Discussion in 'Civ4 - Democracy and Team Games' started by Lord Civius, Sep 4, 2009.
Do you have to pick a house?
Excellent. Starting to look good. Can't wait to see the progression.
Yes, within the houses is how you role play, and also how you can be named leader of a House, and eventually Emperor. If you aren't looking to be that involved, simply pick a house, and play whenever you can. There will be plenty of updates to keep you enticed.
Also real quick guys:
Regent has to be named, but since there is no war, a general is not selected. Once the game is going, and a war starts generals will be named to lead the armies in battle. Allowing the war to be role played and told through his eyes, not the emperor. Unless the emperor chooses to lead the armies himself.
Just wanted to make sure everything is right so I don't screw up the role playing. Also, shouldn't characters die? That way the story can change along with the generations that pass. So if an emperor gains favor and is allowed to play another turn set you could be 'Emperor Civplayah II' or 'Emperor Matson I of the House of Artok'. I planed on building a family tree in my house as the game went on.
It is not required (It doesn't state anywhere you have to belong to a house), houses are there to either support the Emperor or overthrow him. The members of each house decide after each turn session to either pay tribute to the Emperor or not. The Emperor must get tribute from 50% of the houses or we enter a state of rebellion and a new Emperor is elected from one of the houses. So a citizen that does not belong to a house could not be elected Emperor but still could become Regent and acting Emperor.
The houses also can be granted cities from the emperor so as part of a house you could participate in the governing of a city.
Houses also put forth official recommendations to the Emperor and he can either choose to implement them or not.
Any citizen could be named a General by the Emperor.
So there is alot of power a member of a house has that a non-aligned citizen would not. So I guess it depends on what capacity of the game you want to participate in. Sorry for the long reply just thought I'd throw it all out there .
Also Draknith I don't see why he couldn't name a General while we aren't at war. There is always military planning to do and RP.
Nope that's exactly what I want to know.
General Vandal..... Sounds like a gang to me, but It will do.
I was thinking about that. Great minds think alike, I guess!
We all worked on the rules together so I don't want my interpretation of a rule to supersede anyone elses just because I formatted them. I don't think we should require a citizen to join a House though I would recommend it so they could participate fully in the game. That being said Draknith posted his reply to IamJohn while I was writing mine and we came to a different conclusion. I think both of us have good points but I want us all to be on the same page so new citizens, as well as the founders, aren't confused. I suggest we appoint a justice to interpret the rules when conflicts arise or come up with another solution.
Well, I don't think we need to go that far unless someone really wants the job. I'm cool with people not participating in a house. Just seems like a secondary citizen, without the ability to rise through the aristocracy. Would the minister also be able to toss people to the lions? That's the job I want. j/k
I agree, we don't want to force people into anything, but we do want to encourage them to get involved.
Also once you're in a house do you stay with it, or is there a possibility of changing? I'm curious because you'd think you'd want loyalty, but it might be interesting if you can get the houses interested in tempting people to their house with promises of power.
Well the Houses were your idea so I didn't want you to feel like I was stepping on your toes. We just replied at the same time and as the main developers of the game we were on seperate sides of the fence. I just want everyone on the same page no matter which way we go. We can just take each issue as it comes and reach a consensus instead of appointing one citizen decide. Like in the next post.....
IMHO I think members of a house can change but the House leaders cannot unless the House is desolved. Now keep in mind House leaders can change so a leader could step down as long as their is another member willing to take his place.
Another random question- is there a difference between the imperial dynasty game and the demogame? Or are they just the same exact thing?
nah, you're not steppin on any toes. I just think to take full advantage of the imperial dynasty game one would want to join a house. Otherwise I have a great position of house cleaner (and not the one where you kill off the other house leaders)... haha
We'll just take it day by day, post by post, question by question.
This is another player's choice I think. If you are unhappy with the house your in, you can leave anytime you want. I would just say that you should make it interesting in the Role Playing section as to why you are leaving. I don't think anyone will get upset at anyone for changing houses, but make it fun.
House leadership can be taken over in a variety of ways. If the house leader is more democratic, the position will be chosen by votes (like the Huber House will do), but if your leader is iron fisted it may not be so easy to advance. It's all about the role playing. Do as you like, just keep it interesting and open to the other players.
The difference I believe is in how many people actually make the game happen. In the Demo game si believe a group of individuals are in charge of the decision making process. In the Imperial game it's all down to the emperor. My feeling is that the Imperial Game will move faster, and be more role playing, and the demo games is slower with more individual decision making. I could be wrong on this though, so someone please let me know. I do know this though, the two games are completly seperate. It's not the same map, nor the same leaders.
Couldn't agree more
That pretty much sums it up. In a Dynasty Game (I believe you guys call it a succession game at CFC) one player controls the game and passes it on to the next player. This is just a variance where we added some flavor and RP to make it a team game.
I must have saved before I switched to a warrior.
I will dispatch a unit to handle the goody hut.
(Why can animals not enter out borders, btw)?
I will get the clams, Civius.
Thank you for the input.
The House of the Reichkaisers pay tribute once more to the Emperor.
Animals can't enter cultural borders only human barbarians can. So there is little need to keep a warrior at the capital while the 2nd warrior is being built. I usually send my free warrior/scout to explore immediately and build one more first for exploration and have never had my capital attacked this early in the game. Unless I was playing raging barbarians.
Just waiting on the Grand House of Huber to pay tribute or not.
Technically the Emperor is at a 75% approval rating (including his own house or 50% without) so either way he is good for this round. It would be nice however for all of the Houses to post if they're gonna pay tribute. Also if a house fails to post within 48 hours of the turn report it is considered a tribute to the Emperor. This way if a house becomes absent for a while it will not negatively effect the game.
Ah, and does our gracious Emperor plan on doing the next TS soon.
Just to let everyone know I updated the first post of the game thread and will be doing so after each turn session. Just a new screenshot of the Empire and a link to the turn report. I'll also be creating the Imperial Library in the second post, here we can put links to all of the turn reports, city info and document the rp storys.
Separate names with a comma.