The Monarchists' Cookbook Bullpen

[OTAKUjbski]

Is there any way to play the same game two ways at the same time?

What I mean to say is, "how plausible is it to have two teams playing in each game?"

For example, Team 1 plays the map using a less-than-Wonderful approach, while Team 2 plays the map using a Wonderful approach.

Each Team would follow the same submission rules, etc, but there would be two "official" threads for each game ...

Would that be too confusing?

Is there a logical way to make that work while still keeping things organized and coherent?

 

[Nares]

My main consideration for giving too much choice is determining where the multiple shadow type format (like in LHC or NC) and the SG format begins/ends.

Why are you guys so keen on the SG format?

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Why are you guys so keen on the SG format?

I can't speak for the others, but I like the idea of finishing with one contiguous game that's easy to follow.

When reading the LHC or NC games, it becomes increasingly difficult to follow what's going on, because 90% of the thread is in spoiler tags and because there are up to 10 games going on at one time -- complete with their own discussions.

By keeping with the SG format, it ensures all discussion is related to the main game and that each round will have only 1 report to read and follow (which ties directly in with the previous and next round's posts).


-- my 2

 

[Bleys]

Why are you guys so keen on the SG format?

For me, I feel its a combination of SGs, RPCs, and Series. It takes some of the best features of those formats and combines them into one.

In standard SGs, one person plays each round, period.

In RPCs, one person plays each "round", with many many players contributing advice. Ultimately though, a lot of that advice is discarded and the game is played by the RPC host, period.

Series games offer a confusing conglomerate of many games, with many twists and turns, and everyone plays every turn, without any real advice or another player playing a portion of the game.

This Best Ball idea combines that, offers a game where multiple people play each turn, strategy is discussed each round, but ultimately there is only 1 game with, hopefully, a touch of everyone involved in it.

Hard to explain, really, but I think its a very workable format.

 

[Nares]

In standard SGs, one person plays each round, period.

In RPCs, one person plays each "round", with many many players contributing advice. Ultimately though, a lot of that advice is discarded and the game is played by the RPC host, period.

Series games offer a confusing conglomerate of many games, with many twists and turns, and everyone plays every turn, without any real advice or another player playing a portion of the game.

A good summation of the various formats.

This Best Ball idea combines that, offers a game where multiple people play each turn, strategy is discussed each round, but ultimately there is only 1 game with, hopefully, a touch of everyone involved in it.

Yes, but doesn't it sacrifice the exploration of alternative approaches by focusing on a single save each round?

If I am given two saves, one following obsolete's single city early wonderspam, and one following a more traditional REX approach, I don't know that I would ever take the wonderspam save. It's only in the subsequent rounds, and I emphasize the plural, that the strengths of alternative approaches are demonstrated.

You've got the increased leadership here required to maintain order within a concurrent shadow game. The problem those face is that the cumbersome spoiler tags restrict player interaction.

Here, organization can be maintained with regards to report and discussion dates, so as to reduce the need for spoiler tags and greatly improve the ability to discuss various approaches.

I mean, you don't need to convince me how a CSG would improve the ability to analyze and compare different approaches. You already seem sold on it, so it's me who has to convince you that you could do more for the community by maintaining a highly organized concurrent shadow game rather than a concurrent succession game.

 

[Winston Hughes]

This is all getting a bit overcomplicated.

The format works fine as it is. A little more clarity is needed on the exact rules, but the basic concept is sound.

If anyone wants to split off and do a shadow game, or even a shadow best-ball game, I see no reason why they shouldn't.

Personally, the reason the existing format is so appealing is the way it's going to force me to re-adapt to the situation with each new round - suddenly I'll be faced with lots of new problems and new opportunities (unless, by some miracle, one of my saves gets chosen).

In fact, the only shadow I'd be interested in would be a 'worst ball' game - choosing the toughest position and trying to turn it around (is that what's known as a trashgame?). Playing it alongside the 'best ball' game could be a lot of fun.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Yes, but doesn't it sacrifice the exploration of alternative approaches by focusing on a single save each round?

Yes and no.

In the official sense, yes, because only the best ball save is 'required' to be continued upon; so the possibility is always there no shadows are ever played, and the alternative approaches are never explored.

In the unofficial sense, no, because [concurrent] shadows aren't discouraged; so it's likely the most popular and strongly supported alternative approaches will be explored.

If I am given two saves, one following obsolete's single city early wonderspam, and one following a more traditional REX approach, I don't know that I would ever take the wonderspam save. It's only in the subsequent rounds, and I emphasize the plural, that the strengths of alternative approaches are demonstrated.

This argument supports longer turn sets.

It also supports an idea I suggested about 4 posts back -- an idea I now see isn't as good as it seemed to be earlier today.

I previously thought it was a good idea, but ...

If we're willing to organize an extra concurrent shadow game now, what happens when 3 or 4 different approaches are submitted? Do we then begin supporting 3 or 4 concurrent shadow games? How do we then decide which strategies to use and which to discard?

Especially in the interest of keeping this format simple and straightforward, I think the current model of a single, main game using each Round's Best Ball is going to be the best approach.

If there's significant interest in alternative approaches, I'm convinced players will be present and ready to heed the call.

... it's me who has to convince you that you could do more for the community by maintaining a highly organized concurrent shadow game rather than a concurrent succession game.

Again, I can't speak for the rest of the group, but I'm unable to commit the amount of time I foresee being required to organize concurrent shadow games.

If something like that is going to be undertaken, then I think we will need 8-10 total players. After everybody plays the 1st Round (perhaps to 1000 BC or even 10 AD), the two best approaches are chosen, and the large team is broken down into 2 smaller teams of 4-5. Each small team would then follow the same posting guidelines and play concurrent shadows based on their preferred strategy.

That would create two main games but would still leave each player with no more workload than before, since they're still each only responsible for observing and judging their 'timeline' of saves.

I think the games could be discussed and posted in the same thread, which would allow readers to follow one thread while still getting the A vs B view of both posts and discussions.

It can work, but I doubt it's anything we should try to implement in Game 1 (at least not for this Round).

 

[Solon70]

Taking the current game as an example, it seems likely that the chosen strategy will be a peaceful wonder-building approach, and it also seems likely that at least some of us who want to try an early rush will play a shadow to see how it turns out, at least for the duration of the next turnset.

It really doesn't matter to me in the least whether my shadow is just my own little project or if it bears the title of an "official" concurrent succession game or whatever. I just want to see how it turns out. If someone plays an early rush and ends up controlling half the world by 1 AD, while the wonderbuilders are stuck on a rocky little island, we'd probably all learn something.

Mind you, whether the rush goes well or not so well, I probably wouldn't play the shadow past the next series of turns. The only point is to see how the rush strategy measures up against the peaceful strategy; once you reach a point where the two can be compared, the objective has been accomplished.

My overall view is that this is a neat concept and I'd hate to bollox it up by making the whole thing overcomplicated.

 

[Bleys]

I think we can actually encourage shadow games from alternate saves, to the point where a group who supports the "alternative" could create their own shadow thread, with their own team. I would love to see the same game that took 2 distinct paths at some point way down the road, 1300 or 1500 AD, the Road Not Taken sort of thing. Such shadows would overly confuse our own thread though, so I would highly encourage folks who wished to try the Road Not Taken to break off. Heck, I could even see myself playing some of those shadow-rounds, the ones before whichever point I was at in the Main thread, of course, but still, there is a lot of opportunity to learn here, and it would create a much more organized and comprehensible set of games to compare than some of the other series, where each new post is almost a "Road Not Taken".

 

[futurehermit]

I will be out of town tomorrow and Friday. I'm not sure how the voting will work but I will PM my vote to Diamondeye and hopefully we can be on to the next round next week.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I will be out of town tomorrow and Friday. I'm not sure how the voting will work but I will PM my vote to Diamondeye and hopefully we can be on to the next round next week.

I figured we'd just make a post on Wednesday or Thursday saying which save we think is the best with a brief explanation of why.

Diamondeye (or in future cases whoever started the thread) tallies up the votes and makes the official call on which save to start the next round with.

 

[slobberinbear]

This is all getting a bit overcomplicated.

My vote (which doesn't count and has 'peanut gallery' weight) is for my save (naturally ). Barring that, Rolo's.

Let's get this show on the road!

 

[Bleys]

The trick is to keep it as simple and flexible as possible, but still organized enough that there arent many "questions" about the games.

As for the voting process, I 100% trust Diamondeye to make an unbiased choice, based on a "feel" from everyone who posts in the thread, shadow + roster players alike.

Remember guys, this is the first round of the first game. It WILL get clearer, and smoother, and run better and better as time goes on. We dont have any "carved in stone" rules here, what we have is a pile of good ideas that need to be molded into a cohesive format. I think its working very well already.

Diamond will pick a save tomorrow. We will play the next round, and refine the format even further.

But dont think your vote doesnt count Slobber, it does in my book. Already we have seen some solid advice from non-Roster members, and thats what we WANT, we WANT you guys to help us decide what direction to take the game. Whether you play or not is up to you, but at the very least, we hope that the so-called "Peanut Gallery" continues to offer input and suggestions, and votes for their favorite save, even if its a shadow game. We WANT a community game more than a pure SG, thats why we are playing it on this board instead of the SG board.

 

[Diamondeye]

Great to see people are still interested. I have a few remarks:
@Slobberinbear: While you may not be part of the roster, we are still glad to hear opinions and statements concerning which save to be chosen, provided the arguments are good. In this case, I believe your save is too biased against early war, which is a gamble, just like OTAKUs' wonderrush.
@Bleys: Completely agree.
@All: I have updated OP (1st reply, actually) to reflect the changes made to the rules, which we will develop during the game. Any suggestions or disagreement should be posted here or PMed to me (or all 5 roster members).

That said, next round is running, lets' enjoy

 

[Bleys]

I am beginning to wonder about tweaking the schedule some.

Early turns simply do not require a full week. Later turns will, though, so its not that time in the game I am talking about. Here are my suggestions:

Round 1 - 4000 BC - 1000 BC. 4 day schedule.
Round 2 - 1000 BC - 200 AD. 5 day schedule
Round 3 - 200 AD to 900 AD. 6 day schedule

Then into the full week, ~50 turn rounds.

The reason is simple, we already see it in the first game. Rounds 1, 2 and even 3 just arent as complicated. Even in games where the path of the future isnt so obvious (like the GLH in this game), I think we are all sort of /yawning this out. Its Tuesday, and we are actually ready to play Round 3 right now.

Later turns arent going to be as clear-cut.

I do realize that we have it set up to revolve around weekends, but think we can pack 3 rounds into the first 2 weeks without much difficulty. I didnt count those turns up there in my example, but I think you get the idea. A schedule that allows more time/round as the game goes on, rather than a set "week of waiting" for the first few rounds.

 

[Diamondeye]

Hmmm. That might be a good suggestion. I would make it 4-4-6 to fit two weeks exactly then. I would like to hear opinions on these - both from Roster members and shadowers...

Also, OTAKU, can you go ahead and do some of your famous math and find out how many turns these periods Bleys recommend are?

 

[OTAKUjbski]

While I do agree the turnsets feel rather short IRL, it's only because the rounds are played exclusively over the weekends that I can actually commit to this.

If "playtime" starts falling on weekdays, I have no doubt I'll have to skip rounds every game.

Therefore, I'm against changing the "7 day" schedule.

 

[Diamondeye]

While I do agree the turnsets feel rather short IRL, it's only because the rounds are played exclusively over the weekends that I can actually commit to this.

If "playtime" starts falling on weekdays, I have no doubt I'll have to skip rounds every game.

Therefore, I'm against changing the "7 day" schedule.

That's my main argument aswell. We will hae nearly no players available to play the weekends. We could, perhaps, extend the two first round to include what is now considered the three first rounds, so there would be more "filling"? Opinions?

 

[OTAKUjbski]

25 years per turn over 140 turns --> 4000 BC - 500 BC
15 years per turn over 90 turns --> 500 BC - 850 AD
10 years per turn over 40 turns --> 850 AD - 1250 AD
5 years per turn over 90 turns --> 1250 AD - 1700 AD
2 years per turn over 70 turns --> 1700 AD - 1840 AD
1 year per turn over 100 turns --> 1840 AD - 1940 AD
0.5 year per turn over 220 turns --> 1940 AD - 2050 AD

 

[Bleys]

If "playtime" starts falling on weekdays, I have no doubt I'll have to skip rounds every game.

Therefore, I'm against changing the "7 day" schedule.

I fully agree that the more complicated turns should be over weekends, that is fine, but lets face it, we can ALL play the first couple rounds in a matter of a couple hours, even if we agonize over ever micromanaging thing in the game. There just isnt as much decision making with 3 cities and 4 techs to choose from.

Maybe even put the first round to 3 days, the 2nd to 5, and the third to 6 (falling on that Friday) or something. The first few rounds are the ones with the problems, we dont need 4 days to play and 3 more to discuss them, especially the first 2.

Lengthening them may provide the solution though. If we go with 4000 - 1000, and 1000 BC to 600 AD or so, maybe, I dont know, that seems almost to defeat the purpose of a succession game.

I just noticed with the first game, there is far too much time between playing those rounds. Granted, most people dont have as much free time as I do, but still, waiting until Friday to play is already looking like its way too much. There isnt much left to discuss, really. In the future, espeically in this game, once we get some navy action, some more AIs, more techs to choose from, more buildings and units to queue, it gets more complicated and worthy of a longer discussion period.

Just some thoughts, no worries.