 |
|
Zen
|
|
I'll be in if the commitment is not too much. I don't want to be the "head" of a particular city-state.
1.--I don't have PTW.
2.--I would love to be one of those "advisor"-types...
Setting: Hall of Athens...
ADVISOR: "President, the polls say people are against us losing a war to the Spartans..."
PRESIDENT: "of course they are you idiot. I know that. But how do we AVOID a war with them?"
ADVISOR: "Sir, the polls say the best way to avoid a war with the Spartans is to invite them over for a BBQ, get them drunk, steal their clothes, and while they are in complete disarray, spray paint on their city walls, 'Corinth rules'."
PRESIDENT: "I like it..."
-Zen Blade
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zen
|
|
I am also in favor of the smaller city-state size.
And not having a bunch of far-flung AI opponents...
just "keep it simple stupid" [ KISS ] method.
-Zen Blade
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
Consider this idea for civ set up:
Our starting civs:
India (Com + Rel)
Ottoman (Sci + Ind)
Vikings (Mil + Exp)
Early opponents: Rome, Carthage, Greece: all early GA and all difficult to conquer initially.
Give each civ a challange that fits them: India without any iron or horses, Persia with lots of deserts and little fresh water, Vikings somewhat isolated and frozen, lots of ocean.
Enough room for a few more cities, but not much. Additional room if the civs clear jungles, irrigate deserts, put up with tunda, or found cities on small offshore islands.
Each civ with their own unique resource. For example: The vikings have an abudance of iron in their mountainouse/frozen homeland, the Ottomans have a herd of horses in the grasslands near their desert oasis, and the indians have several luxuries in their secluded jungle homeland.
--Togas
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zen
|
|
I'm kinda confused...
is this being changd from "citystates" to backstabbing, conquering everything???
In the play the world forum... I see a lot of the "private" forums posts...
seems to me that this changes the nature of what Aidun originally proposed.
-what do others think/say as I came in kinda late and don't know what the current plan(s) is(are).
-Zen Blade
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Thrumble
|
|
I do vaguely remember the first time the CityStates idea was brought up right before we started the PTW Democracy game. I guess that was December. For some reason it didn't click with me until GF brought it up again this time. The concept in this thread has deviated quite aways from the original CityState idea though. This is more of a CapitalState with an empire built around a strong central Capital than the original CityState description although both have Ancient Age themes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Aidun
|
 |
The Hague, the capital of the civilized world
Nov 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
Capital state, please explain, this should still be a game with teams that govern very small civilizations of not more than a city of two or three with one of the cities as a strong central city. This is what a citystate is and this is the concept that I presented some weeks ago.
The game of GF is one with political factions. Each team has its own civ, but they are in fact political factions of one empire if I have understood it rightly.
The difference between this game and the Citystates Game is that in the Citystates Game the human teams are not part of a 'larger' empire, but just plain sovereign citystates that can have their own policies.
The citystates do not need to cooperate with the other human teams, but they are too small and too weak to resist trhe AI on their own, so, it would be better for them to cooperate.
In fact it is nothing more than the PTW DG game with very small human-led civs that compete with the big AI empires.
Another difference is that I want to try to play on a natural looking map instead of an artificial looking isle that will be used in GF's game.
Check the Citystates Game thread for more info.
Aidun
Last edited by Aidun on 02-04-2003 at 19:06
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Aidun
|
 |
The Hague, the capital of the civilized world
Nov 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GhengisFarb
A Citystate is exactly that a CITY - STATE. Its a city that is a self-governing, political faction. In Greece the two most dominant Citystates were Sparta and Athens, they were cities that later conquered or influenced other Citystates to ally with them but even when allied with the more dominant ones they still considered themselves independent Citystates that supported the larger ones to some extent. When Citystates founded colonies they were considered new Citystates and while they usually were more sympathetic to the cause of the Citystate they came from they still considered themselves their own Citystate. |
Well, you understood my concept very well, that is exactly my concept.
You forget though to mention that Athens and Sparta and the others were NO political factions, THEY WERE SOVEREIGN STATES.
quote:
Your project is more imperial in concept. Similiar to the Persian and Egyptian empires where one or two central cities were the heart of the empire. The Roman Empire was built on strong singular cities controlling surrounding provences. I'm not saying that's a bad idea, its just not the Citystates concept I suggested.
|
There you are wrong. Have I not stated several times that I want the cities limited to but 2 or three cities? Rather just one city, but then we need more teams then the multiplayer limit. I would be happy if we would already get enough members for 5 teams.
If all of these five teams get but one city, the game is over quite soon unless we play on a small map. Five teams would mean 5 cities if each team would only be allowed to have 1 city. I do not dare to bet that five independent sovereign citystates can succesfully compete with AI empires.
quote:
The central concept my idea was based on was each group having a single powerful Citystate and manipulating and undermining one another's control on colonies and territory from the home Citystates. |
Sorry, that is my concept:
quote: Originally posted by Aidun
What would people think of a "Citystates" game. Some objective person would have to create a random map in the editor, put some cities and a large amount of civs on it and make sure it is designed for more than one player.
Each team plays a citystate: a very small state of a maximum of 3 cities. This compared to the large empires that the AI civs will build. Only through a perfect cooperation the Apolytonian citystates can survive. However, citystates are free to decide to cooperate with othet citystates ar be in war with them.
It is also possible to play without AI. We can simulate the peloponnesian war for instance.
Please post some comments on this concept.
Aidun |
EDIT: I see that I have re-invented your concept of citystates without knowing of it. You proposed it before I even joined Apolyton. Let's see if we can join the 2 games into one.
quote: Is it political? Yes, but its based more on the Greek Citystate concept which was also very political. By, having everything in the open there is no reason to prevent members switching allegiance from one Citystate to another if they no longer agree with the direction their current Citystate is going, this even happened with the Greeks.
|
That is still open for discussion
[/quote]
The key factor here is participants. I believe this will only be fun if we have several people working to drive their Citystates to glory over their neighbors. Otherwise its just another PTW Demo game.
[/quote]
Cooperation is another thing. I have seen in the discussionthread, in which the concept is summarrized and discussed several times, that people like option 4.1 the most, so I've chosen to play option 4.1.
There is more challenge in here than in the PTW demogame.
Aidun
Last edited by Aidun on 03-04-2003 at 01:40
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Zero
|
 |
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002 time: 00:27
|
|
Also, I've been thinking about trait combination for our citystates.... Will we be playing with 3 Citystates? 4 citystates?
Here is the trait combination for 3 civ (to cover all traits)
MI , SC , RE
MI , SR , CE
MI , SE , RC
MR , SI , CE
MR , SC , EI
MR , SE , CI
MC , SR , EI
MC , SI , RE
MC , SE , CR
ME , SR , CI
ME , SC , ER
ME , SI , CR
MS , RI , CE
MS , RC , EI
MS , RE , CI
15 possibilities. Excluding civs that shares similar traits (ex: if we choose combo that has, SI, do we go for persian or ottoman.. etc)
If we go with 4th civ, we can add Japan as the 4th civ. Because no matter which trait we choose, its gonna overlap, but Japan starts out with the wheel, so there is an advantage to that (We could start out with entire 1st tier tech )
Since Im hoping, that "neutral" civ will be India (if people like my proposal in the first place that is)... I would like R and C to be bound together. My prposal is that citystates be ME , SI , CR... (MR japan if there is 4th civ)
Last edited by Zero on 04-04-2003 at 04:57
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|