A Call to Arms!!! The PTW Demo Game's Fouding

[Jon Shafer]

We have a game, we have a list, now, we have to get this game rolling.

Soon (I presume ), Markos is going to create a PTW Demo Game forum for us, so this organizational material can be moved there. However, this time around, the demo game is going to be a lot more complicated, and requires a lot more organization. The sooner we start, the sooner we can get things hammered out, the sooner we can start.

FIRST off, Markos is creating a sort of 'group' system, by which each team will have its own secure forum, and only their members will have access. Each team will be able to organize their membership as they see fit. 2 people, 1000 people, whatever. Perhaps, there can be some sort of minimum membership limit on each team. I'll make a poll for that issue, when there's somewhere to put it. I think 5 people is a suitable membership minimum in order to be in the game.

Keep in mind, however, there are only 8 slots, so somehow priority will have to be given to the first groups that form, should there be more than 8 groups. Maybe we can assemble some ideas here regarding which teams can be in and which can't, should there be more than 8. I personally think it should be first come first serve, and the members of the team can hammer out how things are done.

And of course, we have to work out the basic game specs. Map size, what civs, climate, age, barbarians, etc. Ideas as always welcome in this thread. Bring up all that you have, or may have one day. Luckily, the beaurocracy that was necassary in establishing the actual workings of the demo game won't be necassary, only the actual setup of the game, and organization of teams.

My personal enjoyables:
Large sized map, 8 civs (all demo teams), each team can pick its civ (first come first serve ), random everything else.

Keep in mind, there can only be 8 civs max, human and AI. So AI civs will most likely be a no-no.

[Ninot]

Re: A Call to Arms!!! The PTW Demo Game's Fouding

Originally posted by Trip
Luckily, the beaurocracy that was necassary in establishing the actual workings of the demo game won't be necassary, only the actual setup of the game, and organization of teams.

While i think any civ can choose to use the beaurocracy made available by other present Demo games...

i think it should be much more fun if the civ's choose to vary their constitutions and laws and methods so that there is a true variety to the game.

Also, i would like to raise the issue of switching teams once the game has begun.

I think we should completely allow it. If we input maximums and minimums, we could input citizen trading systems as well

the ideas make me tingle inside with glee

[Jon Shafer]

Ahhh, but the beautiful thing is that that the trading of personnel can be worked out between teams. The 'Constitutional Convention' doesn't have to deal with that kind of issue, since it's an interteam one. If a team wants to, then it can. If they don't, then so be it.

[Haon]

Sadly most of the data shows that the best options on the PTW server is two human opponents, we would need to wait a bit longer before we can even think about 8.

[Jon Shafer]

Ah, but it will be a PBEM game, so it won't have to be hosted anywhere. One team passes the .SAV file on to another team, and they can spend as much (real) time as they want playing the game.

Oh, and another issue. How long should each team be allowed to hold the .SAV for before sending it off again? I'm thinking a day each might be do-able, but most others will probably disagree. There need not be a particular person designated to always play the game, like we had in the Civ 3 Demo Game. If we have more than 1 day... then each team will only see the game every 2 weeks.

[punkbass2000]

Re: A Call to Arms!!! The PTW Demo Game's Fouding

Originally posted by Trip
Keep in mind, there can only be 8 civs max, human and AI. So AI civs will most likely be a no-no.

Um, I'm pretty sure you can have 16 civs, with a max of 8 human.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS
A maximum of 8 players are possible in any MP mode of PTW. This includes both humans and AI.

[punkbass2000]

oic. Sorry, my mistake.

[korn469]

a couple of thoughts

*maybe we should limit the number of human teams to 3-4 so that each team can have more time to decide upon orders for the turn
*maybe we should either use an existing scenario, or have someone set up a balanced situation so we could jump right into the action

[Donegeal]

As I see the team deal as just a learning tool for a future multi-site PTW DG, I find the thought of a scenario very integing. Why?

I would like to see everything completely ramdom and played on a map no bigger than regular (for quicker games). The use of a scenario would be useful to see how a human v human game would go in the industrial/modern age because if we played on smaller maps like I want, the game would be over before we got to that situation.

[BigFurryMonster]

One day each should be reasonable.

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by Trip
Oh, and another issue. How long should each team be allowed to hold the .SAV for before sending it off again? I'm thinking a day each might be do-able

One day to hold the .sav file would be perfect if we started playing with maybe 4 teams of humans and 4 AI... or just 4 teams of humans total. That way, it could work on a rotating schedule of days which would give each team 3 days for discussion and strategy-planning and then one day for actual play.

Scheduling might be an issue for some people...
I think allowing the teams to amend the Constitution is another good idea if only because that would help each team tailor their governmental system to their schedules so as to keep the game moving.

Note: At 5 turns a save and with 4 teams playing, it may take a year or more to reach the later stages of the game. Every 4 days, 5 turns are completed... so 364/4 is 91 .savs each * 5 turns per save = 455 turns played in a game that can have as many as 520 in all. Assuming all the warmongers were civil to one another

[Jon Shafer]

The problem is that we already have 5 teams, and there's bound to be more.

Scenarios are probably a definite no-no. People want to start raw. I'll start a poll anyways though.

[Jon Shafer]

So does no one have any general questions or concerns?

Or are we all engrossed in our teams too much to worry about the actual game?

[Admiral PJ]

before we play lets test for a day (or week)

Can we start the game mid december, when us lowly europeans and non americans can get our hands on the game and play it for a while?

Maybe a tutorial /test game should be started as soon as possible, where a few teams can take part ( all if possible). It would be a good chance to see if or how this multi team approach would work.
I'd rather know this system could work before we were 2 months into the game before something went horribly wrong.
I suggest the test game would include at least 4 AI's - They may just be a waste of time though.
The game would be on Accelerated production and a small map for cheap techs ( would be a good time to test map sizes though). I think a map a little larger than standard would be best for the 'final' game.

Maybe this could be an open test game, so all teams can share problems about the general demo game rules.
Teams should be able to share private ideas about the test game too, to work out their own strategies.

We don't want each team finding out too much about the others, so when have come into contact for a while, the test should finish before spies detect patterns in their enemies behaviour.