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

[MrWhereItsAt]

Vote for other and specify. We can't poll on every possibility, so the poll covers only those options mentioned by someone in the last few weeks. I really think that was enough time to get ideas out.

[Impaler[WrG]]

The Job of the GM would likly be simpler then the that of being say the leader of one of the current Democracy game factions.

The GM dosn't need to be involved in the planning of any orders or diplomacy which most of our leaders say is the most time consuming part of the game. The GM would have responsibility only for exicuting a set of orders which will be simple and direct. Example

Farville - move worker to minerals, change production to Crech.
Nowareville - Hurry 43 Credits
Somewareville - Make a doctor from the worker on the forest

Former (44,75) move North to (45, 77) build Road
Former (34, 67) move west to (33, 69) build forest

Missle Troops (23,17) move north to (23,19)
Impact Rover (56,89) move south to (57,88) and attack Enemy Plasma Garrison on (59,88)

Cycon was run under this type of system quite efficiently, the official orders were debated and writen down so everyone could see what was going on and then the turn player exicuted the orders with athority to make a snap desision if new data was revealed. It would be the faction controlers responsibility to see that orders are sent by the deadline (thier order submision deadline is the same as the Democracy teams play deadline so the GM will have the turns and orders avalible at the same time)


With good straitforward orders it wont take much more then 15 minutes to play each of the 6 Factions turns and he need not play them all in one sitting either. The faction controlers will maintain near total control over the course their faction takes. With 2-3 day to play all of them the time comitment is easily within that of most of our active players. In the event of missing, errorious, incomplete, vague orders the GM would have discression to do one of several things. Perform best guess orders, fill only partial orders or in the case of missing orders from the faction controler simply press end turn. The only thing the GM couldnt do is radicaly change orders and say for example declare war on someone without the faction controlers consent.


As for simultaniusness I think we should simply use the turn order to determine everything, each turn being played out as it would be in a PBEM game (which is what this would be). This would result in the least confusion for everyone and remove any chance that people would ***** about some coin flip result.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I also belive jtsisyoda expressed some interest in play a SP faction, though I would like to hear if he has made any kind of comitment.

I would advocate something along these lines

GM - Drouge

Democracy Faction - University or Gaians (popular factions that have not seen much action in any previous DG).

Googlie - Belivers
Impaler - PK's (guaranteed conflict between me and Googlie )
Buster - Spartans
Darsen - Hive
jtsisyoda - Morgans
Other - Uni/Gaians (what evers not used)


Aditionaly I had the idea that some or all of the SP factions would be infact partnerships between 2 players. I proposed an arangment with HongHu inwhich she would act as the Diplomate, leader, roleplayer and public face of the Faction and I would act as subserviant Buracrat and handle the nitty gritty of building and planning and sending orders. This would parallel the Internal/External division which was used with great effect to organize the Cycon faction this game. It might be wise for some of the other single players to seek out quality RolePlaying partners to enhance their factions roleplaying and diplomacy skills *looks at Buster*

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by johndmuller
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 am quite capable of being equally unfair to all human Factions, regardless if they are SP or a Democratic Group.

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 think you and I have had this discussion before jdm, or I've at least explained how I personally differentiate between my regular SMAC(X) and my mod'd alpha(x).txt game, which I have taken to calling Beta Lyrae. Essentially I've done a second loading of SMAC(X) onto my D: Drive where I've built my mod. I then installed Googlie's no-CD Crack into both the C: Drive and D: Drive SMAC(X) loadings, and then created shortcuts on my desktop for both my original loading of SMAC(X), and another shortcut for my mod'd game, Beta Lyrae. This then is how I am very easily able to differentiate between the two versions of SMAC(X), and how the players here that are interested in playing the next ACDG game with a mod'd alpha(x).txt file can do the same: essentially all the players that are interested in playing in the next ACDG can do a second loading of SMAC(X) onto their D: drive. I can then attach to the beginning of the next ACDG game thread a zip file with all of the mod'd files, to include Googlie's no-CD crack, which all interested players can then download and unzip into their second loading of SMAC(X). The players then create shortcuts on their desktop for both their original version of SMAC(X), and another shortcut called "ACDG" for the the ACDG game, and then choose the appropriate desktop option when they want to play either version. If this option is chosen and there is enough interest, I can also update the datalinks to reflect the modified alpha(x).txt file, as well. FYI as to my input on the subject.

As for the shape of the game, why a comment jdm made about the Pirates above made me think that it would be interesting for all the ACDG Factions to play the aquatic clone versions of the Factions that Googlie has created. With a submarine version of Googlie's Probe Cruiser introduced into the game, why the AI is bound to give the human-controlled Factions additional fits! Just a thought on my part, and perhaps if not desirable in this game, then perhaps another....

Another comment I saw from Googlie in this thread was my mod'ing of the 8th Faction: this is neat, and fun, as it allows the 8th Faction to capture (via the Marine Detachment function) and utilize any units they can get their grubby hands on! Nothing as shocking as sending out a cruiser transport laden with AAA Drop Shard Invaders, and having it commandeered by the 8th Faction and sent right back at you! I've also enjoyed the effects of giving the MW's and Sporelaunchers the cloaking ability. However, the downside is that with the enhanced 8th Faction, this then gives Green Factions an added advantage because they can "capture" these enhanced units. It is also much moreso disadvantageous for Growth inhibited Factions such as the Consciousness, as in order to "capture" 8th Faction units, they need to run Green, and are therefore locked in to running Democracy as well if they want to experience any growth at all (one reason I chose the Pirates for my February CGN Challenge). FYI if anyone is considering this option.

Anyways, looks like you are all having fun discussing the options for the next ACDG: when you all do decide on the format for the game, if you can put it into one post, and direct me to it, then I am willing build the game for you, based upon what everyone has agreed upon. FYI if this is what you want.


D

[Satyagraha]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
That is my thinking regarding the GM - sucks to be them.

that´s why i wanted to know if there is a possibility to do all turns for the different factions and still be able to switch to the scenario editor. this way, the GM would have an option to participate in the game by making up stuff like special events durig the game. adds some flavour to the game imo. the GM-part would be very important (like in a real roleplay-game), not only the "poor guy" that has to do all the turns.

but i don´t have SMAC right now, so i can´t check out if this would work or not... can you tell me?

[Mart]

Originally posted by Satyagraha


that´s why i wanted to know if there is a possibility to do all turns for the different factions and still be able to switch to the scenario editor. ...

I thought exactly about the same thing. Unfortunately from multiplayer it is not possible to activate editor. Game does not have such option intentionally. The closest solution is to run a game completely under the scenario editor. Then from a given turn generate a multiplayer game where passwords are declared and send saved game files to players. There are great possibilities then:

- changing passwords from turn to turn! coz every turn is created always as "new" game. Now switching factions could be easier - old faction just sends to GM request for password change - like in real life, when a secret is compromised

- complete control over so many details never possible when playing regular game. For example even simulating new features like air units 'working' the way as in Civ3, where they have now 'fly missions', which is in my oppinion better than SMAC system, and maybe other features I do not think at the moment.

- Yes, GM could generate really cute random events... Real fun of being GM there

And now always present problems:

- Aliens, no control over them, as far as I know, or very very little control

- Advancing of the turns when creating the multiplayer game from a scenario. Just that upkeep phase adds research points, minerals and other and there is no good control over that. For example i have my scenario editor on 2125. I start multiplayer game from that scenario. I need to declare all passwords first, so factions get their turns in fact for 2126 year. And drawback is that first faction from the state of scenario 2125 is 1 upkeep phase forward, and all other even 2 !!!! upkeep phases forward. I checked that.

- Planetary council. Whatever I do in the scenario editor, always there is six AI players voting - nothing in the editor allowing me to select the voting separately for every faction. there is no council editor option, as far as I know...

[Darsnan]

A couple of variants on the voting polls for the makeup of the game:

- 3 DG Team "Big Brother" Scenario. In this setup each DG Faction would get a friendly AI ( allied AI Faction to be chosen by each DG team, and in the case of a conflict a cloned AI Faction could be substituted). The one remaining Faction could be either an SP, or another independent AI. If the one remaining slot is set up as an SP, then obviously the cards would be stacked against this player, but I think I could give them some unique advantages....

- 4 DG teams, 2 AI, 1 SP. I've already had some very interesting thoughts on this set up, and could easily expand upon this idea if it is a chosen avenue for the game.

FYI.


D

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by Darsnan


- 4 DG teams, 2 AI, 1 SP. I've already had some very interesting thoughts on this set up, and could easily expand upon this idea if it is a chosen avenue for the game.



D

Interesting concept. I want to hear more.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Darsnan
A couple of variants on the voting polls for the makeup of the game:

And how about 1 DG, 5 AI's and 1 SP helping the AI's were it can?
Or: 1DG, a number of AI's and a number of SP's?

I don't like the setup of a forced DG-AI cooperation for a whole game. Possible play variation is fairly limited then.

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by GeoModder
I don't like the setup of a forced DG-AI cooperation for a whole game. Possible play variation is fairly limited then.

It won't necessarily be that way, as AI's can be "convinced" thru Probe Team Actions to leave a submissive Pact. The level of espionage in a format such as this could reach new heights, as various human Factions try and commit atrocities/ other devious actions against different AI Factions, trying to pin the blame on other DG Factions. I also know that in several of my SP Challenges, that submissive perma-pacts have been broken, however the AI's were never willing to tell me why....


For the 4 DG, 2 AI, 1 SP variant, why I think the key here is to agree beforehand that there will only be one winner in this game. This then would allow my devious character to have its way in how I set up the 2 AI's. The one SP's chances of winning the game would also be maximized under this scenario, IMO.

And how about 1 DG, 5 AI's and 1 SP helping the AI's were it can?

A very good idea! However, if buster is indeed the one SP in the game, then it is obvious by your statement that you have never played buster. Essentially the one time I tangled with him he used me like a rag and mopped the floor with me, and if you gave him even one AI helper Faction why I would lay money on him easily winning the game.

If it is decided that more SP's should play, then this would probably be the most difficult scenario for me to assemble, as I do believe I am pretty good at discerning individual players capabilities and strengths, and building PBEM games around them, but when it comes to building games for democratic teams of players (whose members no doubt will fluctuate as the game proceeds), and then a mix of these plus X number of SP's, why I do feel this is pushing my limits in regards to my ability to creatively build a complex, entertaining game through all its phases and stages.

Regardless, I am just voicing suggestions as the ideas come to me, thinking that if they are mainstream enough, that they will make their way into the game. This also allows me dialogue now to get a better feel for the talent levels of the various players making up the teams, so as to take this into account while setting up the game.


D

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Darsnan
A very good idea! However, if buster is indeed the one SP in the game, then it is obvious by your statement that you have never played buster. Essentially the one time I tangled with him he used me like a rag and mopped the floor with me, and if you gave him even one AI helper Faction why I would lay money on him easily winning the game.

Well, in this idea the SP would not be allowed to win, it is only present to aid the AI's as much as it can without outright declaring war to the DG. Consider it as a sort of limited ingame GM.

The only problem in this setup is to find a player for this SP who doesn't desperately wants to win.

[Satyagraha]

Originally posted by mart7x5
- Advancing of the turns when creating the multiplayer game from a scenario. Just that upkeep phase adds research points, minerals and other and there is no good control over that. For example i have my scenario editor on 2125. I start multiplayer game from that scenario. I need to declare all passwords first, so factions get their turns in fact for 2126 year. And drawback is that first faction from the state of scenario 2125 is 1 upkeep phase forward, and all other even 2 !!!! upkeep phases forward.

maybe give control over the first faction to the gamemaster himself, for whatever he may plan to do with them... f.e. the drones could be that faction, and the gamemaster may descide that bases will convert to drones if they are nerve stampled too often. this way he could take control of the drones and make them fight back

[jtsisyoda]

Impaler, I'm still interested in possibly being an SP, but I can't reasonably commit to a moving target. First let's see what people want for the format and rules of cooperation, etc. ...I prefer Uni to Morgan, but Morgan is fun, too.

Also, I'm willing to submit pbem saves to certain cmn types so they can "vet"... ensure I'm up to muster. "Just 'cause you think you're hot stuff desn't mean you can play with the big boys."

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by jtsisyoda
I'm still interested in possibly being an SP, but I can't reasonably commit to a moving target. First let's see what people want for the format and rules of cooperation, etc. ...I prefer Uni to Morgan, but Morgan is fun, too.

Very good comments on your part, jtisyoda! I myself am also hanging back and watching the diplomacy proceeding before really getting involved. Also, as far as picking Factions is concerned, who gets first choice - the DG Teams or SP's? Finally, would clones be accepted if a specific Faction were selected more than once, either by DG's, SP's, or me picking AI's? This is more curiousity driving this question on my part at this time than anything else, but I would like an answer by someone responsible (or a consensus) defining the avenues I can take when setting up this game.


D

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
The Job of the GM would likly be simpler then the that of being say the leader of one of the current Democracy game factions.

The GM dosn't need to be involved in the planning of any orders or diplomacy which most of our leaders say is the most time consuming part of the game. The GM would have responsibility only for exicuting a set of orders which will be simple and direct. Example

Farville - move worker to minerals, change production to Crech.
Nowareville - Hurry 43 Credits
Somewareville - Make a doctor from the worker on the forest

Former (44,75) move North to (45, 77) build Road
Former (34, 67) move west to (33, 69) build forest

Missle Troops (23,17) move north to (23,19)
Impact Rover (56,89) move south to (57,88) and attack Enemy Plasma Garrison on (59,88)

We better not have Kody or somebody like Kody be one of the SP player then. I played one turn according to Kody's orders. It was an early turn and we only had about 30 crawlers and 30 formers I suppose. It took me about 2 hours to finish the turn and in addition to making quite a few mistakes I developped a big headache too. :P Can't imaging doing this for 6 people every four days. I'd be dead real soon.

Seriously, if I was one of the SP player I would definitely like to play my own turn rather than writing out every details to somebody else. It's a waste of resources too.