Ideas for Changes to the Diplo Style

[Calanthian]

Maybe a strange thought for other diplo games:

let's say we have 12 players, four starting alliances are formed
and then every 200 turns or so the alliances are reshuffled by a double-blind procedure with a 20 turn no-attack rule
(in game: rulers die etc etc.)

This would result in shifting alliances which require real diplo skill, and it mimics a bit more the shift in alliances during time..
and it would result in a very dynamic game

[OzzyKP]

Maybe a strange thought for other diplo games:

let's say we have 12 players, four starting alliances are formed
and then every 200 turns or so the alliances are reshuffled by a double-blind procedure with a 20 turn no-attack rule
(in game: rulers die etc etc.)

This would result in shifting alliances which require real diplo skill, and it mimics a bit more the shift in alliances during time..
and it would result in a very dynamic game

Actually I tried to start a game a bit ago where things shuffled even more. Every 50-100 turns everyone would switch civs. This would not only shuffle up the alliance system it'd give everyone a chance to see the game from different perspectives, get less emotionally attached to their civ, and allow the very different skill levels in the game balance each other out.

One reality that exists in every single game is that we have players of very different skill levels. More than land quality or anything else, it is certain that certain players will be on top in every game because they just flat out know how to play. Which is the genius of having everyone switch a few times a game. The good players would eventually find themselves leading the last place civs and those civs would benefit from their talent, whereas the dominant civs would find themselves led by the less skilled. This would provide some balancing in the globe, plus give people a more diverse set of experiences. Personally I love taking over a last place civ and rebuilding it. I imagine players who are used to always being in last place would love to take over for a leading civ like Russia or Neandor if given the opportunity.

It would really shake things up! Sadly, I couldn't keep it going past the first few turns.

[Calanthian]

Actually I tried to start a game a bit ago where things shuffled even more. Every 50-100 turns everyone would switch civs. This would not only shuffle up the alliance system it'd give everyone a chance to see the game from different perspectives, get less emotionally attached to their civ, and allow the very different skill levels in the game balance each other out.

One reality that exists in every single game is that we have players of very different skill levels. More than land quality or anything else, it is certain that certain players will be on top in every game because they just flat out know how to play. Which is the genius of having everyone switch a few times a game. The good players would eventually find themselves leading the last place civs and those civs would benefit from their talent, whereas the dominant civs would find themselves led by the less skilled. This would provide some balancing in the globe, plus give people a more diverse set of experiences. Personally I love taking over a last place civ and rebuilding it. I imagine players who are used to always being in last place would love to take over for a leading civ like Russia or Neandor if given the opportunity.

It would really shake things up! Sadly, I couldn't keep it going past the first few turns.

This wouldn't work for me..
I always get attached to those silly workers and military men on the screen

Still, if we can come up with a good working game mechanic which would prevent too static alliances that would be great..

[OzzyKP]

Yea, that's the problem. People are too attached to their civs to switch.

I really think it'd be an awesome new kind of diplogame, I just wish I wasn't the only one interested in it, heh.

[LzPrst]

I was interested and I even joined, but I totally overdosed on civ and lost interest. Also, several other players dropped off so I figured that game would not work. I would however be willing to try again.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Yea, that's the problem. People are too attached to their civs to switch.

I really think it'd be an awesome new kind of diplogame, I just wish I wasn't the only one interested in it, heh.

You're not the Only One!! I was thinking about the same thing last night, which is why I wrote that long post above (about Superpowers, Pawns and Fodder" ). After trying to think about how to make it work, I just kept coming to the conclusion that everyone would be too attached to want to switch.

But you bringing it up gave me another idea. What if instead of random shuffling, you got to PICK your civ based on how you were doing in the diplo voting? That would give some real teeth to the diplo voting. Basically, you could join as a low ranked civ and then story-post your way into a top tier civ.

[Calanthian]

Another wild option:

* Make RISK type of orders which are handed out every 100 turns, to each civ.
* We have a standard set of orders which get assigned via a double-blind system.
* You get points for completing your assignment. And that's how you win.

Examples could be:
1) Conquer a city from the highest ranking civ
2) Ally with the lowest ranking civ, and conquer a size 10 city for him.
3) Conquer a city on another continent.
4) Discover a tech which has a special bonus for the first one to reach it (GP, tech, religion).
5) Steal a tech from any of the top 5 players.
6) Raze a city.
7) Backstab an ally and conquer one of his cities.
8) Make peace with all players

[OzzyKP]

Oh, my ... I was thinking I am going nut when I though that if the game is about to fall apart, it can be life-saving belt to random switch the civs between the players. This is what I meant in my earlier post today -

So does that mean you'd play in a civ-switching game?

I'd be ok with Lz's approach of tying the switching to story posting somehow.

[The Priest]

Hey Ozzy, you're not on your own. I was all for the switching game. I even thought it was my idea, but it probably wasn't.

I think it is well worth trying. You just need to keep it to a small number of players for a first attempt, and I would say you have to have a quick timer (well maybe normal) so that things do happen in each players turn. Definitely on for it.

I understand the desire for changes to alliances as in Calanthian's original post. I find them very annoying. They are so unrealistic - alliances lasting for millenia - and stultify the game. What is worse people get all self-righteous when you try to move on from them, as if there is some betray if alliances shift over 50 years. However, I can't see how Calanthian's suggestion can work, what is an 'alliance?' if I am told I have to be in alliance with others. Though maybe that is too cynical. It would be great if we could get something like that to work.

The idea of picking civs dependent on story voting is interesting. However, I think that the truth is that often the people who write most stories are also the better players. Not completely of course, but the group of experiences diplo players tend to be good at both, therefore you may not get the proper mixing you might want. Also the whole story thing has become debased in my mind anyway. You get so much stuff written by a small group of players, people can't keep up and much of it is really boring unless you are really up with everything they have written in the last few weeks. It could work perhaps if people just wrote up a single post on 'the annals of civ X' at the end of their time, and votes on those determined the pic order.

The RISK order idea is interesting. I can't quite see how it will work though since if your nation isn't very powerful you would find it more difficult to fulfil these kind of quests compared to the more powerful. Quests would add a new exciting dymanic (compared to the current dominant one which is - keep teching and building until into the modern era then attack) but not sure it would stop a small group dominating.

I think the real answer to revitalising diplo though is to play on fast speed. I always say this and nobody wants to. But the problem I think is that the games just last too long. If you aren't doing that well you can have fun playing for a few months, but there are limits. Also its the real time you have spent with a nation which makes you so attached, which is the cause of all the agro which sometimes erupts. Played for 3 months and the guy next door betrays you, well its a game. Played for 9 months and he does, it feels personal. It seems to me, no insult meant to anyone else, but people want an 'epic' a huge game, lots of players, slow speed, etc. and it just is too much. The desire outpaces our ability to deliver.

[LzPrst]

wasn't my idea to tie switching civs to story posts.

was my idea to randomly swap civs every x turns in a previous game.


The Priest has some interesting points. the time invested in your civ makes you very much attached to it. a shorter turn timer (even normal) may well make it less serious.

On a side note, imagine how leaders like Stalin, Hitler or Churchill must have felt commanding real people and winning or losing at the most epic scale imagineable. Imagine the stress and fury of Hitler in his bunker as he knew his "civ" or rather his nation and his life was lost. We all feel part of that when our civ takes a hit, a strange thing to consider how it must have felt for real. Hell, even Ghaddafi was displaying the very "this is a completely unfair gank!" attitude of diplogamers when the west bombed his military recently.

Maybe that is part of the diplogame? I made a suggestion before that there should be "advisors" in diplogames called Viziers (or something similar), their role would be to advise weaker civs and help them out if it was wanted and in a crisis, take over the civ. In that way the role of Vizier would switch from advisor to active player, and rather than stop the entire game for "cold turkey time", a free advisor could take over, run the civ and let the former player either take a temporary break, or go off to be someone else's advisor. It was an elegant idea, but it somehow failed utterly in implementation, possibly because there were not enough players willing to take a 2nd seat role. However, we keep seeing that such a function is becoming necessary. Of course, we could just let the AI take over civs whose players need a time-out, but the AI screws things up so bad that often it does more harm than good.

[OzzyKP]

So it looks like 5 or 6 folks here are interested in the civ switching idea. I'd love to try it out. Perhaps in conjunction with a quicker game.

The problem last time was also one of organization. It really does take a lot of effort and a lot of will to run these games. I don't think we give Robert enough credit for all he does. I did it mostly myself before Robert got back involved, and I don't know if I have the time or patience for it any longer. I tried to do it with the last game, but couldn't keep up.

[Inca (DoE)]

Interested, although if DoE/G&H start up again I won't have the time for 4 games. 3 is a bit much as-is.

[Calanthian]

The RISK order idea is interesting. I can't quite see how it will work though since if your nation isn't very powerful you would find it more difficult to fulfil these kind of quests compared to the more powerful. Quests would add a new exciting dymanic (compared to the current dominant one which is - keep teching and building until into the modern era then attack) but not sure it would stop a small group dominating.

But if we make orders in which the bigger civs have to help smaller ones that also helps to even things out..

2) Ally with the lowest ranking civ, and conquer a size 10 city for him.
9) Backstab one of the top 5 players and conquer two of his cities.
10) Attack your biggest neighbour and conquer two of his cities.
11) First ally with the lowest ranking player you have fought a war against. Then fight a war against one of your former allies.

[Inca (DoE)]

A few things I think are necessary:
no score mod
greater "known tech" bonuses (50% or more)
right of passage options (only non-mil units can enter)
toroidal maps (greatly increases connections between players)
maps designed so that everyone has the greatest number of neighbors possible
Maps with plenty of water to increase international connectedness (plus increased ship movement)
some cheaper version of the explorer that dosen't have supply costs (for RP use and to let people have easy eyes on other territories without bankrupting themselves or sucking out a ton of production) ***

This would make for a more dynamic game.

*** I think it helps keep interest when you can watch what's going on all around you, and it's nice to help the weaker players, as they can see what the stronger players are doing and how they're expanding. Being stuck in a foggy void of knowledge sucks the fun out of the game a bit.

[Calanthian]

no score mod
greater "known tech" bonuses (50% or more)
right of passage options (only non-mil units can enter)
toroidal maps (greatly increases connections between players)
maps designed so that everyone has the greatest number of neighbors possible
Maps with plenty of water to increase international connectedness (plus increased ship movement)
some cheaper version of the explorer that dosen't have supply costs (for RP use and to let people have easy eyes on other territories without bankrupting themselves or sucking out a ton of production) ***

Splendid suggestions! These should be in..


But we also need something more to get more flexible alliances...