Diplogame Rules and Victory Discussion

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, no huge hurry just yet. I am still trying to complete phase 3 of my Expanded Civics Mod-so the Ideology Mod probably won't be done until sometime early next year (if I can get it done sooner, then great of course). During your next diplogame, though, you might want to consider either my phase2W Civics_Expander mod or-if you are really brave-phase3aW or Phase3bW. I would stick to phase2W for the time being, though, as I am still polishing the various elements of phase3.

Aussie_Lurker.

[OzzyKP]

Mod thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=154840

[dacole]

You know I must be to much of a war mongerer but I'm for leaving the victory as it is we all know when the spaceship is going to be launched and what we can do about it, like in AC with transcendance if you have several players of equal skill around the end game can be quite fun. Especially if you have 2 or three players teaming up against one strong one. Just my thoughts though.

[OzzyKP]

Ok, we quite possibly just have one session to go in HOTW7. So it'll soon be time to put our new point system to the test.

I hope people haven't forgotten about this, it has been a long game.

My question now is... who gets to vote?

Obviously Kuno, Nolan, CS, Toni, Deity, Ryk, Mike and I vote. But what about for the Inca, Kushren, and Celts? What of Lz?

[OzzyKP]

Ok, I think it would be too difficult, and indeed inappropriate to just pick one person to represent some of the civs who have had multiple leaders. So I'd like to suggest that all players who have played a significant part of their civ should get in touch with each other and discuss who to vote for.

Also, if we vote for the Inca, we must keep in mind we are voting for Frank, Levi, kbarrett, and Frankski. All together they played a part in the civ. And if a civ like that wins, they should all share in the victory, and all deserve credit for it.

England - MMC, Glohithia
Kushren - Colonel_Treize, Conquistador45
Celts - OmnipotentTrout, dacole

I hope you'll agree that this is the best solution. My only remaining question is what to do about eliminated civs? Should Moker get a vote for Rome or is he totally disqualified? What about Carthage? Should Ryk vote twice?

I guess the simple answer is that only surviving civs should be included. But if we decide on that I highly recommend that Ryk's posts done as Carthage should be held for consideration for the final judgement of the Vikings.

[Robert]

I wonder if the 'eliminated civs' are able to vote, even if they can, just because their players aren't even around to vote.

Maybe we shouldn't vote for a civ but for a player who won. In Ryke's situation that means that he can get points for how he both ran carthage as the New Republic.

[OzzyKP]

Well I'm thinking we make a special exception for Ryk anyhow, but if we do it that way then are we going to ignore everything that happened to the Inca during the time of Frank & Levi, and just judge it based on kbarrett?

[deity]

So we are voting for best poster?

[OzzyKP]

Voting for the following three categories (after the game is over):

Military Achievement
Diplomacy
Storytelling/Roleplaying

Voters rank a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place among the various civs (and the players who have played them) and points are given out based on that. Voters are free to decide exactly what criteria they favor under those three categories. Some ideas though:

Military Achievement - military victories (both battles won and wars won), great tactical maneuvers (both with individual battles, and the long term consequences of wars), possessing a large military throughout the game, or a particularly massive build up at any one time, having a particularly well promoted military, number of great generals,

Diplomacy - talking oneself out of war, talking another into war, maintaining alliances, breaking other's alliances, negotiating profitable tech trades & resource trades, double-dealing, resiliency (setting up webs of backup plans and secondary alliances in case of defeat or betrayal), negotiating profitable border agreements, coordination of plans with allies, success at concealing plans from enemies (or allies), success at feeding false information, backstabbing (for gain), playing rivals off each other,

Storytelling/Roleplaying - use of innovation/creativity in posts, use of technology, maintaining a rich in-character dialog in game, maintaining a rich in-character dialog over AIM or PMs outside of the game, writing entertaining and well written stories, use of visual media and creation of visual media (pictures, video, etc) for posts, incorporating and paralleling historical events/people, rich characterization, bringing game decisions into the real world (i.e. changing from slavery to emancipation isn't just a game mechanic it has a real effect on the fictional people living in one's empire and should be incorporated into a story), consistency between stories and gameplay, making decisions in game because it fits your story or characters even if it isn't the wisest game play decision,

[dacole]

Originally posted by Levi_the_Oracle
You really wouldn't want to give one point per post, or people would be competing to see who can make the most posts instead of actually playing a good diplo style game. If I were to make a recommendation, I would say that, for each game session, each player could earn zero, one or two points. If a player does not post anything in the history thread, they earn zero points for that week. If they post something, they deserve one point, but, if the other players feel that their post is exceptional in some way, they can actually earn two points.

Of course, that would require a weekly review of each players posts by the group, and would mean probably yet another thread, but it would reward the more creative posts, and punish the players that aren't participating or are participating but only half-heartedly.

I have not read the entirity of this thread generally I like deciding who wins based on the game as is. What you do in the begining effects enough how things go in the end that I don't think any extra needs to be given for succeding in the early ages. That said overall the point system as given is OK. It seems that the subjective is a little over weighted as it stands now. Perhaps take out the multiplication based on the number of people and change it to addition? (This may be I just haven't participated in enough games but it seems like the way it stands now if someone ticks you off in game this would provide to easy of a way to get back at them...game is hippie enough all ready as it stands we don't need to make it more so). As well I would support the idea I have quoted above. Part of the fun of this type of gaming is the stories. I have spent a TON of time reading the stories in the alpha centauri section so as you are providing enjoyment for the rest of us then it doesn't seem to bother me that we give you credit for posting and posting well.

I may make a new thread about this at some point but reading about playing post launch brought this idea back up in my mind. I've always thought it would be interesting to somehow time in civ and alpha centauri. Possibly one way to do this would be to set the game up so that a certain number of turns after some one launches they arrive at alpha centauri (and would start playing that game on an empty map or with AI controlled opponents) then when other people launch they end up there also. Then depending on how things are going back on earth you could send resources to your colony on alpha centauri or perhaps back to earth.

This would open up a whole new layer of strategy do I launch early to get to alpha centauri first but risk being weak (and possibly destroyed on earth after I launch) or do I wait to make a strong powerbase on earth before I launch so that I can send resources in ship loads to alpha centauri. (or do I just use alpha centauri as a colony to provide support to my civ on earth...)

This would complicate gameplay but I think it would be fun!

[Rasputin]

I guess i have always seen DIPLO style as different to all other game sof Civ. By placing the emphasis on winning the game you are making it jsut another civ game.

I felt that when we started playing DIPLO that it was a game that was open to all to play, regarldess of Civ ability. Which is why i joined, I will never be a good civ palyer as i am lazy and dont check what is bet to build in my cities each turn, nor do i specilaise cities into Militaty, Scientific or commercial cities. I just build everything i can.

Great people are something i never adjust my cities for either, if they come it is great.

I played DIPLO for the interaction of the game but more so the posting side of things. The stories were what made DIPLO different.

But as i hardly have time to play anymore i guess my input is worth a lot less than those that play now.

[Robert]

Rasputin, you are a diplogame-fundamentalist
For me, civilization is after all a game. And I want to win a game. I don't care if I lose, if it's a good game, and if it's played fair, and if someone is better then me, then I'm actually a pretty good loser.

But it's still a game.
For you civilization is just a vehicle for roleplaying.

And I disagree with you that a diplogame is alike every civ game if it's about winning. A diplogame is totally different then any other game. The only thing that may come close is a Demogame.

And you're right, the difference is in the role playing, the story telling, but most of all: in the players who want to take the time to play civ, not as a just quick war game, but as a game in which they can lead and manage a nation in all aspects. But it's still a game they want to win, well most of them, I think.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Rasputin
I guess i have always seen DIPLO style as different to all other game sof Civ. By placing the emphasis on winning the game you are making it jsut another civ game.

I felt that when we started playing DIPLO that it was a game that was open to all to play, regarldess of Civ ability. Which is why i joined, I will never be a good civ palyer as i am lazy and dont check what is bet to build in my cities each turn, nor do i specilaise cities into Militaty, Scientific or commercial cities. I just build everything i can.

Great people are something i never adjust my cities for either, if they come it is great.

I played DIPLO for the interaction of the game but more so the posting side of things. The stories were what made DIPLO different.

But as i hardly have time to play anymore i guess my input is worth a lot less than those that play now.

We've been over this many times, but diplogames have ALWAYS been about winning. Not exclusively - which is what sets us apart - but the fantasy world you talk about where no one cares about winning and are purely there for the stories never existed.

Look at HOTW2, some of the best stories and richest diplomacy in a diplogame. It was most definitely still about winning, and at the end of the game the whole thing went to hell and fell apart because we hadn't found a good way to balance winning with the diplogames. So that's where this point system came from, a desire to create a victory suitable for diplogames.

[Rasputin]

Actually no, it fell apart when someone decided to win the GAME

It was great to be a part of the early game, I had taken over from some one who hadnt done any expanding nor any negotiatiosn to help that. So i knew i was never in hte game with any chance of winning. In reality only two people could hasv e won the game, Deity or Drake. Everyone else may have felt they had a chance to help decide wh othe winner was be teaming with one or the other, but to me the experience we all enjoyed was the History we made.


I wish you all well , but based on your choices here for winning i do not have the ability to sub for anyone.

Go the Aussies...

[KunojiLym]

Actually, I'm with Rasputin here; I'd love something that was focused purely on the RP-ing. I guess that comes from being in one of those RP persistant worlds in NWN...

But realistically speaking, I guess most people would rather have some sort of game winning mechanism, and I admit that I'm not totally immune to that too.