Roleplay Team

[Ninot]

As it is becoming increasingly likely that I will sign up for this team (good membership, good idea, good players).... heres my 2 cents

Togas, ALL of your ideas are gems. I cant find a single one i really have a problem with

but i got a little question about the periods for this civ when it is theoretically supposed to have no more than one dictator (Despot, Monarch...)

To better spread arond the responsibilities, will we still have "terms"... but instead of people getting "elected"... their dynasty ends and gets replaced?

just a question/idea

[Meshelic]

I'd be very interested in joining this team, I love the roleplay and think it's a huge part of the online experience of this game. I'm getting my copy in about a week or less, so I hope to be on a team sometime, and this looks like a great pick!

[Togas]

Originally posted by Ninot
To better spread arond the responsibilities, will we still have "terms"... but instead of people getting "elected"... their dynasty ends and gets replaced?

This is not a bad idea at all. We'd just have to come to an agreement on what would constitute the end of a "dynasty" ... and the people could choose to continue the dynasty, of course, or bring to power a new dictator & his line.

--Togas

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Togas


This is not a bad idea at all. We'd just have to come to an agreement on what would constitute the end of a "dynasty" ... and the people could choose to continue the dynasty, of course, or bring to power a new dictator & his line.

--Togas

we could set a number of turns or years for every dynasty....

or we could just plain do elections, and roleplay as if they are natural occurances for a despotism

[Arnelos]

Hmm.... anyone have a background in studying the "warring states" period of Chinese history? We could model something like that...

Under monarchy, we could actually play as regional leaders... so each member of the team (or groups of members) get a city or a group of cities... and they get complete control of that/those city/cities and any units produced by them... though perhaps we could divide up that further so that each region gets an administrator (CP-equivalent) and each region gets a military commander (SMC-equivalent). This system would be perfectly feudal under monarchy (all lords must maintain fealty to the monarch), but then would be the basis for the senate under republic and democracy.

The centralization of power and the modernization of the bureaucracy could take place it did historically... probably around the time that Education, Printing Press, Gunpowder, and Banking are being discovered...

At that point (as hinted above), we would have the OPTION of establishing a modern bureacracy somewhat like the one in the current single-player Democracy Game. However, that modern bureaucracy would be ruled over by a senate in republic/democracy, by the absolute monarch if we're still in monarchy (you could actually see the transition from fuedal monarchy to absolute monarchy ), and by the central committee of the politburo under Communism (anyone ever play the boardgame "Russian Civil War"? we could use its politburo system as something of a model).

We need to establish some means by which internal conflicts would be resolved w/o fighting with our units, however... as it's actually IMPOSSIBLE to fight the proper civil wars in the Civ games because you can't have your units attack each other Some means of resolving internal conflicts which "come to blows" needs to be devised...

[Arnelos]

RESPONDING TO NINOT'S POST:

If we follow my model... you could have mock "wars of succession" like the War of the Roses, the War of Spanish Succession, various french civil wars throughout the middle ages, etc, etc, etc.

However, as I said, we need some means other than actually moving the units above to "fight" these internal conflicts... (such as wars of succession).

However, I would think that for a monarchy to be a "monarchy", we would keep the crown in the same family line unless that line "runs out" and we have to find a new line. For instance, under monarchy, the "player" established in the monarch position would remain monarch indefinately, but under the system I forwarded (with regional control of most actions), the monarch would be just as powerless as in history. He would have exclusive control over the tax/science/luxuries slider and would have the sole right to declare war (and could do so at his choosing), but would be held in check by the feudal lords (the other players), who control the actual cities and units (though they HAVE sworn an oath of fealty to him).

The same player would remain monarch even if the king died because, under Togas' system, the player then plays as the dead man's son...

The line could, however, "run out" when the monarch player decided they'd had enough with being monarch (not enough time anymore, whatever) and swapped roles with one of the other players.

Under despotism, the monarchy will not travel in lines of succession... it will be decided by whomever "kills" the previous despot and replaces him (regicide to replace the monarch is also possible, but you'd have to kill his entire family and then not yourself be hunted down for treason for committing hte highest of all sins in a monarchy - regicide).

Basically, we need to come up with some fair way of handling assassinations and attempted assassinations (and for handling the role of bodyguards or loyalists to the crown or at least the royal family - able to save at least ONE heir to the throne). An assassination attempt could also spark a civil war, of course... and that still needs a way of being handled as well.

[Arnelos]

So, the short-and-quick of my argument here is that while we won't need a CoL for the role-play game at the start, we WILL need a number of rules (especially pertaining to assassinations and, later on, for all forms of internal warfare).

The regional feudal lordships probably won't come in until we get around to forming a monarchy (or until we discover feudalism???). The ability to start centralizing the bureaucracy couldn't occur I suppose until at least Printing Press, though Democracy or Economics might be a better marker (and even then, it would only be an option... as the "republic" government in the Civ games is supposed to be regional leaders meeting in parliament or senate, not unlike the early parliamentary governments of England, the Netherlands, or even of proto-democracies such as the early United States or United Kingdom, etc.).

[Togas]

Here's one thing I had in mind as I was thinking about how this all might play out.

I imagine that the despot, who cannot possibly control every city in his kingdom, would (for practical purposes and to further the enjoyment of the game for everyone) appoint governors at first over individual cities, then regions. These governorships could be changed if a family became corrupt or inactive (deceased?) and the most loyal or worthy families would be given the most important and largest cities or regions. When we discover Monarchy, we adopt a sort of feudal system where each governor becomes a lord and all owe allegance to the king, but each lord to a large extent controls his fiefdom. When we adopt Republicanism, the Lords become Senators who come together and elect a leader, generals, or even a triumpherate to rule over the nation.

--Togas

p.s. Members, please state your civ preference. We need to narrow it down and start seriously considering who we'll be.

[Togas]

Arnelos has some good ideas. I don't want this to become TOO complicated, though, so if there are any easy ways to handle these sorts of historical events, I'm all for it. If not, we can just make a change of government "Out of Character" and make up the story behind why and how the change occured.

But there is some merit to creating a system whereby we can assassinate a leader or fight over who controls the control, if necessary. We could also set OOC, vote on it, and the winner of the poll can write history as he chooses.

As for passing on the crown in a Monarchy, the nobles families often married each other, eventually making them all linked up in strange ways in the line of succession. I'm sure something can be created that justifies the change in rulers and ruling family names.

--Togas

[Arnelos]

I guess my point is that if you establish rules for how assassinations and internal warfare are conducted... people will use those rules and the historical events we think would be fun to model will happen on their own without having to create any complicated system to plan for them...

DESPOTISM: It's the ability to assassinate the despot that's the principle factor in changing despots...

The establishment of monarchy is so much more stable because "regicide" becomes a very serious crime compared to despotism (where killing the despot is the standard means of succession to new leadership...).

Under monarchy, the new "standard" means of succession would be birth lines. Though assassination is still possible, it is no longer legitimate (any player assassinating the monarch, for instance, should certainly not be permitted to be monarch himself... and his "character" would almost certainly be caught and executed for treason - so only conspiracies of player-characters where one guy takes the fall for being the "trigger-man" and another becomes the new monarch should be possible). Even then, as I stated, it's a lot harder to track down and kill every single member of a royal line than to kill one despot... so even a successful assassination conspiracy under a monarchy might not get the conspirators very far...

PROPOSAL FOR MONARCHY: perhaps the minimum size of the conspiracy is determined by a 'poly poll where a majority has to vote for it... and the person who starts the poll is the "trigger-man" who then gets executed as the price regardless of victory or defeat - which might somewhat discourage people from starting such a poll

ADDENDUM TO PROPOSAL:

Under monarchy, if the royal line runs out (either by the monarch player choosing to end his reign or by the entire line being assassinated through such a poll as stated above), then two methods could be used for replacing the monarch:

1. An election is held for the new monarch. This election would be held in much the same manner as the Holy Roman Empire elected the Holy Roman Emperor throughout much of the middle ages in Europe... so the various feudal lords across the empire would each vote among the choices. The choices might have to be nobles of particularly high standing (there should be nomination requirements... such as having to get so many people to nominate you to be a candidate).

2. Fight a "war of succession" to determine the new monarch. This would use whatever means we establish for handling internal warfare and each regional group would have the option of joining one side or the other, etc, etc, etc. (this would also have very real impact on the distribution of local lordships AFTER the war is over )

[F-PRO]

We could implement a simplified version of the $mini-game (game in the Civ3 DG where people trade and accumulate wealth) in our team, since there aren't a lot of members. Everyone will have some land and wealth. The amount of control one has over his land depends on the type of government and ruler.

This idea just came to me and I haven't worked it out yet, but it might be fun. The members would be inclined to choose rulers (if they can) who will benefit their land and income.

[MrWhereItsAt]

This sounds fantastic...... I am not a member here yet though.

I would be interested in participating for the two weeks I have left with my computer, and beyond then I could likely keep posting, but could not view any savegame.

Is it worth me asking to join?

Aside from Trip's team, a team based around roleplaying and with a surfire group spearheaded by Togas sounds too good to miss out on.

[notyoueither]

Could you make up your mind MWiA? I've already insulted you on another team. It would not be good form to insult you on every team.

[MrWhereItsAt]

There's only two I'm interested in.




At the moment.

[DAVOUT]

A few questions and suggestions:

- Testing this fantastic idea at the same time we play one of our very first MP games is audacious, but certainly extremely difficult; would not it be worth to play an ordinary CIV III game, just to tune the way the roles are played?
- The assassination process could be: a thread titled Coup against the despot would be opened by the one willing to become the next despot; other players would post their support. After 3 days, an independent authority would throw a dice; results would be as follows :
- 1 support ----- dice 1--------------- coup succeeded
- 2 supports----- dice 1 or 2--------- coup succeeded
- 3 supports----- dice 1/2/3---------- coup succeeded
- 4 supports----- dice 1/2/3/4-------- coup succeeded
- more than 4--- dice 1/2/3/4/5------ coup succeeded
- Unless the despot steps down voluntarily, this should be the only way to remove him.
- The new despot would confiscate all properties of the previous despot (except gold), as well as the properties of his 3 wealthiest officers, or ministers or aides.
- Once per term or per month if there are no terms, the despot can confiscate all properties of his most dangerous rival (but not the cash that has been hidden in a safe place).
- The mini game could be in the game; the only difference would be that the lands are given by the despot to whom he wants, in the most arbitrary manner as we can expect from a despot. Basically, the despot would give lands as rewards to those who support him, or are useful to him.
- All players would have the obligation to lead a military unit; when this unit would be wounded in battle, the player would receive a piece of land. If the unit generate a Great Leader, the player becomes a Hero of the Nation, and his properties can no longer be confiscated.