 |
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:23
|
|
i think that the militaristic trait is very important, for both the cheaper barracks early on, and the greater chance for unit promotions throughout the game
but Industrious, Commercial, and religious traits are all good secondary traits
so civs with those traits are
Aztecs, Celts, Japanese, Romans, and Chinese
out of those i feel that the Celts and the Chinese have the best UUs
overall i feel that the Mounted Warrior, and Ansar Warriors are the best UUs the keskik isn't as good as the Ansar Warrior, but it is still cheap and powerful so i'd include them in here as well
so if i was going to suggest a civ it'd be one of the following
Arabs
Celts
Chinese
Iroquois
Mongols
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:23
|
|
Looking over traits, yes Industious is nice, and AoW does tend to lessen the effects of Militaristic IF we build/capture it. However, looking at what we are, and everyone knows we will be Militaristic, a good, early UU is also needed to give us an edge in the early going.
The Celtic Swordsmen and the Iriquois Mounted Warrior are both very nice for the early 3 attack and 2 movement (celtic also have 2 def). Both Civ's have Religious, and I would take the Celtic over Iriquois for Militaristic over Expansionist.
Also worth mentioning here, though is the Carthaginians. The Numidian Mercanary would be a nice asset from the get go, 3 def, 2 attack, nice upgrade path anyone? This also combines Industrious and Commercial(I think?). I think that Commercial, however, will be muted somewhat with the smaller map we will be using, but the added commerce will still come in handy, as trading techs is going to be allot different without as many AI's, so we will be needing to actually research on our own.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
|
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:23
|
|
No, dont cross them off as I was just saying I would take the Celts over the Iriquois for Militaristic over Expansionis, especially with the smaller map we will be playing.
Personally, I am all for random, and don't really care one way or the other.
I have also found that the build cost of the Numidian Merc is somewhat offset by it's lack of need for strategic resources, and the Industrious trait ensuring plenty of mines early on. As far as the Gallic Swordsmen, yes, that could create a problem, but not an insurmountable one. (btw, can you upgrade warriors to Gallic swordsmen, and for how much?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GhengisFarb
|
 |
I want my HAMBURGERS!!
May 2002
time: 23:23
|
|
Here's what I'm thinking (some of this is from my concepts on how to initialize a $mini-game)
Cities are assigned to new members first (cityless members). The member gets to choose the name for his city (or kingdom) but the name must be approved by at least 50% of the team members and should fit in with the theme of our civ.
The member is responsible for all aspects of his city. Build queues, tiles worked, workers, etc. The High King (president) may demand tasks of this minor kings (such as building a settler, providing a military unit, etc)
There could be two official bodies:
The High Council: each player has 1 vote.
The House of Lords: Each player has the number of votes equal to the pop of his cities. (A player with a size 6 city recieves 6 votes)
That's all I got right now.
We need a system so we can fight each other for land holdings within our civ without actually harming our gameplay. (Hey, we are warmongers after all)
All newly founded cities/territory etc are ROYAL holdings, each High King has personal holdings (they stay that players holdings even when they are not King) and is in full control of Royal holdings while they are High King. Once everyone has a city we should then allow players to bid for new cities or we could have them build settlers to go found their own.
I think it would be easier if we had a set number of team members and assigned cities once we had enough for each player to have one.
Team name ideas:
Warlords, Council of Kings, Celtic Confederation
Last edited by GhengisFarb on 05-11-2002 at 06:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donegeal
|
 |
Apolyton's Resident Law Enforcement Officer. Founder of the Glory of War, Champions of Apolyton!
Jul 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
This is unfinished and open to discussion and change.
I have to be away from my computer for a while to vote and buy PTW, so please feel free to debunk/question/suggest what I have written so far.
PS- I love outlines. I think they are so easy to follow.
I Citizens
A. Emperor
1. Plays the game.
2. Sole power over the Slider.
3. Sole power over foregien affairs.
- to include going to war and changing to/from wartime government.
4. Sells cities to Lords and Kings.
a. Allowed to pick who gets what city and doesn't have to go with highest bid.
b. Gets 10% of the purchase price for his own use.
c. Must sell to Lords First.
5. Acts as King for all cities not assigned to someone else.
- Exception in case of Article I-A12.
6. Controls all settlers.
7. Controls all non-garrisoned units.
8. May assume control of any unit at any time.
9. May make build damands of Kings.
10. Controls the Treasury.
11. Does NOT vote in High Council.
12. Votes in House of Kings only with cities that are actually his.
12. Has deciding vote in case of a tie between the Council and the House.
B. Kings
1. Lords who have purchased a city/cities.
2. Names their city (and geographical areas in city radius) with 50% approval from High Council.
3. Controls WF of their city.
4. Controls build and queue of their city.
5. Controls Garrisoned units.
- No more than three.
6. Votes in the High Council.
7. Votes in the House of Kings.
C. Lords
1. Members of our team.
2. Votes in the High Council.
II Government
A. High Council
1. Composed of all Kings and Lords except the Emperor.
2. One vote for each member.
B. House of Kings
1. Composed of all Kings, including the Emperor.
2. One vote for each population point in city controled by King.
3. Kingless cities are not represented.
C. Matters that get voted on.
1. Great Leaders.
2. City Names (High Council only).
3. The next Emperor.
4. Anything not already mentioned (High Council only)
Last edited by Donegeal on 05-11-2002 at 23:48
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
|
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:23
|
|
Too much power in the Emperor, IMO.
I would like to see some kind of Military leader added, and perhaps add a few more things to the voting list. Perhaps the House of Kings has a say in war, peace, and trading of their resources (with the votes per pop point)? while the High Council will only vote on the next emperor, GL, and names of kingdoms/cities (with one vote per person)?
This will become a big job later, and the Emperor will be needing some help, I would imagine, perhaps some kind of formal advisor positions with a confirmation vote from the High Council? Military Council, Treasurer (to handle the mini game aspects), Royal Administrator (city planner for unowned cities, if there are many)?
Also, changes/mistakes:
C3 needs to be changed to 'the next emperor'
Also, is there a term limit (life span?) to the Emperor, and what should it be? 1 month, 2 month, until an overthrow/retirement?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donegeal
|
|
Apolyton's Resident Law Enforcement Officer. Founder of the Glory of War, Champions of Apolyton!
Jul 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
Yes, you are right, Unortho. The Emperor does have lots of power, just like an Emperor does in RL. I gave him alot of power because I am hopeing that this MP game is done in a turnchat style. A represenative of each team (in our case, the Emperor) must be present and five turns get played. One team plays a turn, saves, posts, then the next team plays and posts for five turns. We do this twice a week and the pace will be the same as the DG. If this happens, we will be able to adapt to whatever situation that araises because the Emperor already has the authority. With the way its set up, the only reason we would be the cause of a turn stoppage would be for a GL (and I hope that happens often). I also purposely avoided listing "Imperial Advisors" as the Emperor could take on as much or as little as he sees fit by assigning them; although the idea of a High Council approval never occoured to me.
Term limits is something I thought about, but did put anything down because I wanted to hear what the team members had to say.
I am really excited about the possibility of implementing the Mini-game in governmental descions because, lets face it, money runs the world. Note that I did not put any rules in about bribing officials. This will truly make our game a Feudal system.
Speaking of which, how are we going to come up with a fighting feudal system? I was hoping that we could find a way to implement bribes, loans and Kingdom Troops (garrison troops). Plus see alliances form. City-state v City-state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
|
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:23
|
|
The only changes I was really saying to make would be for approval of whatever advisors the Emperor feels he needs, done by the High Council (one vote per person), personally, I would need a Military advisor later in the game, and someone to look over the mini-game stuff. This also gets the lords more involved, somewhat.
And the Feudal lords (kings) having a say over War, Peace, and trading resources. Our group isn't going to need much convincing on going to war, but the House of Kings (with votes per pop in their city/states) have a say in that as well as who sells what resource. IE, Ghengis and I both have excess Gems, we can then squable, bribe, whatnot WHICH of our holdings sell their gems and for how much, and this is voted on in the House of Kings. Remember, we are only playing ONE turn at a time, not like the C3DG, and these particular votes will only add debate and fun to the game as well as provide room for bribery within ranks as we squabble over declaring war on WHICH front, or selling WHICH piece of land. This gets the Kings involved somewhat more.
These changes do several things:
Clearly define the roles of the High Council and House of Kings.
They get the citizens more involved
and they provide opportunities for more fun in the mini game as we attempt to gain enough votes to improve our own position through bribery and in-fighting with the decision of who to go to war with (hey, I want to expand MY border, not yours...) and what gets traded (more specifically, from who's holding does it get traded).
We have plenty of time to poll on these between turns as well, so it should not slow the game any. Besides, how often do you actually DECLARE war or peace, or negotiate a trade? Certainly not every turn...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:23
|
|
ok maybe i'm an idiot here, but what is the mini game? since i didn't take part in the normal civ3 democracy game i don't really know what you are talking about
i have a few comments and they basically only apply if we are going to play in true pbem fashion, if it is the turnchat method, i think things will be different
1) if you give the emperor too much power, then this game goes from feeling like a true democracy game where everyone participates to something approaching a multiplayer succession game, which to me is far less exciting
2) although the minigame might be lots of fun, it seems like since this is a democracy game all players should get the same representation, so what one player gets the capital with 2 cattle in it's radius and since it's beside of a river it doesn't need an aqueduct, and other gets a city with tundra and mountains, they should both get the same amount of imput in my opinion
3) although we are certainly going to have squabbles over strategy, it seems like we should try to focus on an overall strategy instead of a decentralized strategy, either way we will eventually, because if the game turns sour then with the current system the emperor will just overrule the kings and build what the civ needs anyways
those are just my thoughts
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
|
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:23
|
|
I highly doubt that this will go into too much of a turnchat method. Too many schedules.
And, I was saying that the Emperor should have some advisors, perhaps required, just to get more people involved in the day to day decisions. However, too many positions may lead to no-one filling them as well.
The Mini Game used in the C3DG, players would purchase tiles in game, they would then use the shields, commerce, and food from those tiles to make things totally seperate from the actual game. Here, we are talking on a city level instead.
Basically, it is just a way to get people involved. Cities would not be sold until there is one for everyone, the 'crappy' cities would cost less money, so you may have that tundra city, but you are also more likely to get out of debt quicker and gain a second city sooner than the guy who is thousands in debt with that river/cattle city. It has a way of evening things out in the end itself.
There will most certainly need to be some form of assurance that the needs of the nation come first, I agree.
Your system, while certainly even, would also require a huge amount of organization. Polling for each build in each city, for instance, could become a big job later on. We really need to see how fast these turn get moving as well. If we get the chat every other day, for instance, it is going to be hard to poll on every little thing, and limiting terms to number of turns could become a hassle.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-11-2002 22:32
Attachment: 
|