The Dance of Civilizations [Pitboss Diplomacy Game] [Setup Thread]

[Robert]

addition to rule 2: (Suggestion)

02. Civilizations that are at war or want to declare war have observe the turn order which is set the turn before the war starts. Thus: no double moves during wartime or when declaring war. Players are free to agree on a new turn order if all involved parties agree and this new turn order is published in the organization thread and all involved parties publish their agreement there as well
Every player gets at most 24h to make his war moves. The host will pause the game if the turn is about to advance in 1 hour, without the last player involved in the war having had a chance to play his turn. When 24h have past the player just missed his turn. If the 2nd player in the turn order misses his turn he's first in the turn order from that moment on.

[Jeroen Schweitzer]

In BtP only 4 or 5 civs posted a lot, the rest posted little to nothing, during the 'many posts to read' phase. So the 'too many players involved' argument imho does not apply. We can have a 6 player game where people post way too much and a 18 player game where people post way too little.
I'm fine with deleting rule 8 or increasing 2000 to 10000 or more. But the fun of roleplaying and story writing will be gone if it's too much and people will lose interest.

We can enforece such a rule by stating that people will lose the % of their story score by the % of characters they post too much. (we only count it if there's suspicion of course). It's just a tool to avoid story post extravaganze without many people reading them anymore.

I still don't like it. I only want a limit when people actually are going overboard. And that we can solve by posting a "could you slow down, don't have much time, but want to follow" post adressing people who are over-posting. I don't want to do the administration on character count. Can better use that time to read some more posts.

[mzprox]

I don't understand, what's the need to establish a turn order? The turn order is automaticly set when a war errupts.

yeah, sry, what i meant is what you are writing in your next post: If the warring sides have (and they should have) good communications they could make an agreement about the turn order, they could agree on time windows in which they make their moves regulary (this especially becomes important when more and more civs get involved in the conflict.) or they even agree on 1-2 turn cease fire if one party had to miss a turn or two during the war . But normally the turn order is set when the war is declared and it must be kept unless every involved players agree to change it for some reason.

[bamf226]

- In BtP only 4 or 5 civs posted a lot, the rest posted little to nothing, during the 'many posts to read' phase. So the 'too many players involved' argument imho does not apply. We can have a 6 player game where people post way too much and a 18 player game where people post way too little.
I'm fine with deleting rule 8 or increasing 2000 to 10000 or more. But the fun of roleplaying and story writing will be gone if it's too much and people will lose interest.

We can enforece such a rule by stating that people will lose the % of their story score by the % of characters they post too much. (we only count it if there's suspicion of course). It's just a tool to avoid story post extravaganze without many people reading them anymore.

I like the previous suggestion of a story thread and a diplomacy thread. If you are concerned about abundant posting in the story thread, limit the number of posts rather than the number of characters. Much easier to review and abide by. I think 20 posts a month is sufficient. I am hoping to post a few times a week if possible, but school and work may hinder that.

There should not be a limit to the posts in the diplomacy thread as there will be a lot of back and forth conversation between the various civs.

- We can set the 50% rule for double moves instead of the 24h rule. The first means that during wars people will miss turns and the turn order will be interrupted. The latter means that some turns will take longer then 24h. I think the first will be a source for new problems.

I'd rather see the turn take a little longer than have a major stoppage trying to sort out turn orders and who double moved and vote on what to do and people get pissed and leave the game, etc.

Reporting in the tech trade thread is indeed tedious, but I see no other solution. Unless of course I write a tool for it where we report. Then we can all report our trades in secret, have a good log, without knowing of each other how many trades we have left over.

I don't think it's all that tedious to report a tech trade. Each civ is responsible for keeping up with his vouchers.

A simple post like

Celts trade tech with America.
9 vouchers left

None of this trading vouchers nonsense which was completely confusing. Once 5 civs have reached a new age, Robert (or someone else) can post a nice big red message in the tech trade thread saying that era X techs are now freely tradeable. It really doesn't sound that complicated.

[bamf226]

1, the warring sides contact and establish a set turn order

I don't understand, what's the need to establish a turn order? The turn order is automaticly set when a war errupts.
If I attack you, then I either do it before you move, which makes me #1 in order, or I do it after you moved, which makes me #2 in order.*
If I'm #1 in order I won't want to change that, if you're #1 then you don't want to change that.

It sounds really simple, but we all know this isn't what happens. Whether it is intentional or not, a double move inevitably happens and much squawking and gnashing of teeth ensues.

Once we get a server hang or a pause in the action to resolve a dispute, the turn order for a war becomes more difficult to maintain as it disrupts the daily flow of play. If I'm used to logging in at 10 AM to make my move and something happens to disrupt the turn, I can't be expected to completely rearrange my schedule in order to play my turn at a new time.

[Toni]

A reminder:

START Date is August 18th!!

[Black Knight 427]

I'm fine with whatever is decided. I just want to play already.

[The Priest]

Amen to that!

[The Priest]

My thoughts on the lengths of posts etc.

I don't think you can split diplomacy and story, since both are intertwined. My story posts are always attempting to project a certian imagine, pursuade, encourage or intimidate other nations etc.

I suggest we don't have a limit, but review a month into it. However, we use the 'fair play' vote to extert and influcence. This 'fair play' vote is a new thing, and probably quite clever, but we haven't particularly defined it. So we keep the current idea for 'fair play' but perhaps rename it 'good gaming' or something like that, and have as one of the aspects of it explicitly, people appropriate use or abuse of the story thread. If folks don't like that idea, then we just make sure we write into the critieria for the story votes that teh votes are awarded for quality not just quantity, and people should not feel obliged to vote for someone just because they have made many posts, indeed if someone is posting too much or inappropriately you may want to deliberately not give them story votes.

Overall:
1. I don't think that splitting categories of posts will work.
2. I understand why Robert has suggested the limit becaause in previous conversations people have said they were put off by the number of posts, but if nobody who is going to play is making that point now, lets leave it and see.
3. Lets use voting to regulated abuse/over enthusiasm rather than fixed quotas.

[OzzyKP]

The final map tweaking has been done and the civs have been placed! Everything is 100% done and ready to go!

[Black Knight 427]

My thoughts on the lengths of posts etc.

I don't think you can split diplomacy and story, since both are intertwined. My story posts are always attempting to project a certian imagine, pursuade, encourage or intimidate other nations etc.

I suggest we don't have a limit, but review a month into it. However, we use the 'fair play' vote to extert and influcence. This 'fair play' vote is a new thing, and probably quite clever, but we haven't particularly defined it. So we keep the current idea for 'fair play' but perhaps rename it 'good gaming' or something like that, and have as one of the aspects of it explicitly, people appropriate use or abuse of the story thread. If folks don't like that idea, then we just make sure we write into the critieria for the story votes that teh votes are awarded for quality not just quantity, and people should not feel obliged to vote for someone just because they have made many posts, indeed if someone is posting too much or inappropriately you may want to deliberately not give them story votes.

Overall:
1. I don't think that splitting categories of posts will work.
2. I understand why Robert has suggested the limit becaause in previous conversations people have said they were put off by the number of posts, but if nobody who is going to play is making that point now, lets leave it and see.
3. Lets use voting to regulated abuse/over enthusiasm rather than fixed quotas.

I second this.

[The Priest]

The final map tweaking has been done and the civs have been placed! Everything is 100% done and ready to go!

Too late to bribe you?

[OzzyKP]

You missed your chance!

[Toni]

6 Days and counting

[deity]

G'day!

Hi all!!

It's been great having a break from civ I can tell you! We (and I mean WE) really needed a respite.

AND we are off on Aug 18 on our next OS holiday... England, Italy, Greece, Dubrovnik, Scotland... a real dance of civs...

I've not read many posts but good that you finished BTP and now starting DOC.

What happened to Capo's mod?

Good luck all!

Maybe I can play the next pitboss game in 2010

PS Any chance I can get sent a BC4000 version of DOC that I could play on?

GREAT TIDINGS!