Next DG Discussion

[Mead]

In the Northern Hemisphere the days are getting longer, the sun is getting stronger.

Cutting icy gusts turn to gentle caressing breezes.

Birds are chirping. Flowers are blooming.

The thoughts of young and old ACDGers turn to ...











***















and New AC Democracy Games.


It may be a little too early to discuss this ... but ... do we want to have a new ACDG?

If so, how do we want to structure it?

ACDG I Style (all one team vs. greatly enhanced AI)
ACDG II Style (multiple teams collaborative victory allowed)
ACDG III Style (multiple teams collaborative victory not allowed)

In addition to the three variations above we could vary the rules some more.

My personal thoughts - initial

I like:
The idea of choppers can't attack cities.

I don't like:
Collaborative victory not allowed.

There is no rush, we should have at least 1 maybe 2 months before this game will be wound up, but we should start thinking about and discussing what comes next.


Mead

[Method]

I really enjoyed the first game

[binTravkin]

2nd style was the best.

Coop disabled turns diplomacy in the walley of mistrust and fear for future.

[Maniac]

Re: Thoughts - What Comes Next

Originally posted by Mead
There is no rush, we should have at least 1 maybe 2 months before this game will be wound up, but we should start thinking about and discussing what comes next.

Only two months? Why do you think that? With the current turnplay speed we'll perhaps play seven turns in the next two months. Talking of which, why is your turn delayed btw if I may ask? It can't be urgent diplomacy - the PTS raid was already three years ago so that can't count as a reason - nor can it be an acute and unexpected absence of members - otherwise you wouldn't be posting here.


Anyway, personally I think a single-faction democracy game could be nice for a change? That way there's no need to micromanage the economy so much, and more attention can go to other stuff.

Originally posted by binTravkin
2nd style was the best.

Coop disabled turns diplomacy in the walley of mistrust and fear for future.

Personally I think it makes the game more fun, by turning diplomacy in the theatre of opportunities, and surprises and excitement for the future. In ACDG2 the game and winning alliance was already decided MY 2125-30. In this ACDG AFAIK a lot was still open MY 2160 (and now still is).

This difference in opinion may of course follow from the fact that my faction wasn't doing well in the end in the first multifaction DG, while it is doing well (for the moment at least) in this second multifaction DG without coop. Likewise Mead's faction was doing well in the first MFDG while they have taken a hit in this DG. The same for binTravkin with the Gaians not being one of the leading powers at the moment.

[Voltaire]

A single-faction democracy game with political parties would be interesting because of the RP element. Or else a multi-faction democracy game but with a bigger focus on RP, it makes the game much more interesting IMO.

[#endgame]

Aldebaran or TurboSMAC (for the win)! ACDG I/II (also ftw).

[Net Warrior]

I perfer ACDG III Style (multiple teams collaborative victory not allowed). This way you know exactly where you stand at all times. I hate building up a great position only to see it destroyed, or worse yet seeing the two best factions team up for a quick victory (like what's the point of playing?).

[-SafaN-]

what about an evil planet, with the two alien factions on it. Then the factions, something like hive and peacekeapers have to work together to claim a bit of land?

its just a proposal

[Method]

Originally posted by Net Warrior
I hate building up a great position only to see it destroyed, or worse yet seeing the two best factions team up for a quick victory (like what's the point of playing?).

My idea for the last time was to have two teams; each alien faction. Then either nerf the aliens or beef the AI, or both, because everybody knows the aliens are overpowered

Would make for some good RP

[Hercules]

Actually I feel atm this game is quite good and full of intrigue.

There was no foregone winning alliance (in my view) last ACDGgame, contrary to opinion, but by MY2150 approx it was foregone.

I have a feeling we need to run two games in parallel:

One like this, no co-op victory allowed, so that there is a degree of tension around and in parallel, a tough SP Demo game at transcend/librarian level.

Then a second game where participating members can interact freely. No doubt there will be 'obscure' references to the MP game amongst
the SP game players. But I think that will be part of the fun.

[Hercules]

So the strongly RP players (who are important to the life of the games) have great scope.

[AndiD]

Í also like the ACDG3 idea - although I haven't even known SMAC at the time the first two ACDGs were played.

But perhaps don't boost a AI next time in ways that he actually can take over the tech lead in the midgame - let him be cannon fodder (isolated island, ...) or leave him out completely - only human factions. (three? four? five? six?)

An isolated AI would be incentive for the commerce-loving builders to go out and explore the world and for the momentum players to find some sparring partners.

[arginine]

have 2 human teams, each as a progenator. Also, a person for each of the 5 'human' factions and the human can control only perform ONE ACTION and control diplomacy, while the computer does everything else. (to keep those factions largely AI or something like that) Up to 3 (maybe 2) humans may win together through cooperative victory.

The progies are supposed to always be at war, so there can't be peace between them. Also, a progie successfully killing another progies will give the killing team a 'draw' if it sucumbs to the humans.

Interracial atrocities (including PBs) will be considered acceptable behavior (same goes for atrocities between the progenators).

I would have infiltration last for only 5 turns, the human factions get +1 or 2 to probe (since they can't direct probe defenses).

some suggested game changes:

Adjust unit costs so that:
planes have normal weapon costs (making them more expensive).
choppers have double weapon costs (making them even more expensive)

hovertanks and AA come earlier.

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by arginine
have 2 human teams, each as a progenator.
Interracial atrocities (including PBs) will be considered acceptable behavior (same goes for atrocities between the progenators).

That'd be kinda neat!

Originally posted by arginine
some suggested game changes:

Adjust unit costs so that:
planes have normal weapon costs (making them more expensive).
choppers have double weapon costs (making them even more expensive)

These require alphax.txt changes that aren't imprinted onto the game, meaning the turn player would have to continually swap out alphax.txt files between the "doctored" alphax.txt file and the player's regular alphax.txt file.

Originally posted by arginine
hovertanks and AA come earlier.

That can be done np.

Anyways, I have been doing considerable work to make the Progs much more competitive against humans, with some very notable success. I'd also make the observation that CMN in general have come a long way in the last year in making AI's much more competitive against human players: the next ACDG, regardless of what form it takes, will be something to behold!


D

[Octavian X]

You know, I always thought that the old Police State Game would have gotten somewhere, if attention of the players wasn't divided between the multi-faction one and it. We've got an existing setup there - it may be worth it to simply reopen that forum as the successor to the current multi-faction DG.