Death of a game?

[fed1943]

I'm just interested in a game all cities under same control (be the controller
a person or a group).
This game of ours showed me the Governors/Aimag system makes a "good"
game impossible.
Best regards,

 

[HUSch]

Nice to know my name will stay in the demogame history books for a long time!

Your name will be the case in forum DG-iurisdiction.


If we play 1-2 turn a day, then the official get the right to make orders. The citizen can only vote a month and then make petitions/polls. How long is that interesting, i don't know.
The possibility to play without the save is small, also the screens were there, i often looked in the save a moment to get a better look at the point, which interest me that moment. It is easier.

 

[vra379971]

Personally, I would suggest not have the little power mayors have be overruleable by polls. Major game changing decisions like war and peace and diplomatic stance sure. But city builds? No way.

And Husch, I still think it would be interesting.

Regarding forums, I think things are a bit unwiedly being spread out over 5, which also does nothing to eliminate the complexity.

The Polls forum makes sense, but why the Citizens need thier own forum doesn't really. They can talk in the ciy threads (which makes more sense anyway). As for the RP and games, that can be done in a pinned topic. Anyway, the RP could really be done in the city/minisers topics.

 

[Joe Harker]

The citizens forum is more about disscussing the possible routes to take in the game. The office threads are for disscussing how the officals area of control can be used to get to the goal set.

 

[donsig]

I'm with fed1943. Let'd first decide whether we are going to (or can) have tandem democracy games running. If we can, then we can split into two groups to set up the respective games. This can be done so that a person can play in both if he or she wishes.

One game would be for those (like fed1943) who prefer to focus on the game. The other would be for those (like me) who want to concentrate on the roleplaying and government structure.

I am mot interested in playing another game that tries to do both.

 

[vra379971]

The citizens forum is more about disscussing the possible routes to take in the game. The office threads are for disscussing how the officals area of control can be used to get to the goal set.

Ture, but would it not be possible to do this in the same place? For instance, if you wanted to discuss the need for the Colossus, you could go to the city/advisor areas that it would be best built/dealt with and discuss there. Basically in a system that better simulates the reality of Civ.

Routes and goals are two-sides of the same coin. Why seperate them?

And Donsig, I really don't see how two games can be established and thrive, when one can't seem to keep together in his current format. There is NO reason why one should not be able to RP AND make sense; contributing their opinions to the discussion.

 

[donsig]

And Donsig, I really don't see how two games can be established and thrive, when one can't seem to keep together in his current format. There is NO reason why one should not be able to RP AND make sense; contributing their opinions to the discussion.

No reason, eh? Look at the last 8 or 9 democracy games and see how many really flourished. More ended up dead like this one. Try the same thing again and we'll get the same result.

Two games could thrive because they'd both be very new twists on an old theme. Interest in each would be maintained because the two groups would not only enjoy their respective games they wouldn't have pressure from the other group to play the game in a way that wasn't fun for them.

 

[DaveShack]

I'm with fed1943. Let'd first decide whether we are going to (or can) have tandem democracy games running. If we can, then we can split into two groups to set up the respective games. This can be done so that a person can play in both if he or she wishes.

One game would be for those (like fed1943) who prefer to focus on the game. The other would be for those (like me) who want to concentrate on the roleplaying and government structure.

I am mot interested in playing another game that tries to do both.

Are you trying to suggest that the government / roleplay game doesn't need a civ game at all? There is a model parliment which tries to be a government without having civ.

A group civ game without a government is even easier to find, any succession game will do.

If we proceed with the assumption that there are people here because they don't want any of the extremes, model parliment (~100% government) a NES (~100% roleplay) or a SG (~100% civ), then it follows that a mixture is needed.

The real question is what mixture is suitable?

 

[vra379971]

As far as I can see it, a mixture that still allows group debate, and elections to hand in make final decisions, but one that also allows role playing as well, during all stages.

 

[donsig]

Are you trying to suggest that the government / roleplay game doesn't need a civ game at all?

No, I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting just the opposite. The role playing/government DG needs a Civ game in order to have something to govern. The Civ DG also needs a government structure of some sort in order to make group decisions. The crux of the matter is that these two goals are enough at odds to make it extremely difficult to find a mixture that satisfies both goals. We've seen it many times already. If we play too good a civ game everyone (both civvers and roleplayers) lose interest. A poor civ game is actually more fun for role players. This is what can't be reconciled by a mixture.

 

[vra379971]

By poor, you mean not easily going to win...and that can be reconciled by a mixture. Just needs a new approach.

 

[DaveShack]

A poor civ game is actually more fun for role players. This is what can't be reconciled by a mixture.

A poor game, or a challenging one? Like I kinda said in the poll thread, the game players aren't necessarily after a perfect game, but intentionally bad moves are pretty difficult to handle.

 

[donsig]

A poor game, or a challenging one? Like I kinda said in the poll thread, the game players aren't necessarily after a perfect game, but intentionally bad moves are pretty difficult to handle.

Poor as in barely winning. Not challenging. Definately not challenging. That would only incite the civvers to want to make moves that would ruin the roleplay aspect of the game. I'm not suggesting intentionally bad moves be made. This reminds me of something that happened early in the first Civ III DG. The civvers wanted to rush a library while we were still in despotism. That action (also known as whipping) reduces the population of the city getting the library. Us roleplayers saw that as a terrible thing. I remember arguing that is was atrocious building libraries with the bones of our citizens. Then there was a big debate about whether whipping really killed the citizens. So roleplay when out the window since the civvers were merely arguing so as to rationalize a civ tactic. They weren't roleplaying (arguing for example that we should whip the library cause we need it and only the weak would die anyway) they were playing civ.

See the difference is, the civvers want to make smart Civ moves and roleplay around that. The roleplayers want to roleplay and play civ around that.

 

[vra379971]

Hmm...interesting.

How about this. Civcs changes must get 50% + 1 approved by the citizens. If they are unhappy, one can attempt to forment a revolution...

If win a 60% + 1 majority after debate, that person becomes new advisor, but if fail, spends some time unable to vote, or speak in ministers topics..?

 

[DaveShack]

This reminds me of something that happened early in the first Civ III DG. The civvers wanted to rush a library while we were still in despotism. That action (also known as whipping) reduces the population of the city getting the library. Us roleplayers saw that as a terrible thing. I remember arguing that is was atrocious building libraries with the bones of our citizens. Then there was a big debate about whether whipping really killed the citizens. So roleplay when out the window since the civvers were merely arguing so as to rationalize a civ tactic. They weren't roleplaying (arguing for example that we should whip the library cause we need it and only the weak would die anyway) they were playing civ.

Yes, I remember that debate. I think I was supporting the position that we shouldn't roleplay with today's enlightened values, but with the values appropriate to the period in history and civilization that we're playing.

 

[vra379971]

Yes, I remember that debate. I think I was supporting the position that we shouldn't roleplay with today's enlightened values, but with the values appropriate to the period in history and civilization that we're playing.

That makes sense to RP with whatever values we've discovered.

 

[dutchfire]

There's another thing --

It'll be harder - much harder - to poll things like trades, diplomacy, and maybe techs. What's true on say, day #94 might be completely different on day #95.

1 or 2 turns per day would only work if we had enough people (maybe a dozen) here every single day.

Here's another problem --

How would we determine when to play the save? Let's suppose it's every day at 7pm. That means, at 7:30pm (assuming that's when the save is done), every must be at the forum ready to do all discussion, polling, and whatnot within less than 24 hours. People aren't robots - they aren't going to be on this forum refreshing the screen every 5 seconds looking for a new post or poll.

Suppose there was a poll to trade a tech. That poll might be obsolete the next turn, so the poll has to be finished within 24 hours, not to mention the discussion. BTW, for a game to work like this, you would need to use the chatroom! Posting is just too slow. Oh, and some people have limited time on the Internet (say, maybe a few hours). They can't post from work or school, but that doesn't mean they can't join the Demogame (I know some will hint that). So, you're really cramming 24 hours of discussion and polling into maybe 3 hours that are very chopped up.

Let's say a turn is played at 2pm EDT.

- An east-coaster puts up a discussion at 4pm EDT, when they get home from work, on a trade with the Aztecs.

- Dutchfire, who's in the Netherlands makes a post at 5:30pm EDT (10:30pm his time?).
- donsig responds at 9pm EDT. Dutchfire is asleep and can't reply. He asks about an alternate possibility.
- 4am EDT - due to time constraints on 1-turn-a-day play, a poll is made. Dutchfire realizes that there's another possibility, but can't add to the poll since it has already been made. Maybe he made the decision at 10am EDT. Even if it weren't a poll yet, a poll made at 10am EDT wouldn't allow for everyone to answer the poll before the next turn at 4pm.

Case in point, 1 (or two)-turn-per-day saves would make the game more chaotic. There's too much bueracracy already.

Sorry for the late response...

The one turn a day/two days rithme is (used to be ) pretty usual in the Multi-Team Demo-Games. Those are pbem games played in C3C and Civ4. A team should get a turn every other day or so, and would play it within 24 hours. Of course it's impossible to discuss and poll certain decisions within this short period of time. However, most important decisions can be seen ahead for quite some time. Discussion and polling can start long before the option arises in game. Micromanagement issues and the likes shouldn't even require polling. Consider this, in the current demogame, we think we can plan 1 session (10 turns) ahead. That's more than a week in the proposed system.

 

[vra379971]

Sorry for the late response...

The one turn a day/two days rithme is (used to be ) pretty usual in the Multi-Team Demo-Games. Those are pbem games played in C3C and Civ4. A team should get a turn every other day or so, and would play it within 24 hours. Of course it's impossible to discuss and poll certain decisions within this short period of time. However, most important decisions can be seen ahead for quite some time. Discussion and polling can start long before the option arises in game. Micromanagement issues and the likes shouldn't even require polling. Consider this, in the current demogame, we think we can plan 1 session (10 turns) ahead. That's more than a week in the proposed system.

Yup, such a system would be quite doable.