Destruction of Foes (DoF) - Diplogame Light

[St Jon]

@RP. I think if Domination is forced, Religious and Diplomatic remain I assume, then vassals have a place but Capitulation should still be disallowed.

@Ozzy. I don't really like Earth Maps, a major reason why I never had any real enthusiasm for DoE, and with a much smaller number of players you will have dramatic problems in Civ selection. I can see the arguments being prepared already for everyone starting in Europe and us all being colonists which just wont work with these rules as measured war and no Civ obliteration don't apply. If starting Civs are Worldwide then you achieve nothing apart from everyone having foreknowledge of the entire map and, because they also know the other Civ's picked, exactly where to aim for when the time comes for the Galleons to set sail. Neither option appeals to me.

[OzzyKP]

Doesn't necessarily have to be a world map. Could be Asia. Could be Europe. Could be Mediterranean. I'm just asking for something other than random...

[Toni]

I like what Ozzy says, Europe or Asia.

[Robert]

Never fight a land war in Asia!

[Robert]

@RP. I think if Domination is forced, Religious and Diplomatic remain I assume, then vassals have a place but Capitulation should still be disallowed.

Why?

@Ozzy: what's the advantage of a 'real' map if there's no story telling anyway?
It only has a disadvantage: no exploration/discovery. Everybody already knows everything. Random is always different!

Why not try something really new? Everybody start on his own island? An inner-sea map?

[deity]

Terra Huge ozzy-crafted map

@ Toni = you and ozzy talk too much

I fully agree with Cybershy:

1) DoF = imaginative title rather than boring numbered series (am surprised that the oracle of diplo can't remember games by inspired titles!)
2) Earth map or part thereof = boring whilst we have DoE which I really wanted as Earth (I was a main proponent of Earth map after years of no Civ 4 on Earth)
3) I would like an ozzy-crafted (ozzy and or others) TERRA MAP

Loose idea for anon tiers:

1) Assign DoF handles at Apolyton, like DoF_Org_handle_A
2) Cyber randomly gives each a number (as a second layer of anon)
3) Define yourself as a:
- tier 1 (very experienced diplo player) OR as a
- tier 2 (new to diplo and/or less experienced at the game mechanics)
4) As a DoF login, PM your first and second traits request to Cyber (tier 1's not picking Financial along with any other restrictions)
5) Cyber matches the DoF civ to the number and sends to ozzy who places on the beautiful and most exquisite Terra Huge map

Just a rough initial thinking... may be holes in it...

[mzprox]

Just an idea:
Instead of these tiers why don't you try playing in teams? in each team there would be 2-3 players (good ones and less experienced together). This way no one would get behind too much (because in teams at least science is shared. These civs could sub for each other when needed tough it is ofc prefered to each play his civ.

[Robert]

@mzprox: Interesting thought!

@deity: thanks for agreeing with me! Our DoD alliance is still going strong
don't understand anything of your DoF_org_A stuff though

[2metraninja]

Instead of these tiers why don't you try playing in teams?

It will be super cool scenario, but I guess it will take another game which will be specially designed for this - like 5vs5 on Team Battleground map.

There can be a 2 team captains and they to choose players one at a time until all the available players are selected - like when we were kids played football

[EvaldsUrtans]

Sign me up

[OzzyKP]

@Ozzy: what's the advantage of a 'real' map if there's no story telling anyway?
It only has a disadvantage: no exploration/discovery. Everybody already knows everything. Random is always different!

Why not try something really new? Everybody start on his own island? An inner-sea map?

There is lots of exploration and discovery! I don't get that line of argument. You may know the general outline of Africa, but you don't know where the resources are, or what each tile of terrain is going to be, or where the barbs are, or where your opponents have spread to. Where are good choke points? Where are ideal city spots? I sure hope the great thrill of exploration that people have isn't limited to discerning the shape of their blob of land. Heck, I usually make the maps, and I'm always interested in exploring.

Even with no story telling, real world maps are fun! They provide real context for our games. The entire idea of civ is an abstraction of the real world. We take real world civs, and give them real world units, and have them invent real world techs. The genius of the diplogame is that it takes this game, this abstract approximation of the real world, and attempts to give civs real world motivations and goals. The appeal of this game of civ is the idea that we can recreate history in our own image. That we can be the driving force behind the great empires and nations of the past. A real world map puts all our real world abstractions into a real, tangible context.

Random ISN'T always different. Random gives you a blob. Maybe you're on the top of the blob, or the bottom of the blob, but it is still just a blob of land. How many times have we played terra maps? Just about every game. So you know, every time, that everyone starts out on one blob of land, and there is another blob of land out there to colonize. Every. Single. Time. The shape of the blob of land you start on is such a dull, inconsequential detail. Random games feel like a chessboard, not a MAP.

We could lead the Slunarg Empire to conquer the planet Bitzot and launch Fizzydoodles at our enemies, but that would take the abstraction too far. We could play a fastest finger, kill or be killed game of lobby MP where we all rush each other from the get go, but for me personally, and I believe for all diplogamers, that takes the abstraction too far. It looses the wonder and the history and majesty of building an empire in a real seeming world. Being grounded in the real world is what makes the game interesting. The more we remove ourselves from the real world the less grounded the game becomes.

I can understand the desire to play a random map if real world maps become stale and predictable, but we've only had one real world game in 6 years. Just one. We've never played an Asia map. Or a Europe map. Or an Africa map. Or a Mediterranean map. Or a map of the Americas. All of these are new, fresh, and exciting possibilities! Why don't we try them? Why don't we do something different?

You suggested everyone start on their own island or an inner-sea map. How about a Caribbean map or a Mediterranean map? They accomplish that, but have some real world context. That makes the game interesting! And different! And FUN!

[OzzyKP]

@ Toni = you and ozzy talk too much

I know.

Here is some more talk for y'all. So it seems the two issues to decide are what kind of map and how do we handicap? I've said my piece about the map. Now for the second bit..

I like mzprox's idea of teams. I think it'd be cool and fun and different. I'd be happy to do it.

I'd also be happy to play out my earlier plan to switch civs once a month. Good players would switch into poor civs, and vice versa. Everything would balance out over time, and it'd be a hell of a lot of fun. The last game didn't work out because I don't have the time or energy to devote to really managing a game that Robert does. And it takes some logistics to pull something like this off. But if Robert were leading things, we could make this idea work fantastically. I'd love to try this.

As long as we are brainstorming though, here is another idea:

This game is going to be more competitive than usual since eliminating other players is encouraged. Every weaker player got eliminated in the last game except Mongolia, and people are predicting that there will be even more of a rush to take someone out in this game. The extreme imbalance in skill levels will make this game extremely frustrating to half the players pretty early on, so we need to have a real handicap to keep things interesting. I fought for the tiers idea in DoE and I think it is working out splendidly. Shockingly though, even though Europe is very cramped, the tier 1 players seem to have as many cities (not even counting Russia and England) as some of the tier 3 or 4 players. We all expected them to manage their cities better and have better scores, but to even have more cities altogether while having half as much land? The skill disparity is more severe than expected.

So I propose we start a game off by giving lower tier players tech and units.

Bold, I know. But I'm all about bold ideas.

Better land might work in a traditional diplogame like DoE, but in this game that is built around eliminating others, it'd just paint a bright target on the backs of the lower tier players with the good land. I bet they'd be eliminated even quicker. Free tech and units would give them at least a helping hand to try and equalize things.

So... even though we won't be story telling, we can still role play this a bit. Lets say we play the game on an Africa map. Top tier players start as Mali, Ethiopia, Zulu, Carthage & Egypt. They start with 1 settler, 1 warrior/scout, and standard starting tech. Lower tier players start as England, France, Germany, Ottomans, Portugal and the Netherlands. They start with... lets say... 1 settler, 1 archer, 1 explorer, 2 musketmen, 2 workers. They also start with all ancient level techs. Or.. half ancient techs and one random tech from the classical, medieval and renaissance eras.

Or more or less depending on how much we wanted to handicap.

Or, reverse it, and have the tier 1 players take the colonial powers, but face established empires with multiple cities, units and infrastructure.

Could do the same on an Asia map. Or Americas.

Just some thoughts.

[Robert]

@ Toni = you and ozzy talk too much

QFT

[St Jon]

1. I have no interest in a Team Game so count me out if that is chosen.
2. Seeding, selection of weak players, is a terribly difficult thing to do. I had played only 1 game - from start to finish - with any of you oldsters and you all reckoned me a no-hoper in DoD! How good or bad can you judge anyone from 1 game or, worse, from no games at all?

To simply say that if Deity, Toni, Ozzy and Cyber are so experienced that they must be better than anyone else is ludicrous. Priest and mzprox have proved that being new to the community does not mean that they will be inept. I think that in DoD I have shown that I am not an idiot and can hold my own. I think it is arrogant in the extreme to just dismiss a new player as inept in a game following the DoD rules as it is a gentle start to a regular game with lots of diplomacy and little more.

All things seem to come back to 'Attributes' and now the idea of an extra Tech or two but these are of little importance in an MP game. What actually counts is where you start on the map and your ability to expand. If you start next to a weaker player then it is good news but if you start with access to a whole new continent then it is wondrous beyond compare. If Fin is held to unbalance the game then ban it altogether and repeat the process of naming a specific group of normally unused Civ's and leaders from which players must choose. Let everyone find their own level in a gentle game where they may destroyed after 1000AD but please do remember that, if the God's are against you, even the oldest and wisest of you can be crushed!

Remember, this is only a game of fun and that it is highly unlikely that any early losers will slit their wrists over it.

[St Jon]

@Ozzy. If your idea is adopted then give me Mali or, best of all, Zulu! If you play on an Earth Map I have found them to be the finest grapes from the vine with wonderful land and fantastic resources. I could suffer Shaka as long as the Map was Huge!