New Earth Map Diplogame (Diaspora of Afroasiatics?) - [Planning Thread] Discuss Ruleset, Map etc.

[Japan (DoB)]

Got the control done. Working on the hard part, finding a way to make things unbalanced properly and finding a reasonable level of consistent imbalance at 30.

[Japan (DoB)]

Took a bit of a break from this with the forums going down and other life stuff coming up. But, now I think I've got a pretty good baseline to work with. Should be done within a few days.

Here's the vanilla BtS test results - still testing for consistency and to get a less noisy baseline. I think they're looking pretty diplo-game like. The first is a totally balanced map, the second was unbalanced to create more realistic outcomes.

Balanced:



Unbalanced:

[Sommerswerd]

Too the... ahem... laypersons (like myself )... Do you mind explaining what we are looking at in the two graphs?

At a glance it seems like the tech modification keeps the Civs closer in the balanced Map than in the normal one, however, they seem still pretty far apart from top to bottom. In the unbalanced Map, which is what we will all are normally playing on, the spread is similar to the current game?

Am I reading it corrrectly?

[England (DoB)]

yeah I don't speak dolphin either

[Japan (DoB)]

Hehe, sorry. It made sense to me when I wrote it leaving out all the information only I had

This is an update, not the final report. I created the scenario I described earlier in August. This baseline scenario was unmodded vanilla (30% tech bonus and all) with almost totally equal starts for all 18 civs. The first graph is GNP for the entire game with that scenario. It's fairly representative of all 10 trials I ran for that scenario.

Then, I went about editing the scenario to create a more realistic diplomgame-like spread of the civs. I aimed for 1 really high civ, 1 very high civ, a bunch in the middle, and a few stragglers. The second graph is the game-long GNP graph for that "unbalanced" version.

Anyway, now I'm going to run some more playthroughs with this unbalanced scenario to help smooth out the statistical noise (since each game plays out differently), then start modding the game to higher tech bonuses and watching the results. Once done, I'll collect the data, enter it into some spreadsheets, and do some statisticy stuff to it. Last, I post the final report for all to read.

I hope this was slightly easier to understand.

[Sommerswerd]

OK so both graphs are for the (vanilla) 30% modifier. The first is with balanced starts and the second is with normal starts. If that's right then I think I follow you.

@ England - "dolphin" hilarious

[Sommerswerd]

While Japan is working on the tech modifier, I thought I should get cracking on framing a new ruleset. What I have been thinking is this time we could go with simpler Measured War rules. If we use APT Mod, we wont need any turn-order rules... which will be nice

OK so here is my working thought:

1. No capturing of Capitals, and thus no elimination of any opponents (including AI) before 1500 AD (culture flips are OK, move-then-trades are OK).

2. Any player at War can call for all the Wars against him to end in 10 turns at any time (regardless of who started the War)

And that's it. Should give some powerful defensive protection, while giving much more freedom to engage in War.

I would love to hear any thoughts you guys have.

[Japan (DoB)]

Yeah, I sort of lost track of doing those tests. It really shouldn't take much time.

Before deciding on new rules (I agree they're too complicated currently), what is the purpose of them?

1. To prevent players from being annihilated?
2. To prevent players from being put too far behind and in an unfun situation?
3. To give players the option to fight out a war or not (whether because they dislike it in general or they just don't have the time for it presently)?

I like the no login defense since it's an easy way of saying "I'm too busy right now to get involved." There are weeks where I just couldn't fight a war due to RL time and stress commitments. I like having this sort of an out. It also gives anti-war players an easy out. It's an elegant little rule that should stay in.

But that leaves wars that both players are willing to do going in, but that get lopsided or overly harsh for one, such that the player ends up getting totally screwed for a long time because of the results. For a role-playing game, that can be debilitating. I would suggest: "any player at war, after the 8th turn, can ask for an end in 2 turns at any time."

[Netherlands (DoB)]

I think its rare that both players are willing to fight the war. Usually the guy who gets attacked is not ready for an attack. If you can only attack the ones who are ready willing then you can't hardly attack anyone.

[Sommerswerd]

Before deciding on new rules (I agree they're too complicated currently), what is the purpose of them?

1. To prevent players from being annihilated?
2. To prevent players from being put too far behind and in an unfun situation?
3. To give players the option to fight out a war or not (whether because they dislike it in general or they just don't have the time for it presently)?

Sorry it took me so long to respond

a. Yes I think that this is one of the main points of a diplogame... allowing people to play without fear of being eliminated. However, from the past games I have participated in, it seems like there has to be a point in the game (a date maybe?) where Civs can be eliminated. Otherwise you just end up grasping for subs for Civs that are abandoned and just too hopelessly backwards for anyone to want them.

b. This I think has two parts, so I would say no to the first part and yes to the second... So we can use the Mod (known tech bonus for example) to help people who are behind catch up, but we don't want to penalize good play, because that just makes it unfun for the good players. Overall, I am thinking that the penalty approach is flawed and unfun... Better to give bonuses (for good play and otherwise ) than to penalize people. Especially since a lot of players won't read the rules until after they get a rule enforced on them, and then feel understandably frustrated with the rules.

So I guess my point is, we dont want to use the rules to keep everyone caught up... We do want the rules to help keep the game fun for everybody, including the Warmongers and dominant players. TBH, it is the dominant players who oftentimes are the ones who make the game more fun and challenging for everyone else.

c. Now this is a tricky one. I have thought a lot about this during the current game, and I find myself concluding that Civ is after-all a Wargame, so maybe we don't want rules that restrict what is well, frankly, the whole point of the game. On the other hand, the most rage-quit inducing event in any Wargame (turn based, rts, mpg or otherwise) is ironically, when a player gets attacked and they are not ready for it. We are all guilty of this... When you play the AI and you are "trying to do something" or try some new strategy or whatever, and then the AI attacks you, and you just restart, or quit or Worldbuilder yourself a bunch of units, whatever...

The point is that getting attacked is almost never something you want to happen, but a game where you can't attack anyone is not as fun either, so maybe rather than trying to make the rules so that no one ever gets attacked, we can give everyone the option to end the War quickly, or at least in a reasonable amount of time so that they are not damaged too much... again, up until a certain date, after which everyone can just conduct War normally, with the caveat that elimination is not allowed.

[Sommerswerd]

Thinking about Civs for next game... Assuming that we don't use a modified .dll (to have all 34 Civs in the game ), here are the changes I am thinking of... based on the current game Civs:

Staying in
France - Louis (IND, CRE)
Greece - Pericles (PHI, CRE)
Dutch - Willem (FIN, CRE)
Ottomans - Suleiman (PHI, IMP)
Russia - Catherine (CRE, IMP)
Persia - Darius (FIN, ORG)
China - Qin Shi Huang (IND, PRO)
Arabia - Saladin (SPI, PRO)
Japan - Tokugawa (AGG, PRO)
England - Elizabeth (FIN, PHI)
Viking - Ragnar (FIN, AGG)

Deleted
Spain - Isabella (EXP, SPI)
Portugal - (IMP, EXP)
Germany - Bismarck (IND, EXP)
Rome - Augustus (IND, IMP)
Holy Rome - (IMP, PRO)
Byzantines - Justinian (IMP, SPI)
Celts - Brennus (SPI, CHA)

Added
Egypt - Rammeses (SPI, IND)
Khmer - Suryavarman (EXP, CRE)
India - Gandhi (SPI, PHI)
Mali - Mansa Musa (FIN, SPI)
Korea - Wang Kon (FIN, PRO)
Babylon - Hammurabi (AGG, ORG)
Carthage - Hannibal (FIN, CHA)

I would like to hear any comments you guys have

[Japan (DoB)]

A) it seems like there has to be a point in the game (a date maybe?) where Civs can be eliminated.

Well, allowing AI civs to be eliminated makes sense, so why doesn't that work?

B) right.

Now this is a tricky one. I have thought a lot about this during the current game, and I find myself concluding that Civ is after-all a Wargame, so maybe we don't want rules that restrict what is well, frankly, the whole point of the game.

C) I believe there are multiple paths to victory, no? War isn't all, especially in a diplo game. Personally, I think the rules need to make small victories possible without allowing for crushing victories, as those are the ones that ruin the game for players. Of course, players that are clearly ahead of the pack should be less protected.

Say, the Greeks in the current game get broken up by a coalition of smaller powers (hypothetical!), that should be allowable given that Greece remains a competitive civ that is "playable", in that it has a clear core of cities and isn't just dispersed randomly throughout the world. Of course, that coalition of smaller civs could get tossed around by Greece, but while it would be ok for Greece to lose 30% of its holdings to a bunch of 8-city civs, it would be unfair for Greece to take out 30% of a civ that was barely in the top 10, even if that civ started it.

I would suggest this: unconditional surrender at any time is possible, including first-turn. Whatever was lost on the turn of surrender and prior turn must be returned (and vice-versa if the surrenderer also took land) to the owner (razing will require a complex financial reparation). The surrendering country then enters into a "puppet state" armistice, where its military, espionage, and foreign policy are controlled by the conqueror. This period lasts, say, 75T. The parties can, of course, adjust the terms bilaterally. Good faith is required, in that if the conqueror says "no diplomacy with X country", then it's expected that this will be followed by the surrenderer and X country. After the 75T (or whatever is agreed on), there's a no-invasion period of 35T to prevent scenarios where someone is perpetually conquered, forced to disarm, then reconquered upon release from servitude.

Perhaps that's too harsh, but something along those lines would work to:
1) prevent long-term loss of playability at the expense of short-term
2) keep in the spirit of role-playing and create complex global politics
3) create good story-telling opportunities
4) give a militarily victorious nation benefits for its successes

75T is harsh, but these can always be negotiated down for GPs or gold or trades or longer NAPs, etc. It gives the conqueror a non-military amount of leverage equivalent to what his military would have been able to exact form the situation. Perhaps 50T would be better, though...

What could be controlled by default:
1) who will (not) be targeted by espionage (but not how much will be spent)
2) what types of military units can be held or created (but at least one possible land type must be possible)
3) what nations can't be diplomatically engaged
4) OBs and who the controlled nation CANNOT DoW (but not positive, in that you can't say 'attack X')

Note that a vassalized nation can't be multi-vassalized, so an immediate ceasefire of the sort above is possible at any time without any further consequences if already-vassalized. IF another nation wants to vassalize an already-vassal, then it must defeat the controlling nation first through a similar 'total surrender' method (non-total negotiated peace does not allow for this, to prevent gaming the system for easy vassal swaps, which is unrealistic and gamey).

At that point, the new conqueror can take over the armistice terms, though it cannot renegotiate unless both sides agree to do so. So, if A is attacked by B and vassalized, they agree to a 40T vassalage with all GPs given to B for that time, then on T20 C attacks B and wins and accepts the A vassalage as part of a settlement, then A is a vassal of C for 20 turns, plus the GP thing. If C and A want to renegotiate, the preexisting terms are the starting point, and a failure to come to new terms simply defaults to the preexisting ones.

This rule plus a "10 turn timer for peace" rule should suffice. Additionally, we could have a rule that any nation under the average of [GNP + goods + food] can't lose more than 15% in a war and once that 15% limit is reached, peace is forced and the civ becomes unattackable for 35T or something. This rule doesn't apply to civs above the average, though.


Added:
In the case that civ C goes to war with B (the current ruler of A), C can DoW A to move troops through the territory, but cannot take cities, and B cannot put troops in A's cities. A can choose to attack C, but that gives C the right to attack/pillage the nearest city of A's. Otherwise, C must refrain from pillaging and attacking A and spamming A's tiles with units just to hurt A's economy. Basically, C must not use the war as an excuse to punish A economically unless A "asks for it", and then it's only the local area that can be attacked.

[Sommerswerd]

I think you are right about keeping the "Only AI can be eliminated" rule. If a player is reduced to 1 city, but he is still having fun and willing to continue playing and and writing stories, then he certainly should be able to stay in the game, and thus protected from elimination... TBH I wish all the players had that attitude, because it would make for an awesome game.

So I think we can start to craft a ruleset with that a the overriding principle, and I think it is only appropriate that we use your version and make it Rule #1

Draft Ruleset for DoA

1.0 Measured War

1.1 - Human controlled Civs can not be eliminated, only AI Civs may be eliminated.

I think that my "at a certain date" thought was presented incorrectly. What I mean to say (I think) is that at some point we could just turn off the measured War rules and just duke it out to the finish. This makes all victory conditions theoretically possible, and gives a great incentive for:
1. Warmongers to stay in the game
2. Smaller Civs to band together and dogpile the leader(s)

So what I was thinking is that with the exception of rule 1.1, we could turn off all other measured War rules starting on a certain date 1000AD, 1500AD, 1800AD etc... That way we can limit the game to the small victories, prior to that date, but still allow the large victories after, but players who want to stick it out to the end are protected absolutely from elimination. That way there is something for everyone to enjoy.

[Sommerswerd]

Now looking at your proposal for dealing with War, I must admit, in many ways, looks similar to what we already have, which we both agree is way too complicated. The returning of cities for example was an excellent War deterrent, but it was also a big fun-reducer for the Warmongers.

Just looking at your suggestions... the length alone and imagining codifying it... it would be a wall of text, that TBH no one is going to read (as I have learned the hard way in this game ). I think we really need to try to slash and burn the rules down to 4 or 5 (or less) simple rules, instead of a long complex ruleset. Something like:

a. No capturing capitals before X year
b. Any Civ at War can call for all the Wars against them to end in X turns
c. No playing multiple Civs. You are allowed to sub for a maximum of 5 turns per 50 turn period. If a player is gone for 10 turns without notice their Civ can be kicked to AI.
d. If you are unable to play for an extended time you can announce "I will not log in until turn X, year X or X date" No one can declare War on you while you are away, and your Civ will not be kicked to AI. If you are already at War, then no additional players can declare War on you, but the current War opponents can attack you normally.

a. Losing capitals is a morale crusher, especially early in the game. Protecting Capitals in the ruleset was the right idea I think, but it was too complicated and caused problems. This would be a much simpler, clearer approach, and it's not permanent. After the X year, capitals would be fair game. I am assuming that by then, players would have other good cities besides their capital.

b. This replaces the complex DMW, MMW, and SMW rules we have now, and is far less harsh to the Warmongers. Basically, players can conduct War normally, and make normal gains from War, but they can't just choke or siege other players indefinitely, or engage in soul crushing eternal dogpiles

c. This issue has come up many times in many games and I am convinced that there is no way to allow secret permasubbing in a way that is fair/acceptable to everyone. Some players like it, others hate it, but in the end it causes alot of bitterness. We still need to allow subbing, but limiting subbing and letting unplayed Civs be AI seems the best approach.

d. This is a streamlined version of the "No login defense." Notice that this time it would have to be pre-emptive... as-in you could not just use it as a cop out once you are attacked. You have to announce before you are at war

So under this ruleset there would be 3 ways to handle a vacation or some RL required hiatus:

1. If you are gone for a few days then get a sub to play those turns for you. If you are gone for longer, get "steward" to check in on your civ once every 8-9 turns. They couldn't really "play" your Civ, but they would be able to keep things from burning down in your absence.

2. Announce that you will be away until X. Your Civ will be safe from players (but not AI/Barbs). You will need to set your tech and build queues and/or city governors to do things while you are gone, because no one will be logging into your Civ while you are away.

3. Resign to AI (or let them be kicked after 10 turns) and hope that your Civ isn't destroyed by the time you get back. When you get back you can just reclaim them.

[Japan (DoB)]

I think I could chop that wall of text down:

1) at any time, a player may unconditionally surrender and have all cities taken within 2 turns of the surrender returned. All cities taken from the other combatant(s) must be returned to him.

a) the default terms are: 60turns where the surrendered civ will have its espionage targets chosen, its OBs chosen, map trades chosen, and the military unit types it may have and produce chosen (with at least 1 land unit available).

b) these terms can be negotiated by both parties.

c) such a "vassalized" player cannot be mutli-vassalized. If he is engaged in another war, he can immediately sue for peace with all holdings from the previous 2 turns returned.

d) the only way such a vassalization can be transferred to another civ is if the vassalizing civ itself invokes unconditional surrender to that other civ. Then the vassalization is automatically transferred to the new victor.

e) once the vassalization period is over, a 35-turn period of non-aggression must be followed between the vassal-lord. This is part of the original vassalization agreement and can be altered through negotiation.


2) if a player is under the human average for [GNP+goods+crops], he can sue for peace immediately after losing over 15% of his [G+G+C]. This results in him being unattackable for 35 turns from any human.