MP democracy game

[Cidifer]

Would it be possible to have a MP democracy game with PTW? this is something I thought of months ago and now just remembered it now that PTW is coming out.

Anyway here's what I was thinking, it's got 4 human Civs and 4 AI Civs, each Human civ is picks a country then people sign up and declare alligence to one of them depending on their preferences compared to that civs attributes (for example an expansionist\ commercial may attract a certain type of person etc.).

After there were enough people on each side the game would start and then work just like a normal demo game, each side would elect offcials (though probably less then in the Civ3G going on here (is that one still going on?)) and would discuss things like wars and stuff like that. Now anyone concerned that you enemies would be able to easily see your strategies I've thought of this too. The way I see it people will give their imput on the forum but elected officals will have more power to decide things on their own (but they still can't act completely against the public or they can get impeached or wont get re-elected), they will be able to, for example, decide where to attack a country that everyone wants war with within a private council.

These people would decide the specific actions their civ takes. For example if a civ's people wanted to boost defense by building pikemen the council would decide where to build these units and how many to a certain extent.

Anyway just an idea I thought people might be interested in, I don't know if it's been talked about before or if it's even possible just thought maybe people would be interested.

[punkbass2000]

Yeah, I thought of this too. I think it's a great idea.

[Inverse Icarus]

there was a lot of talk about it, and we murmered things about special private forms for special citizenry, bleh

[korn469]

i think it's a good idea, here's another one

for each human civ they could only win by a certain method

for example
if one human civ was korea and the other was the mongols then the korea civ could only win by a space race victory and the mongols could only win by a conquest victory...i think that this would encourage different play styles and make the game more fun and challenging

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by korn469
i think it's a good idea, here's another one

for each human civ they could only win by a certain method

for example
if one human civ was korea and the other was the mongols then the korea civ could only win by a space race victory and the mongols could only win by a conquest victory...i think that this would encourage different play styles and make the game more fun and challenging

Interesting idea, but I don't think it would work. Too unbalancing.

[Cidifer]

honestly if one was conquest victory and everyone knew this from the beginning they would get ganged up on by the peaceful victory civs and the game would probably be over real early. However I think maybe having each civ set a pre game goal may be a good idea to help get players to join the civ they most like. Also it would be possible with more then 4 human civs I suppose but this would take a whole lot of people, otherwise there would pretty much be the same elected people every term for the entire game.

Also having some AI players allows for the human ones to survive longer because they wont need to be the only target for other civs.

Here's some more detail into what I was invisioning, I'd also like to here other people's ideas.

Each Civ must have, a president, vice president (as well as a few other mandatory possitions, though each civ can make up more if they wish I think) that must be elected monthly with no term limits (again this can be set by the civ if they wish). There will also be a commitee including an unaffiliated head (this may be hard to find) as well as reps from each civ and maybe a few other people who decide on mandatory rules for each civ that they can not change (for example a civ can not decide to become a monarchy).

[Jon Shafer]

For those who haven't noticed, I've started the first team for the one day up-coming demo game.

I don't really think there ought to be many rules for the game beyond that each team has to have multiple players. Beyond that, each team should be able to organize in the way it pleases.

[Cidifer]

that many rules? what 2? plus the one I saw you post said 10 people on a team (max) that sounds way to small for me, I'm sure that has it's own kind of challenge and fun but it doesn't sound like a democracy to me, it's too small and you'll have 1/2 the people running it at a time if I understand it correctly (or is that for something else). That sounds kind of boring to me and really has little representation of an actual democracy but to each his own.

[punkbass2000]

No, he didn't say ten per team. He said ten for his/our team. You can invite the entire American populace, if you want.

[Inverse Icarus]

the idea is that more people leads to more confusion leads to bleh.

[Jon Shafer]

... And less security. Those two reasons make me very iffy about a multi-site Demo Game, since I'm not really a fan of trying to work with a big group. While I can do it, it's not really my cup of tea.

And I suppose I made a boo-boo when I put the specs of the team I started and the game together. Sorry about that.

[Cidifer]

that's why I said not everyone would have access to specific info, only maybe 15 people or so. If you ask me 10 people is way to small a group but I guess you only need to find 10 people who think diferently.

Also did this really need to be moved? it was up before the forum and it wasn't really addressed to people who wanted to play an apolyton run (or monotored or whatever) game it was for people who might want to start their own, so i don't see why it needed to be moved.