New Horizons - New Diplogame Set-Up Thread

[OzzyKP]

I'm mildly interested in getting another diplogame set up. Something to run concurrently with DoC. I'm hoping to keep it small though, something between 5-8 players. I think the community can handle two concurrent games (I'm hoping some DoC folks will join this one too).

I want to do something different in this game. We've gotten into a bit of a rut (imho) in recent years with the games all more or less the same. All good, don't get me wrong, and the rules and voting systems have been refined greatly, but the format has been exactly the same.

I don't have an agenda as far as *what* to do different, but I want to do *something* different. Some ideas:

1. Succession-type diplogame - We set up some system where players will swap civs every so often. One unrealistic (and ultimately boring) element of diplogames is you have an omnipotent leader who guides his nation and plots strategy from 4,000 BC till 2,000 AD. Nations change, adapt, have different regimes, different personalities, etc. Swapping out players will accomplish this. Plus it could help balance the game as the top players would cycle down to lower civs.

2. Playing on a real world map - In the Civ2 days we would often play on world maps or Europe maps, but I don't think we've ever done it in Civ4. While we don't have the fun of exploring a map, I think it is great to put our game in a historical context, playing where great empires have come and gone.

3. Using some mods - This could take some work to set up the mod, but there are various neat rule changes and things we could add. There lots of little things here to check out: http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=180 New promotions, forts that have borders, new ways of doing tech trading, etc.

4. Playing a scenario or full modpack - My ideal would be to do Fall from Heaven 2 as a diplogame, but I don't think it works with Pitboss unfortunately. And I don't think any of us have the patience any longer for live MP (I don't anymore). But Rhye's and Fall might work, and there are a large variety of mods out there. We could do something in space, or Ancient Greece, or a Mad Max type game or many other options.

5. Allowing elimination - Someone had suggested we play a diplogame where we allow civs to be annexed and destroyed completely. Not encouraged, mind you, we don't want this to turn into a regular free for all game, but when civs are pretty small and backwards and far behind, sometimes the humane thing is to just put them out of their misery and put them out of the game. If we have two games running at the same time being defeated utterly may be easier to stomach since (in theory) they wouldn't have to wait another 8 months for another game to start up.

6. A game of all fantasy civs - In BtP my civ was the "Metalheads" but everyone else played traditional, historical-type civs. Perhaps we could have a game where everyone is a fantasy civ. Middle-earth vs. Marvel Comics vs. Final Fantasy vs. Asgard, etc.

7. Or.. anything else you guys can think of. Just something to switch the game up a bit.


Obviously first we need some players, but then we need to decide which if any of these ideas we decide to implement. My picks are options 1 and 2 definitely. If we can find the right one, I'd love option 4 too. I'd love to try and pull Rhye's and Fall off, but it will definitely be a big change from traditional games.

Who's with me?

[Dubhghlas]

I would like in. I've been following along with the DoC game, and some of the things y'all are struggling with are very familiar to me from years of playing EU2 MP, games which as you may know take months to finish. I like the idea of combining ideas 1 and 2, though I think the trouble with Civ on real world maps is that you need to space out the European civs, or they simply have no where to go

[Robert Plomp]

I'm not sure if I will sign up for this one or not (first I'll give others a chance anyway), but I'd like it to use the opportunity to launch an idea I got yesterday, especially since you ask for ideas

- Official Relationship Monitor
Every must include in it's signature their official relationship monitor.
This monitor can be updated at most once per week, but also less often.

In the relationship monitor every civ displays it's relation with all other civs.
There are a numbe of official statuses, all come with some possibilities or prohibities.
Every status can only be given to at most 2 civs.

The purpose is to somehow make diplomacy more important, and echo the single player attitude civs have to each other.
It will prevent too large alliances to grow, and it can (At a certain level of friendship) prohobit a stab in the back.

This is just an example of how such a status list could look like:
(keeping in mind that anything that come with a status will only apply if the other civ has at least the same friendly or enemy status on you)

- sworn allies. (forced mutual defence, war prohobited, all trades allowed, forced open borders)
- allies (mutual defence allowed, war prohibited, all trades allowed)
- friends (resource trades allowed, open borders allowed, map trading allowed)
- contact (resource trades allowed, open borders allowed)
- foe (no trades allowed)
- enemy (no trades allowed with sworn allies of enemy)
- Vendeta (no trades allowed with (sworn) allies of enemy, must declare war)

I think this may lead to some intersting diplo dynamics.

[Robert Plomp]

I also like (a combination of) ideas 2,3, 5 and 6

[Korea (DoC)]

Te idea of rotating the leader is th best part i think.

As many say the game long allaicnes and such like are mainly formed becasue it is the same person behind the screen.

In rea ll ife natiosn change allegiance often due ot the fact it is a totaly different person.

So i think an enforced leadership sohuld be good.


And no need to just make it a rotation of palyes in game.

Maybe open it up to anyone who is following the game to join in. This way a sub can join for a period and her doesnt ahve to live up to any agrements at all. oh that would be fun...

[Russia (DoC)]

I love it! just afraid that I may not have time...

Can I play the Klingons?

[St Jon]

From my personal point of view I do not like Succession Games at all. I did not like them in CtP or SMAC, never did play Civ2 MP, as they can produce silly situations in swap-overs, e.g. fighting your previous nation, or just an incomplete experience where you just get 20 turns and then hand on to someone else.

I like all the other ideas. The fantasy idea is fun and you are right about the mods, if they work in PitBoss, on CFC having some great additions to the game. What about Capo's mod? Has it ever been tried in earnest? If it works then some of his ideas, especially regarding espionage and religion, sounded well worth giving a try.

On a tangent; I have never played CivIV Colonisation at all but always loved the old original Colonisation. Does the add-on work well enough to give a feel of that old gem of a game? I had stopped playing SP when the add-on came out so I never bought it but is it worth a try? If so, is it worth basing an MP Game around as then you could have a straight real world map.

Cyber's 'Relationship Monitor' is a nice idea but stabbing someone in the back is part of politics. Stalin and Hitler signed the 'Pact of Steel', carved up Poland and then Germany promptly stabbed Russia and would have captured Moscow but for stupidity. History is littered with good friends gone bad.

[Korea (DoC)]

i agree the rotation of players from one civ t oantoher wouldnt work, but i would like to be involved in one where a group of random players were rotated in.

give everyone a set number or turns...

of course menas some games your influnec will be small , other games it could be huge.

it could be anon like too.

each leader stepping down anonympusly and sending login detials to next on list in the game no one would even know a new palyer till deals broken ..

mmm sounds fun

[deity]

Hi guys!

Suffering withdrawals and need to play at least one Civ 4 game on real Earth, YES!

We started our first diplos on a real Earth but some joker passworded his civ and a version upgrade disabled the ability to login to that civ... would you believe - game was screwed

[deity]

Also, I would like to play full random where all players get whatever civ and play completely anonymously.

[Robert Plomp]

My first diplo game was an Europe map.
That was pretty nice as well, though also very unballanced.
I was Germany

[Dubhghlas]

Hey, look at it this way: you never had the chance to make the mistake of starting a land war in Asia.

[Robert Plomp]

I made that mistake a lot in civ2, I loved it

[LzPrst]

real shame that civ4 has no way to show attrition and morale in an army... (land war in asia)

anyway. I'll play. I really like the succession idea and there are creative ways of implementing it. It is also something we have never tried before. There are of course potential problems, for example, if 2 civs are at war and their leaders swap, (or just one of them gets the other nation) a very big information imbalance will occur. some way to avoid this should be implemented.
Another way to do it would be to have 1-2 players in continous "Vizier" mode. by that I mean that if we have 14 players, we will have 12 civs, and on a rotation basis 2 players will become advisors to the leader of a weak civ. this would also allow us to swap leaders at logical points, for example at revolution. when a leader starts a revolution one of the viziers will take over the civ and the player will become Vizier (of his own nation or another). the rotation of player-civ will go gradually through the 2 "fallow" players.

example: 3 players, 1 vizier.
Arabia - player A
Babylon - player B
Carthage - player C (+Vizier player V)

Babylon is first to discover Bronze Working, kicks off a revolution and player B is overthrown (by himself) and becomes Vizier to Arabia (lowest score/lowest GNP/first on a list/randomly chosen whatever we decide on). Player V takes over Babylon.
The situation is now
Arabia - player A (+ B)
Babylon - player V
Carthage - player C

Next the turn limit for continuous play runs out for Arabia, player A becomes Vizier and player B becomes ruler of Arabia. Carthage realizes it needs to make a government change as well and starts a revolution. Player C becomes Vizier (let's say to babylon), player A takes over Carthage.
Arabia - player B
Babylon - player V (+player C)
Carthage - player A

If a player is stuck in Vizier mode for a certain number of turns that we agree is too long (pre-decided number, e.g. 20 turns) he will have the possibility to "Claim the Throne" of the player that has been continously playing the longest. That player then finishes by telling how his leader dies or loses power, becomes a Vizier, and the new player takes over.

With 2 viziers we can make certain that civs at war won't swap leaders. it will also create a very dynamic game situation and hopefully, Viziers will be able to either help weak players or if they are weak players themselves, learn from others.

Having players "not play" may seem boring, but I think that moving between ruler and advisor would create interesting stories. Players may agree to delegate real power to their Vizier like giving control of all military units, or, ruling the eastern half of the empire, or administrating the colonies, etc. This would also create great opportunities for stories about internal powerstruggles. I have myself played the role of sub/advisor in some games and I have had advice from others. I found the opportunity to discuss ideas with another player extremely fun and valuable, and I also enjoyed advising another player, especially since I was partly running the civ at times, and partly just giving tips.

[OzzyKP]

Linking it to revolutions is very interesting. I really, really like the idea for story and realism reasons.

However it seems like an easily manipulated system. If you don't like the civ you've got, just call a revolution and go elsewhere. If you like who you've got, try to tough it out with the civics you've got.



Also, player list so far:

OzzyKP
Dubhghlas
CyberShy/Robert Plomp?
St Jon?
deity
LzPrst

[St Jon]

Yes, I'd like to play with the only caveat that we avoid the straight 'Civ Swap' as I have played that way in CtP and it does produce some silly situations if it is really random. If it is manually controlled then there is one person controlling the destiny of every Civ in the game which makes it hard for them to be a player themselves.

I like LzPrst's idea but it comes very close to a Diplomacy Game and even on a small World you are looking at a very large number of players to get it to work. I doubt we could even get, still less maintain, the number needed for a 6-9 month game. If we have a very small game and can get enough committed players it could be great fun. Goodwill would need to be mandatory and an acceptance that it is an experimental game also. It might work.

[OzzyKP]

Yes, I'd like to play with the only caveat that we avoid the straight 'Civ Swap' as I have played that way in CtP and it does produce some silly situations if it is really random. If it is manually controlled then there is one person controlling the destiny of every Civ in the game which makes it hard for them to be a player themselves.

I like LzPrst's idea but it comes very close to a Diplomacy Game and even on a small World you are looking at a very large number of players to get it to work. I doubt we could even get, still less maintain, the number needed for a 6-9 month game. If we have a very small game and can get enough committed players it could be great fun. Goodwill would need to be mandatory and an acceptance that it is an experimental game also. It might work.

If we did a Civ swap but put conditions on it preventing civs at war from switching, etc, would that be workable?

I have no idea what the best way to implement it is, but I really, really want to try this idea.

Also, as far as the game size and number of players, I really didn't want more than like 7 civs to start with, so it looks like we've already got 6 people interested in the game. I'm sure we could tack on another one or two players and that'd be sufficient for us. As I don't especially want the game to be all-consuming, I wouldn't mind at all waiting in the "on-deck circle" as a Vizier.

[LzPrst]

6-7 players and 1 Vizier then? It has other advantages as Ozzy mentions, if someone needs a break we have a standby sub.

As mentioned, you can "manipulate" the system by never changing civics, but if we say that a Vizier can "Claim the Throne" of a civ that has been run by the same player for 40 consecutive turns, then the manipulation becomes far less likely. (or some other number we find to be reasonable)

As for game and commitment, Dance of Civilizations has been running for several months now, and hardly anyone has dropped off completely (just Rome I think). And most of the players on that list are serious non-quitting players. We could also play on a normal sized map with normal speed. Then the game would not take as long.

[Korea (DoC)]

sounds woirth an experiemtn but i see real probs with knowing another civ intimatly then taking voer another.

[LzPrst]

WORTH, experImeNT, probLEMs, OVer.

(i'll let intimatEly slide since the E is silent)

[OzzyKP]

6-7 players and 1 Vizier then? It has other advantages as Ozzy mentions, if someone needs a break we have a standby sub.

As mentioned, you can "manipulate" the system by never changing civics, but if we say that a Vizier can "Claim the Throne" of a civ that has been run by the same player for 40 consecutive turns, then the manipulation becomes far less likely. (or some other number we find to be reasonable)

As for game and commitment, Dance of Civilizations has been running for several months now, and hardly anyone has dropped off completely (just Rome I think). And most of the players on that list are serious non-quitting players. We could also play on a normal sized map with normal speed. Then the game would not take as long.

There is still the issue of someone getting a civ they don't want and calling a revolution soon in order to leave it. Also, when I take over a new civ, civics is the first thing I examine (because a lot of people seem to run dumb civics). So if you jumped to a new civ and wanted to change the civics to something that fit with your strategy for the civ, you'd be leaving right away and someone else (who may or may not like those civics) would take over.

[LzPrst]

We could make a rule saying that if a new player revolutionizes within 10 turns of a previous revolution, or within 10 turns of a power-change, another change in ruler is not required. (or any number of turns we all agree on) Keep in mind that consecutive revolutions is very harmful to development and should be avoided. Trying to make the best of a civ stuck in harmful traditional ways is a very historical (and challenging) task. A good example is the historical Ottoman empire in its later days.

I honestly feel that if a player gets a civ that he doesn't like and then immediately starts a revolution to get rid of it, that is poor attitude. With a 10 turn buffer that allows for changes without keeping the carousel going at unenjoyable speed.

Another way to do it is to allow the Vizier to order a change of civics as part of his "Claim the Throne" ability.



Here is an idea. We have in Dance of Civs a vote system for Attitude, Diplomacy and Storytelling. The Diplomacy category is in my opinion a bit amputated since most civs have little clue what faraway civs (or sometimes even local civs) are doing diplomatically that does not involve themselves. And the same goes for the Attitude score.

If we combine Diplomacy and Storytelling into "In Character Activities", and remake Attitude into "Prestige", we could be well on the way to creating an incentive to stick with a civ.

Prestige is gained from having a good attitude, AND an evaluation of the improvement made to a civ. If Player A takes over Civ B and greatly increases its score/GNP/production/army size/city number/whatever criteria we feel is important, he should gain a high Prestige vote. This is of course balanced by his attitude. If he does well, but shows poor sportsmanship (attacking much weaker civs, sneak attacks etc), points should be retracted when voting. The same goes vice-versa, poor players who struggle on and keep trying should get high prestige votes even if their improvement is weak.

That way there are only 2 vote categories:
1. In Character Activity (diplomacy+stories)
2. Prestige (attitude+improvement)

Another source for prestige could be how long you hold on to a crappy civ (and how much you may have improved it)

comments?

[St Jon]

I honestly feel that if a player gets a civ that he doesn't like and then immediately starts a revolution to get rid of it, that is poor attitude. With a 10 turn buffer that allows for changes without keeping the carousel going at unenjoyable speed.

Another way to do it is to allow the Vizier to order a change of civics as part of his "Claim the Throne" ability.

Here is an idea. We have in Dance of Civs a vote system for Attitude, Diplomacy and Storytelling. The Diplomacy category is in my opinion a bit amputated since most civs have little clue what faraway civs (or sometimes even local civs) are doing diplomatically that does not involve themselves. And the same goes for the Attitude score.

If we combine Diplomacy and Storytelling into "In Character Activities", and remake Attitude into "Prestige", we could be well on the way to creating an incentive to stick with a civ.

Prestige is gained from having a good attitude, AND an evaluation of the improvement made to a civ. If Player A takes over Civ B and greatly increases its score/GNP/production/army size/city number/whatever criteria we feel is important, he should gain a high Prestige vote. This is of course balanced by his attitude. If he does well, but shows poor sportsmanship (attacking much weaker civs, sneak attacks etc), points should be retracted when voting. The same goes vice-versa, poor players who struggle on and keep trying should get high prestige votes even if their improvement is weak.

That way there are only 2 vote categories:
1. In Character Activity (diplomacy+stories)
2. Prestige (attitude+improvement)

Another source for prestige could be how long you hold on to a crappy civ (and how much you may have improved it)

comments?

Very good.

I like the prestige idea as 'Diplomacy' is almost impossible to make an true judgement on. If, and I'd love to see it would work, everything is based upon what Player A does for Civ X rather than the French win traditional way then you get over the old problems of having a crappy starting position or no natural resources.

The very start does, I think, need to be handled carefully. Most of us will head for Bronze Working and go Slavery ASAP. I reckon that may be too early for a swap?

How do we handle Spiritual leaders that effectively never have a revolution? How do we handle sync so that each Civ always has a leader? By game dynamics you are never going to get 40 Turns each.

By definition you are never going to be able to just straight get out of a Civ you don't like inside 10 Turns for Civics but you could with Religion. What does somebody do that inherits 5 Turns of Anarchy as their gift?

Must be very careful of good manners and game spirit. It would be very easy to sabotage a Civ you were leaving so playing must be much more important than winning.

[Heraclitus]

Depending on the game... but for the most part I am quite interested.

I am strongly in favour of 5 and 4. Some time ago I tried to organize a Final Frontier game and got the players and the rules to agree... but we didn't have a host.

On a tangent; I have never played CivIV Colonisation at all but always loved the old original Colonisation. Does the add-on work well enough to give a feel of that old gem of a game? I had stopped playing SP when the add-on came out so I never bought it but is it worth a try? If so, is it worth basing an MP Game around as then you could have a straight real world map.

This. I've been playing a lot of Civ4 Col, and its pretty good. I would so love a MP Diplo Game of colonization (with special victory conditions that we agree upon previously) or even just a regular MP game of col.


Think about how detalied the economy is in colonization! You could invest money into ventures, trade raw resources for finished products, lease out specialists, ect. All we need to do is perhaps decide on what constitutes a "win", otherwise the race to declare independance may be dull (can you still declare independance from your home country even if you disable it as a victory condition?)

[Korea (DoC)]

i think if you were going to paly this style then there is no IN GAME winner at all. IN GAME score is irrelevant and so space launch should be disabled.

have qa full voting system only...

[St Jon]

This. I've been playing a lot of Civ4 Col, and its pretty good. I would so love a MP Diplo Game of colonization (with special victory conditions that we agree upon previously) or even just a regular MP game of col.


Think about how detalied the economy is in colonization! You could invest money into ventures, trade raw resources for finished products, lease out specialists, ect. All we need to do is perhaps decide on what constitutes a "win", otherwise the race to declare independance may be dull (can you still declare independance from your home country even if you disable it as a victory condition?)

From what you say I will go out and buy it. I loved the old game, apart from the poor end game of independence where you always won, and the brilliant economic system where you start as just an agrarian society sending raw materials back to the mother country and change into an industrial powerhouse yourself. If it does work that well then I'd love to try it.

i think if you were going to paly this style then there is no IN GAME winner at all. IN GAME score is irrelevant and so space launch should be disabled.

have qa full voting system only...

You are right. It could only work on a 'votes only count' basis. It still would need very good natured people and could not have anonymity as it is the player rather than the civ that becomes the focus. Be a very good Prussian but a Greek that cannot add up it does not matter.

[mzprox]

Civ4 col was a great dissapointment to me, nice graphic but broken game play. (stupid game mechanics, uninteligent ai etc) it might be interesting for a diplo game, I'm not sure if it's suitable for one.

[Heraclitus]

From what you say I will go out and buy it. I loved the old game, apart from the poor end game of independence where you always won, and the brilliant economic system where you start as just an agrarian society sending raw materials back to the mother country and change into an industrial powerhouse yourself. If it does work that well then I'd love to try it.

Its a near clone of the original. The end game is better since you have a few good decisions to make and the enemy is harder to defeat.

[OzzyKP]

I could go with Colonization. I've never played it as MP before, would be quite interesting. I'd suggest we play Dale's mod. I made a good new world map to go along with it.

As for voting... yea we'd have to get rid of anonymous since people would be switching a lot.

Or... and this is kind of artificial, but we could have everyone switch once a month so everyone would only be playing one civ for each voting period.

[Heraclitus]

Civ4 col was a great dissapointment to me, nice graphic but broken game play. (stupid game mechanics, uninteligent ai etc) it might be interesting for a diplo game, I'm not sure if it's suitable for one.

Well it has most of the same issues that Colonization had. Also with live players it would be much much more interesting than Civ. But we need to find alternative victory condtions to the "score" and "revolution" option.


Perhaps something like the system Lz suggested? Players wouldn't be ranked on their ingame score but on their "governors" careers. We could change governors every 50 turns at which point the colony's finances, population and military strenght are compared to what they where before. People could enter into complex economic arangments like:

-I give you free tobbaco and some gold below market price so you can avoid your King's taxes and focus your cities pop on industry rather than resource gathering eariler.

-I will help you conquer the Suix and let you keep their land if you support me in my revolution.

-You will build schools and a universtiy early, I will provide you with cash while you train up my petty criminals and indenture servants.

-I wish to buy the cigar factory in New Amsterdam for 3000 gold. I will take care of delivering the food to my workers there, and all the factories produces go to me off course. I am willing to pay a 10% tax on profits.

-I'm willing to pay a 10% tax to you if we can trade via your ports so I can avoid my kings taxes. This will raise your taxes but you are so far behind you need the cash quickly.

-Your colony gets killed off or reduced to irrelevance. But instead of having nothing fun to do like civ, you could morf into a mercenary band or perhaps a pirate. Since your governership is scored by relative gains compared to when you took over your civ playing a few soldiers who manage to buy horses and earn a lot of cash helping someone fight their king or enslaving Natives for someone else would get you quite a bit of points! Seriusly you could even make money by just having one transport ship and charging for micromanaging transport for someone! Or you could quite literaly charge someone for running a few of their cities if you are well known as at managing earning a few K.

(a player could have just one colony but become the best "governor" in his 50 turns, just by making good investments. W

Actually maybe we could have 5 players be "governors" while one or two players are "investors". An investor could be limited to having just one colony or perhaps one extra colony allowed for every subsequent century, but he would have the advantage of keeping his cities and not switching around! I would love to play such a capitalist! )


ect.