DG6 Discussion: Version, Mods, Variants, and All That Fun Stuff

Rik Meleet said:
What about a 2 team match ?

That way it would never be easy; as you know that the other team has human players as well. We will need some strict rules on when to play (we can still do a turnchat, scheduled by the 2 presidents).

I considered a somewhat radical variant on a 2 team match. There are two other methods besides PBEM where this could be played. We could have the DPs for the two teams online at the same time and play true turn-based MP. Another way would be to have one DP play the turns from both teams according to instructions, in hotseat mode. Both of these would eliminate the delay inherent in PBEM, which is the main deterrent to playing multiple teams.

Another multiple team idea would be to have two or more teams play single player on the same map.
 
Yes, there should be two teams facing each other, that would be more interesting.
Timed Mplayer sessions with 2 sides, instructions only, with pre-chat and post-chat.
I think we really need two times next time, since when the competition fades away, people start to whimper and bicker and cause trouble internally (human nature).
a 2 team duel is a different deal.
 
I'd like to stick to a SP game for this demogame, as there are multiplayer variants of the DG. You would need a somewhat equal map, somewhat equal teams, etc, and that would take some time. It's interesting though...
 
and that might mean less arguing since hopefully people will be on the team with other people they are more friends with
 
No need for symmetrical maps, it should be all random, and people should maximize their maps strenghts.
 
Random? So it's fair if a team gets a desert/jungle start and the other gets grassland river cows? I doubt that is an incentive for people to play. At the very least for that type of idea you talk about, get a person to make not an equal, but fair map. (See ISDG for example).
 
We should still have a SP demogame, but that would mean asking TF for 2 sets of forums, and private forums for the teams. I'm not sure if he's willing to do that.
 
I agree with CT on this one, lets not go through the trouble of begging TF for some more forums. I'd much prefer not to have any variants, just plain Conquests.
 
It's not like they have to be seperate forums. I bet we could operate a smaller 2-team game on the basis of the honor system - non-team members agree not to view marked private threads.
 
Octavian X said:
It's not like they have to be seperate forums. I bet we could operate a smaller 2-team game on the basis of the honor system - non-team members agree not to view marked private threads.

Doesn't Apolyton run something like this for SMAC?
 
I think you should figure out a way to have two or more teams all play the same game using this forum. Rules and World Court on the main page. Each team gets a private sub-forum (like the Intersite forums). Everything common goes on the main page, membership required for entery into the private sub-forums. If you can't make a third team, use the extra sub-forum for more common issues (Maybe the World Court!)

I could see being Planet Justice... :mischief:
 
Im loving the idea of 2 teams. Actually it would be the same or less forums. 3 forums max, 1 for each team and like cyc said 1 for the world court and issues common between the games.
Now a question: would there be seperate constitutions, or just 1 that has to be followed?
 
2 teams. I like the honor system. One rule set. One Judiciary. 3 positions on the Judiciary, 1 from each team, and 1 neutral party (DP?). The ruleset on executive council and governors should be done in the laws and be varried for each nation.

One (set) of DPs. Each team would issue their orders to the DP via PM. Ideally the DP should be neutral. Could be part of a team but could not share any private info and/or use it to make suggestions. I would be willing to be a DP, but would need the game to be on PTW...

Due to more limited participation, the number of elected positions may need to be more limited.

I think this should run in conjunction with a SP demogame. The pace will probably be very different.
 
If you just make this a subforum of the DG forums then it wouldn't be too hard, would it?

You would most likely need to come up with a rough outline of a constitution and a list of must-needs if you want a chance at getting a forum, but what do I know?

It could be fun, but we definately do need a SP demogame too. SP comes first, then other variants and additions (since we already have MP DGs, another one without SP would be a bit...one sided. The 2 team idea could come out well, or could totally flop. ;) ).
 
Just thought of this idea: what about using either a map of a region (Europe, Asia, Africa, or a map from one of the Conquests) and playing on that with C3C (or vanilla)? It could be a bit more interesting if we randomize starts, resources, etc, but you would still know the outline of the map and such. I would consider it if I liked the map (please no 362 x 362 maps - or even 256 x 256. I would say it has to be, at max, huge size (160 x 160))...any interest?
 
Or play on Australia! :yeah: (Mesoamerica/Carribean would be nice too. Sort of a modified medditeranian).

Yes, Ginger_Ale, I know. I can't spell those two words. :p
 
Back
Top Bottom