No announcement yet.

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

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    You can further simplify it, leaving all the clunky details for an addendum. Just so players know that (A) there's 'unconditional surrender' and (B) the default terms are preset in the rules. The (2) rule is fairly simple, though it requires someone to evaluate the "average".

    1) a player may unconditionally surrender at any time. The default terms are set out in the addendum.
    2) any player below the average economy who loses over 15% of his output can sue for an immediate global 35-turn peace.


    • #32
      Another thing that I want to keep in mind when crafting the ruleset, that I embarrassingly did not think about for DoB, is that English is not the first language of many players. So I want to avoid legalistic phrases like "sue for peace" and "vassalization." I also think we must avoid creating confusing situations like saying "unconditional" peace, and then have a huge hidden list of conditions in an addendum that nobody reads, or is hard to understand.

      Another thing I would like to avoid is having math in the rules as much as possible. Players are not going to want to calculate what constitutes 15%, and I foresee arguments on that. I also don't wan't players to see a bunch of formulas and percentages and have their eyes glaze over and they just ignore it, only to have the rule enforced on them later in some unexpected way.

      I would also like to avoid having a long addendum or rule explanation page that I have to keep referring players to. That is an issue with the current ruleset. Having a long addendum that is the "real" ruleset, just so we can have a seemmingly short ruleset, may come off as deceptive to the players... as if the true rules are hidden or obscure. To me, A Long, complicated addendum = Long complicated ruleset.

      I really like the idea of letting players unconditionally surrender at any time, but I don't like the idea of giving back cities, because that has been too difficult to explain/administrate in this game... It's fine for the players who read/understand the rules, but for everyone else, it just makes them want to quit. I am thinking the whole returning cities regime should be abandoned in the new game.

      But unconditional surrender is a solid idea. We just need to figure out how long before you can invoke it, keeping in mind that the Warmonger needs to be able to get something out of the War as well. Surrender should be a way to keep what you have, not a way to get back what you lost.

      Anyway, Im so happy we are making progress on this, I am starting to feel like this game might actually happen soon


      • #33
        I haven't finished the trials, fyi, because my computer is in a box somewhere and I'm on a very weak laptop.

        It's "unconditional" just that the maximum conditions are set, so if the aggressor wants to be unreasonable or whatever, the defender can just fall back on that default setup. They can always come up with a separate agreement, but we want to prevent excessive concessions or abusive play is all. You can always come up with a max condition but not make it a rule, just a guideline for what we would consider "beyond this = excessive".

        Whatever we agree, there needs to be an asymmetry in that game leaders are far more vulnerable than those that fall behind. Not just for fairness, playability, whatever, but also giving the smaller nations more of a safety net for war makes them less risk-averse, which helps to shake things up. They can take a big bite out of the larger nations, but if their own losses will be guaranteed to be more minor, it makes the game actually more of a war game as it's incentivized for most nations.


        • #34
          Now that is a really good point. I like the idea of giving small nations an incentive to attack large ones, but it has to be done in a way that is super simple and easy for even the most basic English readers/speakers to understand. We should brainstorm on this and try to come up with something...

          However, the problem, as I see it, is that the incentive would have to be extremely strong, ie unfair, because players are usually very reluctant to attack the leader of the game because the leader generally has superior weaponry. I cant imagine a group of 5 Civs armed with Archers and Axes dogpiling a Civ with Longbows and Maces, no matter how sweet the incentive was.

          Plus keep in mind that the incentive has to be very very simple (no math, no lines upon lines of text)... And it shouldn't be a penalty or burden on the strong/large Civ (players don't deal with penalties well) It has to be a bonus for small Civs not a penalty on large ones so that makes it a little more difficult to craft... It's a challenge.


          • #35
            This would be easier if we'd get rid of the no-score part of the mod... Then you can do something like "anyone can call an immediate 25T peace against an opponent with at least double their score. This peace comes into effect 2 turns after it is called." Simple, very minimal math, no penalties. It still doesn't totally protect the aggressor, so you can't just invade, take cities on the first turn, and call a peace before the other guy even gets to take his turn.


            • #36
              That idea sounds brilliant TBH. I think the details can be fine tuned a little, but great idea.

              So assuming we dropped the "No-Score" component of the Mod (but kept the Known tech bonus)... We could have the rules say:

              A. Anyone can call for 10 turn Peace with all their War opponents, starting in X turns.
              B. Anyone can call for 10 turn Peace starting the very next turn with any opponent that has double their score.

              I would miss the no-score Mod though... I find that the scores in DoE especially became a huge point of contention between players and it was very discouraging to the smaller Civs... Then again, score would give a clearer picture of who the leader was (and thus who should be dogpiled if folks were so inclined).

              Which reminds me... I keep meaning to ask if the known tech bonus applies to (or can be modified to apply to) only the Civs you have met in-game? I think it would be more fun that way, because it would strongly encourage exploration, which there is a huge disincentive to do when tech trading is off and we are playing on a Map that everyone already knows.


              • #37
                Surprised you didn't know that the known_tech bonus is only for known civs, hence a very big reason to contact all civs ASAP in a game for the full effect (plus trade + diplo, of course). I mean, it's been years since I delved into the game mechanics that deeply, but I'm fairly certain that's the case.


                • #38
                  It made sense to me, but I didn't code it myself, so I was not sure whether it worked that way or not. But if you're sure it does then I will take your word for it.

                  Another thing I was thinking about... What about making the two Diploscore leaders immune to declarations of War? That is the player with the highest total diploscore, as well as the player with the highest score for the last month are both immune to having War declared on them... They can still DoW someone if they choose, but no one can DoW them for the month... What do you think? It would give a real incentive to stay competitive in the diploscore... I just worry that its too complicated.


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Sommerswerd View Post
                    Another thing I was thinking about... What about making the two Diploscore leaders immune to declarations of War? That is the player with the highest total diploscore, as well as the player with the highest score for the last month are both immune to having War declared on them... They can still DoW someone if they choose, but no one can DoW them for the month... What do you think? It would give a real incentive to stay competitive in the diploscore... I just worry that its too complicated.
                    That idea would render the most active diploplayers completely immune to war, unless you limit it to one month. It could be worked as when one of the top two positions are replaced, the new incumbent is granted one month immunity to war. But to be honest, I don't like the idea. Looking at the current diploscores in DoB it would take years for some of the civs to catch up if they wished to be granted diplomatic immunity against war, and it also introduces the problem of tactical voting to ensure that someone who is a prime target and currently leading in the diploscore should be knocked down. This could lead to players not giving votes to really good diplostories, eventually driving players away from writing stories because it's no point in doing so as they won't get votes for it because someone wants to attack them.
                    La República de Catalunya sempre en els nostres cors


                    • #40
                      I find Spain's comments compelling. It wouldn't be best.

                      That said, finding any ways to incentivize story-telling would be good (and maybe I should get on that too, eh?).

                      My idea: end of the month scores (not cumulative) are posted, then the top 5 players get to divide up 100% of GNP from everyone for 1 turn. So everyone has to give like 35% to #1, 25% to #2, 20% to #3, 10% to #4, and 10% to #5. Call it "cultural exchange". Ties = both get the lowest possible gift (so if there's a 3-way tie for first, everyone gets 20% not 35%), or there are tie-breakers for who can make the best story post within 3 days.


                      • #41
                        Spain does raise some good points that I did not consider. I guess another way to incentivize diplo is to give everyone more points to use. That might be simpler than the GNP dividing proposal... which I am thinking has too much math and would raise administration problems, like when someone refuses to give the money willingly, and then quits if the tax is imposed on them forcibly.

                        Another thing is the diplo-tax idea feels a little like a penalty for losing instead of a reward for winning. As I mentioned before, I would like to try to avoid penalties in general. Plus if the administrator is playing the game too, we don't want him having to log into people's Civs all the time to enforce penalties.


                        • #42
                          Thinking more on incentives to diploscore... What about linking it to Wonder/ Holy City construction? As in, you would need to be in the top X% of diploscores to be able to complete any World Wonder or Holy Shrine. You could still build the Wonder and get failgold, but you could not complete it. If you accidentally complete it, we would just reload.



                          • #43
                            Regarding the "Diaspora of Afroasiatics"

                            Diluculo Omnigenus Hereditas (DoH)

                            dawn, daybreak / of all kinds / inheritance, often simply "property"

                            Decerno Olim Conservo (DoC)

                            to decide, determine, settle / at that time, formerly, once, for a long time now / to preserve, conserve, maintain, keep, hold to

                            Making a title sound like something that does not curl the tongue, well.. how about this instead:

                            Dynasty of Coherence

                            Hah! Scratch that.

                            Dynasty of Confrontations

                            Sounds like a promise of interesting times


                            • #44
                              From the above posts I see that seems nice and meaningful game, please keep me in mind for participation in it


                              • #45
                                I have been very busy lately, but I plan on bringing this back up in March when some of my responsibilities will lighten.