"A History of the World XII" Planning/Sign-Up Thread...

[LzPrst]

I feel noble as well even though I play my games on monarch (and lately I've been beating the crap out of it ) noble has been the standard for MP and diplogames. I say we stick with it. the only real difference is when your citizens become unhappy. and of course tech huts. which I feel is a risk we'll have to face because less pressure on civs early on allows more varied strategies, at least that is my hope. have you ever tried to build a workshop/watermill/farm economy? skipping cottages altogether? have you ever tried a specialist economy producing little but food and cash? have you ever tried to build a seafaring empire with an economy based on trade routes? Great Lighthouse + Temple of Artemis (+Harbor) = kickass combo. on noble there is room for a lot more of this. HOWEVER. it also reduces the value of early luxuries and later on the value of health resources as we get more freebies. but all in all, people are used to different things and as such, it is simpler to go by the lowest common denominator. I can throw up a vote?


as for raging barbs. I would prefer not. though I love having something to stomp for xp early on it skews things slightly, making the great wall much more valuable and disadvantaging certain civs who are surrounded by land. it also reduces the value of imperialistic civs as deity mentioned (not escorting a settler = idiocy though) (and you better not be playing portugal again), and adds to the value of aggressive trait and protective. if you guys want to worry about your security, I'm sure I can assist with that

as for me being wiped out in the test game, it was crazy sheer conspiracy-type evil. my early warrior popped a hut nearby my capital while exploring, it spawned 2 barb warriors and they killed my warrior and proceeded casually to walk straight into my undefended size 1 capital that needed another 19 turns for a new warrior, marathon is unforgiving early on. I've never seen barbs enter cultural borders so early before. it was quite a fright. never feel too safe! we don't want a civ wiped out in the first session. vote coming up...


also, someone mentioned cultural linkage. i'm against that. for several reasons, one being that a more mixed up constellation = more variations. here's an interesting little statistical tidbit; of the 4 east asian civs, Japan, China, Korea, Mongolia there are a total of 6 aggressive+protective traits. while in central europe, you have potentially with germany, france, rome, russia, 4 industrial civs. I would like to see these cultures thrown over eachother randomly to vary the traits of neighbours. if you're unhappy with your neighbours you can always spend a few centuries roaminng with your settler
unless I see more people in favor of this, I don't think a vote is warranted. remember, it's not history reenacted, it is history created.




as for capo. look, no hard feelings. but your posting seemed a bit, derailing. you first announced that we were at an impasse when we were in fact progressing extremely expediently with the vote. then you suggested that the voting was unfair because it was skewed in the way it was laid out. you then continued to shout your wants instead of just voting like everybody else. as you said, things have changed a bit philosophically since you were here last, but you kept assuming that everyone agreed with you and that I was merely steering things in the direction me and a small minority wanted. that can't be further from the reality of the matter.

as you said in your previous post, 4 people tried to "rail" the game. well, if 4 people are in agreement then 4 out of 9 is 1 other person away from a +50% majority. now let me announce that those 4 people happen to be people in agreement, not a conspiracy constellation. I'm sorry if anyone feels railroaded over, but I have to say that we have sorted things out quite effectively just now. another vote will be coming up and Sid willing we'll get a clear majority for each option then we're almost dead set ready to play. I know that people are excited about this and want to get started. I know I am. I've been plotting since I was lying on the beach on Fiji! that's why I just want to get started. my interests are in the diplomacy, the game settings is a mere framework, personally I don't care much about map type. I don't care much about settings, I don't care! I just want to get the game rolling, but I don't want to put hindrances in our way.

right now we're getting suggestions for a few rules, options, variables, and following vote to end all votes, then we're practically ready to go. it is tuesday today and we're not playing for another 5 days.




and finally, just a word in. whatever happened to arvcran. he seemed interested a few days ago, but has since disappeared. and I agree that Mr.Linc has been unreliable. perhaps a second chance is in order, but we've gotten a good group here that has participated a LOT the last few weeks to get this thing going and I don't want to risk an AI. it is additionally worrying that he's apparently banned from the forums....

[deity]

READ >>

Originally posted by The <@[0 READ THIS

I say... as far as the difficulty goes I am... trying to make this complicated... ruining the voting... over and over again... to ruin the game.

I am just trying to railroad certain settings... without proper consensus.

Now, I mean... deity... only trying to make the game better in my opinion.

Of course I am... trying to control this game... and so far I haven't.

Please, if you guys can relax and not take this so seriously this will go much better with no personal issues. That's all I am asking.

I... think I've done... wrong... That's what I'm saying.

Peace

"Your head would look good on the end of a pike.. "

[LzPrst]

[LzPrst]

Great posts all. I'm summarizing everything I can find and remember right now and it comes to this. Don't start voting yet.


1. Max 10 Tech Trades
This needs a vote. It has some support, we need to find out exactly how much. It will be the only non-mechanical game rule. We also need to define exactly what it means. I choose to interpret this widely, allowing for a lot of flexibility. It means that you can give away techs 10 times during the entire game.

To explain. Each time YOU give a tech to someone, regardless of reason, it counts towards your 10 trades total. Receiving techs is NOT counted. This means you can receive any amount, but only give/trade away 10 yourself. Easy to keep track of. Allows for max flexibility. Creates a need for serious diploing for tech trades. If you've reached your limit, any request for techs must be answered with "It is impossible for us to reveal state secrets". Discussing OOC your current nr. of trades should not be allowed. You need to keep it a secret, or there may be OOC whining and excuses. Remember. We stay IC at pretty much all times.



2. Ozzy's Score System
After some debate I believe most people have agreed to applicate this in order to reward good diploing and good storytelling. It will be the only way of rewarding good storytelling and punishing game-good story-bad actions. Yet as I have said before, one vote at the end of the game seems too narrow to reward a long game full of activity. A Marathon game has a total of 1200 Turns. Most diplogames don't play to the end of time as people tend to win before then. A vote every 100 turns seems reasonable to me. That's 10-12 Votes during the entire game. It will effectively summarize the total commitment during the entire game. Votes will be made after the session in which the 100 turns marker is reached and sent to Cybershy, provided he agrees to count them up.

We also need to talk to Ozzy about the exact values involved. I'll create another thread for it. We still have some time because the first 100 turns will take 2-4 weeks.

[LzPrst]

Other Rules that are to be implemented.

1. No Tech Brokering
2. Choose Religions
3. Don't Password your Civ


To speed things up I'm making a few suggested decisions about options that will not be implemented. This is Chairman's decisions and as such, they are debatable. But I think in the interest of efficiency, and the general lack of controversy in my choices, these options would be acceptable to a majority.

1. Difficulty Level.
Noble.
It is standard for MP and previous diplogames. Let's stick with what we know.

2. Barbarians
Standard.
Again, I say we stick with what is standard. Normal Barbarians has always been standard and I believe most people did not take Raging Barbs into consideration when choosing civs etc.

3. Culture Linked Starts.
Denied.
We want the Vulcan axiom "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations".

4. Forced Alliance Breaks
Not implemented.
We don't want to limit diploing and rules. Though this rule should not be necessary, it has been shown that it occurs again and again in diplogames that superpowers ally. Quite unrealistic and tends towards gamebreaking. However, with scoring for good stories, superpowers will hopefully fear bad story-writing on their part more than eachother. If the 10 tech trades max limit is implemented the need for this rule will be even less necessary.


5. Mr.Lincoln
Not admitted.
Sorry. But you are too late, have according to the players of last game proven to be unreliable, and the fact that you have not, or can not post in these forums speaks harshly to your disadvantage. However, we realize that all of us are human and such imperfect and I have more swine in the woods than most others on that particular issue and as such, I am suggesting that you could sub for this game. My part in HOTWXI was sub only and I had great fun. If you prove our judgment on your reliability wrong, we will gladly admit you as a fullfledged player in the next game. I hope you won't take this the wrong way.

[Heraclitus]

I agree on the difficulty level and barb settings, I'm disappointed about no culturally linked starting positions. I guess I'll just have to be creative about the world's prehistory.

I'm against the 10 tech cap, but only slightly.



I would like a more clearly defined point system, even though I trust Ozzy to make it fair, I would still like to know how to play... Even in the first 100 turns it's good to know which kind of behavior is rewarded and which not.


BTW How fast are players eliminated, I don't want to be killed by the second session.

[Asmodeous]

This needs a vote. It has some support, we need to find out exactly how much. It will be the only non-mechanical game rule. We also need to define exactly what it means. I choose to interpret this widely, allowing for a lot of flexibility. It means that you can give away techs 10 times during the entire game.

To explain. Each time YOU give a tech to someone, regardless of reason, it counts towards your 10 trades total. Receiving techs is NOT counted. This means you can receive any amount, but only give/trade away 10 yourself. Easy to keep track of. Allows for max flexibility. Creates a need for serious diploing for tech trades. If you've reached your limit, any request for techs must be answered with "It is impossible for us to reveal state secrets". Discussing OOC your current nr. of trades should not be allowed. You need to keep it a secret, or there may be OOC whining and excuses. Remember. We stay IC at pretty much all times.

So wait, if I trade Gunpowder to Capo, that's 1, and I trade Gunpowder to Lz, that's 2?

But I can receive as many techs as possible?

How is that realistic, and how does that limit the "tech gifting" issue that we've had in the past?

If anything, that makes it worse, really. Definately against hard caps.

Me.

[The Capo]

Difficulty setting should be Noble unless anyone objects.

Barbarians should be standard as well, however I wouldn't really be adverse to setting it higher.

As far as culturally linked starts goes; I don't really see a point, necessarily, but at the same time I don't think it is going to be a huge difference makern either so it shouldn't matter. We should just leave this up to the map maker.

Forced Alliance breaks should never have been suggested to begin with in a Diplogame, so I say no to that too.

As far as the ten tech limit; I am willing to go with the group on this, although I am nominally against any limitation on tech trading. As far as the ten tech "given/traded" limit, that's fine with me too.

Ozzy's point system; I think its pretty good, it definitely results in me getting a little more points, but as far as voting goes I think it should be at the end of each session rather than specific number of turns, because normally people post after the session and not during the session so there's more material to vote on. So perhaps the voting should be sometime mid-week following the session.

And if you guys think deity is funny, just wait till he fabricates things against you in the game....

[Pinchak]

We also need to define exactly what it means. I choose to interpret this widely, allowing for a lot of flexibility. It means that you can give away techs 10 times during the entire game.

My orginal intention was that it would be a tech for a tech trades. Anything beyond that could be exploitive. Say this turn I trade you 4 techs for free (and used one trade). Next turn you trade me 4 techs (and use one of your trades). Effectively, we have traded 4 techs by using only one trade. If anything, this rule should be revised to say "can recieve 10 techs total".

BTW How fast are players eliminated, I don't want to be killed by the second session.

Don't worry, most make it to the end.

[The Capo]

Hey, Cyber said earlier that he had 9 Civ requests. On the list I have of the people who have been involved lately I have...

Capo
deity
LzPrst
Pinchak
Asmo
Heraclitus
Toni
Lurker

So CS, who is the ninth player?

[The Capo]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
BTW How fast are players eliminated, I don't want to be killed by the second session.

Usually none of the countries get killed off. There is an old Diplogame rule that everyone pretty much follows that condemns full conquest.

Its more of an unspoken thing, but you aren't supposed to conquer anybody. There have and could be exceptions to this of course.

[LzPrst]

you have forgotten to mention Trev on your list Capo.

[LzPrst]

Ok. since you've managed to spot a few chinks in my armor, or rather exploits in the tech trade limit. allow me to clarify again.

Giving away 4 techs = giving away 4 techs. It counts 4 steps towards your max limit. Each technology traded away goes towards your limit. EVERY time it is traded away.

So. If you give 4 techs for free to another civ
Then you trade off Gunpowder to 2 other civs
Then you give Gunpowder AND Guilds to yet another civ.

You have used up 8 out of your 10 total tech trades.
4 for the 4 techs given.
3 for the total amount of times gunpowder has been given away.
and 1 for guilds.

Now, with 9 players that equals a total of some 90 tech trades. Which is a lot. But not free. Every tech trade will be a strategic evaluation. Remember, most people won't want to give away tech for free now, so likely it will be tech traded for tech. Or in some rare instances, tech given to allies, tech given due to war, tech sold for $ or troops or whatever.

This will also give a slight leg up to good diploers. Some civs will be able to get techs by many different means and from several other civs. theoretically Deity could receive 80 techs while only giving out his 10. provided that every other civ in the game decides to ONLY trade away techs to him. and despite the respect I have for your skills deity, I doubt even you could pull off that one

Anyway, creativity, flexibility and cunning will be extremely valuable, also for tech trades.


Any questions? Everything clear?

[LzPrst]

as for ozzy's point system, that's pretty much the only thing left to sort out. and I created a separate thread for it summarizing my thoughts. It should be fairly easy to spot.

if there are any further thoughts on all our debating here, feel free to state your mind.

[Toni]

I'm good to go - just wanted to ask about the map sets

We are playing large map - Can we have low sea lvl?

Maybe we don't need a vote, just Lz to approve it i guess?