Is this demo game dead?

[Strider]

Might as well get some kind of organization going on. I say if we give the mods the... err... slip.. we could escape un-noticed and take as much time as possible on the next DG.

So, anyway... what DO we need to start a new demogame? Might as well get a check list of some type going.

Rules/Guidelines
Forum Organization

Anything else?

 

[ravensfire]

CG - part of the game IS politics.

Avoid it if you want, but the government simulation aspect is just as appealing to many people as the Civ4 game.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ice2k4]

Introduced I nice little idea about government here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=189487

 

[Strider]

Further suggestion - this may be sacriledge, but I suggest that the older "vets" back away from the ruleset creation process, and see what new ideas come forth. I'm looking at myself, DS and Strider in particular.

I'm certainly not saying be silent, but post mostly questions and some comments, and see what some of the newer players come up with, They have fewer convictions and traditions than we do, let 'em run with it where we don't overpower them.

Let's see what they can do.

-- Ravensfire

I'm fine backing away, but that's harder said than done. I'm the type of person who prefers getting into to things and being involved in them. I don't care to much for watching from the sidelines .

hmm, I wonder when, if ever, were going to become "elites" instead of "vets." I think it's about time for some of the newer old players to claim that title .

 

[Nobody]

Further suggestion - this may be sacriledge, but I suggest that the older "vets" back away from the ruleset creation process, and see what new ideas come forth.

It was a new idea to have the triumtive

 

[GenMarshall]

CG - part of the game IS politics.

Avoid it if you want, but the government simulation aspect is just as appealing to many people as the Civ4 game.

I personaly dont want to avoid it since I do enjoy some of the government simulation and do wish to go into a possition when I do have free time. The politics within the game that I have seen and dislike mainly has to do with mudslinging and beaurocracy that would make a newbie to the Demogame hesitant to even try to get in.

 

[dutchfire]

Well, as everyone seems to be pushing the new people to propose things, what about this:

We let people chose a city where they reside at the beginning, and they can vote for the city governor there. The city governement decides what the city will do, together with the citizens of that city. We'll also have a federal governement that decides on things like diplomacy and research.

• Some cities can have a lot of rules, as the people who want lots of rules can all go there, while other cities may have more RPG for example.
• There will be a lot of small demogames all linked up by common interest.
• It gives RPG a nice start, while it isn't that much trouble for those of us that don't like RPG.
• It would bring people more into micro-managing cities. At the moment our cities aren't always governed, but if people feel it's their city, they'll make sure it's ruled properly.

Any suggestions from the veterans?

 

[1889]

Dutch's ideas sound good. There is some overlap with what I've been working on.

I didn't play this game so I don't get the part about being a citizen of one city. In this next game I’d like to cut out some of that bureaucracy, some people like it but it sounds really tedious to me. On the other hand a few test games have revealed that my original idea leaves the soldiers in power for most of the game.

So instead how about 4 political parties: a party each for conquest, diplomatic, cultural and space race victories. Each player chooses one.

To begin power is in the hands of the party with largest membership. The political parties decide for themselves how to play the game when they are in power, whether it is a single turn player, ministers running polls or chat. Out of power parties can plan, scheme or complain loudly. (Just kidding, but remember this is supposed to be a role playing game.)

Whenever a new technology is discovered it is assumed that society has changed and the ruling class has failed to keep up, they are now out of power, but get to choose which party replaces them. Once the new party is in power all players have an opportunity to change party affiliation and the game resumes.

This setting provides ample inspiration for role play but if you don’t care for that aspect you can just join the ruling party each turn and forget about it. If you love political intrigue you can make secret deals by promising to carry out certain actions for the ousted party if they grant you power in the next term. Or you can be a purist and nurture your lost cause political party spending the entire game refining a constitution just incase you get into power.

 

[dutchfire]

An example of my Idea:

Our nation has got 3 cities at a certain moment.
There's city A, it's the capital, and there are 5 citizens there: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon.
The citizens of city A have elected Delta as chief, and they decide with polls what they are going to build, and how they are going to manage their city. They have strict rules concerning polls, elections and orders. And they're having fun doing it.

City B has got 7 citizens at that moment. They all do a lot of Role Play, but they don't do a lot of bureaucracy, they've elected a leader, and he just posts their instructions for when the game is played.

City C has got 4 citizens. They are making nice pictures and very detailed information about their city, like videos and city maps.

Everyone is doing the things he likes.
Now, the decisions made by the central governement are either polled or made by officials elected by all citizens of all cities.

 

[1889]

Here are some, hopefully most, of the rules for my proposed RP game.

1. We're here to have fun. Any citizen can do anything fun as long as it's not against the forum rules and doesn't infringe on another citizen's right to have fun.
2. a conflict between what one citizen finds fun vs what other citizens find In fun, the majority prevails.
3. If you're not having fun, either live with it, or the door's over there. You are not permitted to ruin someone else's fun. It is OK to try to convince people that your way is more fun, but refer to rule #1 while you're doing it.
4. A player may only belong to one party at a time. Party membership is declared after a new government is placed in power.
5. A player may only read and post in threads designated for all players and threads of his current party. Players may not read or post in threads created by another party. (No private forums in this game so note party affiliation in the thread title and trust in the honor system.)
6. A party may not change its constitution while in power. A party’s constitution may only be changed when it is out of power. While a party is in power it must play according to the rules of its last constitution.

 

[ice2k4]

Ditchfire, your idea is a variation of the one I posted in the STart A New Demogame here thread (or whatever the title may be.) Yours is probablly the best since it allows people to go where theyll have more fun. The only problem I see is we will have too many cities and not ebough active people. ALthough if this happens we can just create a few states out of cities with low population.

 

[dutchfire]

Yes, that was my plan too.

 

[ice2k4]

Excellent I see were on the same page

 

[DaveShack]

hmm, I wonder when, if ever, were going to become "elites" instead of "vets." I think it's about time for some of the newer old players to claim that title .

I graduated to "great scientist" a while ago.

No, wait a second... that's my day job, not the DG.

 

[DaveShack]

Plus I am very unwhilling as a "Game player" to be involved in the nitty and gritty side of politics.

CG - part of the game IS politics.

Avoid it if you want, but the government simulation aspect is just as appealing to many people as the Civ4 game.

I have a pretty good idea what CG's talking about, and it bugs me too. The past several times he's been a candidate in a contested election, a couple of well-known vets jump all over him for some past incident (which I'm not even sure what incident it was) with comments like they can never vote for him and will do all in their power to keep him from getting elected. That type of mudslinging is totally uncalled for, and one of the reasons why a lot of people leave. It's even more upsetting when the mudslingers are themselves sitting on the sideline most of the time.

 

[DaveShack]

The "local government" idea has had some past support, and in fact the mayors' threads in Civ3DG3 and 4 were some of the best in the history of CFC demogames.

Unfortunately a simple local politics model (all local with little thought to central government) might result in disaster even faster than happened in this game.

To have any hope of being winnable, any non-trivial game of Civ4 requires some from of central planning. We're in the in-game mess right now because we totally underestimated the effect of poor central decision making. From the 1st turn, you must know if you're going for an early religion or a late one, and if you're going for the oracle or not. It's even necessary to decide if you plan to be a warmonger or not. We found, in very painful fashion, that changing your mind halfway to the goal won't work.

Some will say winning isn't everything, and of course they're right. However, it's easier to have fun while winning than it is while losing, so we should use an organization which leads to good game play, and add the local politics to improve the roleplay side.

 

[dutchfire]

Well, the only difference in citizen input in my plan is that people can only decide on their own city, not on all cities. But how many citizens really do check all the governors threads? Everyone is off course allowed to join in the discussion of the central-governement like International relations and science. So I don't think my plan would do anything to the amount of citizens input in national decisions.

 

[ice2k4]

Well my local government model combined with dutch's wouldnt be so much democracy as it is representation. Look below:

Citizens can join the city they please (which will set its own col or constitution, so each city will specalize a part of the game, so law mongers can go to the law active cities and rpg characters can head over to a more rpg oriented city.)

Each city will have to have one government representative (or it could just very well be there leader/governor etc.) that votes in national issues. Only these representatives would be allowed to vote in the national issue and would vote according to how their citizens want to vote.

This way the subforums would be aranged differnetly. You would have one forum for National Issues and Polls and each city/state would get it's own subforum. Each representative would recieve as many votes as he has active citizens in his city. The number of active citizens is defined by how many vote in a local poll, no matter what the outcome of the poll is. Even if the local government states that decisions do not need to be polled and can be decided by a leader/rep, they still msut hold a poll which active citizens should vote in to prove the amount of votes the city recieves.

Example:

Spoiler :

Alpha City has 8 citizens. Aplha City is well known for its judicial debates and a well definded Cod Of Laws. Abe is their representative.

Bravo City has 13 citizens. Bravo City is considered the lead RPG of the game and has a very lax and flexible CoL. Bernie is their representative.

Charlie City has 5 citizens. Charlie City is known to be the most balanced city. Cal is their representative.

At the begnning of the term, all the citizens are allowed to vote on the Designated PLayer pool and they have chosen Danny, Edward and Fredrick.

In the National Forums many citizens talk about a war with Mongolia. After some discussion, a Bernie the rep from Bravo City proposes a poll in the National Administation Forum. Now each rep brings the discussion to their respective forums and the citizens on a local level debate.

Alpha City posts a poll in their forum asking to delcare war or not, since their CoL makes them poll everything. The citizens vote 6-2 in favor of war. Because there are 8 people in the city and 8 people voted, Abe has 8 votes in the National poll.

Bravo City's CoL says that their leader/rep decides on all decisions. However Bernie must still post a poll and all active citizens must vote, because it will tell you how many active citizens there are and determine the number of votes Bernie has (no matter what the outcome of the local poll is.) 10 people vote in the poll 3-7 not in favor of the war. But Bernie thinks war is nesecary and decides that he will use his votes for pro-war. Bernie now has 10 votes (out of the possible 13) because only 10 of his citizens proved activity.

Charlie City's CoL also defines them to vote on everything. They vote in the local poll 1-4 not in favor of war. Cal now has 5 votes in the national poll.

National Poll time comes and Abe posts his city is in favor of war with 8 votes, Bernie posts his city votes for war with 10 votes and Cal votes his city is not in favor of war with 5 votes. (They all link their vote to their respective local polls to prove how many votes each city holds on the matter.)

The outcome is 18-5 in favor of war, and our fine nation declares war on Mongolia.

 

[ravensfire]

For all suggestions - how would your model operate under the activity levels happening right now?

-- Ravensfire

 

[ice2k4]

Well this model should help prevent these activity levels. However you forget we can just make ammendments. Throw a revolution.