Do we start up another game?

I agree on the main analysis, it has been dying, indeed. I also think the only thing that may attract new players, is to remove the conventions of previous games and replace them with a fresh start, as we need to level the playing field a bit. A single combined Leader/Civic-ruleset election will indeed simplify the game, as there will be much fewer elections and polls to keep track of, but more comprehensive elections when they happen. We need to balance out the participation level with the number of polls. This means less "democracy" (or veteran interference some may call it), in that some decisions are meant for the leadership, but the participation levels will be dynamic and vibrant throughtout, as you spread powers along the spectrum based on Civics. A civic driven system will be much simpler, and we do not lock elections per month, but per Civic change. This allows us to change people mid-stream if needed, and to make sure work is completed in time.

 

"or veteran interference as Provolution call it" - Be honest there, Provo.

I'll be watching with interest as this develops. Fear not - I'll not be involved in the gameplay or ruleset. I'll be on the sidelines with my cup and chair.

-- Ravensfire

 

Yeah, I am aware of that some may consider me a "veteran" and so on. Where I differ, is that I am willing to start all-over with a totally new idea, new people can get an ownership in, without being forced into numerous post-game references from Civ3 and so on. For getting new people on board, one needs fluidity and some tempo, as well as flexibility. The challenge with Civ4 BTS is the multilayered system, with less cities (less governors and mayors needed) and more civic choices. We failed to scale in for civics, religion and other changes from Civ3, which is way the better game Civ4 fared worse than the previous demogames.

A civic-centric system removes a lot of the white noise, and creates some order, and flexibility at the same time. We are not keeping deadlines anyway, but Civic changes is a clear milestone that stops turnchats anyways, and religion goes with Civics as well.

Point is, we need less elections (leader, governors and mayor only, some direct elections if the Civic allows it) and more substance. This will also generate a sense of "historicity", as we are playing the balance of powers as the civics dictate. We cannot play a demogame with constant political values of 1997, and still get a roleplay sense out of it.

 

I hope you make civic changes executable solely by the legislative branch, since government officials may be a little weary of giving up there power by their own hand. Also these prolonged electionless periods may cause a bit of boredom among the citizens, that is if you estimate that a civic change should take place less than once a month. (And what if there are civic changes every two weeks. No time for campaigning and for some that's taking the fun out of elections, and making them just ordinary everyday polls.)

 

It could simplify the game. Based on the reasons you supplied, however, it won't make any difference. It is amazingly simple to organize elections and keep track of polls.

In retrospect, our largest problem has been the demogames lack of ability to bring in new members. A "new" system will not help that regardless, because to someone new it's all something fresh (excuse the mutilation of that word, but saying new that many times in one sentence looked strange).

Does the imaginary "veteran lock" on this game have anything to do with participation levels? Doubtful as I have never seen anyone new come in and complain about it. The complaints usually come from those with a lot of demogame experience themselves (Goonie comes to mind.. no offense if your still around).

Provolution. I like your idea in essence, but it reads far to complex and doesn't sound much better. We have no need to simplify the ends, nor will it amount to much anyway. Our problem is primarily the hugely complex looking rule sets that most people can't be bothered with. Even our earlier attempts at clarity turned out complex.

 

Provo
See I it right, the leader makes all. So every month we choose a leader and then we go to sleep.

My idea for the start is: advanced start, so we can distribute many positions at the beginning.

 

Strider

If you want to walk downtrodden paths, count me out. I am for a radical new approach that fits in with the Civics and Civ4 BTS. If someone is getting conservative here, please go ahead as you use to do (and do the work please), but I will not be part of it.

Husch

There will be elections, but with competing ballots and management teams. Governors and Mayors will be more important, as well as an empowered Supreme Court. As it stands, everyone sleeps, and we badly need something that fits with the civics, to get some sense of historicity.

If you guys want to go traditional Civ3 set-up, count me out, I will not be part of it. The Civics-driven method is good for getting a sense of historicity, as I said previously, I am sick and tired with watching 1997 values in infinite loop, and would like to have rules following the civics.

 

There are problems with all approaches, yet, some of us want to change structure from a Civ3 standard to a Civic-driven one. There will be long electionless periods in all cases, and most elections we have seen so far is recycling the same bunch of people. I think powers should follow the civics, so it gets more historical when it gets to decisionmaking. Concentrating elections into party-structures makes for more meaningful elections, not a series of elections for each minister, judge, mayor and what have you. We get polling fatigue, too many polls, and no cohesive program is presented.
Of course, if you do not find the idea appealing, I understand that.

What is certain, is that if all new ideas are killed off here for the benefit of Civ3 tradition, we will not see the motivation to get any ideas at all.
If the majority does not want it/discourage it in the threads, I will of course leave the ball dead, no worries.

 

This is likely why you won't be part of a new game. If indeed a new game is ever created. Your not likely to get much support with this mindset.

Now.. moving on.

Edit: I see 6 people (myself included) who have stated a preference for a C3C game. Only two have said they preferred BTS. I think it's logical, at this point, to assume that were going with C3C.

 

Well go ahead with C3C, but please, do not try to kill us Civ4ers away.
I suggest we go each our paths.

 

As I never played a C3C demogame I don't know if that game is more suitable for play than BTS. I'd prefer to stick with the most modern game possible, because I feel that will atract a larger base of new players. An older version of Civ is likely to only draw veteran players looking for a 'good old-fashioned demogame'

That said, it is absolutely necessary for us to stick together in one demogame, spliting will reduce our numbers in each game significantly. If the majority wants to play C3C I will gladly reinstall my old copy.

 

C3C vs C4BtS?

Poll it - and see which one has the most interest. Adverstise it, and be willing to immediately start nailing down the rules.

There are basically two parts to the game - playing the Civ game, and playing the democracy game. You can immediately start to talk about playing the Civ game. 3 and 4 are similar enough that the discussions will work for either. How often will the Civ game be played? etc.

IF you want to get any kind of momentum going from a widely advertised poll, figure you've got one week from the poll closing to elections for the first term. Yeah, that fast. You need to keep those people that voted interested. So, get things going fast. Separate the rules into those two area - Civ vs Demo. Have the Civ stuff done, and barebones the Demo in that one week. Use the rest of Term 1 to flesh out any needed details. Although Provo hates the mere thought, look at some previous games that did separate the rules out some for some ideas, and go from there.

Folks, if you want any carry-over push from this poll, you need to start. Now.

-- Ravensfire

 

Amazingly. I'll agree with Ravensfire with this. About as sound of advice as you can get and with that in mind.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=257209

-----------

As for rules. Do we even need a ruleset to start a game? Why not just start one and wing it? Set up some basic guidelines (Don't play the turn ahead!), but other than that why must we have a constitution before we even become a nation?

Lets just create it on the go like real countries do .

 

All I can really say is I've seen both CIV3 and CIV4 Demogames. To me CIV4 maybe be different and simpler in some aspects, while being more complicated in others, while CIV3 is just more fun. And that's the key, more fun.

 

Actually, I do not hate that thought, at all. However, I will still argue for making the rules follow the Civics if Civ4 wins.

To be fair, this discussion takes place in the Civ4 threads, not the Civ3 threads.

 

I'm somewhat new to civilization's online forums, and until now, i had never heard of a democracy game. From what i've read it seems really interesting. Could someone explain to me how democracy games work?

 

It's a group of people who collaboratively play a game of civilization. How it will work for the next game is still being decided. However in past games we had a Republican-like government with elected officials that handed different areas of a game.

It is basically civilization with a large amount of social interaction.

 

I understand your intent Provo is the to make the game simpler, but the way your proposal reads it makes it sound more complicated. Although I do have some interest in the idea of having our government based on civics should we do Civ4. Although I Civ3 also would work for me. Right now I'm not sure whether I would prefer Civ3 or Civ4.

Also considering the first several demogames were the most successful, I see no reason to push away the people that were there ("veterans") from the decision making process.

 

I think everyone needs to be in, please do not misunderstand me. The thing is that we need a Civ4 specific approach, taking measure for the Civics, which have messed up elections in the Civ4 games I have studied. I am fine with Civ3 Conquests, as long as we are willing to do something radically new for a change.