Some preliminary planning for DGVII

Chieftess

Moderator
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 10, 2002
Messages
24,160
Location
Baltimore
Since we might be wrapping this one up a month ahead of time (based on the latest poll...), and the fact that Civ4 is around the corner, let's discuss some things...

1 - Do we want another full-fledged demogame that will last 4-10 months? Or, do we want a short one that will last 2-4 months? (i.e., medium map)

2 - Do we want to style the constitution on the current setup, or revert to the old style?

3 - Do we really want to use C3C again? Or should we revert to vanilla Civ3 or PTW?
 
1) I think a short demogame would be nice. I don't know wether I'd want to do an actually demogame or switch to a Team PBEM instead. Although, I doubt the team PBEM idea will lift off, from my understanding Daveshack hasn't even talked to TF about it. I would talk to him myself, but I already had him get the RPG forum to us, and I slipped up on my promises to him regarding that. So there's no possible way I'm going to manage to get another forum, much less several private ones. (Anyway, I want to try talking him into a Final Fantasy forum :glee: )

2) Revert to the old style

3) The change to conquests this game was the right move, handled wrong in every sense and fashion possible.
 
I say we go for 20k, its more fun than 100 and faster if you dont have too many citys. I think its silly to go back to Civ3 or PTW, But maybe drop down to monarchy. The most important thing as far as constition goes is it to have it make sense. Not lots of little peices, or if we want it that way maybe a unwritten one (it works for new zealand and britian)
 
Good idea to start this thread!

I would say about 6 months is fine. I guess Civ4 will come out just before Xmas, and with patches, people getting used to the game (and buying better pc's!) the first civ4 DG would start somewhere in february (there I go - numbercrunching again).

Map: Looks like a standard sized map would do fine for this time period. I like continents, or archipelago, for more interesting naval operations and a longer exploration phase.

Difficulty: I am fine with emperor (or anything above). Anything below Monarchy will make the game completely uninteresting.

Game version: I prefer vanilla/ptw, because I think it is better balanced. Especially if we don't play Pangaea. I am fine with any version though.

Victory type: no offense, but I don't believe this group could get a cultural victory of any kind within half a year. Histograph also takes too long and is boring, Diplo is rather silly. That leaves Conquest, Space, Domination. I like both Conquest and Space.

Variant rules: to keep the game interesting for longer time we could think of adding rules like these:
  • Geneva convention: no pillaging, razing, starving. No slaves.
  • Wars of agression: need recent casus belli (broken agreement, incursions). Give one-turn warning before attack.
  • Wars of defense: peace has to be signed on first reasonable offer from AI.
  • No phony alliances, MPPs etc.
  • We never have more than X cities, X being something like the optimal city number.
The main effect would be to make violent expansion and economic superiority harder. It also makes diplomacy a bit more realistic. By limiting the number of cities, it might become easier for people to identify themselves with our empire.

Constitution: no major changes needed for me, but some details: It might be good if the "Will of the People" clause was worked out better. I like the emphasis on strategy (think it is too little still). I would like to see a Dept of the Treasury. I am puzzled by the role of the culture dept - no idea what it has to do. An intelligence office might be cool. Idea I stole from someone: perhaps the infrastructure director should be turnplayer, with president being responsible for general strategy.
 
Strider said:
1) I think a short demogame would be nice. I don't know wether I'd want to do an actually demogame or switch to a Team PBEM instead. Although, I doubt the team PBEM idea will lift off, from my understanding Daveshack hasn't even talked to TF about it.

You would be wrong to make that assumption. I don't have a definite yes right now on the forum structure for a multi-team game, but TF has given me a good idea of what would need to be done.
 
Speaking of MP Demogames, in Civ4, it's been mentioned that there will be a co-op team mode. (read up on the article where Barry Caudill mentions the CFC and Apolyton demogames. ;) -- Thanks Barry!!) In that version, civs can act as semi-independant provinces (perfect for a Game of Republic). You'd still have the demogame structure, but it would be the governors that are in charge of the province, and the president acts like a Prime Minister that organizes things. For everything else, we'd have to wait until the game is released. :D
 
Lets play next game with this variant:
1. We can never decare war/MPPs/Alliances
2. We can never declare peace

Meaning we only go to war if another civ declares on us or demands something... And once we are at war we can't get peace...

This will stop our senseless idea of always using military to take the lead...

ooo back to the questions:
Chieftess said:
Since we might be wrapping this one up a month ahead of time (based on the latest poll...), and the fact that Civ4 is around the corner, let's discuss some things...

1 - Do we want another full-fledged demogame that will last 4-10 months? Or, do we want a short one that will last 2-4 months? (i.e., medium map)

2 - Do we want to style the constitution on the current setup, or revert to the old style?

3 - Do we really want to use C3C again? Or should we revert to vanilla Civ3 or PTW?
1. Make it regular length
2. Current setup, gasp who would have thought I would disagree with Strider on this?!? ;)
3. Lets keep playing with C3C

edit: if we could get the MP DG off the ground, I say we replace this one with it...
 
Black_Hole said:
Lets play next game with this variant:
1. We can never decare war/MPPs/Alliances
2. We can never declare peace

Meaning we only go to war if another civ declares on us or demands something... And once we are at war we can't get peace...

This will stop our senseless idea of always using military to take the lead...

Isn't that kind of the purpose of Always War? To build up military to defend yourself? ;)
 
classical_hero said:
If we win by domination, do not expect me to be here ever again. I'll only ever play mutli-site demogames.

I can completely understand that. But I would be sorry to see you go :sad:
 
Anyway, let's get back on track...
 
zyxy said:
Victory type: no offense, but I don't believe this group could get a cultural victory of any kind within half a year. Histograph also takes too long and is boring, Diplo is rather silly. That leaves Conquest, Space, Domination. I like both Conquest and Space.

Variant rules: to keep the game interesting for longer time we could think of adding rules like these:
  • Geneva convention: no pillaging, razing, starving. No slaves.
  • Wars of agression: need recent casus belli (broken agreement, incursions). Give one-turn warning before attack.
  • Wars of defense: peace has to be signed on first reasonable offer from AI.
  • No phony alliances, MPPs etc.
  • We never have more than X cities, X being something like the optimal city number.
The main effect would be to make violent expansion and economic superiority harder. It also makes diplomacy a bit more realistic. By limiting the number of cities, it might become easier for people to identify themselves with our empire.

Constitution: no major changes needed for me, but some details: It might be good if the "Will of the People" clause was worked out better. I like the emphasis on strategy (think it is too little still). I would like to see a Dept of the Treasury. I am puzzled by the role of the culture dept - no idea what it has to do. An intelligence office might be cool. Idea I stole from someone: perhaps the infrastructure director should be turnplayer, with president being responsible for general strategy.

See, zyxy, you and I are the same page after all. These are the types of changes needed to keep this game from going "by the numbers."

I am a bit disheartened by Classica's ultimatum. Perhaps a little restraint during the conquest years would have kept us from the position we find ourselves in?
 
Chieftess said:
Isn't that kind of the purpose of Always War? To build up military to defend yourself? ;)
in always war we can declare war, my idea is we dont declare anything... we let the AI do what it wants, but I guess this isnt a great idea...

I like zyxy's ideas... I am still thinking of other ideas...
 
Okay, once again I'll post what we need to do to keep this game alive, pretty much the same I posted at the start of last game. :rolleyes:

Make elected poistions "worth it"
We have to stop making elected poistions seem like something we have to do to keep the game moving. Inorder to make any elected poistion worth it, we've got to give our leaders/ministers some real power. Hell, right now they can't even post there own polls, much less make any real decisions. Give them the ability to actually effect the game. If all they do is make polls and discussions, and then follow them, why don't we just appoint people, instead of go through elections each month?

Bring in newer players
We need more people, it's as simple as that. Why the hell no one else seems to think this is beyond me, or even if they do somehow get the bright idea that we need more people, they do nothing about it (or to even plan for it). The demogame is a fairly complex subject, and we never explain what it is. Even when we do, it's often in some far-away place that no one will ever find it. We *need* to explain the game in a place that *every* new player will see when the first come in this forum. Stickying a thread in the main forum isn't enough. If we want to have people actually join the game, we need to first let them know what it is.

The second thing we need to do is make it easier to get into. Supply information, or ways to get information in easily accessible places. The government threads are perfect for this, but it's often underdeveloped and unless. There are several utilities that can be researched and proposed as ways to gather information on a save fairly fast (and without conquests).

Following this up, we need better organization. The forums are just fine, however, our thread organization is horrible. Having a few registry threads (not the type your use to, but ones that just have links to that months department threads, etc. and then closed) would be extremely useful.

Up the difficulty
A higher difficulty makes a more exciting game, and a more exciting game will allow us to keep citizens attention longer. As for the difficulty level alienating newer players, I highly doubt it. There has never been a single "new" player who has ever said they were slightly scared by the difficulty level. It's just something created by the vertern players as a list filler.

Fix it, then play it
Starting the game when we are still discussing the game didn't help any. Let's not repeat the same mistake twice. If you don't like, or don't care, about the constitution or pre-game discussions then just come back later when the game starts.

Keep the roleplay and the game seperate
There's a time for roleplay, and there is a time for the game. Lets not get the two confused. If we become a massive civilization that completely dwarves our neighbors in size, technology, and power. Then lets do it, but when where still in contest, let's stick to having parades, civil wars, and trips to foreign countries. It allows those who like to roleplay, actually roleplay, without pissing off all of the "number crunchers."

------------

More to come later, but I have to get the election polls up.
 
I think keeping the roleplay seperate is what actually hurt roleplay, and what got us into strategy-strategy-strategy. When we discuss things in the citizens forum, we dicuss things as though we're citizens of that civ. For example, Rik could put up a "Free the slaves!" thread, and throw in roleplay elements. It's what made those threads fun to read, rather than, "Ok, 2 slaves = 1 native worker, so stack the slaves in groups of two to equal one worker.". We've been letting strategy take a front seat, but I'd like to see roleplay take the front seat. For example, a governor (or Mayor) could say, "I have started the Oxford Worker Corps, which invites all Dutch workers to move Oxford to work!".
 
Chieftess said:
1 - Do we want another full-fledged demogame that will last 4-10 months? Or, do we want a short one that will last 2-4 months? (i.e., medium map)
As long as it lasts a minumum of 4 months, I am happy :). A short demogame would quickly make me lose interest since things would go by too fast and a long demogame would also make me lose interest out of bordem. So long as they are not variants that restrict the number of cities we can have (I strongly dislike OCC and 5CC)

2 - Do we want to style the constitution on the current setup, or revert to the old style?
Go back to the old style demogame

3 - Do we really want to use C3C again? Or should we revert to vanilla Civ3 or PTW?
Does not matter to me, but I beleve we should revert back to vanilla.

Strider said:
Okay, once again I'll post what we need to do to keep this game alive, pretty much the same I posted at the start of last game. :rolleyes:

Make elected poistions "worth it"
We have to stop making elected poistions seem like something we have to do to keep the game moving. Inorder to make any elected poistion worth it, we've got to give our leaders/ministers some real power. Hell, right now they can't even post there own polls, much less make any real decisions. Give them the ability to actually effect the game. If all they do is make polls and discussions, and then follow them, why don't we just appoint people, instead of go through elections each month?
I agree, the elected poisitions should be worth it and not just some spot in the elections. This would encurage the person whom is elected to eather stay in the game or run for reelection.

Bring in newer players
We need more people, it's as simple as that. Why the hell no one else seems to think this is beyond me, or even if they do somehow get the bright idea that we need more people, they do nothing about it (or to even plan for it). The demogame is a fairly complex subject, and we never explain what it is. Even when we do, it's often in some far-away place that no one will ever find it. We *need* to explain the game in a place that *every* new player will see when the first come in this forum. Stickying a thread in the main forum isn't enough. If we want to have people actually join the game, we need to first let them know what it is.
I agree, the numbers of people partisipating in the Demogame is the only thing that will keep it afloat. Remember the Civ2 Demogae? it died off because there were not enough people in the game and it just died off because of lack of interest.

Up the difficulty
A higher difficulty makes a more exciting game, and a more exciting game will allow us to keep citizens attention longer. As for the difficulty level alienating newer players, I highly doubt it. There has never been a single "new" player who has ever said they were slightly scared by the difficulty level. It's just something created by the vertern players as a list filler.
Personaly, I am starting to beleve to up tha antie on the difficulty level. But we must put into account that there may be some people whom are hesitant on joining a game that does not match their difficulty level

Fix it, then play it
Starting the game when we are still discussing the game didn't help any. Let's not repeat the same mistake twice. If you don't like, or don't care, about the constitution or pre-game discussions then just come back later when the game starts.
I agree to this statement, and I feel it does not need any more comments :)

Keep the roleplay and the game seperate
There's a time for roleplay, and there is a time for the game. Lets not get the two confused. If we become a massive civilization that completely dwarves our neighbors in size, technology, and power. Then lets do it, but when where still in contest, let's stick to having parades, civil wars, and trips to foreign countries. It allows those who like to roleplay, actually roleplay, without pissing off all of the "number crunchers."
I have mixed opinions about keeping roleplay and the game separate. I was drawn to Demogame 1 because of its intergrated roleplay into the game which I beleve made it more fun.
 
I think there is a difference between roleplaying and RPG game(s). The former being events or roleplay that happen along with the game: eg: a parade after a victory or wonder, a "Free the Slaves" initiative. The latter being games where people own land and earn gold, the murder games etc. The roleplaying I feel is better within the forums as in Stuck's Oxford Times. The RPG games I feel should be separate as these really run independently of the main game. I'm not a natural roleplayer and have no interest in the RPG style games, but if the roleplay is there in the forums along with the game then I may join in as I have before.
 
Its too bad that many of our famous (or rather infamous depedning on your mood ;) ) roleplayers have moved on with their lives such as Shaitan and Cyc.
 
Back
Top Bottom