Apoly TEAM CIV IV Demo Game

[Dominae]

A note on game setup:

Anyone given serious thought to locked alliances? They're implemented way better in CIV than in Civ3.

We could have, say, a 2v2v2v2, with each "team" being part of a permanent parternship with another team.

To my knowledge, this has not been done before in demogames. It could make for a unique experience.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Dominae
I was never a member of the Horde; they were one of the three teams that refused access to their private forums.

Seeing how the game has progress (read: degenerated) from the point of view of the other three forums and the general forum, perhaps (without knowing it) they have done me a favor.

I really hope future demogames at Apolyton will not feature such animosity.

hear, hear. Well said.

I think it should be a requirement for the upcoming cIV demogame that moderators are given access to the private forums.

[Shogun Gunner]

oh, and I'm interested in the cIV Demogame.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Dominae
A note on game setup:

Anyone given serious thought to locked alliances? They're implemented way better in CIV than in Civ3.

We could have, say, a 2v2v2v2, with each "team" being part of a permanent parternship with another team.

To my knowledge, this has not been done before in demogames. It could make for a unique experience.

I have and thats one of he first things Id like to try PBEM wise. I would love to see something like this implemented for the Demo Game, but unfortunately I doubt we would agree to such a thing. I just go back to all this "No cooperative Victory, it aint Civ"nonsense, and that leads me to believe it would be tough to finally shift the collective mindset. But Im with you and I think that attitude has also led to the degeneration of Demogames at this site.

Originally posted by Dominae
Climbing off my high horse: I would like to participate, if possible, but I would like to see what the teams look like before making a decision. Is that all right?

Ill make a note by your name when I update the first post. Got you covered

[snoopy369]

I'd like to note, Dominae, that 2v2v2v2 does not necessarily mean "happy, no animosity games" ... I still think that C3CDG animosity may have originated from the Team Game (a 2v2v2v2 setup) ... although i'm not sure what I did there to generate animosity, as i still haven't warred with anyone in that one ...

/me the peaceful cat ...

[conmcb25]

Sure it could have, but cooperative mode may have helped to deflect some of the bullsh*t, or may have just set a different tone for the game.

I hope something changes in the future. Ive been seeing a general degeneration of Demo games here and if it continues Ill start looking for a new home.

[Kuciwalker]

/me signs up

[Dominae]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'd like to note, Dominae, that 2v2v2v2 does not necessarily mean "happy, no animosity games" ... I still think that C3CDG animosity may have originated from the Team Game (a 2v2v2v2 setup) ... although i'm not sure what I did there to generate animosity, as i still haven't warred with anyone in that one...

My suggestion was not to address the animosity issue; I just though it would be a fun format. Of course there's potential for animosity in any game with a competitive element.

Just a wild guess, but I think a lot of the conflict that has occurred in demogames over that past year or so is a direct result of boredom with Civ3. When playing the game itself is not fun anymore, people start wanting to prove themselves, show up others, and roleplay themselves into cliques. Hopefully a new game will bring a fresh start.

Was the "Team Game" a team Democracy Game? If so, I was not aware of it. Let me reiterate that CIV is much better for team play than Civ3...just something to keep in mind.

[Ninot]

I guess i'll sign up, but I don't expect to be a huge contributor.

[snoopy369]

It was not a team demo game, it was 8 players playing in 2v2v2v2 format.

[Krill]

I'll be in. Lurking at the very least.

[Jon Miller]

I would favor open MP, not locked alliances

as that is one of the things that was a very valuable learning expereince for me in the demo game

jM

[conmcb25]

Ill get the interested party list updated today or tomorrow.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I would favor open MP, not locked alliances

as that is one of the things that was a very valuable learning expereince for me in the demo game

In a 2v2v2v2 there are still 4 "teams", so there's plenty of diplomacy to be had (although, admittedly, less).

[Beta]

I see where you are coming from Dom, but I still think the alliances should be a natural occurence of the games dynamics and geopolitical set-up.

What I would like to see is more discussion about the geography - which IMHO has a really big impact on the game.

Continents suck in demo games as far as I am concerned. It is the luck of the draw whether you are alone, or with one or two civs on your land mass. This greatly unbalances the early game, and furthermore, breaks the game down into a couple of mini-games very early. Take the ptwdg, isdg, and ptwdg2 as examples.

Pangaea is interesting in that all civs will meet each other quickly, and the diplomatic situation can get tense very early. Witness the ciurrent C3C Eve of destruction game.

Islands has the potential of ensuring each team gets a chance to build before all he11 breaks loose, and would create an interesting game.

My vote though, would be for the stringy Pangaea map - always one of my favourites.

How do others feel?

(oh - and despite the views of the SP demo crowd, I suspect the MP demo game will be up and running in about 6.8 nanoseconds. )