Discussion in 'Civ4 - Demo Game IV: Polls' started by civplayah, Jan 1, 2009.
How many humas teams will there be in the new Civ4 DGame 4?
It's a little early for a poll on this with so little discussion keying on this one point.
If this is just a general opinion poll, ok. But I don't think it should be a determining factor.
What's a humas, anyway?
I agree with Cyc, and with that being said, I choose 3 for now.
Well, it seems only 3 people are really interested in this idea, at least so far.
The poll was shot down before it took form by the posts here, so some players here rendered it irrelevant. Cyc for one, only wants a Civ3 demogame, for example. I think the idea is not buried yet (more people said they wanted it in the posts). But let us keep the civ3 and civ4 debates separate, as this is indeed the civ4 forum.
There is no forum for a Civ III demogame...
I think the fair thing to do is to open a separate civ3 demogame discussion area, in place of having the civ3 demogame cannibalize on the novelty factor of the Civ4 BTS interest. A lot of new players want something with Civ4 in it, and very few of these can catch up with the demogame veterancy level, and would rather be ruleset innovators and civ4 players than civ3 traditional ruleset "disciples" and be forced to play an older version.
I seriously hope both games can be established, as there is interest for both. What I would dislike, is the attempt to make the civ4 forum the very spot where the civ4 game is made a civ3 game.
Moderator Action: Further comments about veteran players may be considered trolling.
I think the locked alliances/multi-team aspect is interesting. We can choose three different civilizations, but refer to our entire nation as "one." In essence it is the faction system without the exclusion.
And that's what makes it so interesting.
This may be a silly question as it may be obvious if you can run BTS, but how will who gets the win be decided? Is there a way to giving the win to all 3 (or however many) teams, or will one take it? If one takes it I can see it soon ending up a competition between the teams.
I would be fine with individual wins, as one team running a strong technical game would only have that as their yardstick. However, a team with more roleplay would be happy with just a good, entertaining game with some drama, and be happy with a moderate survival and a good narrative. Another team may be embroiled in legalistic conflicts and wordbending in a cloak and dagger style forum conflict, and be happy with that, at the expense of gameplay. It is all up to the team what they want, and I do not think we need to consider a victory condition as such the main part. However, we can disable all victory conditions but a histograph win, so a team does not end their game prematurely, and all civs run their course. Then each civs total achievements will be considered, and the forums will tell which team had the best social experience.
In gameplay terms, if true teams are used then the winning conditions are per team.
During team play, tech knowledge and resources are shared. If all civs on a team research the same tech, all the beakers count together. Or they can research different things and automatically trade upon completion. Resource sharing requires a route, so with random placement on a multi-continent map it might be delayed considerably. Tech sharing may not require routes, I'm not completely sure about that. Perhaps a test game is in order.
I think that lengthening the game artificially is unnecessary. Let it finish its normal course. If the concept works, then people will be lining up to start the next game. If it doesn't work out we're not stuck with an eternity of waiting for the game to die so the next one can begin.
Separate names with a comma.