Is this demo game dead?

[1889]

The "local government" models need more players as the number of cities grow. You say that cities can just be combined into states if there aren't enough active players but that is bound to be a contentious issue.

The political parties bassed on victory conditions would be fun, I think, with as few as 5 active players. Say 3 players in power playing the game, 1 in each of two other parties contenting to aquire power and nobody interested in the fourth party.

Of course more would be much better, but maybe we need to start a game and begin having some fun before we can attract more players.

 

[dutchfire]

Shrinking the number of cities by making states. Eventually, you could end up with one national state like it is now, but I hope it won't.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Whichever plan we adopt, we should change the Constitution and CoL in this game and try the new plan now. That way we can work out any bugs we find before we start on cIVDG2.

 

[1889]

Combining cities will require numerous extra rules about how and when it will be done. How long until those rules are agreed on, and how well will they work since they can not be tested without actually playing a game?

Having people begin as citizens of a single city also requires a multitude of threads which flood the forums and create the mess that exists now. Playing the game by polling each micromanaging issue then compilling those polls for the turn player to carry out focuses so much attention on game mechanmics that maybe it takes time away from role playing and politics.

Not to mention that there are hardly enough people to play it that way now and no new people signing up.

 

[ice2k4]

Combining cities will require numerous extra rules about how and when it will be done. How long until those rules are agreed on, and how well will they work since they can not be tested without actually playing a game?

Well we have a huge amount of rules now, so I dont see the big deal in that.

Having people begin as citizens of a single city also requires a multitude of threads which flood the forums and create the mess that exists now. Playing the game by polling each micromanaging issue then compilling those polls for the turn player to carry out focuses so much attention on game mechanmics that maybe it takes time away from role playing and politics.

If you havent realized this current demogame micromanages everything. In a regular singleplayer game, unless you play hardcore civ, do you manually manage each citizen to work designated tiles for everyone of your cities? Well here you do. More micromanagment actuallyincreases the chances of victory since were not letting an AI play parts of the game for us.

Also, you must remember not everyone likes role play. This model would allow all people to go where they like. If a lot of people like roleplay, they would be part of a roleplay oriented state, meaning there would just be more citizens for that particular state. If peopple like Donsig, like the judiciary, they would go to a state that is known for the Judiciary.

Not to mention that there are hardly enough people to play it that way now and no new people signing up.

When a new demogame starts loads of people sign up. Look how many registered citizens we have for this one, although only 7 or so may be active (and 15 or so take part in this thread.) Im not worried about having enough people at first. If the idea works then we wouldnt lose a lot of citizens to lack of interest.

 

[1889]

Well we have a huge amount of rules now, so I dont see the big deal in that.


If you havent realized this current demogame micromanages everything.

Yes this demo has huge amounts of rules and micromanages everything and it was so popular that it died and someone started a thread so everyone can post their ideas how it can be fixed.

The political party system also provides ample freedom for people to play the way they like best. So how about we try something different this time?

 

[ice2k4]

Firstly 1889 I feel our debate may be getting a little too tense. Maybe it isn't and it's just what Im percieving from teh text since of course I cant see body language. Let's lighten up.

Yes this demo has huge amounts of rules and micromanages everything and it was so popular that it died and someone started a thread so everyone can post their ideas how it can be fixed.

I dont think that it was too many rules and micromanaging that lead to a lack of interest (on the rules subject) I think that it was the quality of the rules and the gameplay, as well as the unliberal (evem though Im a real life conservative) view of the citizens. In the beginning these rules worked well, but as time went and other things developed a different set of rules should of been used. None of the citizens though suggested (im guilty to) a completely new ruleset for changing times. Technically we would be the only nation who hasnt changed their government in a 5000 year period.

The political party system also provides ample freedom for people to play the way they like best. So how about we try something different this time?

It doesnt provide as much freedom as you think. They would be in political parties that they can move from, but besides the fact it would devestate national decisions, people who like the judiciary will rant about the laws and what not and the people who dont like it will lose interest, jsut like what happened to the current game. Many people in this game got fed up with the judiciary garbage and simpley left. With my model, the judiciary stays in its own house and has its fun there while the other people stay in their own house and have their own fun.

 

[1889]

Sorry, I thought I was being sarcastic.

The parties will also find much to agree about and if they don't the people in power can demand concessions from those who hope to be named successors and once in power they control all cities so the national agenda is well served.

 

[ice2k4]

As Ive been studying the Civ III DemoGame II and it's respective RPG, Ive been thinking how much more sucessful it looks. I think that Demogame veterans and elites should take a much larger part in this discussion than the many of us that have only been around for this demogame. So some questions for the vets:

1) Which Demogame in Civ III history do you feel was the most successful (this does not mean produced the best in game result)? Why?

2) Do you feel that the Role Playing part of the game made it better or worse?

3) What were the other forms of governments tried besides the one we currently hold?

4) Do you feel that since CivIV is a bit of a different game than CivIII it requires a more varied government than the average CivIII Demogame government (or if you feel they varied to much, then the most successful CivIII DemoGame government)?
-

I will be asking more as you anwser. This may help us construct a much better system.

 

[dutchfire]

I'm not a veteran, but I'll give my opinion anyway .
I think RPG is important as it will give something to do for the people not actively involved in the governement. A RPG can also continue without a turnchat taking place, and thus helps overcoming long periods of time with only 1-turn turnchats.

 

[ice2k4]

Studying more past rpgs, it looks like they are a lot more sucessful when there is a moderator active, such as chieftess. In many cases non moderators took the leadership role, but it looks like the mods really helped organzie a lot.

 

[DaveShack]

RPG success comes from the same place that any RPG's success comes from, a strong gamemaster running the show, and from dedicated RPGers who want to play within that system. I'm not one of the people who really got into RPG within the demogame -- my interest in RPG was during the heyday of AD&D, in the late 70's, and it's not what I'm into any more.

Various DG's have had role play without an organized RPG, or have had role play which was stronger than the RPG. This form of role play does not require rules for characters, an economy, or other trappings of a full RPG. Some outstanding role play can be found in the city threads of the middle Civ3 DG's, from III thru V. Cyc, Ravensfire, and Donovan Zoi are some of the vets who I think of as having had great roleplay threads. I'm sure there are others and I don't mean to downplay anyone else's contribution by singling out some of the best.

Good role play can come from anyone, in the form of unleashing our creativity to play the role we're elected to (President, Governor, Sec. of War) instead of just focusing on the tactics and strategy.

Strong and involved moderators are important, but it is quite difficult to balance moderator duties with being active in the game. Too lenient and you let events spiral out of control, too strict and it's easy to get accused of using mod powers to gain political advantage. Also, there is bad blood between certain citizens and certain mods. The archives may contain evidence, or not depending on how thorough a cleanup job might have been done.

A good balance between role play and serious gaming is the key, just as the balance between legal and in-game, forum and chat, central and local, veteran and newcomer are all key.

 

[donsig]

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...

Letting the judiciary post binding game play instructions in specific cases where it was found that current or previous instructions by an official were illegal does not make a mockery of seperation of powers. Having a toothless judiciary makes a mockery of the democracy part of the demogame.

Since the DG is so indecisive the judiciary is a key component in keeping decisions fair for all and keeping the bitterness level down. Trouble is our judiciary in a couple games has not had the confidence of the players. I for one find it difficult to accept a judiciary that is forced to rule on it's own legitimacy. Rather than electing judicial members we should consider appointing them in a manner similar to appointing US supreme court justices. Appoint them and then confirm the appointment before they take office. Also, we should change their terms so they do not coincide with elections. That way they can rule legitimately on any election problems that arise.

Take DaveShack vs donsig, which has gone on for most of this game. We had our little contest over whose interpretation of the law is right, and came out fairly even -- at least we'd probably each say we "won" . The difference in our approaches to that battle was that I recognized that we were upsetting the natives and decided not to play lawyer any more.

I'd say if we came out even then I won since your only arguement ever seemed to be "I wrote it and I know what I meant". After being around for so many demogames I really don't care who I upset. The whole point of a demogame is to play a civ game as a group and make gameplay decisions as a group and still have fun doing it. You and I argued about the decision making clauses and the censor's role. Both innovations. Both good ideas in theory that needed a bit of tweaking to work well. At first I was even just trying to get us all to agree on definitions but we never could even do that! Given the lack of agreement on what things meant it is no wonder we just argued unprooductively.

We had one of the highest number of citizens ever, and then we screwed up and they all bailed out. The main reason, as far as I can tell, is that there are too many people around here who have mastered being rude without breaking forum rules. There have been at least a half dozen incidents where I wanted to take one or more people aside and tell them to drop the issue or take a forced vacation. If forum rules aren't broken, there really isn't much that can be done.

Don't forget we had a small anomoly at the start with He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. I'm sure that turned some off. While you can't ban anyone you can always take them aside and discuss things privately via pm or chat. That can be tricky since the private discussions I refer to can always be copied and pasted into the forums. In any event (as one who has been banned over DG issues) these enforced vacations do not change much. The only embitter those banned and either drive them away fromthe DG or teach them to do what they've always done without breaking forum rules.

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.

So, is DS DaveShack or donsig (or both)? I don't agree any of us should back away from the ruleset creation. For one thing that opens the door to someone saying later that they were not able to give input to the rules! While none of us oldtimers need take a leading role we can offer our sage advice.

As Ive been studying the Civ III DemoGame II and it's respective RPG, Ive been thinking how much more sucessful it looks. I think that Demogame veterans and elites should take a much larger part in this discussion than the many of us that have only been around for this demogame.

That demogame was a great success because Shaitan ran it and put a heck of a lot of time and effort into it. Without him or someone just as good and dedicated I don't think we could duplicate that game.

 

[donsig]

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?

That's a great idea! I've always been an advocate of local government. We actually used to declare which city we lived in and could move around freely though we never gave mayors (the leader of a single city) any power to post game play instructions. That always belonged to the governor. But Civ III and Civ IV are different in that the latter doesn't need as many cities. For Civ IV we might want to dispense with governors (who govern multiple cities) and go with mayors who run a single city. A major innovation would be allowing only the city's residents to vote for the city's mayor. We'd have to have some way of registering voters in each city so we knew who could vote where without restricting movement between cities. We'd also need some way to verify that only registered voters voted in local elections. If we used public polls for this then we'd be going against the tradition of the secret ballot. (Some traditions are worth abandoning.)
Another problem is that we'd all have to live in the first city until we get more cities!
A local government system would force us to have a CoL [/i]about game play issues[/i] that is amendable. (As opposed to a CoL about how to play the demogame.) Cities could easily vote to go off on their own tangents and produce things at odds with national policy. We'd need a CoL to mesh local and national governments somehow.

 

[dutchfire]

There are some problems, but I'm sure we could figure them out. Writing a functional CoL isn't that much work, as long as everything is clearly stated, I doubt many problems will occur.

 

[GenMarshall]

That's a great idea! I've always been an advocate of local government. We actually used to declare which city we lived in and could move around freely though we never gave mayors (the leader of a single city) any power to post game play instructions. That always belonged to the governor. But Civ III and Civ IV are different in that the latter doesn't need as many cities. For Civ IV we might want to dispense with governors (who govern multiple cities) and go with mayors who run a single city. A major innovation would be allowing only the city's residents to vote for the city's mayor. We'd have to have some way of registering voters in each city so we knew who could vote where without restricting movement between cities. We'd also need some way to verify that only registered voters voted in local elections. If we used public polls for this then we'd be going against the tradition of the secret ballot. (Some traditions are worth abandoning.).

I am against this for two reasons. First is that it involves too much micromanagement. Second, I am very VERY against going against the tradition of the secret ballot. Electoral polls are suppost to be private and should remain private.

 

[ice2k4]

I am against this for two reasons. First is that it involves too much micromanagement. Second, I am very VERY against going against the tradition of the secret ballot. Electoral polls are suppost to be private and should remain private.

I also fear that if we expand a lot, that we wont be able to fill cities up with citizens, and well end up creating states. And the merging of two local governments (ifnot 3 or four) can get very messy. Also Im sure we could work around the secret ballot, such as making a member group (like the mtdg member groups) that citizens would have to apply to as soon as they select their city. This way they can only vote in their city thread.

 

[dutchfire]

That'd be a whole lot of work for the mods though.

 

[DaveShack]

We could easily have multiple user groups and manage the residence question using them. It's quite a bit harder to limit voting in polls to a group. The easiest way is to have a subforum for each group, and limit voting in that subforum to members of the group. This would be the same thing as the MTDG, except we would want all citizens to be able to see and comment in the city forums, just not able to vote in them.

If we really want to do this to facilitate true local governments, I'm willing to discuss it with TF and volunteer to help administering it.

 

[Sweetacshon]

Sounds like an opportunity for a new mod, DS?