Discussion in 'Civ3 - Democracy and Team Games' started by kleinerheldt, Sep 22, 2010.
If i have enough time, i would play with some of the warmongers.
It's a question of trust. It is not allowed, we are all adults, we respect the rules and we wanna win/play a fair game. There is no need to control it. Although there will be referees to have a look on it. They can see all the postings made by a team and can possibly find hints of pre-meet-contacts. Though I don't think it'll be necessary.
@victory conditions: Every victory condition will be activated and possible. So it's the choice of the teamhow they wanna win. In general it's a military win by destroying the other three civs.
It may not be necessary, but I suggest diplomatic win be disabled as a victory condition.
I added you to the list.
Good to have you on our side...!
(I saw that you are also a long-time member of civforum.de and wasn't sure whether you would want to play for us or for them...)
I disagree with that. Starting turns are important and need to be discussed within the team. Probably for the team who played long time togetehr it is OK, but for the first experience I propose to remove restriction 4. Also, to speed up process initial turns could be done by one member of team for his team mates.
#4 doesn't restrict intra-team discussion about anything. #4 does restrict inter-team discussion about tech trading, locations, alliances, plots, etc until you've met in-game.
So you can discuss anything with your teammates anytime you want. No restrictions. But don't discuss or trade anything important with another team or player from another team (who doesn't officially represent the team).
As far as your last sentance, I believe the SG players will probably just give the save to a team member and let him play 10 turns, then that player will turn the reins over to another player on the team. Whereas, the DG players may want to discuss the best opening moves as the game initially progresses.
I want to bring up the question of referees. Civforum have chosen justanick as referee. I am not sure who could be a referee from CFC. But the question is, whether we need two referees. I'd trust justanick to be the only referee. What do you guys think?
I take it justanick will not be a player on either of the CivForum teams. If so, fine by me.
Little bit confused with terminology: how many teams?
What is "team"? (At this game?) How many civs one team posess? How communication IBT teams, players, referee will be organized?
2 teams per website.
Each team will have maybe 5-6 players.
Each team will choose and play 1 civ.
No communication between teams or another player from another team before you meet that/their team in game.
Most of the rules and procedures still have to be discussed and written down.
Look at the lower half of the page at this link for information on the German website CivForum.
However, don't outsmart yourself, like I did.
At the bottom of page, just like on ours, is a drop down for languages. Leave it at ' - German (Du- Version)'. If you set to English, Google will not translate the page for you. The navigation will be in English, but the individual threads and posts will still be in German.
Cyc has already answered, but I'll try to make it a bit more clear (hehe, and this with my worse english ).
Team is meant to be a bunch of players who play together the same civilization. Making a plan for the micromanagement, discuss with the other teammembers the best diplomatic options and trying to find the right words for the best negotiations or just bribe me with flowers... for at least the masterplan: Wining the game. Just as an example, there are more options to win the game. Like conquest the world or betray* our diplomatic allies and overrun then.
The simple different between any generic PBEM and DG is the amount of players per civilization. And they all 'play' at the same time, not just one person alone (or switching after x turns). The complete team plays. But sure, most teammembers will get into some mainroles like "diplomatic", "micromanagement" etc. I think (did'nt check *hides*) this won't be a real different between DGs at CivFanatics and CivForum.
Reason for DGs: PBEM is like a dictatorship. One person rule the civilization and do whatever he think. On a DG the person who make the turns plays what the team has decided. And at best, the plan is detailed as every person can make the turn. This is maybe one important point, at our CivForum DGs we play with a timelimit. But I'm not sure how this will be organized with the savestats trading and the timelimits (if we will have some?) because for our Forum we have a bot who manage it. Maybe we can talk to the owner of the bot for synchronizing it with CivFanatics?
Just to be sure: No communication between teams or another player from another team about the game before [...] I don't want to miss some smalltalk with peoples who can stand my crappy english.
* Yeah, betray or not betray, that is the question. But more a question about our rules we will have. How about your DGs here at CivFanatics? Any diplomatic negotiation is set? Or not? Personally I like it more if there is always the option to betray someone. Most players don't want and don't do it, yes. But the simple option makes the diplomatic more interesting at all.
Hm. Do you have any current rule book for DGs? I'm not sure about the The Democracy Game Constitution - The Ruleset. It sounds a little bit for a team(players) against ai only? Or I'm wrong?
By the way, Hello all! ;O
First of all, let me say I love the waistline on the pointy-eared redheaded avatar you use. Judging from your Civfanatics avatar's gender, I don't feel bad saying that.
All of the Civ3 Demogames were played against the AI. The human team vs 6 or so AI civs. The Constitutions were written for the procedures the humans used to progress through the game in an orderly manner. Some people wanted no rules. Chaos on a Helter Skelter level. But sanity prevailed and rules won. If you want to read a REAL Constitution, go to the Archives and read the one for DemoGame II.
Sorry I wasn't very clear with my description of a DemoGame. You are correct, it's a group of people who come together to form a small democratic government that governs a civ. In the games we had, elections were held, threads were put up for Office functions, lots of polling on issues ranging from city placement to which turn war should be declared, to which tech to research next. We had turn chats, Instruction threads, Reports, the works. PLUS we always tried to spark up some kind of RPG to coincide with the DemoGame.
We would try to have the turn sessions every three days and fill the time in between with discussion and polls. Two turn sessions a week seemed to be the way to go. But that was all subject to change depending on participation of the DG citizens.
For me, Demogames were great fun, but not enough people feel the same as I do. Oh well. Glad to see you here at CFC.
Betrayal must be allowed. Not that it is my favorite option at any time, but if it's not allowed it limits diplomacy options too much.
I'd love to join this. Long live the Fanatics!
Thanks! Some days and postings more before I can change to my avatar. So long I'll stay with Theodora, because I like the good old Ancient Egypt alot.
Yes, we do the same. Before we get the the new savestate, the micromanagement is already done (if it's not already planned 20+ turns ahead). Just at war, the time is important - because you can't know what's the other team realy doing. But my question was more about the organization at all for trading the savestats and handling the timelimits. Hm, I may ask at CivForum about this.
Same here. But to many players had gone ahead for more graphical civilization games. Or just started with it and never played Civilization III. All the 3D is to much confusing me, so I don't play CivIV/V (yay, CivIV+ players don't know about wasting production/food). For DGs it's often not a problem to find peoples, just to hold then for a longer time. The beginning of the game is for most players the most fun, but if there is no more expansion and all going into war, some players disappear. Not sure if this is here the same, but for all: What's one reason we want some more (4+) players per team, just to be sure there is always someone to make turns at least (and the better if there is also some to discuss with).
Added you to the list!
Is it game 2 teams vs 2 teams?
What initial information about map, civs, Barbs will be available?
What is "game session"? Four entries from each team? And how many (astronomical) time team will have for discussion?
I'd be willing to step in and give thoughts to a team, but I have found that I'm a totally unreliable MTDG player.
One thing I found from the Civ III MTDG is that island invasions are not easy against human opponents, so I suggest that there are ground rules. The Civ III game really ground to a halt.
Perhaps we can do a variation where some more units can make amphibious attacks, or we rule out blocking a coastline but also rule out landings on anything but flat land (no marsh, jungle, hills, mountains or forests - we would need a rule about not planting forests on coast)
basically, allow invasions, but give the defenders a pretty large advantage, I dunno. Course, if it's a pangea or a continents map, then we can pretty much ignore that...
Did you go to the German site and use a translator?
It will be one game with 4 teams opposing each other. The team winning by the first Victory Condition (which ever that may be - possible 4 VCs) will be the winner. Every team for themselves.
The map may be small or larger, but it looks like it will be Pangaea or Continents. Civs may be restricted to those that do not have a Ancient Age UU. No info on Barbs.
A game session is like a turn chat or a time where the primary (designated) Player plays the turns for the team. It usually ranges 5 - 10 turns. These game sessions advance the turns of each individual team. Sooo, each team will have the own individual turn sessions. They will either be private (1 person playing alone) or they will be a turn chat (1 person playing in a chatroom with other team members there to advise the DP).
Each Team can have as many or as few teammates as they want, as long as someone always plays the save and passes it along. The time allowed for discussing and playing the save is being discussed on the CivForums. Check them out. It appears there will be a time buffer (measured in days) for each team. If you exceed the allowed time, a ref will click through your save and pass it to the next player.
Hope that helped. Check out the link above.
Separate names with a comma.