Finally, the "Format of the next ACDG" poll (read carefully)

[Googlie]

I don't think single-player factions will hold up the game at all - the delays in the current game are largely due to the democracy element - polling for actions and canvassing opinion.

While some multiplayer PBEMs are slow most players get the turn done within hours of receiving it - in one 4-player game I'm currently in we have had 2 turns a day on a couple of occasions (with a Brit, an Aussie, a Yank and a Canuck, yet!!)

I don't like the "Prime Minister" approach - as turn orders are received (eg "move former to xx/yy, rover to aa/bb") and then a prior faction move exposes the rover, the PM takes responsibility for varying the orders based on a best guess what I would do. That's not acceptable for me. If I play as an SP faction, then I play the turns and interpret the environment, not someone else

G.

[Maniac]

If buster is an example of how SP factions will act, then I am against having them in an ACDG. It may of course be that since the Drones already had a permapact around MY 2130 that he didn't bother to say much to us, but in general in a ACDG I would prefer to have opponents who are a bit more communicative and willing to roleplay. For that reason I voted, besides for the "1 human team" options (continuing the ACPSG), for 3 or 4 human teams against AIs.

[Snowflake]

But will you expect the AIs to extensively roleplay with you?

[Maniac]

You may have a point.

Okay, in that case I'll invent another justification for my vote :
If we don't include SP factions, we won't see the silly situation where a single player wins the democracy game.

[Mart]

Originally posted by Googlie
...as turn orders are received (eg "move former to xx/yy, rover to aa/bb") and then a prior faction move exposes the rover, the PM takes responsibility for varying the orders based on a best guess what I would do. ...
G.

That is known problem of simultaneous turns games. E.g. two units of two factions compete for a unity pod in the same tile. Who gets it first? If there is an order of factions, then the first faction which plays gets it, but if there are simultaneous turns, then there is conflict. There are numerous solutions to that problem.

What about a game where all factions (human and SP) would write their orders for units, bases, research etc. I think it is possible even to simulate simultaneous turns here in this game. Orders for units would have to be conditional, e.g.:

Impact rover, 42,38-43,37-44,36 if last fungus-turn left or right for fungus free. preferably river tile.... if other fac, HOLD order.

There would be a gamemaster who would have all orders from all factions. GM would know, if there could be conflicts, like attempts of entering the same tile by two different units and so on. GM would have just access to all factions. Even battles could be resolved imitating simultaneous turns:

two offensive units attempt to attack each other, gaians vs. spartans . gaians have their turn earlier, but GM by coin toss or die toss determines that spartans have initiative here, so gaian unit is in its turn doing nothing, and spartan in its turn (which is later) attacks gaian unit.

GM would do all turns of all 7 factions in one evening. All factions could work on their orders simultaneously. There would be little empty waiting for factions. All is needed in such arrangement is set of rules to be followed by such GM.

[Googlie]

An alternative (already discussed, but elaborated on here) could be 3 DG teams, 2 SP players and 2 AI - with the AI perhaps being the 2 alien factions, seriously beefed up by Darsnan. And have the 2 SP factions be the first line of defense/contact with the AI so that their hands will be full just surviving, and be no threat to actually win the game.

And move nervegas waaaay down the tech tree to eliminate the easy option of just gassing the aliens.

Also. Darsnan has done some imaginative work in beefing up planet. Like the old CivII Barbarians, Darsnan's IoD's and sealurks can now capture and man (?) conquered ships - which then roam around wreaking havoc

He (Darsnan) has volunteered to either set up the game, or play as one fo the SP factions (perhaps the Caretakers, to Buster's Usurpers - note that these would not then be beefed up factions) - but I'd still suggest moving nervegas down to Viral Engineering or even Secrets of Alpha Centauri - concurrent with the progs being able to build their battlefleet summoners.

And both Impaler and I have said that we'd be willing to play as 2 SP factions (Impaler has given a preference for the PK's and I'd take the Gaians or the Believers - feeling guilty that I inadvertently botched them up as an AI this current game)

So that's give:

3 team DG factions

plus

PKs
Gaians or Believers
Caretakers
Usurpers

That could be fun

G.

[Ouro_827]

We get the Gaians! They would be too powerful in your people's hands... Oh, and offhand, the Subspace Generators are from Singularity Mechanics..

[Satyagraha]

Originally posted by mart7x5

There would be a gamemaster who would have all orders from all factions. GM would do all turns of all 7 factions in one evening. All factions could work on their orders simultaneously. There would be little empty waiting for factions. All is needed in such arrangement is set of rules to be followed by such GM.

i count that as a vote for my suggestion
which now has a total of 2 votes

[johndmuller]

I have mixed feelings about the idea of having GM or PM or whatever who resolves submitted orders. Mostly, I would agree with Googs that the SP players would likely not be the ones slowing down the game anyway, so why bother messing with their moves (having the GM would possibly even slow them down, as it would add an extra step on top of their moves). Otherwise, I suppose it might work if we had a reasonably well thought out set of rules as to what procedure would be used to resolve conflicts, something which could be good practice for anyone wanting to design a good simultaneous turn-based system.

I'm for as many factions as possible (I voted for 4 and 5, but wouldn't object to more ), based pretty much on the idea that the factional interactions are more interesting the more factions there are. Obviously with only 2 human factions, there would be no real point in diplomacy (unless you wanted to do a peace and love thing).

In general, I think any AI players should be heavily modified to be decent opponents, by whatever unfair additional arsenals and headstarts the CMN deems worthy, subject only to the hopes that said nastiness would be equally aimed at all the human controlled factions, so as not to be too much of a deciding factor.

I'm pretty strongly against any modifications which require a non-standard Alphax.txt as with so many people, someone would be bound to get the files mixed up and screw up this game and/or their other game(s), not to mention the lengthy discussions necessary to decide on exactly which would be the right changes.

I'm not against any changes which can be hardwired into the game via the scenario editor or those that can be accomplished at scenario creation time via the faction files or what have you, so long as all the changes get incorporated into the game file (even if some of their elements may not be available in the 'faction profile' or other in-game displays unless the appropriate files are loaded - just so long as the effects are in the game nonetheless, and of course, that we know what they are).

A good number of the former Pirates are seriously considering sticking together in this next game - and playing the Pirates or possibly the Angels (or possibly a hybrid of those two). We had a pretty consistent membership the last time, so we would presumably have a similar (and probably larger) core group this time plus whatever additional players might join. I don't know how that factors into anyone's decisions about how many factions to have, but thought that anyone who might want to factor it in would at least have to know about it first, so I'm tossing it out there. (Of course, we turned out not to be too much of a factor last time .)

If there is going to be a runoff election, we might want to do it in 2 stages instead of just 1 more, as it seems difficult to narrow down all these current choices into just 2, as there are a number of different concepts going on at the same time. OTOH, IIRC, the last time we went from 1 poll to a whole set of polls . That might be excessive too.

[Snowflake]

Ok let me ask this. Is there anybody who is willing to serve as the GM? Considering late game the burdon is going to be quite big. If nobody is up for it, I say no further discussion is needed.

[Skanky Burns]

That is my thinking regarding the GM - sucks to be them.

[Nubclear]

Drogue has said he wants to be GM.

But Drogue is young, thus I cannot blame him for his ignorance.

[Mart]

Just a note, that if GM would be considered, there should be 3 or 4 of them, for reason of availability. Also such a game probably would have to be on standard map, preferably not bigger to make things more managable.

[Jamski]

Forget it. Who wants to send orders to the GM every turn, and let him/her play the game?

That's no fun, and it WILL slow the game down.

I'm mostly in favour of whatever format will get the turn round to my faction the fastest, and I think 3 human factions vs the AI is the best option for that.

And I hate the idea of people running SP factions

-Jam

[Main_Brain]

Where is the option of two human teams?