ACDG5: Demogame, anyone (especially newbies)?

[timsup2nothin]

Originally posted by vyeh
Bodissey,

Good job. Would suggest that you post just thumbnails in Mart's TTT. It can take a long time for thread pages to load with people who have dial-up if you use the big pictures.

Tim,

(Simulation of strategic discussion)

Player A: Let's send the scout to pop the pod north of UN HQ.

Player B: No, we need to send the scout south east to protect the next base.

Player C: And the scout can explore the territory to the south east.

Okay, that's 2-1 for sending the scout with the pod to the southeast, and I'll make it 3-1. I think we should hold off popping the pod to the north until we have a garrison in UNHQ.

In the order thread for the turnplayer:

Take the colony pod southeast and the scout due south. In your report please include the remaining construction time for the scout unit.

[vyeh]

Originally posted by Mart in Empath World - Pbem TTT thread
Notes:
An important note pertaining to Unity Supply Droid. You have to home it to a base before you can use it. CTRL+H is key combination from keyboard. They are worth only 1 row of minerals, so they do not give much to SP or prototypes.

This means that before the Supply Droids will work they have to move into their base (taking a turn), be homed to that base, and moved to the square they will crawl (taking at least a turn, although they can crawl the same turn they move).

[vyeh]

Originally posted by timsup2nothin on the Wardroom thread
Pre-planetfall agenda:

Item one: I am strongly in favor of assigning base commanders, but would like to enact a policy of keeping the capital exempt from individual command.

Pro: No one is volunteering to be the third base governor.

Con: Somebody has to control the HQ base. (I really don't think you want to have votes for every terraforming decision.) Is it the faction leader or the turn player?

Tim, Good job on setting the agenda.

Bodissey, I'd still like to see the practice, 2102 save after the nerve-staple feeling wears off.

[Bodissey]

I'm trying my best to recover from this atrocity.

Turn Summary

• The CP found a pod to the SE,
• 4 turns remain to produce the Scout Patrol in UNHQ.


[IMG][/IMG]

[vyeh]

Originally posted by timsup2nothin
Take the colony pod southeast and the scout due south.

Apparently still recovering. (Note to faction leader: recreational use of nerve stapling is not advisable in CP operator.)

(1) It looks like the CP wandered east.
(2) What happened to "practice, 2102" (the beginning of the turn) save?

[Bodissey]

Is it the nerve-stapling wearing off or is this guy bossy?

[vyeh]

How do you expect a Sith master to act?

As Darth Vader said, "The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am!"

Seriously, you're doing a great job. The point of the practice game is to make the mistakes now.

Tim, when you're satisfied that the practice, 2102 moves are complete, tell Bodissey to end the turn.

If you're not, he can create practice, 2102end2!

[Mart]

Additional things to do would be:

- to write a News info for SMAC section on Apoly, that ACDG5 landed on Chiron.

- Recently democracy games sub-thread was merged with general thread. We should decide how to organize threads, we post in general thread, multiplayer thread or talk to maybe Illuminatus about creating demogame sub-thread again?

- Unity Mission members would take an oath to perform their duties best to their abilities (e.g. not to enable scenario editor in any of the game saves, not to do alternative moves of units in game saves, etc.) That will need more thought.

[timsup2nothin]

Originally posted by vyeh
How do you expect a Sith master to act?

As Darth Vader said, "The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am!"

Seriously, you're doing a great job. The point of the practice game is to make the mistakes now.

Tim, when you're satisfied that the practice, 2102 moves are complete, tell Bodissey to end the turn.

If you're not, he can create practice, 2102end2!

I got my unmodded SMAC up and running, started a game, and have a new appreciation for the responsibilities the turnplayer will face. Bodissey, you are doing GREAT. If you occasionally drift a CP off course I will consider it an intervention by fate that shows us something we wouldn't have seen or protects us from something we would have run into. Anyone gives you trouble...nervestaples.

I'm satisfied that this turn is complete. You may be approached by some other faction. If they seem violent and demand a tech, give it to them. Otherwise, be polite and we'll get back to them.

[vyeh]

Originally posted by Mart
- to write a News info for SMAC section on Apoly, that ACDG5 landed on Chiron.

I'll write a draft for you to review.

Originally posted by Mart
- Recently democracy games sub-thread was merged with general thread. We should decide how to organize threads, we post in general thread, multiplayer thread or talk to maybe Illuminatus about creating demogame sub-thread again?

I've given some thought to thread organization.
- a master index thread that for me to post
-- an index to The Wardroom, a turn posting thread, this thread and The Voting Booth (created by Tim)
-- game news (game has started, first faction conquered, second faction conquered)
-- game setup
-- rules (people be nice, no use of scenario editor, no alternative moves)
-- welcome/introduction

- a turn posting thread (limited to posting saves along with a brief summary and thumbnail screenshots)

All four threads will point to the master index in their first post. The master index gives us the option to create more threads.

I envision you posting the newly created game in the turn posting thread.

Any additional threads should start with ACDG.

Last time Illuminatus posted on 'poly was April 28th. To remove advertising message on AC General, I used the "report" button. In report field, I suggested Darsnan's scenarios be topped. Advertising message was removed, but Darsnan's scenarios weren't topped. I suspect that an administrator removed advertising message, but left decision of topping for Illuminatus' return.

My plan is to create threads in general forum. When Illuminatus returns, he can move threads.

Illuminatus might choose to have us remain in the AC General forum. Since the beginning of June, there has only been posts to four threads in AC General (and another thread in each of AC Stories and AC Creation). We represent three of those threads. If you count posts, we are over 95%. He may like us here to keep the AC General thread from being merged into the AC Multiplayer thread.

Personally, I'd like to have a subforum, in which you and I have moderating privileges, so we can keep the threads organized and perform police functions on any flamers.

Originally posted by Mart
- Unity Mission members would take an oath to perform their duties best to their abilities (e.g. not to enable scenario editor in any of the game saves, not to do alternative moves of units in game saves, etc.) That will need more thought.

Let's say no cheating. I'll police the threads to be sure that no illegal information is being passed on. (It is very suspicious if someone keeps posting "we must go North!" without justification.)

With these precautions, the only one we need to watch is the turn player. (I did notice the stockpile energy was inserted -- unnecessarily -- after the recycling center build in the practice game). I think we should send him the links to all the posts concerning the case of potential cheating in ACDG3. Then he'll understand how seriously the 'poly AC community take cheating.

(Bodissey, stockpile energy is OK in some games. Since we haven't prohibited it - yet - it was OK for you to use it.)

[Bodissey]

Originally posted by vyeh
(Bodissey, stockpile energy is OK in some games. Since we haven't prohibited it - yet - it was OK for you to use it.)

This goes without saying.
Breaking the rules is not my cup of tea – that is 'knowingly' breaking them.

End turn summary
• A few blips appeared to the east-south-east, 10 to 15 squares from known land.

[Bodissey]

The save is there.

[vyeh]

Originally posted by Bodissey
This goes without saying.
Breaking the rules is not my cup of tea – that is 'knowingly' breaking them.

Never thought it was. The case of potential cheating tore ACDG3 apart. One popular player quit. One faction leader withdrew for 9 hours until a CMN talked him back into the game.

Edit: practice, 2103.sav and original message crossed. Remove request for save and for further practice.

[vyeh]

Tim,

The recent discussion in The Wardroom thread of whether there should be a permanent governor for the HQ base is troubling me.

I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out my misgivings. While I have substantive reasons for a permanent HQ governor, there are procedural reasons why the Wardroom thread is the wrong place for this discussion.

First, a review of the discussion.

The issue of base governors was raised by Maniac in this thread:

Originally posted by Maniac
How about each person getting their own base to govern, or group of people getting their own province?

In organizing this game, I've tried to accommodate every player. I was not taking votes as it would be counterproductive to the goal of including as many players as possible if I let 3 players who had a so-so interest in an issue outvote two (or even one) player who were passionate about it.

The issue of SMAC v. SMAX is a case in point. Originally, it was SMAC. Maniac wanted SMAX, so I put the issue back on the table. After some discussion, I was able to get the votes to 5 people who were more or less indifferent, 2 people who wanted SMAC and 1 person who wanted SMAX.

You were one of the persons who voted for SMAC, but I knew you had SMAX and had modded in it. That left Heraclitus who wanted SMAC and Maniac who wanted SMAX. I knew Maniac was passionate about SMAX. I questioned Heraclitus about whether he owned SMAX, but he never replied. Since then he has posted in this thread once to ask if the game had started and he has not posted, as you are aware, in The Wardroom thread.

So I may have accommodated someone who won't be active and turned off a player with a strong demo game record.

Since I was trying to accommodate as many players as possible, I responded positively to Maniac:

Originally posted by vyeh
Personally, I'd be happy to assign bases to individuals to govern, regardless of their other roles. Being governor would not be subject to rotation. Later as the number of bases grow, an ambitious governor could have more bases. Obviously, the demo government might set up some policies requiring bases to build units or SP; otherwise, the base governor would control the base and the terraforming around the base. We've covered this ground before. I support the idea in principle and let's work out the details after the game starts!

You raised a concern:

Originally posted by timsup2nothin
I like the base governors concept, but don't like that implementation. Getting everyone in line to make all the mid-turn saves sounds like an ordeal waiting to happen. I would be more than willing to entrust the turnplayer with following any directives for 'my' base.

I proposed a modification.

Originally posted by vyeh
In practice, I would expect that a governor would post on the turn tracking thread (TTT) that he is working on his bases and will have another mid-turn save posted in half an hour.

I have no problem with you passing on your instructions for your base to the turn player.

I'm just offering an alternative because I suspect that Maniac will end up with multiple bases (since the bases have to be administered by someone -- the auto-governor is NOT a good way to go -- we can save the time it would take for Maniac to write out his instructions and for the turn player to read and implement the instructions).

I'm sure your instructions would be brief; Maniac was part of the Spartan ACDG3 team that built their own simulator (a replica of the game based on what they knew) and then would try out different battle strategies repeatedly.

In light of this discussion, I'll modify the proposal: governors may (but don't have to) do the turn play for their bases by taking the beginning turn save or mid turn save, adjusting their bases and units dedicated to developing their bases, and posting a new mid-turn save. Or they may issue instructions to the turn player.

You accepted the modification:

Originally posted by timsup2nothin
Yes, I think running a base or region of bases is a good thing.

I like the modified proposal.

Joe raised some concerns:

Originally posted by JoeStalin
Two concerns about "federalism" concept, (having governors for individual bases or regions)

1. Game Pace. I could see a federated system as slowing down the game too much. We'd all be waiting for one guy to log on so he could staple his drones or whatnot...

which leads to my second concern:

2. Coordination. governors would focus too much on smaller projects. in doing so they could neglect the "bigger picture" of large scale coordination.

For Example: somebody decides to staple their drones: they fix their drone problem but punish the whole nation... This is an extreme example but i hope you see my point.

I addressed those concerns:

Originally posted by vyeh
This one is pretty easy to handle. We set a period of time (say 24 hours, not including weekends) for governors to do their thing. If a governor doesn't do anything, we assume that he is happy with the way his base is operating and we do the rest of the moves.

The demo council can establish rules the governor has to abide. So you or someone else could propose a rule that says a governor must get prior approval to nerve staple.

In ACDG1, players could "live" in only one region. The players who lived in the region would elect a governor for the region. The regions took on their own characters. In one region there were no boreholes.

By its nature, a democracy game involves politics. The point about governors focusing too much on smaller projects applies at the faction-wide level. The military general will want more units at the expense of base facilities.

Zeiter indicated his support:

Originally posted by Zeiter
*I like the idea of the truly federated structure of the governors and whatnot.

At this point, I was finalizing the game set-up. Maniac had lost on SMAX and on a custom faction with ROBUST. To accommodate him, I proposed the governorship of the HQ base, precisely because it has the potential to be the most interesting base:

Originally posted by vyeh
Notes:
(1) Votes for SMAC: Heraclitus, timsup2nothin. Vote for SMAX: Maniac. Either: Bodissey, Nims, JoeStalin, vyeh, Zeiter.
(2) Vote for standard or custom: Heraclitus. Vote for flat: timsup2nothin, vyehVote for custom with ROBUST: Maniac. Any: Nims, JoeStalin, Zeiter.

...

Voting outcomes
Heraclitus won on SMAC and loses on faction.
Maniac lost on SMAX and on the ROBUST faction; I propose he gets the HQ base to govern.

At this point, I considered the set-up to be finished and turned my attention to other matters.

You revisited the issue of base governors in The Wardroom thread:

Originally posted by timsup2nothin in The Wardroom thread
Item one: I am strongly in favor of assigning base commanders, but would like to enact a policy of keeping the capital exempt from individual command.

Because of the previous history, your first item is similar to saying, "I'd like to enact a policy permitting copters to attack bases." Allowing copters to attack bases destroys the game balance Mart is creating. Taking the HQ base away from Maniac changes the balance of accommodations I've made to attract the most players for the game.

Since I couldn't stay in character and bring out all my concerns about your proposed policy, I raised the issues in The Wardroom that I could while remaining in character:

Originally posted by vyeh in The Wardroom thread
Do you remember the lesson from the Academy about delegation? If everyone is responsible, then no one is responsible. When our council is pursuing a war, who will remember to keep the trains running at HQ?

And I raised other issues (which can't be raised in character in The Wardroom thread) here:

Originally posted by vyeh
Con: Somebody has to control the HQ base. (I really don't think you want to have votes for every terraforming decision.) Is it the faction leader or the turn player?

Note that the term "turn player" would not be in character.

You responded to the concern I raised in this thread in The Wardroom thread (but did not directly address the issue of delegation I raised in The Wardroom thread):

Originally posted by timsup2nothin in The Wardroom thread
Item one: My opinion slipped into the agenda already, but not my reasoning. I just think that the capital is very likely to be our major 'power base', at least for a while, meaning that it will be our best bet for projects, etc. It might also have fast growth, leading to drone issues long before other bases and their commanders have to deal with them. I agree that having every detail of base operation go through a vote would be silly, but I think the capital is not 'just a base' and should be handled differently. Assigning it to the faction leader, to the turnplayer, or on a rotating basis are options.

At this point, I want the discussion of the governance of the HQ base suspended in The Wardroom thread. Some of my concerns about exempting the HQ base from a permanent governor have to do with the design of this demo game.

Let me note some substantive points:
(1) One of the reasons that it is helpful to finalize the structure before filling positions is that no one has a vested interest in unbalancing the structure in his favor. Of course, there will be tension between the base governors and the faction governance. That is one reason we (and I was one of them) worked out a proposal for the ACDG4 game that never happened. Exempting the potentially most powerful base reduces the tension. The tension contributes to the demo game politics, which adds to the fun. So the fact that the capital is likely to be the major "power base" is a reason in my role as organizer to want it outside the direct control of the faction government.
(2) Re drone issues: Who is better able to deal with it? A democracy or a veteran player (like Maniac or me). In ACDG3, the Data Angels razed their HQ (to prevent infiltration -- it really is as stupid as it sounds). The decision was made democratically. Worst, the DA's never built a new HQ! In contrast the victorious Spartans assigned units to individual players.
(3) I never said the capital is "just a base." The fact that it is "not just a base" is even more reason to assign it to an individual.
(4) Within the structure I established, there are alternative ways of addressing your concerns:
(a) Major power center. As I stated to Joe, the democracy council can establish general policies about bases. We actually worked out a proposal in our failed ACDG4. This included the production of units (but any mandate has to require equivalent effort by all bases). SP's have to be approved by the entire faction. I would expect some politicing. Base governor agrees to do something because he is asked to and because he may need some faction funds in the future. And, most importantly, everybody (including the CMN) wants the faction to win. Disagreements will be over tactics. If there is general agreement that a certain action is the right action, the governor will do it.
(b) Drone issues. The democracy council can establish policies about building drone reducing facilities or simply pass a policy saying no governor shall let his base fall into drone riots.
(5) As initial discussion in The Wardroom shows, there are plenty of interesting issues to discuss and vote on. I think players will lose interest in whether a former should plant a forest 2 squares SSE of HQ, whether a crawler should harvest 2 mins 2 squares NNW of HQ, whether HQ should build a 2-2-2 laser rover, whether a worker should be moved from 1 sq. S of HQ to 1 sq. W of HQ (and HQ could have three or more formers).

[vyeh]

Nims,

Are you interested in faction wide role or being governor?