The 1st DG VI disucssion thread.

[ravensfire]

This is how democracy works. Sometimes the WOTP goes your way, sometimes it don't. Impossing artifical restrictions like "no going to war this DG" or "we'll focus on war next time" limit the freedom and democracy that the Demogame is based on. It cheapens the game, and the democratic process as a whole.

Actually, we DO impose artificial restrictions. Look through the archives and see what version of Civ the majority wanted to play, and which version we are playing.

A similar justification could be used for a "noble" style of game, to allow the non-hawks to fully participate.

-- Ravensfire

 

[blackheart]

What happens here is a reflection of real life. Take elections for example, all that really matters for an incumbent to be reelected is not what he/she has done for the majority of his/her term, but during the last 2-4 months of campaigning. Like right now if Bush caught Osama, he would win the elections by a landslide.

I don't like the idea of stopping our aggressions in this DG and having the next one be all out war. While I'm not a total war monger, I think there should be some wars fought. Why don't we just play the DG as it goes, and each side try to present its case the best to the citizens and let them decide?

Mob rule is the major downfall of democracy. Every poll's results is bound to be different.

Do not stand against the river, instead, gently toss in pebbles until you have enough to alter its course.

 

[gert-janl]

Maybe those people who believe that no more war must be started should just keep on advocating peace, and achieve their goals the democratic goals. I would really like to achieve a peace-ful victory this DG, but we must keep in mind that we are playing a Democracy Game. If the majority wants war, war must be there. Power of the Majority...we call it here the WOTP...nothing to do about it.

At least some of your peace advocacy has helped...I am also on your side . Maybe we should find a citizen group who advocate peace as much as possible? We can't demand from the mods to go straight against the WOTP in the entire game.

 

[Gregski]

To be honest the main problem is that people view the DG more as a game of Civ 3 than a simulation of government. I want to see wonders built in the DG not so much for their strategic benefit, but for the "glory of the nation". I view my role in the game not really as a civ player/strategist, more as citizen of a nation who wants to see a few more millenia. Yes, even I could lead us to victory over the Babs and Iroquois. I win wars against similar enemies all the time. It's called single player.
The DG is very different in that you must adopt a world view and act according to that whether you win or lose as opposed to just finding the best and most direct route to victory. I've decided on the "noble citizen" approach based on my imprecise ideas about Japanese culture and history. This in no way reflects my civ playing style of course but the point of DG, unlike nearly all sports, competitions etc is not winning but for once taking part.

 

[Ashburnham]

I totally agree, Gregski. I, too, wish the emphasis in the Demogame was on the workings of our government, and not just on the results in game. It is this "gamey" attitude that I think most hawkish players use when looking at the DG. Perhaps that is what we should try to change in the next DG rather than simple how much we go to war.

 

[Black_Hole]

I dont want to go through wars on monarch also, its very very easy..... BUT I also dont want to do diplomacy, those are the 2 poles, cant we find somehting in between(might i suggest histograph? )

 

[Epimethius]

When I came here, I said I had experiance in this kind of thing. But it seems that wasn't very true. The closest I came was a Sim City 4 City Council Game, which I ran as a dictator. Though I support democracy in life, I've found it to be very frustrating in the game. And I miss being able to make decrees. That was great.

So how about a game with a less democratic system? The dictator would still be chosen, but would not serve a term and could be removed at will (the only will of the people). He could appoint advisors. How this would be fun for commoners, I don't know. But people put up with it in SimCity, so why not....

EDIT: I like this idea. *runs off to write rules*

 

[Sir Donald III]

Actually, trying to win Diplomatically AFTER the anniliation of Babylon and Iroquoa could be seen as a significant challenge. I mean, with the exception of tradable wines at Elippi, we won't gain much as far as Things to Bribe is concerned. And if Rome stays on in their 1 (maybe 2 by cultural expansion) cities, then most likely we'll already have a vote against us.

Heck, my only end game was a Diplomatic Loss on Chieftain.

 

[blackheart]

I try to "roleplay" the DG be pretending if it were a governmental instution instead of a game, but there are difficulties. First and foremost I come to the DG for enjoyment, not for beauracracy and pulling my hair out. Secondly, Civ3 itself is very limited in those day to day decisions like policy. Thirdly, the AI is very dumb in some of its decisions, so trying to keep a straight face all the way through is hard.

Being war mongering is viewed as hawkish now? So I'm guessing the only non hawks are the pacifists? You guys miss the point in this. If we're strong enough to conquer the world, why don't we? We ARE a country, and the goal of every country is to survive and ensure its survival.

 

[Crimso]

First, I think some people who have voted for war against the Iro's and/or the Zulu are being misunderstood. The number of people who actually want to take over the entire continent are in the minority. I for one just want to take the Iro's and be done with conquering, and I think many agree with me. But I understand your anxiousness, Rik. I worry too that people will just run with the warmongering until we've got the continent.

Second, I joined this DG (my first) at the start of the war against Rome. It was never made clear in any thread I read that the aim of DGV was to play peacefully. I'm confused, was the plan for DGV to actually play peacefully throughout, or only after we conquered another civ?

 

[Ginger_Ale]

There was no set plan for DGV. We just adapted to our situation as we went along. Now that we are getting close to railroads (ok, not that close, but still) and the Industrial Age, I think most people want a clear-cut victory condition, be it Histograph, Diplomatic, or any others.

 

[Black_Hole]

Actually, trying to win Diplomatically AFTER the anniliation of Babylon and Iroquoa could be seen as a significant challenge. I mean, with the exception of tradable wines at Elippi, we won't gain much as far as Things to Bribe is concerned. And if Rome stays on in their 1 (maybe 2 by cultural expansion) cities, then most likely we'll already have a vote against us.

Heck, my only end game was a Diplomatic Loss on Chieftain.

not very hard.. just make ma with everyone, give them everything u have, etc...

 

[GenMarshall]

Personaly I dislike the Idea of going into a higher difficulty level to play Civ. We tried this back in DG II and we won by the skin on our teeth. We should stick with Monarchy because it is the most reasonable difficulty level for Everyone to play on wether its a casual chieftan player to a hardcore deity player.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Well ,we never had an on-site multi team democracy game here ,at some site's it has been done before ,Gamecatcher had/has one and Apolyton IIRC ,other site's like GWT or CGN had also one in the past IIRC

Maybe we should make Demogame VI with 2 or even 3 team's from this site (prefer 3 ,for diplomacy sake) playing in multiplayer and possible with other AI nations also in the game ,let the map be created by an outside moderator/map maker with human teams innitially spawning surrounded by AI nations ,and play on highest difficulty.

Well it's just an idea anyway ,although i personally highly prefer Multiplayer democracy gaming above singleplayer. (just more intense ,intriguing and backstabby )
The Ai nations give an extra element ,they would seem cannon fodder however they could by human team be protected ,used as buffer or in 2 front warring.

 

[donsig]

The solution seems simple. Don't use a turn chat for the next demogame. Force everyone to make their views known in the forums rather than the chat. Believe it or not, you can play such a game without slowing the pace or getting creamed by the AI as long as we collectively do some pre-planning. Advance planning has been virtually non-existant in the demogames ever since the chats took hold.

Try doing away with the chats and try turn based terms. Try playing a set number of turns on a rigid schedule so that things happen regularly. In real life we can't slow down time. We have to take things as they happen and can't put life on hold just because we're faced with an unexpected situation. Knowing the show must go on no matter what - and knowing we'd have to rely solely on our posted instructions and President's capabilities - would inject an interesting element into the demogame and would force us to pay more attention to the governmental aspect of the demogame.

 

[Black_Hole]

The solution seems simple. Don't use a turn chat for the next demogame. Force everyone to make their views known in the forums rather than the chat. Believe it or not, you can play such a game without slowing the pace or getting creamed by the AI as long as we collectively do some pre-planning. Advance planning has been virtually non-existant in the demogames ever since the chats took hold.

Try doing away with the chats and try turn based terms. Try playing a set number of turns on a rigid schedule so that things happen regularly. In real life we can't slow down time. We have to take things as they happen and can't put life on hold just because we're faced with an unexpected situation. Knowing the show must go on no matter what - and knowing we'd have to rely solely on our posted instructions and President's capabilities - would inject an interesting element into the demogame and would force us to pay more attention to the governmental aspect of the demogame.

tricky part is easily finding out if the DP broke an instruction or something, they post the log by themselves and have no one else monitoring them directly....

 

[blackheart]

This isn't real life Donsig. I come here for entertainment, not to simulate real life. I don't attend most of the TCs and when I'm usually there I'm also doing something else, yet I am still informed about the game and still can make decisions about it.

 

[classical_hero]

Well ,we never had an on-site multi team democracy game here ,at some site's it has been done before ,Gamecatcher had/has one and Apolyton IIRC ,other site's like GWT or CGN had also one in the past IIRC

Maybe we should make Demogame VI with 2 or even 3 team's from this site (prefer 3 ,for diplomacy sake) playing in multiplayer and possible with other AI nations also in the game ,let the map be created by an outside moderator/map maker with human teams innitially spawning surrounded by AI nations ,and play on highest difficulty.

Well it's just an idea anyway ,although i personally highly prefer Multiplayer democracy gaming above singleplayer. (just more intense ,intriguing and backstabby )
The Ai nations give an extra element ,they would seem cannon fodder however they could by human team be protected ,used as buffer or in 2 front warring.

I do like that Idea TDOF. It would be good to have CFC hold a multiteam Demogame. I would like to have more teams, if it were possible. I really like that Idea.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

I would like to have more teams, if it were possible.

We could have more ,but we have to check whats optimal.More teams make longer turns ,and you have to find the players to make up the teams to.

But ah ,even if demogame VI doesn't become an on-site multiplayer demo game that doesn't mean that we can't organize an on-site multiplayer demogame anyway.

 

[classical_hero]

We could have more ,but we have to check whats optimal.More teams make longer turns ,and you have to find the players to make up the teams to.

But ah ,even if demogame VI doesn't become an on-site multiplayer demo game that doesn't mean that we can't organize an on-site multiplayer demogame anyway.

It would be sort of like a Succession game but everyone on that group makes the decision rather than just one person playing the save. I believe that more people will want to join this sort of game. That is what we would want to happen. Maybe we could talk to TF and see if that is possible.