TEAM QUATRONIA - The ethos of the continuum

[galdarian]

Taken from the original thread by Provolution

1. Rotational turnplayer following an election (otherwise does not make sense to have a demogame, when there is no one to elect, like last game)
2. Elections should be held following the invention of every tenth technology
3. Each city to be run by one player
4. Major decisions should be polled, which includes war, city builds etc.
5. There will be a minimal government of 5 players only, the Lord (turnplayer), his Envoy (Diplomat foreign agreements), his Sage (technology, culture and religion), his Marshall (all troop builds, priorities, naming of units, promotions and overall military strategy) and finally his Judge (making all votes, polls and finally ruling out all disputes)
6. Turnplays should be fully logged with pics and a short and clear summary in bullets
7. Good strategies should be presented and discussed with respect, not bullied down by so-called experts attacking the man not hitting the ball.
8. Each turnplay should have a good narrative, to be written by the sage at all times, so the game can read as a good story, even after the game
9. Diplomacy is to be handled by the Envoy, but all treaties are to be voted on.
10. Be fun and creative, not nagging and posing as an expert.

 

[galdarian]

At this point as Team Quatronia was Provolution's baby I have no intention to change the ethos which he originally proposed however if changes need to be discussed and made this is where it should take place.

I assume that you wouldn't have signed on with the team if you didn't agree with (most of) these ideas. As far as importance goes I actually place #10 as the highest priority (#7 would follow from this). We want discussions people!

 

[Sherlock613]

I think we should have a 2 dedicated turn players and 1 diplomat (Envoy). Then, we could use a tech person (Sage), a military person (Marshall), and a Judge, but any of these 3 could overlap with the first ones (so someone could be both diplomat and sage).

I agree that we should elect a new 'leader' every 10 turns, and the leader can direct what we are doing, but I really favor the dedicated turn player...
I mean, when the leader posts a screenshot or talk to the turn player in chat and tells the turn player exactly where to move workers, what to build, etc., they are basically playing...

I want to get rid of#3 right now. The empire would be a mess if we each ran our own city. It needs to be cohesive. As the saying goes, when a committee of artists come together to draw a horse, they end up with a camel. Let's get it right.

 

[Earthling]

I do support the general philosophy of the team still and that's why I'm onboard and hoping we all have fun. Supercompetitiveness, adhering to picky rules, etc... weren't things I would try to push on others and I'd just try to contribute to a team in ways I can and enjoy being on the team.

Yes, I would agree with getting rid of No. 3 It would only ever be on a "keeping track"/management side of things - not everyone literally controlling the civs actions, but for instance I'd be cool with each player getting to name a city/name associated units and land features, fun stuff like that.

I very much support having a lot of polls for decisions like techs, where to settle, wonders, etc... - just what we're doing in the game. It encourages everyone's activity, doesn't leave everything on the turnplayer/"leader" - which I don't think we need an official leader so much either.

I will say as far as logging info goes I think the screenshots/having one main thread for that works well, it's what a lot of teams seemed to do last game. If we need someone (or one of the current roles, say the Judge) to be particularly in charge of things like screenshots I wouldn't be against that either.

 

[galdarian]

The way I interpreted #3 was that it was more of a consultancy thing. Obviously every turn would take 12hrs if the turnplayer had to figure out what tiles to work in every city. If it was delegated to someone else then they could run whole spreadsheets on figuring out the best bang for buck. Perhaps that's being a bit pedantic, admittedly I would like Provolution to build on that idea a little.

I was thinking that you would have the whole narrative of the nation in one continuous unpolluted thread (i.e. turn 1 is post #2, turn 2 is post #3 etc...), with any discussion relating to individual turns to happen in a seperate discussion thread for each turn.

 

[Super Sonic]

With a group this small, I feel the election thing is a bit redundant. But thats just my opinion.

 

[galdarian]

With a group this small, I feel the election thing is a bit redundant. But thats just my opinion.

Assuming that we don't get any more active players then I would agree with you. We would have enough to do as is. The team will hopefully grow though.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm happy with #3 being a naming/style control only. Micromanagement is bad at the best of times, but you don't want to have gain player assent for it too!

 

[Provolution]

Gentlemen, thanks for addressing the ethos so respectfully. For #3 in very competitive multiteam demogames, we may need to use our numbers to expertly micromanage the tiles of specific cities,which is timeconsuming on the planning end. This "homework" allows everyone to be involved on the tactical planning directly, and as a way to condition new turnplayers to take over naturally.

Also, we should change leader per 10 tech, not turn, as this is about allowing the leader to draft a ten tech strategy before being replaced, as the leader presents a whole strategy in our internal election. 10 techs could be 50-60 turns, we could also limit this to 8 techs, for example, if people like that better.

 

[RegentMan]

I agree with the interpretation for #3: people can be involved and micromanage the city, but not do their own thing with it.

Regarding elections, how about we just state a number? 50 turns would be long enough to have an agenda set out and followed, but short enough to not feel like everyone is watching one person play the game. Plus, a set turn number limits the influctuation of tech research. Researching long, expensive techs one after another would keep someone in power much longer than researching short, obsolete techs. I'm not saying anyone would do this, but someone could drop the research rate to maintain their stay. A set number of turns eliminates the uncertainty of techs.

EDIT- I read in the spring government thread about doing three month rotations. That could also work.

Also not sure if this is what was meant by some of the points, but I was thinking we could have two different turn threads: one made for each term where we discuss what to do/build/research/etc. and another one where there is simply an update each turn for people to go through and just see the turns, bam, bam, bam.

 

[Super Sonic]

About those of us who can physically play the turns (me), shall we (I), just hang about as an advisor?

 

[Provolution]

Supersonic, you are of course welcome as a turnplayer as well, more than welcome. I suggest we add volunteers to the half month rotation we have already pointed out. Everyone who wants a run should get it at a stage.