New Horizons - New Diplogame Set-Up Thread

[St Jon]

This. I've been playing a lot of Civ4 Col, and its pretty good. I would so love a MP Diplo Game of colonization (with special victory conditions that we agree upon previously) or even just a regular MP game of col.


Think about how detalied the economy is in colonization! You could invest money into ventures, trade raw resources for finished products, lease out specialists, ect. All we need to do is perhaps decide on what constitutes a "win", otherwise the race to declare independance may be dull (can you still declare independance from your home country even if you disable it as a victory condition?)

From what you say I will go out and buy it. I loved the old game, apart from the poor end game of independence where you always won, and the brilliant economic system where you start as just an agrarian society sending raw materials back to the mother country and change into an industrial powerhouse yourself. If it does work that well then I'd love to try it.

i think if you were going to paly this style then there is no IN GAME winner at all. IN GAME score is irrelevant and so space launch should be disabled.

have qa full voting system only...

You are right. It could only work on a 'votes only count' basis. It still would need very good natured people and could not have anonymity as it is the player rather than the civ that becomes the focus. Be a very good Prussian but a Greek that cannot add up it does not matter.

[Korea (DoC)]

i think if you were going to paly this style then there is no IN GAME winner at all. IN GAME score is irrelevant and so space launch should be disabled.

have qa full voting system only...

[Heraclitus]

Depending on the game... but for the most part I am quite interested.

I am strongly in favour of 5 and 4. Some time ago I tried to organize a Final Frontier game and got the players and the rules to agree... but we didn't have a host.

On a tangent; I have never played CivIV Colonisation at all but always loved the old original Colonisation. Does the add-on work well enough to give a feel of that old gem of a game? I had stopped playing SP when the add-on came out so I never bought it but is it worth a try? If so, is it worth basing an MP Game around as then you could have a straight real world map.

This. I've been playing a lot of Civ4 Col, and its pretty good. I would so love a MP Diplo Game of colonization (with special victory conditions that we agree upon previously) or even just a regular MP game of col.


Think about how detalied the economy is in colonization! You could invest money into ventures, trade raw resources for finished products, lease out specialists, ect. All we need to do is perhaps decide on what constitutes a "win", otherwise the race to declare independance may be dull (can you still declare independance from your home country even if you disable it as a victory condition?)

[St Jon]

I honestly feel that if a player gets a civ that he doesn't like and then immediately starts a revolution to get rid of it, that is poor attitude. With a 10 turn buffer that allows for changes without keeping the carousel going at unenjoyable speed.

Another way to do it is to allow the Vizier to order a change of civics as part of his "Claim the Throne" ability.

Here is an idea. We have in Dance of Civs a vote system for Attitude, Diplomacy and Storytelling. The Diplomacy category is in my opinion a bit amputated since most civs have little clue what faraway civs (or sometimes even local civs) are doing diplomatically that does not involve themselves. And the same goes for the Attitude score.

If we combine Diplomacy and Storytelling into "In Character Activities", and remake Attitude into "Prestige", we could be well on the way to creating an incentive to stick with a civ.

Prestige is gained from having a good attitude, AND an evaluation of the improvement made to a civ. If Player A takes over Civ B and greatly increases its score/GNP/production/army size/city number/whatever criteria we feel is important, he should gain a high Prestige vote. This is of course balanced by his attitude. If he does well, but shows poor sportsmanship (attacking much weaker civs, sneak attacks etc), points should be retracted when voting. The same goes vice-versa, poor players who struggle on and keep trying should get high prestige votes even if their improvement is weak.

That way there are only 2 vote categories:
1. In Character Activity (diplomacy+stories)
2. Prestige (attitude+improvement)

Another source for prestige could be how long you hold on to a crappy civ (and how much you may have improved it)

comments?

Very good.

I like the prestige idea as 'Diplomacy' is almost impossible to make an true judgement on. If, and I'd love to see it would work, everything is based upon what Player A does for Civ X rather than the French win traditional way then you get over the old problems of having a crappy starting position or no natural resources.

The very start does, I think, need to be handled carefully. Most of us will head for Bronze Working and go Slavery ASAP. I reckon that may be too early for a swap?

How do we handle Spiritual leaders that effectively never have a revolution? How do we handle sync so that each Civ always has a leader? By game dynamics you are never going to get 40 Turns each.

By definition you are never going to be able to just straight get out of a Civ you don't like inside 10 Turns for Civics but you could with Religion. What does somebody do that inherits 5 Turns of Anarchy as their gift?

Must be very careful of good manners and game spirit. It would be very easy to sabotage a Civ you were leaving so playing must be much more important than winning.

[LzPrst]

We could make a rule saying that if a new player revolutionizes within 10 turns of a previous revolution, or within 10 turns of a power-change, another change in ruler is not required. (or any number of turns we all agree on) Keep in mind that consecutive revolutions is very harmful to development and should be avoided. Trying to make the best of a civ stuck in harmful traditional ways is a very historical (and challenging) task. A good example is the historical Ottoman empire in its later days.

I honestly feel that if a player gets a civ that he doesn't like and then immediately starts a revolution to get rid of it, that is poor attitude. With a 10 turn buffer that allows for changes without keeping the carousel going at unenjoyable speed.

Another way to do it is to allow the Vizier to order a change of civics as part of his "Claim the Throne" ability.



Here is an idea. We have in Dance of Civs a vote system for Attitude, Diplomacy and Storytelling. The Diplomacy category is in my opinion a bit amputated since most civs have little clue what faraway civs (or sometimes even local civs) are doing diplomatically that does not involve themselves. And the same goes for the Attitude score.

If we combine Diplomacy and Storytelling into "In Character Activities", and remake Attitude into "Prestige", we could be well on the way to creating an incentive to stick with a civ.

Prestige is gained from having a good attitude, AND an evaluation of the improvement made to a civ. If Player A takes over Civ B and greatly increases its score/GNP/production/army size/city number/whatever criteria we feel is important, he should gain a high Prestige vote. This is of course balanced by his attitude. If he does well, but shows poor sportsmanship (attacking much weaker civs, sneak attacks etc), points should be retracted when voting. The same goes vice-versa, poor players who struggle on and keep trying should get high prestige votes even if their improvement is weak.

That way there are only 2 vote categories:
1. In Character Activity (diplomacy+stories)
2. Prestige (attitude+improvement)

Another source for prestige could be how long you hold on to a crappy civ (and how much you may have improved it)

comments?

[OzzyKP]

6-7 players and 1 Vizier then? It has other advantages as Ozzy mentions, if someone needs a break we have a standby sub.

As mentioned, you can "manipulate" the system by never changing civics, but if we say that a Vizier can "Claim the Throne" of a civ that has been run by the same player for 40 consecutive turns, then the manipulation becomes far less likely. (or some other number we find to be reasonable)

As for game and commitment, Dance of Civilizations has been running for several months now, and hardly anyone has dropped off completely (just Rome I think). And most of the players on that list are serious non-quitting players. We could also play on a normal sized map with normal speed. Then the game would not take as long.

There is still the issue of someone getting a civ they don't want and calling a revolution soon in order to leave it. Also, when I take over a new civ, civics is the first thing I examine (because a lot of people seem to run dumb civics). So if you jumped to a new civ and wanted to change the civics to something that fit with your strategy for the civ, you'd be leaving right away and someone else (who may or may not like those civics) would take over.

[LzPrst]

WORTH, experImeNT, probLEMs, OVer.

(i'll let intimatEly slide since the E is silent)

[Korea (DoC)]

sounds woirth an experiemtn but i see real probs with knowing another civ intimatly then taking voer another.

[LzPrst]

6-7 players and 1 Vizier then? It has other advantages as Ozzy mentions, if someone needs a break we have a standby sub.

As mentioned, you can "manipulate" the system by never changing civics, but if we say that a Vizier can "Claim the Throne" of a civ that has been run by the same player for 40 consecutive turns, then the manipulation becomes far less likely. (or some other number we find to be reasonable)

As for game and commitment, Dance of Civilizations has been running for several months now, and hardly anyone has dropped off completely (just Rome I think). And most of the players on that list are serious non-quitting players. We could also play on a normal sized map with normal speed. Then the game would not take as long.

[OzzyKP]

Yes, I'd like to play with the only caveat that we avoid the straight 'Civ Swap' as I have played that way in CtP and it does produce some silly situations if it is really random. If it is manually controlled then there is one person controlling the destiny of every Civ in the game which makes it hard for them to be a player themselves.

I like LzPrst's idea but it comes very close to a Diplomacy Game and even on a small World you are looking at a very large number of players to get it to work. I doubt we could even get, still less maintain, the number needed for a 6-9 month game. If we have a very small game and can get enough committed players it could be great fun. Goodwill would need to be mandatory and an acceptance that it is an experimental game also. It might work.

If we did a Civ swap but put conditions on it preventing civs at war from switching, etc, would that be workable?

I have no idea what the best way to implement it is, but I really, really want to try this idea.

Also, as far as the game size and number of players, I really didn't want more than like 7 civs to start with, so it looks like we've already got 6 people interested in the game. I'm sure we could tack on another one or two players and that'd be sufficient for us. As I don't especially want the game to be all-consuming, I wouldn't mind at all waiting in the "on-deck circle" as a Vizier.

[St Jon]

Yes, I'd like to play with the only caveat that we avoid the straight 'Civ Swap' as I have played that way in CtP and it does produce some silly situations if it is really random. If it is manually controlled then there is one person controlling the destiny of every Civ in the game which makes it hard for them to be a player themselves.

I like LzPrst's idea but it comes very close to a Diplomacy Game and even on a small World you are looking at a very large number of players to get it to work. I doubt we could even get, still less maintain, the number needed for a 6-9 month game. If we have a very small game and can get enough committed players it could be great fun. Goodwill would need to be mandatory and an acceptance that it is an experimental game also. It might work.

[OzzyKP]

Linking it to revolutions is very interesting. I really, really like the idea for story and realism reasons.

However it seems like an easily manipulated system. If you don't like the civ you've got, just call a revolution and go elsewhere. If you like who you've got, try to tough it out with the civics you've got.



Also, player list so far:

OzzyKP
Dubhghlas
CyberShy/Robert Plomp?
St Jon?
deity
LzPrst

[LzPrst]

real shame that civ4 has no way to show attrition and morale in an army... (land war in asia)

anyway. I'll play. I really like the succession idea and there are creative ways of implementing it. It is also something we have never tried before. There are of course potential problems, for example, if 2 civs are at war and their leaders swap, (or just one of them gets the other nation) a very big information imbalance will occur. some way to avoid this should be implemented.
Another way to do it would be to have 1-2 players in continous "Vizier" mode. by that I mean that if we have 14 players, we will have 12 civs, and on a rotation basis 2 players will become advisors to the leader of a weak civ. this would also allow us to swap leaders at logical points, for example at revolution. when a leader starts a revolution one of the viziers will take over the civ and the player will become Vizier (of his own nation or another). the rotation of player-civ will go gradually through the 2 "fallow" players.

example: 3 players, 1 vizier.
Arabia - player A
Babylon - player B
Carthage - player C (+Vizier player V)

Babylon is first to discover Bronze Working, kicks off a revolution and player B is overthrown (by himself) and becomes Vizier to Arabia (lowest score/lowest GNP/first on a list/randomly chosen whatever we decide on). Player V takes over Babylon.
The situation is now
Arabia - player A (+ B)
Babylon - player V
Carthage - player C

Next the turn limit for continuous play runs out for Arabia, player A becomes Vizier and player B becomes ruler of Arabia. Carthage realizes it needs to make a government change as well and starts a revolution. Player C becomes Vizier (let's say to babylon), player A takes over Carthage.
Arabia - player B
Babylon - player V (+player C)
Carthage - player A

If a player is stuck in Vizier mode for a certain number of turns that we agree is too long (pre-decided number, e.g. 20 turns) he will have the possibility to "Claim the Throne" of the player that has been continously playing the longest. That player then finishes by telling how his leader dies or loses power, becomes a Vizier, and the new player takes over.

With 2 viziers we can make certain that civs at war won't swap leaders. it will also create a very dynamic game situation and hopefully, Viziers will be able to either help weak players or if they are weak players themselves, learn from others.

Having players "not play" may seem boring, but I think that moving between ruler and advisor would create interesting stories. Players may agree to delegate real power to their Vizier like giving control of all military units, or, ruling the eastern half of the empire, or administrating the colonies, etc. This would also create great opportunities for stories about internal powerstruggles. I have myself played the role of sub/advisor in some games and I have had advice from others. I found the opportunity to discuss ideas with another player extremely fun and valuable, and I also enjoyed advising another player, especially since I was partly running the civ at times, and partly just giving tips.

[Robert]

I made that mistake a lot in civ2, I loved it

[Dubhghlas]

Hey, look at it this way: you never had the chance to make the mistake of starting a land war in Asia.