I am trying to bring back Diplogames...

[deity]

Originally posted by The Capo
So Master-Mike and Deity are going to play in both games? I'm pretty sure they're already in a game on Saturdays (in Australia) so it would be hard for them to play in two games in one day, let alone three games over the course of one weekend, wouldn't it?

EDIT: Oh yeah, I agree with Ozzy that we should put the game on "epic" speed, its a Diplogame anyway so its supposed to be epic.

The USA Fri night and Sat night diplogames are in the afternoons here; so they don't clash with the main Aussie games.

I'll confirm for BOTH diplogames but my story writing might suffer a bit.

I want Australia for the Fri nighter if that's OK with everyone?

I'll be Djungguwan of the Gurka'wuy tribe (civ) using the English slot with Exp/Fin traits.

[OzzyKP]

Hmmm....

[The Capo]

To Deity...

I think it will be a little difficult to do what you ask Deity, as it stands the leader names look like they're simply going to be our log-ins rather than an actual name (i.e. I will appear as "TheCapo" during the game rather than Julius Caesar), although I have a feeling there's a way around this.

As far as creating everything else surrounding the tribe I'm sure that's possible, but Ozzy is swamped with this stuff right now and I'll be out of town for the next couple of days as it is Thanksgiving (here in the States). Last night Ozzy and I actually discussed editing the citylists and tribe names (since we don't see the leaderhead in MP it isn't important that we find that), it looks like we're going to have to alter the code of the games directly at this point, and I'm not sure if anyone wants to do that.

Although, I have to admit my research on the topic wasn't that in-depth so if anybody hears anything about changing this (or the leader names) that would be fantastic.

So for friday I think we have:
Capo - Roman Empire
Ozzy - Indian Empire
Deity - Australian Empire?
Master-Mike - ?
77 - ?

I think we should have at least one or two more tribes for this game, it looks like Saturday has around eight at this point so whoever is involved in that game should try to start it by the end of next week.

Get crackin'!

[OzzyKP]

Well Deity Dude said he could make either day. So if we just put him on Friday then we've got 6.

[The Capo]

Updated Rosters...

Since the last roster Ozzy posted is on page five of this thread I figured I'd post it again:

Friday Night US/Saturday Afternoon Australia:
The Capo - Roman Empire
OzzyKP - India
Deity - ? (Because we don't know if we can do Australia)
Master Mike - ?
Seventy7 - ?
Deity Dude - ?


Saturday Night US/Sunday Afternoon Australia:
Frank Johnson - Mongolian Empire
Deity - China/Xianebei
Ljube - Russia
Trev - ?
Aussie Lurker - ?
Mike/77/DD - ?

I think these are the two lists, with the last spot in the Saturday game split three ways because they all said they could play both days, Deity was placed in both automatically because, well, I don't know why but I'm too much of a useless American piece of crap to change it

As far as the patch goes, it doesn't look like it will be out this weekend, the rumor mill's saying that because of the holiday it will probably be released next week (on Monday or Tuesday), but this seems to be nothing but speculation. It would make sense, however, that the people making the final edit of the patch would wait until after the holiday before working on/releasing it, so the rumors are probably true.

From what I understand it doesn't seem like there are a majority of Americans in any of these games, so the questions I am going to pose are as follows; should we try to start this weekend? Should we wait until next weekend? Should we wait for the patch?

Another thing I think we should attempt to do is have different tribes (as much as possible) in either game, that way it doesn't get redundant, and we can have more vibrant stories going.

Finally; diplogames traditionally have names, so what are we going to name these games? We can use an old series name like "History of the World #" or "Tales from the Diplomatic Front #" or come up with something original. I think we are nearing the start of these bad boys so we should probably figure this out.

Later.

[Deity Dude]

Hello all:

Well quite a few things to discuss since my last post.

First: To Deity and Trev and whoever else was in the game the other night, sorry I dropped. The game froze and then the comp froze. Then when I rebooted the comp it said I needed to reload windows. Well it just got worse from there. Turns out it was some sort of virus. Anyways I just got it working again and have played a few SP games without any problems.

Second: I agree that we should wait for the patch to come out.

Third: As I stated before I don't like the "first come first serve" mentality thus far to picking civs and locations. I don't think it is fair to those of us who havn't had a chance to play the game very much and thus havn't already chosen. After playing the game I may realize this statement is wrong. But, if there is an advantage to certain civs (which I suspect) and an advantage to certain locations (which I suspect), I think we should wait until we have lineups solidified then choose. Certainly no one should get first choice of location and civ, then someone else get 2nd choice of both and the last person get last choice of both. It just doesn't quite seem fair. MAybe first choice of civ get last choice of location, 2nd choice of civ gets 2nd to last choice of location - and so on. (Not wanting to quote Capo but last time I brought this up no one responded to my concern. )

Fourth: I can play either night. I can promise you I will be a very reliable person (If I start a game - I will show up consistantly and on time). But, if this turns into some of the other diplo games I've been involved in (every week someone doesn't show so we play only once a month or so) I won't be interested. Whatever night I play, I want committed players.

Anyways there is my 2 cents. Let me know what you all think.

I am glad we are having these conversations ahead of time. A few posts up front is worth it for a game that will last months.

[OzzyKP]

Great to have a committed player. You are needed on Friday, so we have penciled you in for the Friday night game. Plan on that.

As for civ/location choice....I don't think we can pick them the way you suggested. For one, each civ is placed in its historical position. So what civ you pick determines what location you are in. It would be decidedly undiplo to have Ghengis start in England, and Napoleon to start in India.

I do my best to balance everyone's start with resources on the map (which is why I keep pressing people to pick their civs so I can get the maps done). So everyone should have the basic resources near their start. Beyond that... it gets more interesting But this is a diplogame, don't look at it like a competitive ladder game online where you need a mirror map or something to minimize anyone's advantage.

Typically people pick civs based more on which will give them the best stories to tell, not on which will give the best strategic advantage. I know that I have delibretly handicapped myself gameplay wise in several diplos just to have a more interesting civ to play. In HOTW3 I was the Arabs and my territory was nothing but desert in the mideast. Then in HOTW4 I picked the English which put me at a big disadvantage since I started on an island and couldn't explore or claim territory as quickly as everyone else. But both civs had great and rich history that I could use.

So look at it that way.

Plus, first come first serve is just how we've always done it. I dunno of any fairer system that would really work with this game.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

All I want in terms of which civilization we play is what is needed to make a 'complete' map. Beyond that, I am perfectly happy to grab whatever is on offer !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[The Capo]

Typically we try and pick tribes in the old world that are, for all intents and purposes, equally spaced among eachother. The purpose is to allow for expansion. Now the reason we choose the old world is to give players a chance at a period of colonization (which has turned out pretty well in the past, and I think was first done in HOTW2), because this tends to expand the diplomatic aspect of the game.

The starting locations are usually made to be pretty fair, or at least not to give any advantage to anybody. The point in this type of game though is not to win a traditional victory but to have a good diplogame, so it doesn't necessarily matter how strong you may or may not be, nobody is just going to wipe you off the face of the Earth. Well, unless you deserve it.

As far as the benefits of the traits each tribe has, well I didn't put any thought into that what so ever, I just picked the Romans because (as Ozzy pointed out) I felt I had a good idea of what I wanted to do, storyline-wise, with the Romans rather than any other tribe.

One of the most important things to realize here is that we aren't going to just play a game of civilization normally, you have to be able to conduct diplomacy effectively, I really can't stress this enough. Your concern really should not be about what tribe or location you have at all.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

So hang on then, does this mean we have to play them out EXACTLY as they did historically, or is the idea to create an alternate history within the confines of that Leaders obvious character? Just want to be clear on this.
Thanks for your time !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[OzzyKP]

The later. See the DiploFAQ, I think I wrote up some hints and such for story writing.

The goal is to stick actual history, actual gameplay, the stories of other players and your imagination into a blender and mix. Adding elements from real history adds fun to the story, and some people (like me and Capo) do actually read over real history to help with our story craft. Does that mean you have to follow the real world timeline and just retell that story? Hell no! You adapt and have fun with the game play.

Like Ljube and I had some thing going in HOTW4 where I had posted something about religion and how the English (my civ) had adopted Christianity and I made some doctrinal point. Ljube, knowing the history of Christianity and the different heresies and such throughout its evolution noted that whatever I said was actually a form of Aryanism (some belief that the early Church declared heresy) so he (as Serbia) reenacted some of that real history conflict with the heresy and let it flourish in his storyline and in gameplay by declaring my civ heretical.

Then we recreated an adapted version of the split between the western and eastern church for our in-game storyline. That mirrored several different moments in real church history that were totally unconnected. Then I had some ruler come along who purged the kingdom of Aryanism. Which gave rise to my version of the puritans who for my version were persecuted aryans who fled to the New World so they can have religious freedom.

All these different elements were combined into a cool (i think) interactive storyline between me and the Serbs. It was facinating how a minor slip up by me in one of my posts lead to this whole history between us in the game.

So for example, as India lets say I become Hindu in the game (a real game element, since religion is in the game now) and then I found Judaism. Now in the real world the two religions are totally unconnected, but I could invent some combination storyline that incorporates Hindu history and Jewish history into some unique hybird that combines with real world elements. Like ok, I switch into the slavery civic, and start building the Pantheon in Delhi, then I craft a story that the Israelites were sold into slavery in Delhi and forced to work on the construction of the Pantheon. Then the Maharaja raised a Jewish son as his own, Moseshadev who leads a slave rebellion and leads the Jewish slaves of Delhi across the Indus river to found Karachi.

(hell I might actually use that)

But you see that has elements of real world history, but adapted to real game circumstances and mixed with my own imagination.

That's how I like to do it. But everyone develops their own style. Capo's stories may be constructed entirely different. People write stories that are totally not based on game play. Palace intrigue and such that are interesting and propel the game on, but not based in anything the game actually does. And everything has its place and enriches the game and the story. Play around with it and develop your own style as well.

But again, read the Diplogame FAQ in the Civ2-MP forum to see some more basics there. Its an involved (and I think very rewarding) process.

[OzzyKP]

btw here is the link. I keep hinting at it, but I'm really going to have to say that reading over the Diplogame FAQ should be MANDATORY for playing in this game. There is really so much to a diplogame that new players (or old players a bit rusty) don't know or remember.

Read this, do it now, it is essential to understand what kind of game you're getting into: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=101988


AND definitely read through some old games. In my opinion History of the World 2 and History of the World 4.0 are two of the best games ever played. Perhaps some of the early ones like Tales from the Front II and Tales From the Front V. Definitely do some reading.

Not all games make it to the end. I believe the four named games above went as far as any.


Note on the Diplogame FAQ: It was written with Civ2 in mind, so some of the technical tips don't really apply (and we'll have to write new ones!). The story writing and gameplay chapters are definitely key. Also, I forgot to include in the storywriting section about humor. It is something I try to do a lot with my stories. Especially in HOTW4, I just crack myself up, hehhe. Like my civ at the time was called the United States of Britian, (USB) so I'd always talk about my different port cities. (USB Ports, har har har). But just check the threads, you'll see. I've got a few classics.

[Deity Dude]

Sorry guys - I didn't mean to come off sounding like a mewbie to diplo games. To the last few posts I'll just repeat one of my favorite quotes from a movie:

"Thank You for telling me what I already know"

Now to get back to the discussion of the details as opposed to the obvious, my concern is that Civ IV isn't Civ II. So for example, just saying I like the French and I want to be in France, is totally different in Civ II than it is in Civ IV. In Civ IV the French have characteristics that might make that land there great or might make it horrible. In Civ II it didn't matter. And no offense OZZY, but, I'm not sure you or anyone in the world is ready to make a "fair map", or if there even is such a thing.

That's my only point

Thats why I think we should line up players then choose what we are doing. I know I would feel alot better about having an equal chance to have a certain group of traits and a location as everyone else.

I hope you take my comments in the spirit that they are meant for and not as an accusation that people want an unfair advantage. I just think that the best thing to do is:

A: setup a time that a group of players will play in

B: define the group of players

C: have THOSE players discuss settings and parameters (i.e. epic vs normal, what difficulty level will be played at, etc.)

D: Then once everyone knows all the parameters, pick civilizations and locations that everyone feels comfortable with.

Well to quote myself this time "that's my 2 cents"

[trev]

I cannot play this weekend, but apart from that I can certainly play on Sundays Aussie time so I would like to be in that game, starting after the patch is released, because there is a good chance games played before the release will be incompatible with games played afterwards

[Frank Johnson]

DD, its true that alot of what's going on here is based on our old memories of the good old days of civ2.

I think DD has struck on a chord that I've wanted to say but probably couldn't have put it as innocently or diplomaticly as DD has.

There's alot of game mechanics differences in civ4. I went out of my way to point out the respective strength of the position in Siberia. From a civ2 stand point that idea would be entirely counter intuitive.

All the good story telling in the world can't make up for a leader who lacks an understanding of game mechanics to the point that they run their own empire into the ground, or fall so far behind other players that even forming alliances with others they do little to tip the balance of power. At that point the game becomes a hollow shell of whinning and excuses which just leads to players quitting quietly or in frustration when the inevitible end comes.

You're all going to have to meet you stories half way, so to speak, in terms of your actual ability to play. We've had enough burning of poorly guarded (or completely empty) civs in games past, so no one should get the idea that a song and dance will keep your civ safe from all forces. We try to act like real nations when we play diplo games. That's the ultimate goal, rather than just some default victory condition. There's such things as shared victories, come backs, back room deals, and the frontal assault hasn't been thrown out either. That's why you can keep playing even if you fall a little back of some others, and why subbing is still interesting (like leading a dead last civ up to contention after picking it up). I'm just worried that the basic understanding of game play might not be up to snuff in all our players. If you ask me, its just as much a requirement as roleplay when it comes to a successful game.