Like-minded players for a more relaxed/'historical' form of Civ VI multiplayer?

[Stroganov]

My Steam name is Stroganov (same as on these forums) and I have created a group called "Immersioneers" on Steam. Friend me on Steam and I will invite you to the Group! The we'll know how many people we have.

 

[Stroganov]

I suggest we work out the rules closer (and really upon) game's release. I think Firaxis is making something special for MP in Civ 6 and they've hinted on that several times in different videos.

The idea I had for now is to get together for a test game on Sunday 23, two days after the game's release, set the game to Deity (or the highest game difficulty available) and play with AIs with no other rules. It will be interesting to see who will be the last one to survive (given none of us will actually be able to play the game properly). There will of course be the possibility to for 2 or more players to create an alliance vs. AI or for a human player to ally with an AI and take other players out. Should be interesting...

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Set to Diety?! Geez man I think you are the one that's uncivilized. Don't you want to get a feel for the game first? An idea I have in order to keep other players from running away with a victory is to play each era as a separate game. Tally up the scores at the end.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

@Stroganov: Tbh,I don't really see a need for such an early, high-difficulty multiplayer game. For one thing, the servers of the game will be absolutely raped on the first week, not to mention there's always technical problems with the multiplayer at release anyway. And the info to be gained from such a game is very limited, compared to single-player test games where the pace is (even) more relaxed and everyone can learn the game at their own leisure. After we've played enough sp to know some basic strategies and tried all victory types, etc, we can work out a basic ruleset, based on that info, and then try the first multiplayer game. I'd say this will take something like two weeks after release, provided we can play every day (I will cut into my sleep to accomplish this, not to worry(?) ). It might be sooner, or later. In any case I don't see the need for any hurry -- the game will be here for years, after all. I'd much rather be properly prepared for the first game than go in inexperienced (and on Deity, of all things! ).

As for Steam, I'd rather stay away from there for as long as possible. I hate the Steam interface, and I've used these forums for years and seen many threads like this. They work very well for this purpose. I will soon edit the op to reflect our current situation (I think everyone agrees that it's better to limit the number of conquered cities than to outright ban war during certain periods).

I do like 'Immersioneers' for a name. So once we do join the Steam group, there's no need to change it.

@UncivilizedGuy: We'd have to use a custom score though (and they'd have to differ for each era, perhaps), because the default game scrore tells you only a little about true progress. The eras would also have to be defined by turn numbers, because each player will progress through the in-game eras at a different pace. With these caveats, it is an idea that I support; but I'd rather start with just the conquest limitation (and perhaps a few other crucial rules, as become apparent from sp test games), and then work it up from there. Adding too many rules to begin with is sure to alienate players (especially potential ones).

 

[Haig]

Earth map is okay for me, every map type is.

Are you all American imperialists yankees of USA? My time zone here in Finland aka western Siberia could be bit funky. But I'm flexible.

I think we should "start small", make the first game not too complex but play around the new MP enviroment and chill, and for the game after that we could make it more deep.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I hail from Finland as well, so there's two of us who might have to stay up late (never a problem for me when it comes to Civ though!).

One thing that we should to keep in mind when increasing the number of 'conquerable' cities: if the number is too high and two or more players ally against someone, they might each take their 'fair' share of cities and still ruin the game for their mutual target. Thankfully, I think alliances of 3 or more players are usually pretty rare (and fragile), so a two-player alliance is the most we should realistically worry about. Also, if we play on a fixed map (e.g. Earth map), we can pick the starting places so that no one gets surrounded from three or more sides -- yet another factor that favors a fixed map for this mode of mp.

 

[Metecury]

I guess this is an idea or suggestion, so I put it on this forum (correct me if I'm wrong). There is no multiplayer forum yet for Civ VI after all (this thread may be moved there after it's created).

Although it's a bit early to discuss this, since we know so little about the mechanics of Civ VI multiplayer (or even the game as a whole), I guess there's no harm in introducing the concept and getting to know if there's interest.

What am I blabbering on about? Well -- if you're like me, you like the idea of multiplayer (specifically human opponents in wars and diplomacy instead of the (semi)braindead AI). Yet multiplayer in most games tends to be about a fight for survival; use this tactic or this strategy, reach that tech by this turn or you're dead, bla bla bla. Afaik, Civ V was no exception to this rule, and it certainly applied in Civ IV.

I have no interest in such a cut-throat scenario (you may call me a bad player; you'd be right ), but would still like to enjoy the benefits of multiplayer in a more relaxed setting. Roleplaying nations in an alternate world history, if you will.

The exact ruleset will depend on how the game turns out, but I already have one concept thought out that's likely to be easy to implement. To make the game less about a paranoid struggle to survive, yet not eliminate warfare completely (as I do enjoy it in doses, and it is a part of rl history), I suggest limiting the number of conquered cities by government type. With the default government, you may conquer 1-2 cities from other players; this number will increase with more advanced governments. This way everyone gets to settle in and experience the game without getting eliminated in the very first phase. Later on an epic war of annihilation becomes a possibility, with the last tier of governments (Democracy/Communism/Fascism), so we won't miss out on epic warfare either, we must simply wait a little longer for it.

Sound reasonable? Exceptions to the rule could ofc be devised under certain conditions. What those conditions will be, though, will depend on how the whole casus belli system is implemented and whether it applies in multiplayer at all. Etc, etc. I just wanted to get the ball rolling, because I can't see myself enjoying multiplayer if it's all about warfare, at least not in the very beginning of the game. How many other players like me are out there, I wonder? To whom it matters little who finally wins the game, and a lot how we* get there?

(*Well, most of us; although there could be a rule to always leave 1 city to a player. You'd just play occ for the rest of the game, or maybe found a new secret empire in the Arctic. )

EDIT: We have 6 interested players so far; please post in this thread if you're interested in testing the idea in multiplayer games (once the rules have been roughly laid out).

EDIT2: The possibility of intermittent scoring has been raised as a further refinement of the original idea. We could score the different phases of the game intermittently (say, every 100 turns); thus, if you did well in the first phase of the game but were reduced to one city in the last (for example), you might still have a shot at winning. To attain a balance for this form of scoring is going to be a more difficult task than limiting the number of conquests, so I've suggested that we put it on hold for the time being. But it's worth mentioning here, because newcomers are welcome to develop this idea, even as it 'incubates' (so to speak).

You can count me in however there are a couple of things I disagree with.

Really the only rules in a casual multiplayer should be about roleplaying imho. Putting too many limitations on war and conquest does not make it fun, just put some common snese notion and clearly state that this is not a tournament/ hardcore competition but a causal roleplay game where you try to follow a logic with your foreign policies, wars and expansions justifying them with in game events.


I mean, "don't be a dick and eliminate a player in the first 30 minutes" or " do not backstab your 300 years long ally because he has uranium" should not even have to be said, it's pretty much obvious.


I'd rather focus on a vassalage system regulated by players this way you do not have to completely wipe out an opponent but instead have him pay a portion of its gold and have him follow you in wars (untill of course he is strong enough to refuse subjugation and fight a war). Again, if it is a roleplay based game this is going to be pretty easy to implement as long as we all agree on the conditions.


If you go too far with limiting mechanics it becomes to gamey and less fun although of course a certain number of rules should be present.

 

[RebelScum88]

You can count me in however there are a couple of things I disagree with.

Really the only rules in a casual multiplayer should be about roleplaying imho. Putting too many limitations on war and conquest does not make it fun, just put some common snese notion and clearly state that this is not a tournament/ hardcore competition but a causal roleplay game where you try to follow a logic with your foreign policies, wars and expansions justifying them with in game events.


I mean, "don't be a dick and eliminate a player in the first 30 minutes" or " do not backstab your 300 years long ally because he has uranium" should not even have to be said, it's pretty much obvious.


I'd rather focus on a vassalage system regulated by players this way you do not have to completely wipe out an opponent but instead have him pay a portion of its gold and have him follow you in wars (untill of course he is strong enough to refuse subjugation and fight a war). Again, if it is a roleplay based game this is going to be pretty easy to implement as long as we all agree on the conditions.


If you go too far with limiting mechanics it becomes to gamey and less fun although of course a certain number of rules should be present.

I mostly agree. We should keep the rules to a minimum and most rules we make would probably relate to roleplaying. Some standard for vassalage might be particularly helpful. That said, I think that some limits on city conquest is appropriate, as has been discussed. Basically i see this as more reflecting what has been possible historically for states, and also to make later game wars more dramatic.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

You can count me in however there are a couple of things I disagree with.

Really the only rules in a casual multiplayer should be about roleplaying imho. Putting too many limitations on war and conquest does not make it fun, just put some common snese notion and clearly state that this is not a tournament/ hardcore competition but a causal roleplay game where you try to follow a logic with your foreign policies, wars and expansions justifying them with in game events.

In principle, this is a sound idea and could work well if all players are 'gentlemanly' enough. If there are just a dozen players in the group, there's unlikely to be any trolls among them; but as enough people gather for some activity, regardless of what it might be, there's always going to be some rotten eggs that will have to be restrained. Ofc, we could just agree to have a moderator in each game and vote to kick uncooperative players (assuming it will be possible, which it is likely to be).

We could also go by slightly different rules in each game, to satisfy different tastes; so there might be a game that's all about ancient conquest and you're allowed to rush people as Scythia, etc (since it is in the nature of your people ). And then another game where early wars are disallowed altogether -- and anything in between. So the general framework of the group becomes to roleplay according to the 'inherent rules' of that specific, 'historic' gameworld, whether warlike or peaceful. The main thing is that everyone knows and agrees to the rules beforehand -- and where uncertainties arise, errs on the side of 'gentlemanly conduct'.

I mean, "don't be a dick and eliminate a player in the first 30 minutes" or " do not backstab your 300 years long ally because he has uranium" should not even have to be said, it's pretty much obvious.

While the former case is obvious to almost anyone, I'd think (that wants to join this group, anyway), the latter is far more murky. I'd enjoy such a backstab, and I mean as the target, if it was role-played well enough. By that point in the game, I'd have experienced most of the history that that particular world has to offer. The demise of my empire would add gravity and immersion (as well as dread ) for the remaining players, and have more good sides than bad ones, imo (among which would be the epic and desperate battles for my smoldering capital! ).

Someone else might feel entirely different about such an act (and even I might on a bad day ). This is why we need rules that can be agreed upon beforehand, and accommodate most players' wishes. If everyone knows that wars of annihilation can be expected in the modern era, no one should be hurt or surprised by them (in *theory* ).

I'd rather focus on a vassalage system regulated by players this way you do not have to completely wipe out an opponent but instead have him pay a portion of its gold and have him follow you in wars (untill of course he is strong enough to refuse subjugation and fight a war). Again, if it is a roleplay based game this is going to be pretty easy to implement as long as we all agree on the conditions.

I cannot think of anything more humiliating than being made the vassal of another player... Which is to say, I absolutely love the idea! And as you say, the taking of a vassal would be a double-edged sword as they could renounce the treaty when you least expect it (some conditions should apply, in order to not make it too easy). We must work this into the rules somehow; thank you for the great suggestion!

If you go too far with limiting mechanics it becomes to gamey and less fun although of course a certain number of rules should be present.

We agree here; certainly a balance is needed between the formal and informal rule approach, and it will be refined with test games (as well as differ from game to game). I do admit that I often veer too far towards the formal side, and devise elaborate rulesets where a few simple rules and a lot of gentlemanly conduct would suffice. Hopefully there will be enough people who view rules more casually, and so we can avoid being bogged down by bureaucracy (which expands, as we know, to meet the needs of more of itself ).

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

@Haig: Finland you say! I have always wanted to conquer Finland

 

[Haig]

@Haig: Finland you say! I have always wanted to conquer Finland

So the first gauntlet has been slapped to a face!

 

[Stroganov]

Sorry guys, I've been very busy at work, but I just added those who friended me on Steam to the group.

Personally, I totally agree with Metecury. It's not possible (and not fun) to make a comprehensive rule set and then monitor and police it fairly. To me, the only alternative is to find a group of good people to play with. It will take some trial and error, but once the bad eggs are eliminated, we should be left with people who understand the concept of "casual / relaxed" multiplayer.

I also agree with stiiknafuulia in that the rules can be set for each specific game, rather than the entire group. The way I envisage this is that one person will take the initiative and create a thread for a new game with a proposed rule set and then those who like the idea will sign up to the game and get going once it's scheduled.

Keep adding me on Steam guys and I will add you to the Group.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Sorry guys, I've been very busy at work, but I just added those who friended me on Steam to the group.

Personally, I totally agree with Metecury. It's not possible (and not fun) to make a comprehensive rule set and then monitor and police it fairly. To me, the only alternative is to find a group of good people to play with. It will take some trial and error, but once the bad eggs are eliminated, we should be left with people who understand the concept of "casual / relaxed" multiplayer.

I also agree with stiiknafuulia in that the rules can be set for each specific game, rather than the entire group. The way I envisage this is that one person will take the initiative and create a thread for a new game with a proposed rule set and then those who like the idea will sign up to the game and get going once it's scheduled.

Keep adding me on Steam guys and I will add you to the Group.

I suppose there's no harm in joining the group in advance. Just sent you a friend-request (I'm vesir85 on Steam). I will also edit the op to include info about the group.

I imagine that there's going to be a few staple rules that will be in place for almost all games (to clarify: even these won't be absolute, but simply so good and sensible that it almost always makes sense to include them). The rest can vary according to players' preferences, and to test some new things. So right now we should focus on the general framework in which the particular rules of each game can operate.

Today is the day that we've been awaiting for, i.e. the lifting of the NDA for the YouTubers. Civ talk will explode to new heights with all the new info available! It will take some time to digest it all; thankfully we can take our time because the release is still a good while away. Hopefully once we get our hands on the game, it won't take too long to set up the first game (perhaps within a week, as the servers have cooled down a little bit).

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

This is why I proposed a simple one city mercy rule so as to not over complicate things. If it's not enough then we could add some rules after a couple of games. Start simple I say!

 

[stiiknafuulia]

This is why I proposed a simple one city mercy rule so as to not over complicate things. If it's not enough then we could add some rules after a couple of games. Start simple I say!

So you'd be comfortable with being reduced to one city by an early war, if you had, say, 5 cities? After that you have no realistic chance of a comeback, but will simply have to sit there as a humiliated rump of a civ and watch your conqueror arise to greatness, on the wings that he stole from you. For thousands of years (and many rl hours)... It may be some people's cup of tea, but they're a small minority, even among the role-playing folk. This is why I think such a rule is way too brutal, and some more rubber-band is needed to hold back the expert conquerors. How much, that remains to be seen (and it could vary from game to game, as already mentioned).

 

[Metecury]

Outlawing early war would make a bunch of civs unplayable or severely underpowered, eliminating the chance to take out civs makes domination impossible as well.



The thing in civ 6 is that unlike in 5 going wide is both easier and recommended. Losing two or three cities by the classical era won't cripple you too badly nor give the opponent an overwelming advantage.




Having 3-4 super cities is no longer a viable strategy and everyone will want to expand. Having cities close to borders swap ownership several time through the game makes perfect sense.






Also you forget that cities are occupied until peace treaties are signed and after the war you will likely give back some of the ones you have taken.






Losing most cities in the war=\= losing them after peace is signed.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I will be very busy with school for the next two weeks, but after that there will be at least a week-long lull that will allow me to focus on this project. Hopefully we'll be able to hammer out a rule-set for the first test game during that week. By then we'll know enough about the game that we'll have few surprises.

For now I'll note that it seems apparent from the streams that the AI at launch will be the most hopeless dimwit of the entire franchise, so I'm sure glad I took the initiative in starting this group!

Outlawing early war would make a bunch of civs unplayable or severely underpowered, eliminating the chance to take out civs makes domination impossible as well.

That is the very idea, though. Or rather to *post-pone* it, so that everyone gets a chance to experience the early game. The balance of power may shift in the earlier ages (and increasingly as the game progresses), but the great wars of annihilation, which will decide the winner and the world's ultimate fate, will be reserved for the Industrial/Modern Era where they properly belong. (At least in the first test game, and every one that I'll take part in.)

The thing in civ 6 is that unlike in 5 going wide is both easier and recommended. Losing two or three cities by the classical era won't cripple you too badly nor give the opponent an overwelming advantage.

I did mention that my proposed 'allowed' numbers for early conquest are likely to be on the low side. The ideal amount will depend on the map size, number of players, and their personal preferences (per game as well as generally). Nothing is set in stone, nor most likely will be.

Having 3-4 super cities is no longer a viable strategy and everyone will want to expand. Having cities close to borders swap ownership several time through the game makes perfect sense.

I forgot to mention it, but the re-conquest of your own cities should not count against the conquest limit. Neither will liberating the cities of another player, if you wish to do that to get on their good side.

Also you forget that cities are occupied until peace treaties are signed and after the war you will likely give back some of the ones you have taken. Losing most cities in the war=\= losing them after peace is signed.

Why would I do that, if there are no agreed-upon rules regarding this? The penalty vs AIs for keeping all conquered cities doesn't apply here, since there is no 'warmonger score' among human players. Although you may be perceived as greedy and dangerous by the remaining players, unlike AIs, they're unlikely to stop trading with you if they can still benefit from it.

One absolute rule does spring to mind after watching the streams and reading some threads here on CFC: no player-owned cities should ever be razed, because razing is instant in Civ VI and will remove all terrain improvements (other than wonders; not sure about districts). Without this rule, 'surgical strikes' where you raze a player's capital with a single well-placed attacking unit will become possible. I think we can all agree that having a single guy with a torch burn down Paris in an afternoon is both unrealistic and a very bad game mechanic. We could only extend this rule to capitals, but I'd rather have it in place for every city just to be on the safe side. This way, you will have to actually defend your new conquests instead of making lame stabs here and there like a trollish coward. o_O (EDIT: OMG! The classic Civfanatics smilies are gone with the new forum update! This is a travesty that will need to be remedied asap! Someone better make a thread about this on the appropriate forum, if there isn't one already!)

 

[Haig]

Yeah the peace treaty -thing with occupied cities that can be returned makes for both good roleplaying and chill gaming.

I'm fine with a rule of leaving players with one city so that they can continue life as a city-state and another empire can liberate their cities, but other variations are ok for me too.

I say we first make a simpler game just for test and later add more "rules".

 

[stiiknafuulia]

It will be simple (I hope), but I still need some time to digest what I've seen in the available videos (as well as to watch some new ones). To be clear, I'll post an initial rule-set and we'll then proceed to modify it, until there are no (or very few) disagreements. This ruleset will only apply fully to the first game, but I suspect that parts of it will be used in either every successive game, or at least a majority.

 

[daft]

stiiknafuulia? sounds Hittite, and thus very intriguing, got to research your nick, although, a thumbs up for your multiplayer game plan.