Do we start up another game?
- Thread starter Chieftess
- Start date
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
And how are we going to market this game to the others and generate enough interest?
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
We could do a best body contest. Possibly even run a "No Pants" campaign.
Nobody
Gangster
Why not have another one, if it sucks we can all leave again.
I prefer civ3 but civ4 is ok. I voted the civ3 option in the options though.
Why did i stop playing? two Postions i have liked the foreign affairs office and the courts. We had na FA office so i ran for the courts. but then there was no cases so i had nothing to do.
I prefer civ3 but civ4 is ok. I voted the civ3 option in the options though.
Why did i stop playing? two Postions i have liked the foreign affairs office and the courts. We had na FA office so i ran for the courts. but then there was no cases so i had nothing to do.
*cough* Joe Harker's Keshik move *cough*
Aro
Chieftain
I'm interested, mostly as a lurker... 
greekguy
Missed the Boat
Well, after getting a PM from Strider asking me to explain why I left, I figured I'd help you guys out and explain.
Basically, I didn't have the time or the willpower to continue this sort of game anymore. I had really enjoyed the civ 3 DGs, but when there's only 10 or 15 people left, its really hard to continue playing, when the same guy gets elected each term to the same position and there aren't even any races. Also, Civ 4 just isn't the same as civ 3, making it more difficult to even have fun playing...however, BtS looks more promising to be used for a DG because of its number of options and the more modern age involvement.
So, if you guys want to increase participation in the DG again then you have to do a few key things IMO:
1) Have a ruleset that allows for legal/bureaucratic stuff, but allows some people to just be here for the civ game and the elections if they so choose
2) Have enough positions that are interesting and do something, but not too many that you end up not having enough people to fill them
3) Find a way to keep people informed of what's going on in-game without loading up the save. this is key, because not everyone has time to load up the save and people quickly lose interest if they don't know what the hell is going on.
Well, that's all I've got.
Hope that helps some.
Basically, I didn't have the time or the willpower to continue this sort of game anymore. I had really enjoyed the civ 3 DGs, but when there's only 10 or 15 people left, its really hard to continue playing, when the same guy gets elected each term to the same position and there aren't even any races. Also, Civ 4 just isn't the same as civ 3, making it more difficult to even have fun playing...however, BtS looks more promising to be used for a DG because of its number of options and the more modern age involvement.
So, if you guys want to increase participation in the DG again then you have to do a few key things IMO:
1) Have a ruleset that allows for legal/bureaucratic stuff, but allows some people to just be here for the civ game and the elections if they so choose
2) Have enough positions that are interesting and do something, but not too many that you end up not having enough people to fill them
3) Find a way to keep people informed of what's going on in-game without loading up the save. this is key, because not everyone has time to load up the save and people quickly lose interest if they don't know what the hell is going on.
Well, that's all I've got.
Hope that helps some.
cubsfan6506
Got u
Why can i not vote.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Thank you.
The idea is to help along more fascinating and sweeping elections, representing real in-game civic changes, and attach these to both democracy, bureaucracy, judicial and roleplay processes. We would have different leaders posturing various Civic Reform packages along with generic foreign policy and research goals as well domestic development goals. Then we would have cohesive policies up for election with real candidates with real attainable programs.
The proposed ruleset presented by the winning candidate would be subject to a Judicial Review of the Supreme Court, now with Five Justices. We should leave the Civic Court system behind, and place that power to a Court Magistrate that mitigates player disagreements (separate this into a Civic Court and a Supreme Court to remove some of the tampering of processes).
The Supreme Court would then review the Ruleset following the winning candidates election, and the Chief Justice would write out the ruleset in legal language and vote on it. Where the Supreme Court (5 Justices), disagree on a presented rule, they can vote on it. The elected leader can still veto it, but only if the rule by the Supreme Court is not an unanimous vote. A full agreement of the Supreme Court cannot be vetoed. This allows for a more fluid, transparent and effective model of handling combined regime and civic
changes. The elected leader is free to initially appoint all five Supreme Court Justices. However, if the existing Government Civic is changed to
Despotism (all justices appointed by leader), Military Leadership by Leader
Hereditary Rule (2 justices appointed by leader, 3 older justices kept), Military Leadership by General appointed by leader
Representation (3 justices elected, 2 appointed by leader), Governors Senate to be formed, Governors appoints General for military leadership
Police State (1 justice elected, 2 appointed by leader, 1 appointed by Military Minister, 1 appointed by Chief Justice), Supreme Court appoints General for Military Leadership
Universal Suffrage (all justices up for direct election), Mayors Congress to be formed, Military Leadership appointed by Cabinet
In effect, the Governnment Civics determine the Judiciary elections and balance of executive and legal branch, as well as establishment of legislatives.
For the use of great people and placement of military authority(legal civic)
Barbarism Leader decides on use of great people and organization of military
Vassalage (1 elected justice less, 1 appointed justice more) Governors decide on local use of great people and control the military (General must ask governors for troops for national army)
Bureaucracy Supreme Court decides on great people use and decides on the mandate of war and access to use of military force.
Nationhood Cabinet decides on use of great people and the use of military force, casus belli may be decided by the Supreme Court
Free Speech (1 elected justice more, 1 appointed justice less) Direct elections of great people usage, the people votes over war objectives and military activities
For the decision of wonder builds and use of workers (Labor Civics)
Tribalism Leader determines wonder builds and where.
Slavery Leader or General decides on wonder builds, slavery and use of workers
Serfdom Governors decide on local wonder builds and use of workers
Caste System (1 elected justice less, 1 appointed justice more) Mayors decide on wonder builds and use of local workers
Emancipation (1 elected justice more, 1 appointed justice less) Direct election of wonder builds and host cities, workers handled by Chief Justice
For the formation of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministers, technology research (Economy)
Decentralization
Mercantilism Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister appointed by leader, top 3 technology research goals nominated by leader, selected by Governors (Absolutism)
Free Market Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister appointed by governors, all technologies voted on directly
State Property (1 elected justice less, 1 appointed justice more) Foreign Minister and Trade Minister appointed by Supreme Court (Politburo style), Technology research decided by Cabinet Member appointed by leader
Environmentalism (1 elected justice more, 1 appointed justice less)
Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister directly elected, technology tree decided by Supreme Court
For the choice of state religion and the choice of High Priest (Religion)
Paganism
Organized Religion (1 elected justice more, 1 appointed justice less) State religion election, direct appointment of High Priest by leader
Theocracy (1 elected justice less, 1 appointed justice more), State Religion direct election, Chief Justice becomes High Priest
Pacifism (2 old justices more at expense of 1 elected and 1 appointed), State Religion election and direct election of High Priest
Free Religion (1 elected justice more, 1 appointed justice less) High Priest removed from the Cabinet as Church and State separates
cubsfan6506
Got u
Nevermind..
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
Don't forget the "Monday night" incident as well! that was one strange week!
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
Provolution,
Do you plan/want offices and mayors/governor, such as the Science Office, and they would work in the various governments (ie elected in Representation and US and appointed by leader in others for example)?
Do you plan/want offices and mayors/governor, such as the Science Office, and they would work in the various governments (ie elected in Representation and US and appointed by leader in others for example)?
truckingpete
On a Stark Trek
Well I would like a C3C DemoGame again....loved those....lots of people have C3C here
Actually...sure. I think we need to start from scratch though. I was really driven away from the Civ4 DGs.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Actually, the nature of the extent of the Science Office would be determined by the Civic, as stated above, and by the new Code presented by the Leader Candidate in the election. This way, we get "in character" rule changes that fits the Civic, so we do not see aggressive liberal democracy behavior 2000 BC and so on. Mayors and Governors would still be in, but with powers fluctuating with the choice of Civics, as you see in the above sample. Science Office would be different, depending on the degree of state centralization. In fact, we are not to have "Science Ministers" as before, but the "work" will be handled on the basis of the Civic, the Code of the elected leader and the organization of the Cabinet. For example, the Supreme Court may in instances serve as "Science Ministry Council" in one civic and so on. This will make the choice of civic not only a game instrument, but impact the demogame itself, as it should, as I am sick and tired of playing UN-style politically correct demogames based on social liberal democracy with some anarcho-syndicalistic traits, I would rather prefer a more "historic" approach.
For the reference to what has been called the "Science Office", I think it is in place to discuss how new technologies really emerge and how this is handled in other strategy games. Some games peg technologies to new buildings, or to an abstraction to the region (Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings), Research Programs (Hearts of Iron), Research Goals (Victoria), Science Advisor (Civ).
Since we already got an in-game science advisor, summing up the innovations of the nation, there is no need for having a stunt-demogame player to act on the in-game advisors behalf. All we need is a way to handle this that fits with a certain civic model. We use "Economy Civic" for handling technologies.
Decentralization (governor nomination)
Decentralization of economic activities make economic and technological development happen randomly. To make this work out in-game, we make the governors nominate 1 technology each, for a maximum of options limited by the number of provinces, and have people vote on the presented options. The voting thread should also have the number of nomination votes as a tie-breaker in case of a public poll tie on the matter.
Mercantilism
Mercantilism would for science play out in a more state-centric manner. Where the government and king (in many cases) decide on commerce and development. In this absolutist case, the "Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister" is appointed by leader, with the top 3 technology research goals nominated by leader. The final tech is selected from these 3 by Governors. (Absolutism)
Free Market would as it implies utterly leave the choice to the market, which is all of the players, which collectively decide what is in "demand". This is simply making the players vote on the available techs, and make the winning technology the chosen one (after run-offs if needed)."Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister" appointed by governors, all technologies voted on directly
State Property would place a strong central authority, but not necessarily by the leader, but by the apparatus surrounding him. "Foreign Minister and Trade Minister" appointed by Supreme Court (Politburo style), technology research itself is decided upon by a separate Minister of Development appointed by leader personally.
Environmentalism would be the very focus of post-modernistic political correctness, and focus on environmental solutions as the core objective, making it even a legal matter. Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister would then be directly elected in a separate election, where the Supreme Court will decide upon the research itself without public interference.
Interesting idea, but too complicated (I remember a similar idea for Civ3 - which only had 5 possibilities - governments - to deal with). That might be fine for a RPG on the side, but if we tie in each in-game civic with determining how the demogame leaders function, it might create chaos, especially when civics are changed mid-term, much less mid-turnchat (or its' equivalent) - or even during an election cycle. Plus, requiring a new user to read all about this type of ruleset in legalese would turn most away. To play the demogame, one shouldn't need to have passed the bar exam.
I think we should keep it simple and have elected positions based on the advisors in the game. That was the original intent of the demogame - to simulate the advisors, governors and citizens. Each one created a thread to discuss their own particular area, which generated discussion and activity on the forum.
Anyway, personally, I would like to see another Civ3 Demogame. Civ4's mechanics really aren't suited for a demogame as well as Civ3. If we want to constantly change civics, that might actually hurt more than help in Civ4 than changing governments would in Civ3. Civ3 at least allows us to recover from mistakes, or to change goals mid-stream. Remember all of those times we were going for diplomacy, culture or space, then decided "Hey, why not? Let's conquer/dominate everyone!"?
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
I know you are a traditionalist, which brings me to the second point here. If the traditionalists want a standard Civ3 demogame, please let them, where the experimental ones that want Civ4 BTS with Civic-specific laws and elections, please let us have that too. I feel confident this does not have too be too hard, as when we got too simple rules, some players tend to complicate these just for the brain excercise. My sense is that low difficulty level and historicity specific rules would cut it, even though more traditional gamers would like the used-up advisor based ruleset.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
If there was a way to run Civ3 in windowed mode, I'd support it.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Splitting the DG's will result in both dying quickly.
The DG concept DOES NOT have the interest it once had. It's been declining for quite some time. Any system that's created needs to be simple enough to attract new players and small enough that 10 active players can keep it going.
Good luck!
-- Ravensfire
Similar threads
- Poll
