Attention All Diplogamers!

[OzzyKP]

Don't forget

[LzPrst]

Did we agree to non-simoultaneous combat? I thought we agreed to just use the game mechanics and see how it worked. I disagree with ozzy concerning the fastest player gets it all. I have played several multiplayer games where so-called blitz-players have cried and fermented over the inability to use their superior click-skills to the effect it used to have in civ2 and civ3. IMO Civ4 has this balanced out in several fashions. I am not sure if all our current players voted on the issue, perhaps we should call another vote?

[KunojiLym]

I'll try to make it at the insanely early timing, you crazy people :P

I'm neither for nor against simul-combat; that's because I've not really experienced it before except in the contexts of computer opponents.

[LzPrst]

I'm pretty sure the agreement was simultaneous turns. though I dont think we have discussed this matter with Nico, Dragon or deity.

As far as I can tell, on page 3, ozzy sums up the vote and its 3 - 1 in favour of simultaneous turns. (I count Kuno's vote as an abstention).

In a later page Nolan declares that she prefers simultaneous turns as well since she is most used to them.

As I've gone through the pages discussing this I can find anything after page 3 except for Nolans sim-turn declaration. Sorry Ozzy, I guess old habits die hard, but I think we all agreed on simultaneous turn combat.

[OzzyKP]

oh.

ok then.

[KunojiLym]

I demand that Dragon posts! The French seem almost non-existant...

[Robert]

Originally posted by KunojiLym
I demand that Dragon posts! The French seem almost non-existant...

Some people take 'diplomacy' to the next level of 'writing one book a day'-game.
It's hard to keep up with that.

Some Tsars do switch throne too easily as well.
I have the opinion that the leaders of the country shouldn't switch, or at least barely. It's too easy. ie. what if Kuno decides that he doesn't want war with AMerica after all, he can write a rebellion of the zionist, then let them murder Ivan III and replace him with a peacefull america loving person. That's quiet easy to get himself out of the war he is in.

That's why I am an eternal leader.
You guys may disagree, of course.
But take the thing about the Tsars, it's too technicall to keep up with that. How can I respond to his updates if one needs a scholar-degree in diplo-civ-HOTWV-history to even know what is going on in his empire?

[deity]

Originally posted by LzPrst
Did we agree to non-simoultaneous combat? I thought we agreed to just use the game mechanics and see how it worked. I disagree with ozzy concerning the fastest player gets it all. I have played several multiplayer games where so-called blitz-players have cried and fermented over the inability to use their superior click-skills to the effect it used to have in civ2 and civ3. IMO Civ4 has this balanced out in several fashions. I am not sure if all our current players voted on the issue, perhaps we should call another vote?

Couldn't agree more. I use to think the way ozzy does, in Civ 2 days, but no one plays Civ4 non-simul. It's designed for simul and works fine. War is chaos... let it reign.

Again, no rule changes mid game please. Unless a specific rule was agreed before game start then the current settings must apply.

[NPDragon]

Here we say: "speaking is silver, to be silent is gold"

Simultanious movement is fine with me.

[NicodaMax]

I'm ok with whatever is agreed upon here. My vote is for simultaneous turns. At the pace this game goes I don't see that being a problem, I don't hink it'll get to that "fastest fingers" thing. For what is worth

[Robert]

It'll more be something like: "The fastest connection and the fastest cpu"

[LzPrst]

regardless, ozzy is the only one in favour of non-sim. and noone is playing on a 486 with a 28.8k modem. we'll be fine. case closed.

concerning the roleplaying aspect. changing rulers should be allowed, in fact encouraged. it will add dynamics to diplomacy much as in the real world. changing rulers several times per session might be a little messy, but once per session shouldnt be too hard to follow, another way to make it easier to follow is by letting families and dynasties rule, carrying the policies for a long time at a time. Robert the current could be Robert the 16th, Robert next session could be Robert 17th. and so on. sons replace their fathers without any noticeable change in policy.

ALSO, @ cyber. in character you have called for the death of Ivan III, if you were to get it... why would you complain? remember this is a diplogame, war is only an extension of diplomacy by other means. If you achieve the goals you seek why want a war? unless if war is your goal....

[Deity Dude]

Pardon the interuption from a non-participant...

IN Civ IV who goes first in Combat is not determined by connection speed or clicking ability. It's been my experience that high score has a brief window to move first (1 sec or 2) among combatants.

I havn't "tested" this per se but it always seems to work that way when I play. Maybe someone from Firaxis could answer the question more definitively.

[Robert]

Changing leaders is ok by me, but it should be limited. Russia is imho changing leaders far too often.
Of course it all depends on how you see civ, of course it is a game that spans the age of man, and thus the concequence is that leaders differ. But in fact it doesn't span the age of man. Otherwise we should change leaders over 3 turns in the early age.

I think civ works best if the leaders are eternal, unless of course one dies for a reason (ie. because the capital has been captured)
In that way you can play the game with real alliances, without having to worry that the alliance will be broken and the new king will be your enemy, but in fact still has knowledge of all the things you've told them when he was a friend. It would work if the knowledge would die with the ruler. And eventhough I seek the death of Ivan III, I do not seek the death of Kuno ;-)

War is not my goal, my goal (in-game) is to end the suffering of the Jews in Russia and the end of the problems between India and America. Since Ivan is behind that, I said that I wanted his death body. Then HE declared war on me. I never declared war on Russia, remember. I asked the russians to revolt against Ivan and promised them help. That's why I said that I never wanted to claim the throne of Russia.

My in-game view is very solid
Oh, and of course, the new Tsar of Russia will allow me to spread Judaism through his cities by nature

The role playing that resulted in this brought us were we are right now.

[The Capo]

I disagree with Cybershy: the real leader of the country (i.e. Deity, OzzyKP, Cybershy, etc.) will choose a new leader based on what he wants to do. It is the player that creates the leader, not the other way around. So I don't think its a cop-out, this happens all the time.