1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Next Demogame Discussions

Discussion in 'Civ2 - Game of Democracy II' started by Leowind, Feb 5, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Leowind

    Leowind Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    1,236
    Location:
    Eugene, OR, USA
    As this seems to be turning into a "will there be a next game" thread, I thought I'd ask: any intereste in a succession game as an alternative, or perhaps they are still happening somewhere else in the forum?
     
  2. Leowind

    Leowind Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    1,236
    Location:
    Eugene, OR, USA
    Jayne, you were an EXCELLENT Queen, which is why you kept getting re-elected :D I think playing as the President would be an excellent way to learn. I only wish I had the time to do so :(

    I think Talar has made some very insightful comments about participation in the demogame. Other things (darn that job) have curtailed my participation in this game, but even when browsing, often everything had already been summed up/planned by some key people, so there was less urgency for me to post any ideas/comments. Towards the end, of course, I didn't even take the time to read through all of GN's excellent city reviews and suggestions. It's hard to take the time to review that many cities and then debate micromanagement decisions.

    This leads to a suggestion for the next game. Let's make it on a smaller map, so there will be fewer cities to fuss over and the game will go quicker and be easier to take in for newbies and those with less time to browse (like me :D ).
     
  3. Leowind

    Leowind Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    1,236
    Location:
    Eugene, OR, USA
    I don't recommend SMALL map, just SMALLER. The size can be set to custom, something perhaps just a bit smaller than MEDIUM. I've played my last couple games on a custom size map and made them square, which I've found more satisfying than the rectangle you typically get. Another thought would be to have somebody not directly involved in the game create a custom map for us, if we can get somebody to agree to do that much work.

    Keep rep spotless=agree!

    No city bribing=I could support this, but willing to go either way.

    political parties=This was discussed and strongly squashed in the first demo game, and I never quite understood why it was not allowed. I think there is the possibility of political maneuvering going overboard and people feeling personally attacked or rejected. As GN pointed out, this is a great forum for building community and we don't want to jepordize that or create hard feelings between fellow CFCers. With that warning in mind, I think having different political parties, or something to that effect, could add a whole new element to the game that could be quite fun, and give folks who don't quite have a grasp on the game itself for whatever reason a way to get involved and participate. I think it's an idea worth continued discussion, anyway.
     
  4. Leowind

    Leowind Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    1,236
    Location:
    Eugene, OR, USA
    Jayne and Elsaak snuck in while I was typing :) I've never played OCC, so that might be really interesting, and certainly would keep the game easier to grasp. I like the idea of limiting to a certain number of cities. we'd need to decide what to do with captured cities then.
     
  5. Leowind

    Leowind Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    1,236
    Location:
    Eugene, OR, USA
    DoM, I've not been involved in the Civ3 demo game, so don't know of the dynamics you speak of there, but I am not yet convinced that parties or some way of enhancing the "demo" part of the game would necessarily devolve into flame wars and problems. I agree it is a danger, but I don't think that is reason to unilaterally declare that it won't happen. Can we not at least discuss ways we might allow it to happen and safeguard against the dangers you speak of? Discussing how we might make it work is not the same thing as saying we're going to do it.

    Here's a thought: citizens have assigned themselves to home cities, but this has meant nothing to the game. In real life one of the real conflicts in democracy is region vs. region and local vs. national. If players somehow were encouraged to develop strong ties to a particular city/region they might find themselves arguing/voting for things that would help their city/region but not necessarily be in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Advisors would be asked to consider national interests and have to convice the populace of the good of their plans even if it meant trouble for a particular region. Make sense? (I feel like I'm not explaining it well). It would mean assuming a bit of a role-playing stance for everybody.

    The essence of interest is conflict. If there is no conflict, there is generally no interest. The end stage of a Civ game loses interest for many because the conflict is essentially over. All that is left is administration, and nobody (well, few people) enjoy debating over minutia. A system such as this would provide an arena of conflict that has no bearing on real life--it's not based in different approaches to the game or different real-life political outlooks--and would provide for conflict even late into a game, as cities/regions vie to be the one to build a late wonder, for example. This, I think, would largely diminish the chance for conflict to cross over into the personal and become a problem. What do you all think?
     
  6. Leowind

    Leowind Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    1,236
    Location:
    Eugene, OR, USA
    I, too, like the delayed start idea. How about the auto-start option (or whatever it's called)? Civ will play the first few turns for us, then we have to make do with what the game gave us to start with. It would be less than ideal, I would assume, and might be easier in some ways then just sitting on a settler for 15 turns or whatever.
     
  7. TimTheEnchanter

    TimTheEnchanter I...am...an Enchanter!

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,985
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Definitely put me in this category. I'm trying to catch up, but I am quite overwhelmed by the whole setup. I find it hard to look at someone else's game and try and figure out what their intentions were, and the democracy just convolutes it even more. I was hoping to learn enough through the end of this game to be of more use in the next one.
     
  8. TimTheEnchanter

    TimTheEnchanter I...am...an Enchanter!

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,985
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Small Map/fewer cities = good. I find it tough to keep on top of what is going on in anything more than 30-40 cities when I am the one playing every turn. To try to see what's going on after someone else has played 5-10 turns and play catch-up with what happened is extremely difficult. It's like a neverending succession game where you don't ever get your own turn to get a feel for the game. Maybe part of it is because I'm joining the game so late, but it's hard to have an opinion on what to do next if it takes a week just to figure out what's happened. I think a smaller map will make it easier to stay on top of the situation.

    I think a Spotless Rep would be a useful restriction. (It's not like it's that hard to do, even if you want war). Outlawing City Bribes will definitely make tactical decision making more important. I think both are good ideas.

    The Party idea is interesting. It would simulate some of the issues we deal with today where changes in administration result in major direction changes, often undoing the efforts of the prior administration, but this might be too tough to manage on the forums here, especially with limited interest. You could also easily get a situation where one party dominates, thus shutting everyone else out of the process (and that would be bad!)
     
  9. TimTheEnchanter

    TimTheEnchanter I...am...an Enchanter!

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,985
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Problem with an OCC is that there's not a lot of action. It's not that there aren't a lot of important decisions to be made, but they are often regarding minutiae like rearranging workers or trying to gift to keycivs to get a tech in a certain number of turns without wasting beakers, planning out which will be hidden techs so that you can determine what order to research, what order your none-settler will go through roading and irrigating, etc. I love OCC games, but I could see this type of decision-making really turning off a lot of people.

    A "Limited number of Cities" game would have to resolve the issue of what to do with captured cities (or forcing us to Raze them, which gets difficult), or require a space ship approach like OCC.
     
  10. TimTheEnchanter

    TimTheEnchanter I...am...an Enchanter!

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,985
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Yes, you have to raze the city in OCC. You aren't supposed to have a 2nd city for even one turn. Typically you just play nice most of the game and don't fight many wars.
     
  11. TimTheEnchanter

    TimTheEnchanter I...am...an Enchanter!

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,985
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Maybe we could go with the 20 (or whatever number) city rule as a hard ceiling like the OCC limit of one - you can NEVER have more than 20. Then, a key decision is going to be whether it's worth it to build all 20, or stop a few short of 20 so we can capture key cities when necessary. Once we hit 20, we'll have to consider whether it's worth it to disband existing cities so that other, more strategic or more productive ones can be built or catptured instead.
     
  12. Duke of Marlbrough

    Duke of Marlbrough The Quiet Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,702
    Location:
    Southern CA, USA
    Participation is usually up during the beginning, but then, as the game progresses, people usually drop off becasue they lose interest or lose focus of the game. Both Civ II Demo games have ended with a small core group of dedicated players.

    If there is a third game, I will not be able to Mod it alone (or maybe not at all). I plan to start my Masters Degree program in the Fall, so I will be even less available than I am now.
     
  13. Duke of Marlbrough

    Duke of Marlbrough The Quiet Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,702
    Location:
    Southern CA, USA
    I think succession games are in the Stories and Tales forum
     
  14. Duke of Marlbrough

    Duke of Marlbrough The Quiet Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,702
    Location:
    Southern CA, USA
    Everyone is welcome to run for a position, whether they are an 'expert' or not. I also think most people vote for people based upon their activity in the game more than their skill level.

    Everyone has their own style of holding a position. For example, GaryNemo happened to be a very detailed Domestic Advisor, other people may not be. Whatever is not detailed out by the Advisors will be decided by the President.

    From chatting with people about the game, the main problem seems to be getting into it. If they find the game is at a complicated part, then they don't think they can offer any assistance to the game and don't participate.

    The seond problem is just the fact that the game goes on for months. Some people get tired of the game becasue it moves too slowly for them, some people say it moves too fast. Most say they get busy for a little while and find it hard to get back into the game since they feel they have lost perspective of it.

    Generally, all that is needed to see where the game is is to download the save, browse through it and read the last turns thread. All that has happened before that point is basically mute.
     
  15. Duke of Marlbrough

    Duke of Marlbrough The Quiet Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,702
    Location:
    Southern CA, USA
    In addition to that, even if people are not elected, they are more than welcome to post in threads and offer advice and opinions.

    I have seen people browsing the forum and I have been told that they do not post because they agree with what was said and had no contrary ideas. They didn't feel it was necessary for them to post just to confirm an idea that was already suported by others.
     
  16. Duke of Marlbrough

    Duke of Marlbrough The Quiet Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,702
    Location:
    Southern CA, USA
    TF has no problem with posting Demo game news on the main page. I even tried to have our newspaper reporters write stuff up for the main site page. I believe it happened once that way. I use to do them when I could, unfortunately, I haven't been able to do it in quite long time.

    I think if people understood how the Demo game is played, they would realize that the difficulty level is irrelevant to their abilities. They don't have to play the game by themselves. Also, remember, all the game settings were voted on prior to the game starting, so it reflected what people thought would be best.
     
  17. Duke of Marlbrough

    Duke of Marlbrough The Quiet Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,702
    Location:
    Southern CA, USA
    I would definately like to do more for the Demo game, but the main problems are lack of time and people. In the first Demo game I was sending out PM's to people who had registered to get them to come back into the game for at least a little while. Even then we had the last 2 or 3 months of the game go with the same volunteers for the positions.

    This demo game is ending stronger than the first game, with a larger group of 'core' players.

    Unfortunately, there is a point where the demogame becomes too much 'demo' and not enough 'game'. The Civ 3 game went too far to the 'demo' side very early on. I tried to keep the Civ II one on the 'game' side.

    I can't tell you how many people I've asked about the games and why they stopped playing. Most just got bored or lost track of it and didn't want to spend the time to get back into it.

    I'm open to suggestions......?
     
  18. Duke of Marlbrough

    Duke of Marlbrough The Quiet Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,702
    Location:
    Southern CA, USA
    How about:

    No rehoming caravans/freight
    Keep a spotless reputation

    If we want to be really crazy, no buying cities?
     
  19. Duke of Marlbrough

    Duke of Marlbrough The Quiet Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,702
    Location:
    Southern CA, USA
    It won't be an OCC and won't have parties. Sorry, I just don't see how it can work and still maintain what the Demogame is meant for. I've talked with several people in the last couple months and no one has been able to come up with a system that can work and not change the 'core' of the demogame.

    Parties are, by nature designed to separate and segregate people. Something we don't want to do on CFC. Also, it can very easily lead to flaming, trolling, and fighting. The advisors are as close to a party system as we will get. If the demo part of the game was concentrated on more, people would be having discussions about wanting to build a cannon (military), instead of a caravan (trade), instead of a library (science).

    As Octavian X pointed out, we don't really have enough people to try any sort of party system anyways. And I'm sure people would like to be on the 'winning' party so those that are having less influence will most likely just stop playing. So, even if it started as a multi-party system, I think it would end as a single party system. I don't want to have to spend all my time in here watching people like I did for the Civ 3 Demo game.

    Maybe we can have soemthing like a 20 City Challenge.

    Then, we can have two main options for AI cities:

    1.) We can attack AI cities, but not occupy them. If we can't raize them, then we have to leave it until it can be raized. This would give the added difficulty of leaving troops behind to watch cities, as well as give us longer supply lines, and, on top of that, any Wonders the AI builds will be unusable to us.

    2.) We can occupy AI cities, but not build any new ones once we reach our 20 city limit.

    On top of that, we can still have the 'no bribing AI cities' rule, or maybe a 'no spy' rule....?
     
  20. Duke of Marlbrough

    Duke of Marlbrough The Quiet Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,702
    Location:
    Southern CA, USA
    In the Civ 3 game we tried a quasi system of 'guilds'. This allowed people to focus on an element they wanted in the game and try to convince others of that view point. Once the guilds started PM'ing their 'members' and giving them an 'election guideline' it went to hell.

    As I said, I'm open to suggestions, but there are certain things that I will need convincing of before I'm willing to try them again. When I said there would be no parties, it was based upon the posts that I had seen thus far. What had been suggested had, for the most part, already been tried and failed.

    I like Tim's way of maintaining the city cap. If we want to keep a city later on and are already at the cap, we will have to disband an existing one first.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page