Is there any interest in an IntersiteDG

[kleinerheldt]

Hi everybody!

The german civ3-Community of www.civforum.de is small, but still there.
In a few weeks we want to start our seventh Civ3-DG and we think playing with one or two more teams will be much more fun.

So are you still big enough to manage a big game as a DG?
Have you enough active players for one or two teams?
The german civforum wants to start the game with two or three teams so together it'll be a great and fascinating game.

I'll stay here for contact, or you come over for a visit. Writing in english will be no problem, if your german ist worse than my english

Have a nice day
kH

I've opened a thread just for U: http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=69387

 

[Cyc]

I'd definitely be interested in your IntersiteDG. I'll check out your prior games.

I'm not sure how many people we can round up from Civfanatics, but I'll give it a try. Our last "in house" game started really well, but dwindled down to just a few at the end.

Danke for stopping by.

 

[kleinerheldt]

Hi Cyc. Thx for the quick reply.

We also know this problem of course.
Our hope lays in the "hard core", as we say, people who play civ3 everyday till today and who will still gonna play it in five years.
Of course there is ciV now, but I think if you stay with civ3 the last years, you'll always stay with it.

The question is how big is your "hard core". For a DG there should be 3 "lead-player" per team, I'ld think, and of course a group of further discussant.

 

[Lanzelot]

I've never played DG before, but after reading a couple of pages of the rules, it looks like this is even more time consuming than an 8-player PBEM, isn't it? Governments, elections, discussion threads, polls -- all that extra overhead before you finally get to the game itself.

I've just posted again on my challenge thread on civforum.de. Let me sum up the quintessence of the discussions over there so far:

• A series of 1-1 duels might be quick to play and not much time effort, but they definitely lack the rich inter-human diplomacy, so basically most players agree by now, that that would be not much fun
• A big 8-player PBEM with 4 participants from each forum did not find their approval, because it "might take 3 years to complete". Personally I have no problem with that (I will definitely still be playing Civ3 in 3 years time...) and one advantage would be that even people with a limited amount of time would be able to play 1 turn per week and could therefore participate.
• As a compromise I suggest something like an "Intersite Succession Game". What I mean by this is: each forum defines two teams of let's say 4 players. The players of a team discuss their strategy and next actions in their team thread, and the 4 players rotate like in an SG, playing let's say 10 turns before handing control over to the next player. (So we'll have the "democracy aspect".) Furthermore there will of course intense diplomatic relations be going on between the 4 teams. (So we will also have the "diplomacy aspect".)

 

[Cyc]

I think in your second to last sentance you mean between the "2" teams.EDIT: Never mind, just re-read your post. You are talking an 8 player game.

This sounds great to me. It would be just as if we were playing a Democracy game, but without all the "overhead", as you call it, of one. Any human involvement in a progressive C3C game would be good for me. It doesn't not matter to me what label we put on it.

 

[TheOverseer714]

I like the Intersite SG idea best, to, as Lanzelot says, cut down the overhead of a full demogame. I have barely enough time for the 2 SGs I am in, so a highly involved game would be too much to handle. Mark me down as highly interested.

 

[Cyc]

Very cool. Thank you, TO. Your participation will be will help us immensely.

 

[Eclipse4449]

I am very interested in a team game that is between 2 sites, this is something I've wanted for some time now.

I have never moved outside of general pbem games but use elements above this level like detailed strategies, diplomacy and RPG elements which I very much enjoy but I've never looked at SG and DG games because of the extra details I believe are involved.

I busy myself by playing many games at the same time which has caused me not to learn the details of these types of games, but I will try to look at other games and see what might be required of me.

I will subscribe here because I am interested, hopefully we can come up with a game type that leans more toward getting the turn around than mega discussions before play is actually preformed.

Honestly I don't have the time to read an entire thread to learn about these types of games but If someone could point me to a single post that has a good example on it I would appreciate it.
Thanks for the invite!
Eclipse

 

[Cyc]

Rather than send you somewhere else, I can give you an explanation of the two game types (DemoGame and Succession Game) right here.

Democracy Game ~ Simply put, a Demogame is a game where a group of people discuss and poll the actions of the game. In this possible Intersite DemoGame, Civfanatics would be one nation and our friends in Germany would be a different nation in the same world. We would choose who we wanted for our president (and play the turns) by running an election poll. Germany would do the same for their nation. In fact, more polls are usually held for government offices like the Military Advisor, the Domestic Advisor, etc. So that eventually, all the Advisor positions in a real C3C game would be reflected in the Demogame. Each Advisor would make suggestions (or give Instructions) to the President before he manually played the turns on his computer. These suggestions/Instructions would be put together from demands and requests made by all the other "citizens" of the nation. An Advisor may even use polls to gather info from the citizens. Advisor/President election polls are usually held every month of the game, which can last 5 to 7 months when played in house. An Intersite Demogame woud take much longer unless it was a very small map.

When the President (sometimes called the Designated Player - DP) plays the turns, detailed notes and screenshots would be taken to help explain to the citizens the flow of the game in almost real time. So the citizens can't actually play the game, but can follow it closely with these blow-by-blow details and screenshots. Normally 5 - 10 turns are played in a turn session and then discussion ensues about the state of the nation and the direction the populace would like to see it go in. A turn session may stop abruptly if another nation declares war or some other event (like someone makes us an offer we can refuse) occurs that needs discussion by the citizens/Advisors.

All these rules (and more) are usually put into a Constitution, where anyone can read them and learn how to play the game properly. In many Demogames we've even had a Justice Department (a Supreme Court, if you will) to help the nation determine how to proceed in making decisions for the future or if someone has broken the Law.

That's about it for the DG.

Succession Game ~ Simply put, an SG can be compared to a PBEM, only several people all play the same nation at around 10 turns a clip. On going discussions would take place about the details of the game and the group of people that make up the team and play 10 turns before passing the game onto the next in line would/or can use these discussions to determine their move decisions. So overall, the progression of the game reflects the playing abilities and strategies of everyone who plays, in one way or the other.

As mentioned above, less overhead than a Demogame, although there is less control by the populace and in my opinion, less fun, as there are no elections or government offices. But on the other hand, this may be the way to go as an organization.

Hope that helped.

 

[Eclipse4449]

Thank you that helped and I'm in!
I'm leaning towards Demogame but DO NOT count this as a vote for what we do here because the SG game sounds good too!

I we be watching as this unfolds and will play either type.

note;
Both types sound like resulting in improving my gaming of other types

 

[CommandoBob]

Hi everybody!

The german civ3-Community of www.civforum.de is small, but still there.
In a few weeks we want to start our seventh Civ3-DG and we think playing with one or two more teams will be much more fun.

This sounds like a Multi Team Demo Game, but I'm not sure. The definitions of a DG may differ between the two sites.

 

[Cyc]

This sounds like a Multi Team Demo Game, but I'm not sure. The definitions of a DG may differ between the two sites.

That's exactly what it is, CB. The people at CivForum.de are devoted DG players. I can tell by reading their posts. They want to get a seventh DG started, but thought they might try this Intersite approach first. I am looking for CivFanatic players. If we can recruit enough to make two teams, so much the better. That will give people, who may feel differently abut the rule(s) another avenue to go down. CivForum is also trying to put together more than 1 team, but they are having difficulty also.

Just think, if we could approach the game with 1 team from the MTDG and one team from the classic DemoGame people, they would not stand a chance. Please consider joining this effort, CB. We'd love to have you, as well as the people from the Council. Heck, you guys almost beat Saber several times in the last few months. We had to double-time just to get the upper hand.

Any input or participation you can muster would be great. I know you're a busy man.

 

[CommandoBob]

That's exactly what it is, CB. The people at CivForum.de are devoted DG players. I can tell by reading their posts. They want to get a seventh DG started, but thought they might try this Intersite approach first. I am looking for CivFanatic players. If we can recruit enough to make two teams, so much the better. That will give people, who may feel differently abut the rule(s) another avenue to go down. CivForum is also trying to put together more than 1 team, but they are having difficulty also.

Just think, if we could approach the game with 1 team from the MTDG and one team from the classic DemoGame people, they would not stand a chance. Please consider joining this effort, CB. We'd love to have you, as well as the people from the Council. Heck, you guys almost beat Saber several times in the last few months. We had to double-time just to get the upper hand.

Any input or participation you can muster would be great. I know you're a busy man.

Another MTDG playing alongside the friends and foes of MTDG 2 and a chance to meet some Civ-addicts in Germany? Count me in.

 

[Calis]

Another MTDG playing alongside the friends and foes of MTDG 2 and a chance to meet some Civ-addicts in Germany? Count me in.

Me too....

Although I am German, I am a long time member of CivFanatics...

 

[Cyc]

Welcome Calis. Glad you're with us. I wasn't sure if you were a CivForum member or not. We are on our way to Victory.

 

[Calis]

Welcome Calis. Glad you're with us. I wasn't sure if you were a CivForum member or not. We are on our way to Victory.

Oh, I have been lurking in the civForum for about a month now and there are some really excellent players over there!

CivFanatics needs to get its best players to be competitive...

 

[Lanzelot]

EDIT: Never mind, just re-read your post. You are talking an 8 player game.

Well, actually I'm talking about a "16 player game"... Plus optionally 4 AIs.

The format I had in mind is:

• Setup a PBEM game with 4 human-controlled civs (and optionally 4 AI civs)
• Each human-controlled civ is played by a team of players, so we have 4 teams (e.g Civforum A, Civforum B, Civfanatics A, Civfanatics B)
• Each single team consists of 4 players, who discuss their strategy among them and rotate like in a succession game.

Of course each team may decide for themselves, how the part "who discuss their strategy among them" looks like for them. If one team wants to run this in DG-style, it's fine; if another team doesn't have that much time, they could as well keep the in-team discussions to a minimum and run it in lean SG-style.

A DG-style team could even have more than 4 players. However, I would prefer a format, where every team member will get the chance to play his/her share of turns. "Only" disscussing and voting would be a bit boring for me...

 

[Cyc]

Ok, I meant an eight nation game. Sorry.

Yes, what you describe match my thoughts of late. The idea of getting an democracy game of old still flickers in the back of my mind occasionally, but I do realize those days are gone. The game heading this main forum proved that. I can still be a part of a streamlined DG or succession game whichever the team I'm on chooses to go with.

I'm here and ready to help get this thing under way. I count seven players, including myself, as Mof Jerjerrod says he'd like to play also. Let's hope we get more.

 

[Bowsling]

Looks fun, I'll play.

 

[I. Larkin]

If Lanzelot will explain me by e-mail what this discussion is about I probably will take part.
My expectation is that my Civ 3 "modarate addiction" will continue few years more.