dojoboy
Tsalagi
The following is based on the "unofficial" PTW mac port.
This is what I'm thinking, every Friday night (or any night, as long as its consistent) a number (6, 8, 10) of us are engaged in a MP game that may span a couple months, playing a couple hours per sitting.
This game has established protocols (some which may activate as the game progresses from age to age) which allows the players to act as a world body (UN). Outside of how well you establish your civ and trade on the world market, world opinion may support or oppose any action by one civ against another (such as the US/Iraq situation). For example, the governing body may declare nukes illegal, yet one player may build the Manhattan Project - there is no going back (may need to turn off the notice for when a wonder is started in preferences). How does the world respond? Sanctions? Aggression? The civ may be forced to show his military plans, say every 5 turns (through espionage) to see if he's building nukes, etc.
A thread could be used to reach consensus on issues, but of course, secret dealings could be done through PM or email. Also, we'd have a week before the next round, so there'd be plenty of time for positioning.
Yes, someone could win by conquest/domination, but the s/r and cultural victory would be the path to "higher good." I'm not voting for anyone!
I'm thinking the opportunity for conquest would be prior to all the civs having contact, or is contact a given from the start in MP? Or, is the "world body" an institution from the beginning - not really realistic, but its a game.
What do you think? What sort of parameters would make this interesting?
This is what I'm thinking, every Friday night (or any night, as long as its consistent) a number (6, 8, 10) of us are engaged in a MP game that may span a couple months, playing a couple hours per sitting.
This game has established protocols (some which may activate as the game progresses from age to age) which allows the players to act as a world body (UN). Outside of how well you establish your civ and trade on the world market, world opinion may support or oppose any action by one civ against another (such as the US/Iraq situation). For example, the governing body may declare nukes illegal, yet one player may build the Manhattan Project - there is no going back (may need to turn off the notice for when a wonder is started in preferences). How does the world respond? Sanctions? Aggression? The civ may be forced to show his military plans, say every 5 turns (through espionage) to see if he's building nukes, etc.
A thread could be used to reach consensus on issues, but of course, secret dealings could be done through PM or email. Also, we'd have a week before the next round, so there'd be plenty of time for positioning.
Yes, someone could win by conquest/domination, but the s/r and cultural victory would be the path to "higher good." I'm not voting for anyone!

What do you think? What sort of parameters would make this interesting?