General Strategy

[ice2k4]

Wrong assumption -- we can't pick CoL with the Oracle because we'll already have it. If we were to go that path, the plan should be to research CoL at the same time we build the Oracle.

This is true, but then you run the risk of missing Confucianism, and the earlier you get courthouses, the earlier you can increase research levels, or the earlier you can expand.

Edit: How do the citizens feel about delaying game play until we determine a general strategy, or at least find the direction we want to go in? To me making the separate decisions without knowing which path we want to take is simply crazy.

 

[730195]

How do the citizens feel about delaying game play until we determine a general strategy, or at least find the direction we want to go in? To me making the separate decisions without knowing which path we want to take is simply crazy.

You mean like time-out or a do-over? Boooo! The enemy awaits. Press on the best you can.

 

[Methos]

Timing the Oracle to finish at the same time as Col can be done if we focus on that path and not dilly dally around. But in all honesty, I don't think it can be done in this Demogame. We have a large group of players and getting everyone, or at least the majority, to agree on a set plan and goal will be extremely difficult, as well as maintaining that path. I've already read several players argue that it takes away their ability to decide on tech if we focus on a long range goal. This would also be bad for any new players who come in after we make this decision, as 1) they weren't part of the decision process and 2) they won't feel they are fully allowed to take part in the game.

This leads me to wonder if it would be best not to set long range goals for the benefit of the Demogame and enjoyment of the players. Instead of setting goals, just poll every tech and play as is. I'll be honest, if this is how we are going to play than Noble difficulty would have been a better option. Haphazard play tends towards not very good games.

In the interest of the enjoyment of the Demogame for everyone, I believe only short term goals would probably be best. This way everyone feels like they're involved and part of the decision making process. I don't mind stopping my arguments for focused goals if it helps maintain the interest and enjoyment of this game.

 

[Octavian X]

Strategy has never been my strength (and I think my CIV skillz have taken a hit since I started college, on top of that ). I have to disagree with Methos' assessment, though. Setting long-term strategy and goals, though probably disappointing to new citizens and those who opposed those goals in the first place, makes the game more fun in the long range. Just look at the ill-fated experience of the first CIV Demogame here - we lost and the game died prematurely. You can't tell me that winning a well-planned game is more fun than losing a haphazardly played one.

 

[Methos]

You can't tell me that winning a well-planned game is more fun than losing a haphazardly played one.

Your missing the point. I believe its the ability of the players to be active in the decisions of the game that keeps their interest. If we set long term goals and stick to them the players won't be able to be as active. You'd be telling the players "Sorry, but we already decided". Makes players lose interest when they can't be active.

As to your point I quoted above, I totally agree. Recall, it was I who originally wanted to focus on long term goals. I primarily submit HoF games and typically have my victory condition planned prior to my even starting the game. I prefer long term planning, but I'm more interested in keeping the interest of the players over what I prefer.

 

[fed1943]

"The interest of players" and "fun" are not,IMHO, objective things.

"My fun" or "my interest" can be very different from yours and surely are and
no possible argumentations on this field.

And a already decided middle/long term plan can close or open doors to
future decisions (if it is really good,opens).

Best regards,

 

[FeedBack]

I think I understand Methos' point here.
If this was a normal Succession Game, long-term goals are easily welcome. And there are few players to decide.
But this is a Democracy Game. We need polls, laws, officers, turnchats... If the citizens decide now, let's say, the game needs to be won by Time, what will new citizens be able to do if they see a chance to, let's say, win by "Diplomation"? It's already decided...

I know my example goes to a extreme situation, but "Getting the Oracle for Civil Service" may be a extreme to others, as fed1943 stated the relativity of sentiments.

On the other hand, players from Demogame I are saying that changing the goals each turnchat leads to a loss... Well, in my humble opinion, it's the downside of the Democracy... Majority always wins, even if that's not the "right" option for that time. It's a way to learn...

 

[ice2k4]

Well, if the citizens rather play haphazardly, than I see no reason to delay the turnchat. The turnchat will continue as it normally would. I'll be posting instructions shortly.

 

[dutchfire]

I'd like to encourage people to play in the Democracy Challenge so they get a feel of how this game will/could develop. [/advertisement]

 

[730195]

I'd like to encourage people to play in the Democracy Challenge so they get a feel of how this game will/could develop.

I'm having fun with that, but I'm not clear on how applicable experience in the challenge will be to the real game. It is a different map, right?

 

[dutchfire]

Yes, but under approximately the same conditions. So you can get a feel of how many barbarian trouble we'll have, what we can do about that, whether we can get the Oracle easily, how soon the others civs will attack, things like that.