 |
How many teams should we have? (5 Days)
This poll is closed. |
| 3-4 Teams |
   |
21 |
61.76% |
| 5-6 Teams |
   |
4 |
11.76% |
| 7-8 Teams |
   |
9 |
26.47% |
| Total: |
34 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
CiverDan
|
|
I say 3-4, if only too keep the game moving at a reasonable pace. I dont really want to play only 1 turn a week
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cidifer
|
|
4 humans\ 4 AI was what I though of when I 1st though about a PTW demo game.
It's benifits are:
More civs to play fight\trade\ally with and no need to wait days for them to make their turns, and it's inevitable that sometimes teams will be late sometimes also, the AI never will be.
Fewer people are needed as only 4 teams need to be formed.
You don't have to try to kill human civs over every problem (for example you could get coal from the AI even if all the humans wouldn't give it to you) and it's harder for the AI to spy on what you planning.
Also it would mean that all humans could unite for a cause instead of always working independently against each other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
I like the four human, four ai civs. sounds like fun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Admiral PJ
|
 |
Southeast England , UK
Dec 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
There should be 3 AI's and 5 teams maybe..
Maybe there should be a Code Of Laws made too,
to decide on how players can react with each other ( like a UN charter)
but till Code of laws is researched.. anything goes!
It may end up like the Cold war, with 3 remaining human teams being superpowers, bullying and controlling surviving AI's and humans.
GREAT IDEA:
If any human team is conquered by another human (if an AI does it they could merge with another team) the victim could rule its own Citizens cities that survive (that the conquerors haven't destroyed/ethnically cleansed of victimses). This could work by the conqueror team giving orders like 'reduce corruption and build marketplaces' then the victim can still control his regions and some units given to him.. maybe they tell the conqueror what they want moved (or they get the save game from the conqueror and move their units and do city management). The victim team is therefore a governor of his conquered State, and must do what the conqueror says or he takes control of all their units.
This idea may need testing, but it gives beaten teams something to do.. and maybe they can get back into the game if they still have 1 city not conquered (they would have just surrended totally, like in alpha centauri), and other civs can liberate them.
Having 8 teams would take till 2004 to finish the game, filling it up with some AI's will make it more interesting (more civs to meet) and it will be easier for us to get started, if there are some AI's that we know their gamestyle. Playing multiplayer style human vs human will take some time to get into, having to guess what the others are thinking.. testing what kind of players they are.
As with multiplayer games, we'll need to be selective of which Civ each team can use, everyone playing religious or militaristic might unbalance things, but we can't have it random either or it may end up all millitaristic/same culture.
I would like the Golden Age special units to be changed maybe.
We should use the rules with civs able to build the non special unit version of their one, so they can control when to go GA.
The SU could be double price too, but that may be unbalancing.
Maybe we should have less AI's than humans, the AI's tend to gang up on players. 16 civs would be nice, but its boring when theres no more land to settle, so 8 is best.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
First, I love Admiral PJ's idea for incorporating the players of defeated civs into the civ of their conquerors.
However, here's something of a variant:
The conquered players first have second-class citizenship in the empire of the conquering civ, as Admiral PJ suggested. HOWEVER, the conquering team can choose to give them additional powers and rights. The catch is that the conquering civ can't take away any rights they give to the conquered players... so if they give them autonomous control of their cities, they can't take it back (or at least a conflict would have to take place for them to take it back - something modeling a civil war or the supression of a rebellion, etc.). Ultimately, the conquering team CAN grant the conquered players FULL CITIZENSHIP in the conquering team, thus removing the distinction between the two. Conquering civs would obviously be choosy about when and how they would give conquered peoples additional powers and rights... for fear that the conquered will retain some level of resentment and attempt to spoil the conquering civ  .
TO ADD YET ANOTHER TWIST EVEN UPON THAT:
Players should be permitted to defect from one civ to another. This should especially be permitted when their civ is destroyed or they are second-class citizens of a conquering civ/team. (it would obviously be permitted if conquered by an AI civ). If this were to exist, the various human teams/civs would have to compete for talent among potential defectors, either native, foreign, or conquered. Peaceniks conquered by a warmonger civ could defect another team/civ and likewise for anyone who felt unwelcome or didn't like the civ they were conquered by. The civ which welcomes them into their fold (a civ would have to AGREE to accept a defectee) could choose to keep them as a non-citizen or a second-class citizen (such as a "resident legal alien") for a time or indefinately if they don't feel they can be trusted or whatever... As with the above twist, however, any powers or rights the adopted civ gives to new citizens cannot then be taken away later.
In this manner, you can have defections and immigration from civ to civ, but a large wave of immigration from one civ to another would not necessarily mean that the powers in charge of that civ would lose sway to the newcomers... any newcomers might have to prove their loyalty before being fully accepted and given equal status and power to native members. It also means that a civ which doesn't give their citizens (or especially their resident aliens) enough freedom could see them defecting to other civs.
Some civs may prefer to give wide freedoms to newcomers in the hopes of attracting more people, while other civs may want to keep a tight control on the reigns of power.
-----------
The biggest thing that would make this situation odd is whether NATIVE MEMBERS of a team would be permitted to defect to another team... the argument against it is a powerful one because it could completely mess with the game. However, it could add a very interesting dynamic to the game and give teams A VERY POWERFUL INCENTIVE to keep their citizens happy and loyal... ESPECIALLY for teams which want to keep a tight lid on policy-making... as a defection could prove disastrous to maintaining secrecy.
It also might be fun to create some level of RISK to attempting to defect (at least for every government type other than democracy). I'm not sure how to do this, however... as anything involving rolling dice (or any random factor equivalent) would mean we'd need a universal arbiter of such a thing... a "Games Master" or "GM"... that's something I don't want or think we need here. And what, exactly, would be the risk factor??? I suppose making the traitor the equivalent to a foreigner in his own civ until he can regain their trust (if ever) and be re-granted full citizenship might work...
I mean, we're going to have enough of a problem keeping there from being spies unless we want to rely entirely on an honor system (not that that's impossible). It would seem preferable to permit teams to expel traitorous members (people who have performed espionage for another team) and then allow those traitors to defect to another team. This would both plug the security leak for the team that loses the traitor and place the traitor in whatever civ might actually want to take them (perhaps the civ he was working for if they think they can trust him?).
This could add a lot of color to the game or it might simply make it disastrously unplayable for a group that would rather keep the team spirit strong. I'm not really attached to either... I think it needs more discussion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cidifer
|
|
This is getting way to complicated. I mean defecting? who really wants that? if we allowed that, then every time 2 people have a fight someone will go to a rival and give away all their secrets. Also that other stuff is way to complicated took. While the idea of people from a defeated civ having to go to the conquring civ sounds cool, in reality most people will quit before being forced to do something they don't want to. I say just let them go where ever they want it's more fun in the end.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pikesfan
|
|
I think it would be better to start with few teams to see how it works, and if it works well, then allow 8 teams.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
I say we repoll 
More seriously, I don't think that 6-8 teams will have enough personel full-time to be deemed "ready" by December. We're likely to see defections (I mean, people who completely leave the PtW DG, not defections to another team) until Dec., and the "international" landscape might be changed.
Maybe the question is rushed for now. We should decide shortly before the start of the game, we still have 3 weeks to worry about that.
Besides, it's normal for a DemoGame to be slow... I remember the people who feared the SP DemoGame would be too slow even before it begun.
I assume the first turns will be handled quickly : Leader X recieves the save, clicks "end turn", and sends it to leader Y who will do the same. We will probably have our first settler in the first 2 hours of playing.
After that, well, there should be enough things to do for the game not to be boring 
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-10-2002 23:30
|