New Horizons - New Diplogame Set-Up Thread

[Robert]

My first diplo game was an Europe map.
That was pretty nice as well, though also very unballanced.
I was Germany

[deity]

Also, I would like to play full random where all players get whatever civ and play completely anonymously.

[deity]

Hi guys!

Suffering withdrawals and need to play at least one Civ 4 game on real Earth, YES!

We started our first diplos on a real Earth but some joker passworded his civ and a version upgrade disabled the ability to login to that civ... would you believe - game was screwed

[Korea (DoC)]

i agree the rotation of players from one civ t oantoher wouldnt work, but i would like to be involved in one where a group of random players were rotated in.

give everyone a set number or turns...

of course menas some games your influnec will be small , other games it could be huge.

it could be anon like too.

each leader stepping down anonympusly and sending login detials to next on list in the game no one would even know a new palyer till deals broken ..

mmm sounds fun

[St Jon]

From my personal point of view I do not like Succession Games at all. I did not like them in CtP or SMAC, never did play Civ2 MP, as they can produce silly situations in swap-overs, e.g. fighting your previous nation, or just an incomplete experience where you just get 20 turns and then hand on to someone else.

I like all the other ideas. The fantasy idea is fun and you are right about the mods, if they work in PitBoss, on CFC having some great additions to the game. What about Capo's mod? Has it ever been tried in earnest? If it works then some of his ideas, especially regarding espionage and religion, sounded well worth giving a try.

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.

Cyber's 'Relationship Monitor' is a nice idea but stabbing someone in the back is part of politics. Stalin and Hitler signed the 'Pact of Steel', carved up Poland and then Germany promptly stabbed Russia and would have captured Moscow but for stupidity. History is littered with good friends gone bad.

[Russia (DoC)]

I love it! just afraid that I may not have time...

Can I play the Klingons?

[Korea (DoC)]

Te idea of rotating the leader is th best part i think.

As many say the game long allaicnes and such like are mainly formed becasue it is the same person behind the screen.

In rea ll ife natiosn change allegiance often due ot the fact it is a totaly different person.

So i think an enforced leadership sohuld be good.


And no need to just make it a rotation of palyes in game.

Maybe open it up to anyone who is following the game to join in. This way a sub can join for a period and her doesnt ahve to live up to any agrements at all. oh that would be fun...

[Robert]

I also like (a combination of) ideas 2,3, 5 and 6

[Robert]

I'm not sure if I will sign up for this one or not (first I'll give others a chance anyway), but I'd like it to use the opportunity to launch an idea I got yesterday, especially since you ask for ideas

- Official Relationship Monitor
Every must include in it's signature their official relationship monitor.
This monitor can be updated at most once per week, but also less often.

In the relationship monitor every civ displays it's relation with all other civs.
There are a numbe of official statuses, all come with some possibilities or prohibities.
Every status can only be given to at most 2 civs.

The purpose is to somehow make diplomacy more important, and echo the single player attitude civs have to each other.
It will prevent too large alliances to grow, and it can (At a certain level of friendship) prohobit a stab in the back.

This is just an example of how such a status list could look like:
(keeping in mind that anything that come with a status will only apply if the other civ has at least the same friendly or enemy status on you)

- sworn allies. (forced mutual defence, war prohobited, all trades allowed, forced open borders)
- allies (mutual defence allowed, war prohibited, all trades allowed)
- friends (resource trades allowed, open borders allowed, map trading allowed)
- contact (resource trades allowed, open borders allowed)
- foe (no trades allowed)
- enemy (no trades allowed with sworn allies of enemy)
- Vendeta (no trades allowed with (sworn) allies of enemy, must declare war)

I think this may lead to some intersting diplo dynamics.

[Dubhghlas]

I would like in. I've been following along with the DoC game, and some of the things y'all are struggling with are very familiar to me from years of playing EU2 MP, games which as you may know take months to finish. I like the idea of combining ideas 1 and 2, though I think the trouble with Civ on real world maps is that you need to space out the European civs, or they simply have no where to go

[OzzyKP]

I'm mildly interested in getting another diplogame set up. Something to run concurrently with DoC. I'm hoping to keep it small though, something between 5-8 players. I think the community can handle two concurrent games (I'm hoping some DoC folks will join this one too).

I want to do something different in this game. We've gotten into a bit of a rut (imho) in recent years with the games all more or less the same. All good, don't get me wrong, and the rules and voting systems have been refined greatly, but the format has been exactly the same.

I don't have an agenda as far as *what* to do different, but I want to do *something* different. Some ideas:

1. Succession-type diplogame - We set up some system where players will swap civs every so often. One unrealistic (and ultimately boring) element of diplogames is you have an omnipotent leader who guides his nation and plots strategy from 4,000 BC till 2,000 AD. Nations change, adapt, have different regimes, different personalities, etc. Swapping out players will accomplish this. Plus it could help balance the game as the top players would cycle down to lower civs.

2. Playing on a real world map - In the Civ2 days we would often play on world maps or Europe maps, but I don't think we've ever done it in Civ4. While we don't have the fun of exploring a map, I think it is great to put our game in a historical context, playing where great empires have come and gone.

3. Using some mods - This could take some work to set up the mod, but there are various neat rule changes and things we could add. There lots of little things here to check out: http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=180 New promotions, forts that have borders, new ways of doing tech trading, etc.

4. Playing a scenario or full modpack - My ideal would be to do Fall from Heaven 2 as a diplogame, but I don't think it works with Pitboss unfortunately. And I don't think any of us have the patience any longer for live MP (I don't anymore). But Rhye's and Fall might work, and there are a large variety of mods out there. We could do something in space, or Ancient Greece, or a Mad Max type game or many other options.

5. Allowing elimination - Someone had suggested we play a diplogame where we allow civs to be annexed and destroyed completely. Not encouraged, mind you, we don't want this to turn into a regular free for all game, but when civs are pretty small and backwards and far behind, sometimes the humane thing is to just put them out of their misery and put them out of the game. If we have two games running at the same time being defeated utterly may be easier to stomach since (in theory) they wouldn't have to wait another 8 months for another game to start up.

6. A game of all fantasy civs - In BtP my civ was the "Metalheads" but everyone else played traditional, historical-type civs. Perhaps we could have a game where everyone is a fantasy civ. Middle-earth vs. Marvel Comics vs. Final Fantasy vs. Asgard, etc.

7. Or.. anything else you guys can think of. Just something to switch the game up a bit.


Obviously first we need some players, but then we need to decide which if any of these ideas we decide to implement. My picks are options 1 and 2 definitely. If we can find the right one, I'd love option 4 too. I'd love to try and pull Rhye's and Fall off, but it will definitely be a big change from traditional games.

Who's with me?