a group of people is more effective in a game than a single person.

Well, it's an interesting proposition, but if you get to rule your own civ, well, the whole point of all of us trying to compete for more control over a civ, competing for more control over other civs.

Just wouldn't be fair.

 

[Great_Scott]

Count me in!

I agree that the Classical age would be the best place to start.

My only worry with this game is player retention: if you imagine the time frame for a turn is 1 day (a reasonable amount of time), it's going to be extremely hard to keep all 60 players interested if they only have about 1 turn per week. There would have to be some way to replace someone who disappeared, without notifying us of course.
Maybe if it's been two turns without a peep from someone (no votes, nothing), then the inactive player is put on a 'probation status', and a temporary replacement is chosen as a proxy (casts all votes as if he were the person in the position). If the inactive player is still inactive 2 turns after he was put on probation, the replacement is permanently elected to that position.

There is a very easy way around this. If you're absent too much, your fellow Civ members won't vote you in come next election. Plus, each election, you have to register each time... even if you have an existing position.

P.S. Please vote in the poll for the start you want..

 

[azzaman333]

Well, it's an interesting proposition, but if you get to rule your own civ, well, the whole point of all of us trying to compete for more control over a civ, competing for more control over other civs.

Just wouldn't be fair.

Fair enough. I'd probably have been one of the bottom-rung civs anyway, as i have some troubles on Noble.

 

[Great_Scott]

Still interested in joining anyways?

 

[Sigma]

A few issues I have with the system so far...

First of all, you talk about the votes for building a unit, but no mention is made of what is done with a unit once it is produced (i.e., which promotions should be chosen, where should it go, etc.) Would they be the same proportion of votes for the creation of the unit?

Also, I noticed that you gave 3 votes to the Civic Advisor and 1 vote to the Inf Advisor for a Worker; I'd recommend giving 3 votes to the Inf Advisor and 1 vote to the Civic Advisor. But for the Settler, you gave 3 votes to the Inf Advisor and 1 vote to the Civic Advisor; I'd recommend giving 2 votes to each.

I don't understand how voting will work to decide what is built in a city. You laid out voting numbers for each unit/building, but since you can only be building one thing at a time then it is not a simple yes/no vote. Will it just be whatever receives the most votes, with each advisor only choosing one thing? Then you could end up with 10 different options, each advisor choosing a different one, and you'll just end up with one because that person picked one where he had 4 votes. Will you require a majority of votes (at least 9/17) on that one improvement? But what if more than one improvement gets a majority, or what if there's a tie? It's up to you what type of system you use, maybe you have one already and I'm just not understanding it. But I would still recommend that, in the case of a diplomatic stalemate, it falls upon the leader's shoulders to make a final decision.

Another pretty big thing that was left out is City Management, as in which spaces are harvested, and how many of each specialist there are. Obviously the Infrastructure Advisor would play a large role here, in addition to the leader and vice leader. But the other advisors would have a say in the specialists of their area of expertise.

I like what you've done with the Infrastructure Advisor. They get to concentrate on getting as much FPC out of the land as possible, while keeping the citizens fed, healthy, and happy, without having to worry about the big picture. They play a crucial role in the success of the nation, but don't get to choose what form of success that is.

A couple of afterthoughts:
You forgot about a city's ability to convert half of its production into wealth, research, or culture. Not sure how often this would get used, but the option needs to be there.
Oh, and you also left out the State Religion - I imagine the Religious Advisor would be mostly in control here.

Let me know what you think of my suggestions.

Sigma

 

[Great_Scott]

First of all, you talk about the votes for building a unit, but no mention is made of what is done with a unit once it is produced (i.e., which promotions should be chosen, where should it go, etc.) Would they be the same proportion of votes for the creation of the unit?

Good question. The reason I've not said anything, is while I've already thought about it... I've not made up my mind yet! Here's the thing... I think with units, only 2 advisors count... Leader & Military. I've tossed a few scenarios about.. and the best I've come up with is this..

Leader, Vice Leader & Military decide the designation of a unit once it is created. For example, a City produce a unit, and the 3 decide whether the unit is for defense, attack, exploration, border patrol.... it seems to make sense.. if the Leader & Vice Leader both swing one way, and the Military another, well then naturally the Military advisor should have no say.

Once the unit is out in the field, carrying out orders, it's up to the military entirely.

Unit promotions, again, entirely up to the Military. Makes sense.

Also, I noticed that you gave 3 votes to the Civic Advisor and 1 vote to the Inf Advisor for a Worker; I'd recommend giving 3 votes to the Inf Advisor and 1 vote to the Civic Advisor. But for the Settler, you gave 3 votes to the Inf Advisor and 1 vote to the Civic Advisor; I'd recommend giving 2 votes to each.

Agreed. Changes have been noted & changed.

I don't understand how voting will work to decide what is built in a city. Will it just be whatever receives the most votes, with each advisor only choosing one thing?

Yes.

Then you could end up with 10 different options, each advisor choosing a different one, and you'll just end up with one because that person picked one where he had 4 votes.

Yes, you could... but.. not all units/improvements/wonders have an advisor granted 4 votes. Plus, advisors with lower votes may always do their best to get their way, through teamwork with others.

In the case of a diplomatic stalemate, it falls upon the leader's shoulders to make a final decision.

If there is a tie in votes, the Leader gets the choice.

Another pretty big thing that was left out is City Management, as in which spaces are harvested, and how many of each specialist there are. Obviously the Infrastructure Advisor would play a large role here, in addition to the leader and vice leader. But the other advisors would have a say in the specialists of their area of expertise.

This... I'm still figuring out... or trying to..

I like what you've done with the Infrastructure Advisor. They get to concentrate on getting as much FPC out of the land as possible, while keeping the citizens fed, healthy, and happy, without having to worry about the big picture. They play a crucial role in the success of the nation, but don't get to choose what form of success that is.

Thanks, I wanted a few roles where they didn't do the glamorous work, but the nitty gritty behind the scenes... and be quite influence in their work... so yeah, it fit very well.

You forgot about a city's ability to convert half of its production into wealth, research, or culture. Not sure how often this would get used, but the option needs to be there.

I knew I'd forgotten something there in the building... ok.. gimme a bit and I'll figure it out and post revised tables.

Oh, and you also left out the State Religion - I imagine the Religious Advisor would be mostly in control here.

Precisely. The State and the Church are 2 seperate entities. I think a certain event regarding St. Thomas Beckett & Henry II should remind us of what can happen with that formula

Let me know what you think of my suggestions.

Keep the coming! I like being tested on how viable and leak-proof this creation is... I hope for a smooth process when the game begins...

 

[Great_Scott]

We have enough for 2 Civs, that's right! 20 people and growing.

If we start this first game with 4 Civs, then.. we're halfway there!

 

[Great_Scott]

Hmm... it's gone a little quiet... everyone on holiday mode or something?

 

[wolfman1234]

Something like that

 

[mabeco]

I think the rules are being very well managed so far and they work as a kind of constitution for all the civs, but, like in real life, I think that each civ could shape their own "constitutions" with proposals, and the existing rules would be the startup constitution (that of course can be maintained till the end).
I would say that a 2/3 of votes with 1 vote per advisor would approve a change.
What do you think Great Scott?
That could really make a mess in bad organized civs but would be more fun for the better ones and it could help you in the task of managing the improvement of the rules for the next game.
I hope I'm not building up entropy, but since things are calm...

 

[realn]

This is a PM I sent him that he ignored. Oh well.

Hello,

Your idea PBEM Enchanged sounds similiar to my idea Civilization: The Real World, CIV:RW for short.

I've popped in/out of the civilization community for about 5 years, but I'm pretty outside of all the details. Last year I became a citizen of the Demo game and visited it a couple of times, posting maybe only 2-3 topics. I loved it, but I lost interest extremely fast and moved on thinking that it could be better run. At that moment I thought of the idea of creating an entirely self-based website to administer a massively multipler realistic game setup with civilizations controlled by individual groups that decided on THEIR own how they ran their civilization. In a nutshell: A Civlization Game UNLEASED to represent civilization and it's advancement in real life.

So, this is really BIG and includes some fundementals that were recently brought to the board in your topic, so I am glad I read it.

One is that there would be no government structure decided by the who sets up the game, because civilizations govern and structure themselves.

Another is it would be multiplayer/multi-team.

Lastly, since it is so big, is that it would be on it's own website. I will get to that later.

--------Some Specifics------------

The game is called Civilization: The Real World, Civ:RW for short. It would be played on Sid Meier's Civilization 4, Civ4 for short, and referred to as the "game file". It would be adminstered by a staff referred to as "game setup" staff. It would be particpated by anyone that registers as a "forum user". In real life, this can be considered "Life", "History", or "The Real World" which is controlled by "God", "Nature", "Weather", or "Natural Forces" and lived by "People", "Specialists", and "Leaders".

To put something like this on, there would be some rules. Consider these "Laws of Nature". In this game, they'll be called "Realism Rules". These are important concepts that make the game realistic and FUN. These rules are meant to help aid the game's realism ONLY.

Realism Rules

POPULATION:

"Population" is the amount of people in the game.

The game setup determines "population" by the amount of "forum users" playing a part in the RealCiv (Civilization: The Real World) game.

The game file determines "citizen amount" by the population in the Civ4 game.

For every one (1) "citizen unit" in the game, there must be at least 2 to at most 10 forum users on the website accounted for that citizen unit. This can be considered a "family", "household" or "working class" unit.

If the population is lower than citizen amount, then a citizen unit in the game is to be removed by game setup. This represents society's tendecy to have emmigration or a low birth/death rate.

If the population is higher than citizen amount, then a citizen unit in the game is to be added by game setup. This represents society's tendecy to have immigration and a high birth/death rate.

BIRTH/DEATH RATE:

The game file does not determine birth/death rate. The rate "users" enter/leave the game through the website forums determines birth/death rate.

EMMIGRATION/IMMIGRATION:

The game file somewhat determines emmigration/immigration. This involves defination of civilization which can be worked on.

--------------------------------

That's just basic population rules. More other Civ4 elements can be altered to fit this game. Notice though how these rules would be straight to the point and meant to make the game fun and , and of course they would be altered a lot from this to have universal terms, etc. Note, though, that rules aren't interferring how each civilization can adminster how family units are organized. This recaps the previous comment on your idea that each civilization should be allowed to structure and govern their own civilization to how they see fit.

~

Now to the website part. I have enough knowledge of creating websites and adminstering communities to put something like this on. It would need its own website. There is so much that this project would need that a simple addition to CivFanatics forum just wouldn't do. I am totally up to do something like this, including paying and managing the website. Since I am new to the community, though, I don't plan to get involved with the specifics of anything. I'll oversee it, fund it, and own it (for non-profit reasons). I do not wish to run it. If you think you would like to take the idea to the next level, let me know. Thx.

Realn

 

[Abdukrahman]

Hey, count me in. This sounds really fun. My email is rjharder@gmail.com. Tell me if there's a website or something that goes up. You've put a lot of work into this, and I think it might work.

BTW, who gets to decide exactly where units move in war and what not?

Also, will we be able to give some sort of speech to argue why we should be elected? Also, how often are elections? How will communication take place? Can you choose your second, third and fourth choices for running? For example, I want to be leader the most, but if I can't have that I'd like to be the cultural advisor. Is there any way I could do that?

 

[shday]

realn,

Probably he's just busy. Also, your idea seems quite a bit different... deserves its own thread I think.

All,

Both these game types (CIV:RW and CIV4 PBEM Enhanced) probably need a web application to make them work well. Since the game uses Python, a great web framework to use would be TurboGears http://www.turbogears.org. It is very new and is partially inspired by Ruby on Rails, so it is meant to be highly productive.

Food for thought.

shday

 

[facehuger]

hmmm, i like the idea .....count me in!!!

 

[Border Fox]

Seems like this would take alot of organisation, but if it's done right it'd be great, already seems promising. You can put me down to make up the numbers.