Turns played per chat

[Shaitan]

That's along the same lines I was thinking. My only objection to such a list is that it somewhat defeats the purpose of the chat turn. We have the chat turn so that the Pres with the help of the chat attendees can play out the game instructions in an environment where they can deal with unexpected occurences to the best of their ability. If we give them "hard" stopping points we are essentially turning them into a robot force. Play through 10 turns of the game but stop if this, this, or this happens because we don't trust you to handle those things correctly.

Another point is that just after these major events is often when you have the information that you need in order to counter it or correctly adapt to it. Imagine if we'd forced a stop after every declaration of war during Domino War I. Each chat would have been 1 turn long for a month.

I think we need to leave the decision of whether to continue or stop to the people elected to make that decision. Make it clear that playing through all of the turns is not a requirement and that the DP can always stop if they're not comfortable with continuting without forum feedback.

 

[disorganizer]

we could use a "stop if this occurs except if allowed by a dedicated citizen poll"...

an example would be the domino war... after the first declaration of war, they would have been stopped to forum. then a poll would be established to automatically allow further war-declarations to be handled.

 

[chiefpaco]

How is starting the game handled? Do we play the first 10 turns before the forums get a chance to look at the game? Do we get a turn 0 to see like GOTM with screenshot? What would that accomplish?

Maybe on the first day, the DP (or whoever "makes" the game) can establish turn 0, like the GOTM. Then the new leaders can get a few days to establish directives and policies for the first real turn chat for the new game.

 

[Cyc]

@Shaitan - I hadn't read your request for a reply in this thread, I did see the polls Dis set up. Not agreeing with this concept at all (plus pushing it to a poll/s) I responded in the first poll thread. A very bad idea in my opinion.

cp's idea isn't bad and would work for me if the "first day" was a public turn-chat and everything was witnessed (with screenshots of the options selected) by the attendees. We could stop and save on turn 1, post, and discuss then. Our first actions would take place on the second turn-chat a couple of days after that (say Sept. 4th). The newly elected President would either be the creator of our new world or appoint a DP for the creation and save.

 

[Falcon02]

I like the Turn 0 save idea... but don't even settle the city until taken to the forums. We may want to go 1 or even 2 square(s) in a certian direction before settling.

 

[Shaitan]

I like the idea of a turn -1 simply because it will give us a reference point for the start. We'll have our starting position to debate right on Sept. 1 (or earlier). The method and player don't really matter to me. I just like the idea of having all of the starting pieces ready when we start.

 

[Cyc]

Our starting point debates should not take place until Sept. first. The creation should be done by the new President or their appointed DP on Sept. 1st. If the creation is done before the election of the new President it could alter the way the citizens vote. Keep it on the up and up. Nothing happens until the new Prez starts the game Sept. 1st.

 

[chiefpaco]

Ahhh, here is the birthplace of some of disorganizer's ideas to revamp the new game startup. Shame on me for not specifically replying earlier - there are a lot of issues to be settled on and I've tried to be everywhere.

In general, I find a lot of the ideas, while not bad on their own, not very necessary and actually a bit contrary to the spirit of democracy.

Dis, I see you said this:

Want to put it up for a poll? We could then have our save immediately at the start of the new forum!

I am trying to see where someone said "yes, good idea, Dis" or seconded your idea. As such, I find it hard to sympathize with you in your new vision for the game. With so little discussion and little vocal support, I find it odd that you would try some polls on the subject. Did you assume everyone agreed? I usually assume ppl don't agree if they don't respond to my proposed changes.

On to your "stop" list. I think we've talked about it before and came to the conclusion that it would be too extensive. With a defined stop list, we may also open ourselves to too many loopholes - I'm imagining someone saying "well, it wasn't on the stop list"...

While I'd like to be a bit supportive over your ideas, I just do not agree to them. I like your input, and your bravery is to be commended - sometimes change is good. But change for the sake of change may not always be beneficial. I also think rather than putting your ideas as additional notes in this thread, a nice and organized new thread for your entire pre-game proposal might have swayed a few more people and really got the conversation going in a far more pleasant manner.

 

[disorganizer]

cp: for example shaitan seconded it, in the chat people seconded it... so where is no seconding?

Shaitan:

@disorganizer - Do you mean the turn -1 thing? I think that was a great idea. It could be done by a mod or Chieftess as soon as we know for sure what our options need to be.

 

[chiefpaco]

I am more specifically referring to your "God" proposal. In between your proposal and posting, no one agreed. Furthermore, Shaitan did not seem to agree until we see what the options could be. I am sorry I did not see the chat where you received more support.

I do not wish to dwell on these issues because they are past. If you still wish to debate the merits of your proposal, I'd be more up for that.

If possible, I like seeing a "poll proposal" before seeing a poll. It tends to lead to intelligent conversation on poll choices and refinement. It also leads to more correct polls. As such, I am not only a bit dismayed to see your polls go up somewhat quickly, but the many many others that seemed to go up rather hastily.

I fear I have wandered way off topic here. I shall launch a nuclear weapon on myself.

 

[disorganizer]

If you want to start a thread on it, do so.
As it was just a info poll to get citizen input BEFORE mayor discussion, it didnt seem necessary.
I thought our beurocracy was not so far advanced we would need this strict handling, but obviously some people get a word-search on the forum and get pissed on all threads where they see certain words (*funny comment* some seem to even search for shaitan or disorganize just to get pissed on anything we post *end of funny comment*).
it was never intended to be binding, as this would have been stated by me (search all my polls, everyone which was binding was declared like that).
now i stop in here on that topic. if anyone want to discuss the proposal, feel free to discuss it. i will answer. i wont open a thread as -understand me- im a bit *deleted comment*.

 

[Chieftess]

20 during the ancient era is fine with me (with a "but..." at the end of the post). I just don't want to see it dwindle to a "let's analyze every possible move". I think we even had this debate LONG ago. In the ancient era, these are things we could stop for (being the game will be on emporer mode):

war (obviously)
contact with another civ - Might involve a change of tactics (i.e., it's a civ that has an early UU, or likes to build culture)
Civs starting to build new wonders. (that is, mark the starting point of say, the Pyramids. Don't bother with civs starting it another turn or two afterwards).


Now, here's the but...

20 turns could miss out on some things, such as someone wanting to build a settler by a river that would have been built on turn 12. But, maybe another civ built a city on that spot on turn 19.

Trade and FA deals last 20 turns.

Build Queues - They will go empty when the city grows, or a growth/production/corruption-reducing improvement is built. Technology can even render it useless. You could have it set to a granary, barracks, and harbor (say, 22 turns). The harbor would make the city grow faster, meaning, it will get new production tiles quicker. That could take it down to 18 turns... not to mention techs. You might not know *what* to build until you get a tech with a new improvement. And just think of what the preturns will be like if we manage to have 20 cities early on.

 

[Octavian X]

20 turns would be good when nothing is happening after we've built the capital, since nothing would be happening, minus exploration. After the third or so turn chat, 10 turns would definetly become the max.

 

[Chieftess]

Sort of like succession games. 20/15/10/10/10 (or 20/10/10/10)

I just don't want to see the game deterioate into a multitude of polls like:

Should we move the warrior north? (yes/no/abstain)
Should we move the warrior north-east? (yes/no/abstain)
....

Should Archer #1 attack?
Should Archer #2 attack?
etc.

(you get the picture).

Then have the polls invalidated because the quorum isn't met.

We'd be spending 1-2 weeks on 1 turn..

 

[disorganizer]

But for example, if you explore, you discover land. If you discover land, the usage of is must be discussed.
I doubt we will have 20 turns of nothing happening, as we didnt have this game (well, max of 5 turns where nothing happened) and we play a higher level, and we may even discover others earlier ;-)

I do not want to see decissions like where to discover and where to build cities in the chat. Thos things, as they are vital to the game, MUST be in the forum and not in the chat.

Many of the officials seem to forget a good part of our citizens does live in timezones where they will never be able to attend chats. So they should also be included for the game, if not then declare a USgameofdemocracy (hey, oximoron. us and democracy ;-) for the us citizens ;-)

There is no need to get to the extend you posted ct (well, litte over-exagurated what you put there), but it should be generally discussed which AREA to explore (like the area north of xy, maybe even with a map and arrows, analoguous to our war-plans), but if explored it should be brought back to forum to decide action.

Speed will be vital in the next game, so if we discover for 20 turns and then come back to the forum to discuss usage, it may be too late. We should take more time in the ancient area. I forecast it exactly the other way around than you do.

I forecast:
5-6 turns in ancient era, 10-15 turns, then 20 turns
why? the ancient era lays out the ground for our civilization. we will soon discover other civs taking valuable living-areas away from us. we will then encounter us bein pressed into a little part of the world, maybe, so we have to prepare war or just build up.
those parts of the game will be those with nothing happening.

btw:
we should also be prepared to have more 1-2 turn chats, like the first one for example ;-)
the high difficulty level will max the number of vital decissions to be taken.

 

[Octavian X]

dis, the way I see it, nothing happens in the first few turns. Depending on our location, we may not even have an exploring of defending warrior by ten turns. Even if we are lucky to get one by five turns, we can discuss the direction of our exploration in the turn chat, with a few general pointers by the citizenry based on the first screen shot. We definetly won't have a settler ready to leave the capital by the end of 20 turns.
Summarized, the first chat should be about 20 turns, next one about 15, after that, revert to our normal 10. Then again, this is all in the hands of our first president. Who knows, it could be me (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

 

[disorganizer]

we could use the worker for exploration. or even move the settler a bit.
exploration early is vital to the game. 20 turns of exploration with a worker is a good thing. we would be able to see the directly surrounding area of our capitol.
so you see, 20 turns at the start is a lot. with no citizen input, this will (Again!) be a chat-only decission!

 

[Octavian X]

I'll admit, I've never used a worker for exploring. But since the majority of our game options are random, we won't know our surround terrain. Bets are we'll need him for improving straight away. As for exploring with the settler, I must adamantly object. He should settle ASAP.

 

[disorganizer]

a good starting position is vital. maybe we should look at the first save before generalizing.
using a worker for improoving may reduce our chances for getting many cities fast, which is vital in a high level game. dont forget the ai has many advantages over us and will settle rapidly in our difficulty level. if we wait too long for discovery, we may end up in non-optimal positions with only few cities imho.

 

[Octavian X]

I'm usually in favor of plopping the settler right away. A later founding usually means delayed production. We can't afford to be a few turns behind on our first (produced) settler.