should we have a democracy style succession game

[Paddy]

I have been giving this a bit of thought, and feel we could quite happily merge the general style of the single player democracy game with the current succession game that you have in the pbem forum :

The way I see it running is:

We have a leader and his tribal council of elders.

We then have the tribe

As per the constitution each person has a vote etc

The initial save is posted

The tribe gathers and discusses the situation in threads and polls

The council then organises its thoughts and posts any instructions

The leader then goes on and plays a series of turns (possibly 10 to 20)

The leader then comes back and:
- writes up a report
- loads up the save for everyone to look over
- posts a map pic

(These turn sessions interrupted by emergencies that need to be sort by the council etc. thus some sessions would only be the turns until the emergency is declared)

Then the process rolls around again

so lets hear your thoughts

[1889]

Is that a picture of the council?

I don't really know how the demo games work, but I've looked in at your most recent succession game An empire of succession and that looks great.

This sounds like a good game, but the tribe would need 48 hours to discus, then 48 for the council, then a day or two for the leader play and report.

Could we get rid of one layer?

[Paddy]

well the demo game idea is to discuss each individual move of each turn

this is done with players all logging onto a chat board - irc.

and all playing the save together

the above idea does not have that very very long layer

[MrWhereItsAt]

A turnchat? It can be very very long, even in the early goings.

The succession game idea sounds good, as it means that we have fast Presidencies, and once one person has done their bit, it is up to a different person next. This would help more people in what I like most about the Single Player DGs - learning how to play better. Essentially it would be like having a group of people providing strategy, their own tips and feedback on a game you play, except for ten or so turns at a time.

Necessarily this will involve a change of attitude too - we no longer have to win at all costs, but the aim of the game is to get everyone to do as well as they can and learn most of all.

I'm not sure about doing much of it via chat, but even with a couple of days for polls, then discussion, and with 10-20 turns played per week this would be doable in a fair time, especially if we make it a small map with reasonable few civs.

I'll be in, when I can slow down on the workload in the other DGs.

[Gamecube64]

I'll play, presently I'm waiting for McMeadows to get done with the Empire so I can have my third reign. (and command that knight army )

I think reducing reign lengths to 10 would be a good idea since there will be many more people (hopefully ) and everyone who wants to should have a go. I am guessing the council is elected, correct?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Must they be elected? If we aren't electing the players (or will we be?) then why the Council? And if we ARE electing the player, then that slows things down dramatically.

Although, that said, we could elect the Council as the official compilers of advice for the player. Everyone is an Adviser, only it could be the Council's job to present perhaps the best or most prominent ideas.

[Paddy]

The way I see it would be to have the one month reign of the leader and the council, as per the previous Demo Games

We would still have various threads and polls on issues

Then when there is either a set time, some uniform consenus, or the council decides the time is right, the leader, with or without the council, goes on and plays a packet of turns, as per the succession game format.

At the end of each pack of turns there would be saves for each player to load and know what was going on, plenty of pics and the chance for some lively discussion

This continues through for the standard period of one month

Then the leader and the council are up for elections, allowing the next party to come in and do there thung as leader or couincil member

This is a democracy game after all

I see this option as giving the game momentum - we are not bogged down in the minute details of each unit going to each square each turn

Basically the game can get some movement

If we take on a conquest scenario, we could effectively get it knocked over in several months, instead of several years

If this was successful, we could then we could move onto another conquest scenario

Give the forum some movement

Maybe keep the attention of lurkers and players alike

[Paddy]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Must they be elected? If we aren't electing the players (or will we be?) then why the Council? And if we ARE electing the player, then that slows things down dramatically.

Although, that said, we could elect the Council as the official compilers of advice for the player. Everyone is an Adviser, only it could be the Council's job to present perhaps the best or most prominent ideas.

ahhh sorry mate missed this

I just felt the election process allowed for some interaction

also it gives new people an opportunity to join the list

maybe I am still stuck on that old constitution way too much

I want change, I want a game - but I like the old ways too

Yeah a new leader after a certain number of turns would be grand

not sure at the moment how to get around the change of leadership etc without either a list of people in a set order (which can cause issues if they are busy that time that their name comes up) or elections

maybe we have a list, then the player has the option to pass on that period, then their name can be re added etc

and then there is the council

good to see some chat in here

maybe the leader playes 20 turns, but is only able to play 2 or 3 of them at a time. this would allow others to know what was going on and allow them to contribute etc

[snoopy369]

Hmm... how about we screw this democracy baloney and move on to a real form of government ...

A Constitutional Monarchy Succession Game.

Basically every 10 turns or so, or whatever (maybe smaller number later on) you post the save, and people vote if they still have "confidence" in you.

If 50% vote "confidence", then you play another 10 turns, but with 100% control over those turns. Perhaps you get a larger number of turns to start with or something (to give you a good chance to play a bit) like 20.

If 50% vote "no confidence", then they vote on who will play next. That person then gets 20 turns, etc.

You could even have "parties", that changed based on the major issue (so a "grower" party and a "fighter" party, say, early on, when we meet the first civ, and then later there might be the "navy with a small air force" party and the "tanks, dangit" party) and whichever party has the most votes each time picks a person to be the "majority leader", ie prime minister.

The "parties" would allow for a faster switch of players... but still have the elections. And the "monarchy" aspect means that there's no voting piecemeal - the currently elected PM has total backing from his/her Monarch, as long as he/she keeps the faith.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by snoopy369


You could even have "parties", that changed based on the major issue (so a "grower" party and a "fighter" party, say, early on, when we meet the first civ, and then later there might be the "navy with a small air force" party and the "tanks, dangit" party) and whichever party has the most votes each time picks a person to be the "majority leader", ie prime minister.

Uh oh! We've done THIS before!

If the DIA and Hawk Party are starting up again I might as well try my luck at getting more than a single member for my 3A2C3 (Association of Apolytonians Against a Constitution for Civilization 3)

OH, those were the days.... When I was the most stubborn independent there was, when Gazettes flowed every week (more or less)....

[Paddy]

ahh but were they not the days prior to multiplayer civ???

[MrWhereItsAt]

Ah yes, and soon after release of Civ3 too... I wonder if we'll be able to relive the Golden days of DGs when Civ4 comes out?

Hmm... likely that people will just want to play MP DGs, which always leads to trouble. And I'll have a REAL job.

I think I prefer my nostalgia

[Modo44]

I prolly should say that I'm in. So I do.

Snoopy, great idea, provided there's enough people to have at least two parties. After all, their objectives can vary, as it often happens in real life. However, I would be a tad worried about the "confidence" thing as you proposed it. Imagine a really good player doing the game on his own, because of constant (and deserverd) confidence votes. It might be just my paranoia, but still... I'd add a limit to how long one person could run the country, regardless of his or her abilities. 30 turns max.


Nice parrots, Paddy. They some friends of yours?

[ormuzd]

I think we should not make new constitution. It is useless because thedemo games are failing one after the other because there are not anough players.
I mean we should keep it simple - specify some rules and when there are problems to be discussed we can run a poll and solve them. Votes, elections... When an election has two candidates and more than 15 votes it is a big election. Since I have started playing demo games there is one candidate who is not excited about his future position and his only opponent is the Great Banana. The candidate wins with 9-1 votes and that's it.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

If it is a Rise of Rome scenario you go for why not have just one senate but allow each player free access to a number of troops and cities maybe too. As its a SP game theres no reason why each turn cant be played in sequence by a number of players and forwarded just like we do for PBEM now.

Each turn would require a senate meeting before it goes around to discuss etc plan, and each player can have some autonomy in what he she does with there allotted assets, ie troops and cities etc.

One thing that does need doing though is switching off the unending war with carthage so that diplomacy options can be increased.

Each player gets some involvement and also has to answer to the senate and the people of Rome for any mistakes they might make, of course there may even be work for the Empires carpenters should over zealous generals become needy of a wooden cross

Maybe some players would just want cities to run who knows