Discussion in 'Civ4 - Demo Game: Citizens' started by robboo, Sep 11, 2006.
I didn't vote for 'em!
What about Cheiftess just ignoring all the trade deals we discussed and polled because she was using a different version of the game? Instead of bringing things back to the forums for us to discuss she just made all the decisions in the turn chat. Hardly anyone even said anything and how could they because she's a moderator?
The people that leave because of the turn chats don't stick around to tell us why they are leaving. We had a thread about this back during the first Civ III DG where we people posted about the turn chats driving them away. Nothing ever changed because the chatters won't give up their grip on the game. I'm still around but you can't say I've been really involved in this game.
Now that there's only a few left why don't we toss the turn chats and see how things go if we restrict ourselves to just the forums?
Next turnchatinstructionthread is posted, but I fear there might not be many instructions to violate.
That's the one incident this game that I was referring to.
There have been very few actual chats this game. Sure, most of the sessions have been titularly on-line, but looking at the actual attendence no more than a handful would qualify as a chat.
/do you have the PBEM save Dave or did my email eat that too...
Ok, ok, this has just absolutely made my ****ing day. Donsig and Chieftess are still going at it on this same issue, and there is still no way Chieftess is ever going to "loose." And you got Daveshack on the side here, who knows the "real" history, but can't say anything: your highness has obviously, and successfully, squashed all references to past DGs, and thus the potential for an improved and not-pain-inducing DG is squashed as well. Back in the day, Donsig would go on and on about how many times Chieftess illegally-- whoops!
Strider and Ravensfire, Daveshack and RegentMan, I have no idea why you keep coming back, but I love ya all the same. To those of you I don't recognize, get on your highness' side or forget about having fun.
Donsig, what the hell are you doing? Good God man, it wasn't worth it then, and it ain't worth it now. Yes, you are right. You were always right. Jerk.
I'll come back again for more lurking in about 8 months, just to get another laugh out of it. Nothing has changed about "Is the DG dead?" threads in 18 months, so I think I have a good chance for a hearty *lawl*.
Who in the heck is this Crimso guy?
I remember Crimso. He was around during a very tenuous time for the DG and obviously remembers it well.
Actually, Crimso, Chieftess hasn't been around for months so perhaps that is the reason why the game has died somewhat. Say what you want about her, but she always tried to keep the game moving by any means necessary. Now we are looking at one session every 8-10 days in a game where we have a slim chance of victory.
As for me, the DG kind of died for me when I was not able to mend my image after a seemingly harmless slip-up turned public opinion against me and made me out to be someone I hadn't been for my entire 3 years in the DemoGames. If you rail against mediocrity, be sure to choose your words carefully! Other than that, I've been pretty busy.
Good to see you again, Crimso, and I hope you stick around. This place could use some livening up!
I'll try to jump in after this DG is over and the next Civ4 one begins. If the cards are played right, we can get the Demogame out there in the open and hopefully attract new players.
The thread title got my attention. I've looked in on this game a few times but never joined because it looked like a huge slow moving mess of bitterness.
If this game was in 1 forum it would have been more accessable.
I also really don't like chats and so was turned off from this game thinking that was critical here.
I'll look for the next one though, but title one thread "Start here".
There have been various attempts at that:
But they aren't up to date. However, if you've got questions, you could always ask in the president's thread.
Then how about a "Start here" thread so I know which "Start here" thread to start with.
Seriously though this game is just too far along for me to get into it now. I'll look for the next one.
As I've been away for awhile, anyone have an estimate of WHEN this game might be over?
Well, we just hit double digit terms for the first time in our history. And I really don't see an end in sight. Could triple digit terms be a possibility? That would put us at around 2014.
The original cage match might end before this demogame.
Were in that period of the game (that I know well too often on single-player Prince) where you realize that your screwed and chances of winning are low. The era we are in is usually the most boring era of the game and it doesn't look like we'll be spicing things up with war. Most of the time in singleplayer I never finish the game and quit becasue it gets too boring. I think we should assess the current save. See which victories have the highest chances, and if those chances are really so high. If we conclude that they arent, or that a productivity analysis shows that we do not have enough people to tredge on, then we should call it quits and make a new demogame.
I read this forum every day, but havent posted because theres barely any activity and no real important issues or decisions being brought up. Civ4 was built to make this era boring for people who are just out playing the game (playing without a set victory in mind) and I dont know how a modder would go about fixing it. The game has really been moddled for the human to decide what victory he wants in the early game and then adjust everything he does to that (especially once you leave the lower difficulties of the game.)
I wouldn't be opposed to calling this game over, we aren't going to win anyway unless maybe a not so very pleasing, but lots of effort costing diplomatic victory. I think a smaller map would be better playable, as a map this size makes the DP-pool very small.
So, make a poll in a few days to decide if we'll play it out, or start a new game?
I suggest some sort of feeler poll first to try to gauge interest in a new game. If there isn't much interest (from those not actively posting now) then what's the point of a new game?
Also, we've never been able to jump right in a start a new game without first having an extended rules discussion. We either talk and don't accomplish much or we talk a little and then start playing with half baked rules which comes back to haunt us mid-game.
Why don't we start the rules discussion for the nextr game now while we're playing this one a while longer. We could use this DG as an expirimental base if we want. Getting ready for a new DG might rekindle interest in this one.
A couple suggestions for talking about:
Do away with DP pool elections. Has anyone ever ran for DP and not be 'elected'? Have a sign up sheet for DP and give citizens a chance to challenge anyone on the list, sort of like we do with appointments and recalls.
Reduce the number of elections (let the president or tri make more appointments) and base terms on turns not months.
Let's have political parties. Sure we risk javing a Chieftess party or an anti-donsig party but so what? We might end up with parties based on issues: the warmongers party, the peaceniks party, etc.
Let's start with a flexible constitution like in the Civ III DG III and just add a CoL as we need rules. Let's try using the CoL to mandate things in the game, like the size of our armed forces.
Let's do away with the chats and make this a forum based game.
Let's give the judiciary the power to post binding game play instructions.
Let's redefine and clarify the role of the Censor.
Let's redefine and clarify the constitutional system of decision making.
I was thinking something like this:
make the governement pretty small. Like 5 or 6 official positions that need to be filled, and let these officials appoint deputies.
This makes a mockery of the separation of powers, doesn't it?
A DG (as I see it, this is my first) has an inherent indecisiveness about it, where almost everything has to be polled. I think that if there is stronger leadership from the trium, or whatever the body may be, things would move more smoothly and with greater purpose. A president with the power to say something like "this term we need an army designed to take London and York, begin a war between Spain and China so we can later get some land on another continent, and build 3 banks", etc might just contribute to all the decisions made on a small scale making a difference on a larger scale.
Separate names with a comma.