Who else can fit in one more game ??

[snoopy369]

The game I'm proposing wouldn't be played exactly as such, but in that general way. A Diplogame is specifically expected to involve a large amount of diplomacy; an Arpeegame is looser - you can be a diplomat if you want, or a warmonger if you want, who eschews the fine art of diplomacy for the blunt art of the sword. (Yes, a diplogame involves war, but not usually *only* war.) In the sense that you wouldn't be playing to win, exactly, but more for the story, yes it's like a diplogame, and many of the parts of the diplogame faq would be accurate.

But like I said above, if Chrisius wants to take it over and direct it more towards that i'm fine with it either way.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Hi snoopy and welcome Beta and Earthworm

Conmcb25 are you requesting to join this yourself or just proposing the almighty Banana ?? either way you are most welcome

Beta you mentioned 1889, I dont have an email for him so could someone send him an invite on my behalf

If 1889 wants in that makes 8 players which after consideration i feel is better for a diplo game. The more players the more diplomacy!!

Yes it might move slow at times but it could easily develop into something of great value and be good fun to be part of.

Ive read up on the links Modo provided higher up the thread and I think that we could use the diplo game Faq to form the frame of something here.

snoopy the thread you link to, an Arpee' game ! i think you may actually be thinking along the same lines as me, on reading the diplo faq etc it seems the emphasis is on all civs surviving the game at all costs and working together as a sort of league of nations . Thats all good but what do others feel about this, Im wondering if it might be too constrictive !!

[snoopy369]

I agree chrisius. Although I'd rather people not play QUITE as aggressively as many do in normal games, I don't like the idea of eliminating the "sudden-death" possibility of being eliminated at any time...

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Yes same here

so how do we take this forward then, a melding of Iron civer and diplo perhaps ?

On elimination should we draw up some kind of agreement ? I know from experience how it feels to be eliminated from a game early, and its unfullfilling to say the least.

Im happy enough to have a rule stopping complete elimination of any civ but do not want to be totally shackled from warring if i so desired.

The other important distintinction to be made from the diplo idea is that PBEM is normally played to be won by participants, will the game hold our interest if we abide strictly to the diplo ideal of no eliminations, and will the player who might end up with very little civ left after an onslaught still have the desire to play ??

If and only if all players can agree to these ideas before the game will it be workable, and all players would need to commit to seeing it through to the end no matter what happens to them in the game.

To my mind the only victory conditions you could allow for Diplo would be UN Space and Culture to encourage more building and less fighting, any thoughts ??

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Would VP locations be useful, they could serve as an emphasis for warfare to be held and protected they could even be a way of limiting wars to certain areas rather than the usual whole empires burning scenario ??

Any thoughts ??

[smellymummy]

not sure about VP.. do you mean to say that we'll have a map beforehand and place the VP, or let the map generator place them randomly? in either case, i don't think we need them.

for winning conditions, all victory conditions should be allowed. if someone ends up with a conquest victory, as long as its done according to the way this game is supposed to be played, then good for them.

i think the common effect we want here is to not erase the option of warmongering... perhaps just 'tone' it down a little, so that way the super micromanaging statistician won't go for the 'overwhelm with mathematical superiority by equationalizing every turn' route, if that makes any sense.

and im for using the iron civer etiquette rules

[1889]

Yes, more of an RPG than a Diplo game. I'm not yet sure if I have time. I'm waiting for another game to start, but it seems to have died in the mean time. I'll know for sure in a day or two.

I like the Iron Civer rules, but would ask that everyone actually read them. It think many people say "Oh sure, but I don't cheat so I don't need to read all that junk."

Well thats what I imagine they say anyway.

[snoopy369]

I strongly ... refuse, to use iron civer rules in this situation. They are NOT made for this sort of game, and as the name implies are for "iron civers" that, among other things, agree not to use very much diplomacy (it severely restricts various diplomatic options, and would in fact make this game literally impossible for the first several turns, since the point of a RP/diplogame is storyline-from turn 1, not from contact. I believe Iron Civer rules are nice for the occasional game where you want to truly test the abilities of strategists, but otherwise they are NOT made for casual play, and ESPECIALLY not made for fun play.

[snoopy369]

In terms of options, I dislike VPs for this sort of thing, mostly because they make the game unrealistic in a game that's intended to be more real than normal games. Although I'd love to play a VP game that's an otherwise normal game sometime.

I believe that as long as all players are on the same page, we don't have to strongly emphasize or otherwise force players not to eliminate each other - just mention that in RL you rarely see a civ "eliminated"; with the occasional exception of Carthage, most wars end up with either a war indemnity, some small amount of taken territory, or just a repulsion of attacking forces. Few wars at all post-Roman Empire in fact end up with a major civilization being utterly destroyed.

The only major requirement I would want is that players storytell for each turn before they play the next one. You don't have to have the story done when you send on the save - but before you receive, or at least send on, the *next* one, at least post a few sentences. Doesn't have to be a novel - could easily be much shorter than this post - but should be something.

[Ljube]

The key thing is to behave as if you are leading an actual civ while you play. That would mean no attacking for no reason. No elimination of the other civ if it is submissive. No pop rushing for no reason either.

[snoopy369]

... however the reason can be that the civ is led by a madman whose only guiding principle is the utter destruction of civ A, and who doesn't care about his own citizens (and in fact likes to keep them under control) ... if that's how things are in your civ.

[Ljube]

Yes, that is a reason enough, but must be accompanied by an appropriate story. Such a madman should not be surprised if the rest of the world would gang up on him to punish him for his dastardly practices

[OzzyKP]

I just bumped the DiploFAQ that I posted in this forum a bit ago. It quickly dropped then, and hopefully someone will read it this time, but I dunno.

If its a Diplogame you want, then I'm up for one. I've got a map made already even. THough if we go with 8 players I'd need to tweak it.

[Ljube]

Ozzy, perhaps you didn't see the link in one of the posts above. Here it is:

Diplo game poll

[ChrisiusMaximus]

OK well we certainly have more than enough interest here for two games, please also see snoopy's thread

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125408

Here is the list of names that have posted to this thread in order they posted.

ChrisiusMaximus
Modo
smellymummy
snoopy369
Beta
Conmcb25 ?? not sure if hes interested or just posting bananas
Earthworm
1889 will let us know in a few days
Ljube-ljcvetko
OzzyKP

Obviously only 8 can join any one game so as I said its first come first served here, but snoopy's thread still has room for a few more and Im waiting on confirmation from Conmcb25 and 1889.

Thanks for all the input from everyone with ideas suggestion etc

What I want to now do is set up a game to play using the diplo faq idea as a basis for the game play but without the restriction of the no eliminations idea.

As stated by Ljube any leader who warmongered too intensley would likely suffer the wrath of the other nations which should balance out warmongering and probably stop eliminations from happening, I particulary like the idea of colonial poseesions dicussed in the faq in that they can be used to buy back core lands from a victorious enemy after a war and I feel that wars should be limited to goals and not to wipe out a civ completlly.

But the only way to fully police this is for all other players to use diplomacy effectively so as to contain a renegade states aggression.

I will use a huge random map for early game discovery etc and plenty of room for colonies etc, with archipelogo and most land settings. Ive played maps like this a few times and it usually gives plenty of single civ sized island and plenty of naval choke points. Would setting a limit on cities be possible ?? is it possible to limit each civ to a specific number of cities, that would make colonies a neccesity in the later game and prevent domination and conquest which I want to do.

I agree after some thought that VP locations would be problematic but still only want the more builder style victory conditions on ie diplo culture and space.

I would need help with the editor if we do limit cities etc Im useless with it

So I need confirmation please of whose in and also please post your civ choices and your preferences for the map etc and the other things ive raised, then ill progress to setting up the game with some help from someone