Multi-Game Diplogame Sign-Up Sheet

[TELawrence]

I'm fairly happy to play a scenario - would prefer something Mediterranean/Middle Eastern to e.g. feudal Japan. I'd also like the game to have a broadish timescale...

I did notice that the 6 players not in a game were spread evenly between Australasia, North America and Europe - there seems to be some timetabling issues right there...

[OzzyKP]

Ok, if people want to discuss the Europe 1092 scenario, please take that discussion to that thread.

Also, I've created a new section on the above list that indicates which games need subs and when. So for those of you not in a game and looking to do some subbing, please check this thread for updates on which games need subs.

[The Capo]

I would advise TELawrence to sign up for the Diplogames Civ-Group, just to keep our roster nice and fat.

[The Capo]

Bump (sort of)

I just wanted to bump this thread and bring up a few issues.

Firstly; we should start talking about a new game, the main reason is to maintain interest in some players who aren't in games, those of you not in a game or those of you who are willing to play in a second game should really start talking about it because of....

My second reason for posting; there is a debate in the HOTW V game, and I know I've seen it in other games, about whether or not we should allow tech trading. If we do, should we provide rules? Or do you think removing one avenue of diplomatic dialogue is against the nature of Diplogames? If you want to read what we've thought of, including a list of ideas Deity has come up with, you should check the Attention all Diplogamers thread in the MP forum.

[OmnipotentTrout]

Originally posted by CyberShy


That's true. Sue that bastard

Hey!
I'm just an innocent trout!

Who came up with the wonderful idea of calling our game HOT1 anyhow?
(My finger is pointing at deity atm.
"We can only call it HOTW6 IF we post at least one para per session EACH.
In which case we need to open a story/status thread.
Or for the lights should we start another naming convention since they
are terra maps and not world maps. Eg HOT1 (History Of Terra One)")

Silly...

We are posting stories and letters etc.
In the name of tradition we should stick to HOTW6, or?

-OmnipotentTrout
Norway (right now +2 UTC, or same as LzPrst)

HOTW6 is running Saturdays at 17:00 UTC, but this Weekend we're running a session Sunday instead (7th of May) at 18:00 UTC

[TELawrence]

In response to TheCapo's message - I'm very happy to start talking about a third game, and already tried to start a new thread to that effect. I've also looked into subbing, but the scheduling of the existing games is very difficult for someone on GMT who works 9-5.

So I'm all for a new game. I just don't know how I can promote one beyond piping up occassionally like this...

My position on tech trading is fairly tolerant, but in general I am inclined to turn it off. I don't think it accurately reflects how diplomacy works in real life - you can't just pick up 'Scientific Method' or 'Theology' and 'give' it to a whole other culture! Can you imagine it in real life? Bush: "So, China, we may not have much to agree on over energy resources, but here - you give us $5billion and we'll give you the secret of constitution!"

[OmnipotentTrout]

LOL

I think turning off tech trade is a good solution until the a God-like mod can come into effect...

Btw: HOTW6 has all regular players on board for this sunday's game 18:00 - 21:00 UTC, no subs needed for now

[OmnipotentTrout]

Alright!

Upcomming session for HOT6 will be Saturday May 13th at 17:00 UTC (Usual time)

3 hours (or there about, you can never know with this crazy bunch of Civ zealots )

- Omni

[The Capo]

I just want to let everyone know that the potential for open states in HOTW V, so keep that in mind. In a very real sense though the current issues that have arisen in HOTW V have shown the need for an open forum on Diplogame rules.

Most of you already know my position, but either this thread or the Diplogame FAQ thread should be good forums for this discussion. So anyone paying attention that can sub at 22:30 UTC (I think) on Friday nights we may need a couple of subs, so keep that in mind.

Thanks.

[Frank Johnson]

I guess this would be a better place for finishing my post that I made on the HOTW5 organization page about rules for future diplo games. My motivation here is that for diplo games to be successful there needs to be a clear middle option between the two ideas in multiplayer right now which seem to be "Play for fun and storytelling" and "there can be only one winner".

That said I have no desire to setup a grand ladder and dig up civ league. I just want to point out the obvious, well at least obvious to me, that when it comes to nations and diplomacy, there's never just one winner or one interested group, and there is a middle ground between winning and losing.

The current way we play games encourages players to take risky gambits and otherwise engauge in irrational behavior, up to the point of quitting the game in protest, because they believe their position to be impossible to win. I hope to change this with a simple set of rules to make the game interesting for everyone involved, and make it possible to "improve" your condition, through war and DIPLOMACY!

So with that here are my proposals for a as of yet unoffical diplo game, if and only if other game commitments I have made start to go sour.

The Spaceship victory option will be removed. Spaceship victories encourage turtling and isolationism. Both are boring since they are the opposite of war and diplomacy. Players seeking to win by building will have to win through a time victory, which in most cases is about the same anyway.

Tech Trading will be disabled. Tech trading is to some, unrealistic, to other imbalancing, and to all an annoyance to keep track of between allies and foes alike. It also unnaturally speeds the game up. There may come a time when a mod might allow for some degree of tech trading however house rules will not do. No tech trading is the lesser of two evils.

Any map settings will be played as players come to agree upon. All players entering into the game should realize that not all map positions are equal, however the law of averages states if you stick with the group long enough map variances will equalize themselves over the course of many games, and game results over time will vary because of skill, not because of land. All players should play the map "as it lays", and prepare themselves to deal with all misfortunes, including barbarians and close neighbor positioning.

For each player in the game, 10 points is put into a pot.
A "share" is the basic unit here, which is pot/number of living players.

If a player is destroyed or quits the game, they lose their share totally. Shares become proportionally larger since someone is dead.

If a player survives the game by any means possible, including hiding a settler for dear life in someone elses civ, they get half a share. The other 50% is divded among the winning alliance.

If a player survives the game and is a "junior partener" in a winning alliance they get 70% of a share. The other 30% is split by the senior parteners in the alliance.

If a player wins as an "equal partener" in a win, they get their full share, plus an equal share of whatever is left in the pot after the remaining players alive get their shares.

If you win the game with no "equal parteners" you get your full share, and the remaining points in the pot.


For clarification purposes in the different type of diplomacy types:

For UN votes, there can be no "equal partenership". Voting for someone else in the UN is basicly endorsing your own status as a junior partener. The same is true of culture victories. There is one dominate culture, so any allies are junior parteners.

For dominance wins by alliances, this feature hasn't been inplaced yet. The new warlord expansion will allow for vassals (junior parteners) to automaticly be calculated into the domiance victory option. Equal parteners seeking to take over the world via dominance will have to persuade the remaining players of their alliances "victory" at which point players collect their designated shares. Out gunnes players can continue to resist if they believe they have a chance to time the game out, or even turn things around. In this case the game will only end because of a concensus. Obviously the basis for such a win would be holding a much greater than a majority of the world's land and population in a single alliance, with the military power to back it up.

For Time "victories" everyone except the first place player gets 70% of a share. The first place player in score gets their full share and the remainder of the pot.

Alliances need only to be declared offically if someone seeks to claim a victory other than a default one in civ4.


Might seem over complicated but its really simple. Basicly, no matter how bad off you think you are, with this system, it can get worse. It discourages dying and quitting, and encourages compromises and alliance building. Killing someone is good, but doesn't directly benefit you as much as subjugating someone to your cause. It also discourages turtling and encourages a real "end game process" with a cold war style final battle to determine the victor. Even then, the alliance could fall apart and another fight could start then. To me, this is what a diplo game should be...

I'd like to here some comments on this. Some time in the future I'd like to start a game on this basis.

[OzzyKP]

Very interesting proposal Frank.

I'll give more thoughts on it later when I'm more awake. But definitely worth some discussion.

[The Capo]

I will comment on it later as well, but I have to disagree with Ozzy (and inherently with Frank). These are far too many rules, I think the ORIGINAL (or at least the one established in the early Diplogames I was involved in) rule should be the "Everybody wins," rule. Basically there is no real winner.

Or if you want to have a winner, and utilize a quantified condition for victory; have a vote. After HOTW2 was over we all wrote a little blurb about each tribe, and our relations and thoughts on them. Ultimately if we did this and gave votes about who we thought won (which we actually did when we voted Deity, and Australia, the winner of HOTW 2) we can gauge the ACTUAL winner of the game without having numbers (which can be skewed incorrectly) as the basis for victory. Remember, this is a Diplogame, a DIPLOMATIC victory has be be achieved, and what better than an election at the end to determine who was the winner.

You may say "well a vote doesn't prove anything, what if the most popular person wins, and not the better player?" Well that's just part of it, you can always challenge it and the HISTORY of the game will be preserved through posts, basically the HISTORY of a particular diplogame can be called into question and interpreted over and over again; and so can the winner.

This way there is a winner, but there is no winner, but everyone is a winner. Its strange, and sounds like it doesn't make sense, but in the interest of keeping the game pure, and fun (ie no boring rules), we can ensure that Diplogaming is an evolving and dynamic style of playing Civ IV.

Peace.

[Frank Johnson]

I think you're right up until the point that the game itself collapses under its own weight lack of structure.

The players who got a bad start are asking what the point is. You say the point is some abstract thing like voting or stories.

I just want to find a way to motivate people to not give up. I mean its plain as day to me that its better to live than to die, and its better to be the ally of the winner than the defeated enemy, but some people don't get it.

Writting a story in protest about my axe rush isn't going to get you anywhere. And you can't vote your jungle start away either. And who is going to write stories or vote if people quit because they think the game is impossible or unfair?

[OzzyKP]

Frank's suggestions for victory aren't rules that affect gameplay, but more a way of determing after the fact how people did for those who need to taste some kind of victory or have some kind of tangible ranking besides writing a good story.

I do agree that its the journey that is the important part. But sometimes people need a bit more of an incentive.

[The Capo]

Yeah, but if you have rules established like Frank suggested, it DOES cause the game to change because people will play based on those rules.

I think Frank's ideas are very good, and have merit, but I also think we shouldn't cater to these people who whine. Maybe its just me, but I am not the type of person to complain about my start or quit a game because of it, ESPECIALLY in a Diplogame. The fact that you can't be conquered should serve as a positive boon to people who get a bad start, it means they have millenia to come out of it.

My point is just that we got to a really good consensus on what a Diplogame is supposed to be during HOTW2, and it seems to me that since then we are back where we started, maybe its the fresh blood. Maybe its the lack of old blood, but I've been around for discussions like this before and ultimately it puts too many rules on Diplogames.

I think a lot of people, especially the new guys, should look over the transcripts of HOTW2 and see how we handled things then.