New Horizons - New Diplogame Set-Up Thread

[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]

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.

[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.

[Korea (DoC)]

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

[LzPrst]

WORTH, experImeNT, probLEMs, OVer.

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

[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]

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?

[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.

[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?)

[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...

[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.

[mzprox]

Civ4 col was a great dissapointment to me, nice graphic but broken game play. (stupid game mechanics, uninteligent ai etc) it might be interesting for a diplo game, I'm not sure if it's suitable for one.

[Heraclitus]

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.

Its a near clone of the original. The end game is better since you have a few good decisions to make and the enemy is harder to defeat.

[OzzyKP]

I could go with Colonization. I've never played it as MP before, would be quite interesting. I'd suggest we play Dale's mod. I made a good new world map to go along with it.

As for voting... yea we'd have to get rid of anonymous since people would be switching a lot.

Or... and this is kind of artificial, but we could have everyone switch once a month so everyone would only be playing one civ for each voting period.

[Heraclitus]

Civ4 col was a great dissapointment to me, nice graphic but broken game play. (stupid game mechanics, uninteligent ai etc) it might be interesting for a diplo game, I'm not sure if it's suitable for one.

Well it has most of the same issues that Colonization had. Also with live players it would be much much more interesting than Civ. But we need to find alternative victory condtions to the "score" and "revolution" option.


Perhaps something like the system Lz suggested? Players wouldn't be ranked on their ingame score but on their "governors" careers. We could change governors every 50 turns at which point the colony's finances, population and military strenght are compared to what they where before. People could enter into complex economic arangments like:

-I give you free tobbaco and some gold below market price so you can avoid your King's taxes and focus your cities pop on industry rather than resource gathering eariler.

-I will help you conquer the Suix and let you keep their land if you support me in my revolution.

-You will build schools and a universtiy early, I will provide you with cash while you train up my petty criminals and indenture servants.

-I wish to buy the cigar factory in New Amsterdam for 3000 gold. I will take care of delivering the food to my workers there, and all the factories produces go to me off course. I am willing to pay a 10% tax on profits.

-I'm willing to pay a 10% tax to you if we can trade via your ports so I can avoid my kings taxes. This will raise your taxes but you are so far behind you need the cash quickly.

-Your colony gets killed off or reduced to irrelevance. But instead of having nothing fun to do like civ, you could morf into a mercenary band or perhaps a pirate. Since your governership is scored by relative gains compared to when you took over your civ playing a few soldiers who manage to buy horses and earn a lot of cash helping someone fight their king or enslaving Natives for someone else would get you quite a bit of points! Seriusly you could even make money by just having one transport ship and charging for micromanaging transport for someone! Or you could quite literaly charge someone for running a few of their cities if you are well known as at managing earning a few K.

(a player could have just one colony but become the best "governor" in his 50 turns, just by making good investments. W

Actually maybe we could have 5 players be "governors" while one or two players are "investors". An investor could be limited to having just one colony or perhaps one extra colony allowed for every subsequent century, but he would have the advantage of keeping his cities and not switching around! I would love to play such a capitalist! )


ect.