Domination of Barbarians [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[France (DoB)]

I will play another ten turns or so, and in that period I hope someone is found to take over ..

Will be unfortunate to lose you. Are you certain this is what you are set on doing?

Vikings have been missing too many turns.

12 turns so far. That is a lot. As for the rules:

11.3. A player that misses 20 consecutive turns without either logging into the game or posting on the game threads, can be replaced, subbed, or kicked to AI without notice.

Vikings got another 8 turns to return.

[Sommerswerd]

Time for A BOLD New Direction?

I have been thinking about the direction the game has taken over the past month, and it seems that maybe an adjustment is in order. So perhaps it is time to shake things up a bit, and I would like to invite everyone to discuss their thoughts on putting the subbed Civs as AI, and making them fair game, exempt from Measured War rules.

As you all know, I have tried very hard to keep all the Civs in the game played by players, but after trying hard to find subs for some time now I am concerned about my ability to keep all the Civs subbed.

I would like to talk about this whether or not we need a sub for Spain. Hopefully the Spanish player reconsiders, but if not it makes it even more important that we talk about it. Also if anyone wishes to sub for Spain, please PM either myself or the Spanish player directly. I want the game to remain enjoyable for everyone participating, so I am very open to hearing you guys thoughts on these matters.

I really enjoy playing this game with all of you, and I would like to hear any and all thoughts on how we can keep the game fun for all the players, and maybe even find some more players. We can discuss the rules, the timer, I would like to hear all suggestions.

In hindsight, or if I were to host another game on this Map, I would go with Epic or Normal speed, streamline the rules substantially, do 24-48 hour turns, and I would fix that hole in the Map that allowed early settlement of the New World. I think all of these factors have contributed to the loss of players and I accept blame for this. I still want to keep the game fun and entertaining for all the players, so lets talk about how we can do that.

[Persia (DoB)]

How many civs are being subbed right now, so we can know how many AI civs your suggestion would put on the map. While having fodder for military expansion might make things more interesting, if the number of AI civs is too high, it could also make it less interesting.

[Sommerswerd]

Right now its 5. So if we lose Spain and Vikings too, that would mean that seven (2 shy of half) the Civs would be subs. Now some of these would probably be elimminated quickly, but a couple would probably linger for some time. They are spread out so everyone would have conquest opportunities. Then again some guys might want to stick with their sub instead of their original Civ depending on the situation.

The game has been down 5 players before and I was able to find new players for everyone, and there have been fluctuations back and forth, but there has never been an ongoing situation with six and certainly not seven subbed civs in the game before, and i am striking out trying to find new players. I found a couple new players very recently, but I feel like I am running out if viable options. That's why I wanted to hear thoughts from everyone.

Right now we have 13 players. It would make me sad to see the game ruined for 13 players... Most games start with only 10 or 11 players. I mean even seven players down means 11 players playing, so I want to do what is best to keep the game fun. Ideas?

[Persia (DoB)]

Sending civs to AI and allowing military conquest of them, will probably consolidate the number of teams to the more active teams, and might make for more interesting relations. I would be willing to try it.

[Spain (DoB)]

The main point is: that the game is geared so much towards status quo (making war too hard) that it is not in the best interest of my civ to do anything about it..

All paths of decision (what is best for my civ) are geared towards a building game.. and for that it is just too time consuming..
In civ, war should also be a viable path of action, and frankly in this game it is not.

Gearing towards war would really hurt the economy, while the rewards (even for a succesfull war) are 1 or 2 cities even for a complete victory.
There is simply a bad business case for war!

So that is why Catalunya will not wage war. But then the game gets kinda boring..

That said, Catalunya is doing excellent in the charts, and would be worth of keeping around.

Of course I am willing to give you guys more turns to arrange things, if that does help..

[Rome (DoB)]

I am sorry to see you wish to leave, Spain I hope we can find a solution to this that hopefully makes you decide to stay.

[Sommerswerd]

I think what the Spanish player is saying seems very straightforward (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong). It sounds like he wants it to be easier to wage war under the rules. Putting the subbed Civs to AI would give immediate opportunities for War to everyone, and probably ignite an instant World War.

However, once the AIs have all been conquered, we are back to the same situation. I was thinking about simplifying the Measured War rules to encourage more fighting between players. What do people think about this?

One idea I had was to scrap all the Measured War rules except for DMW and the Capital protection rule, and then only allow DMW for civs with 5 or less cities. Civs with over 6 cities would be fair game, until they were reduced to 5 cities or less.

The other thing, is if we are going to be fighting more Wars, we probably need a 24 hour timer, just a suggestion. I would like to hear thoughts. I am fine with 17 but I am easy about the timer regardless of length.

Again these are just ideas. I would like to hear more discussion.

[Spain (DoB)]

Honestly, don't change things to keep me around. Only change things if you think they need changing..

I am just a guy explaining his motivation..

[Rome (DoB)]

Honestly, don't change things to keep me around. Only change things if you think they need changing..

I am just a guy explaining his motivation..

My worry is that changing the rules for war will only postpone the problem, as at some point there would not be much war to wage (when the weak civs have been conquered), and at that point the game would again become boring. That said, we could probably benefit from loosening up the rules of war a little bit to make things more exciting. But in that case we need to do something that protects civs from becoming backwards technologically. With a few select exceptions of some very skilled players, my impression is that most of the civs are quite behind technologically compared to these few nations. If those technologically superior nations decided to go to war against the backwards civs, they would easily conquer them.

I think it's safe to say that everyone wants you to stay - I know I do. And I hope we can find a solution to that end. You're probably not the only player who are concerned about these issues.

Edit: Remember that primary point of this diplogame is the stories, intrigues and politics. The conventional ways of winning are not relevant. And I can easily say that this is one of the most exciting and fun civ games I have ever participated in.

[Japan (DoB)]

Honestly, don't change things to keep me around. Only change things if you think they need changing..

I am just a guy explaining his motivation..

You've played very well so far, and had some fantastic posts with your peace summit. What changed? Would a more easy war prospect 'do it' for you? I thought the tense situation among the European nations was exciting and promising, was looking forward to the future posts.

I guess you don't see it that way, and since you have high scores on the charts, it becomes less fun to just maintain? What if you switched to another nation? Would that be more interesting for you? Since there are five other civs being subbed, this could give you a challenge perhaps, to let go of Spain and take up another civ, or become a sub for another nation in addition to Spain?

[Greece (DoB)]

I agree with having small civs without subs go AI. It is really hard for one to take over a civ with 4 or less cities.

[Persia (DoB)]

OOC: I think the kind of changes Sommerswerd proposed would be a better choice than giving civs to AI and would make the game a bit more fun to me, although I'm having a lot of fun right now. Make it a little less painful to attack people, while still upholding the most important rule of keeping people in the game. I especially like the bit about larger civs being fair game or more fair game than they are now, and this is an unbiased opinion because Persia would more than qualify to be a large civ. Let's protect little civs, while encouraging war in general. Being a larger civ gives in-game advantages. If it is less painful to attack large empires smaller empires won't feel like they are without recourse. I know it is all about diplo-ing, but more in-game options should lead to more choices for stories. I think Spain's feeling is a good one, and that attacking should be a bit more doable. All that said, I am having fun right now and I think this is the most interesting game of Civ I have played. So I would approve a change similar to those suggested, but for me, at least right now, I feel plenty entertained.

[England (DoB)]

I agree with the idea of making war more possible.

[Spain (DoB)]

Well, a lot of sensible things are being said..

though I still can not see how in-game options drastically can change (war, new possibilities, game speed) which could make me feel like: "I want to play the next turn"

Still, I will wait for this discussion to come to a conclusion..

PS. It is not for me about "winning", it is for me about "having something interesting to do"