What kind of DG would you participate in next?

[fed1943]

I must say again: Donsig is right, we are before two different games, not just
two ways to play the same game.

And I do understand DaveShack concern, he fears that a split in the community would make the two games void of people.

But that "split" is just illusory, people who likes the civ shall play it, people who likes the roleplay shall play it, and people who likes both shall play both.

I , as one, will not play the "roleplay" (with or without a civ game).

(I played this last one just to check if the rules were "good" ; I thought they
weren't until the moment I realized two different games).

And the "half way" is just... you whip or not, you destroy one AI just to be one less remaining or not.

I say, let's try.

 

[Falcon02]

But that "split" is just illusory, people who likes the civ shall play it, people who likes the roleplay shall play it, and people who likes both shall play both.

On that last point about both, all I can say is many of us only have a finite amount of time that can be devoted to the Demogame. It can be hard enough finding the free time for one demogame, let alone two. I voted "Both" (ie. Traditional) as I like both aspects, and still feel the two can be properly balanced. But if two seperate games are created I will only be able to participate in one, and that one would most likely be the Roleplay one. Assuming of course the roleplay doesn't take over and it turns into an economics simulator...

 

[Chieftess]

of course the roleplay doesn't take over and it turns into an economics simulator...

I remember that... "How can you have a stock exchange when we haven't even researched currency!?".

I'd much rather have a realistic role-play aspect to the demogame (not roleplay with the demogame secondary, BTW), similar to how Civ3 DG1 (a bit more integrated - case in point, the Asphinxian Ball (remember the steamed crab debates, Falcon?), Ehecatl's Travels, Delphi County, etc.).

I think the new players here probably think us old folks are a bit off center.

 

[vra379971]

I remember that... "How can you have a stock exchange when we haven't even researched currency!?".

I'd much rather have a realistic role-play aspect to the demogame (not roleplay with the demogame secondary, BTW), similar to how Civ3 DG1 (a bit more integrated - case in point, the Asphinxian Ball (remember the steamed crab debates, Falcon?), Ehecatl's Travels, Delphi County, etc.).

I think the new players here probably think us old folks are a bit off center.

I agree. I think the central issue is that roleplaying should be era specific. So, yeah. No stock exchanges in 500 BCE.

That's just...nonsense really. And it isn't roleplaying.

 

[Cyc]

Yes, but buying real estate or bidding on it will also be out of time sync. We always try to stay in time with the game. And that's the norm usually. Sometimes, in order to keep the participation up, we over-extended our opportunities. Chieftess, you always pull out the DG1 stories, like they were bonifide RPGs. They were just people having fun, that's it. And if you remember, they were using nuclear weapons and modern armor in the 1880's. Just to bring you back from nostalgia-land. OK, so there was the CYC Corporation a little too early, but I owned like 4 castles and several businesses. It was inevitable.

I don't think there's very much wrong with an RPG, such as the one in DG2, out-pacing the DG just to spark interest. As long as it fits and is accepted by the majority.

 

[ordinaryguy]

For me, real life has been really hetic lately, so I'll probably lurk for now.

 

[Nobody]

Civ4 sucks, it takes too long.

 

[DaveShack]

Civ4 sucks, it takes too long.

Civ4 gives you options, if you're willing to use them. Quick speed shaves a lot off the time, and advanced era starts can help too. With BTS there's a diplomatic win available in the late middle ages if you can get enough civs singing from the same hymnal.

 

[GenMarshall]

A traditional Demogame with a blend of both. It's better to cater to both than to just one and alienate the other.

 

[Provolution]

It seems the traditionalists and perfect gamers are here in full force in the negotiation over a new demogame structure. However, this poll suggests we are split into the middle, with 11 players wanting an roleplay-driven demogame government structure that interacts with the gameworld, where we got about 10 players that want a more traditional demogame as they used to or a perfectly operated game.


However, CIV4 BTS is radically different from CIV3 and very different from other CIV4 versions. A Civics-centric election system would solve most of this problem, as we get the historical immersion a traditional demogame would not give.

A Traditional demogame have 1 term = 1 month elections, and a separate election for each position. However, with this structure, you get a game where old veterans trade favors by voting for each other or you will see old antagonists undermining each other, with no recourse to game strategy itself.

CIVICS PRIMARIES would solve this problem, now leadership will be consistent with civics, appointments, time period, relative power to the meaning of the word of the civic and other factors that mimic reality more successful than the traditional demogame. The metagame has to be immersive and integrate these aspects, and be closely linked to the main game, or the majority of 11 players wanting this set-up would not have been heard.

However, it is only a slight majority, so we need to find a way to balance out interests with the 7 traditionalists and 3 perfect gamers.