The concept is :

A civ2 game.
Every turn is discussed by the posters here, and one selected poster will make the moves that we decided to make.

Before each move the "selected poster" will upload the save, so that we will be able to see it before making suggestions.

----

What is it good for?

A) The not so good players will be able to see the decisions that all the "deity sucks" players make together with their arguments.

B) Fun!

----

Many games by different players can be played like this but here is my main suggestion :

A game, on a HUGE map, like those that Julius Brenzaida's add-on on TOT allows.

Why is this good for?

A) The "Deity sucks" players wont enjoy from the regular games in this style, but on such map the game will be very complicated and it will allow the DS players to have some fun too.

B) Fun!

-----

Of course that questions, suggestions and "go away idiot" comments are welcome.

------------------
Builder.

"Antisemites? They are just the descendants of monkeys and are jealous of the descendants of Adam and Eve"

I think this is a cool idea. The only problem I have with it is that it should be on regular civ 2.42 as this is by far the most plain and familiar version of civ, and also the most widespread one.

suually all the people who have newer civ versions also have the previous version as they play civ for a long time and wouldn't just go out and buy a "newly packaged" game with an game engine dating to 1995.

I thought about it.

solutions :

A) savegame converters.
B) different games.

----

Another problem that may rise is players who load the game, and using the cheat menu learn stuff and make better suggestions.

But I hope we will be able to avoid such problems.

------------------
Builder.

"Antisemites? They are just the descendants of monkeys and are jealous of the descendants of Adam and Eve"

We can have more than one game running in the same time.

ICS game, perfectionist game etc.

The main game in my suggestion will take a lot of time to play.

But the thing that is important is the concept. You dont have to play like this with the whole forum, but with X friends of yours. And this will make it run faster.

------------------
Builder.

"Antisemites? They are just the descendants of monkeys and are jealous of the descendants of Adam and Eve"

quote: Originally posted by Deity Dude on 04-05-2001 05:39 PM It sounds like you're already in a democracy and we are the Senate . "Senate overrules Eli's attempt to move settler one square right."

While this is a joke I want to talk more about it.

The main conflicts can happen on the issue of "in what style should we play?".

All those settler movements can be most of the time solved by arguments, and if not we can make X players to have special status in the game and they will be able to choose if such problem arises.

edit : we can just flip a coin in such situation!

------------------
Builder.

"Antisemites? They are just the descendants of monkeys and are jealous of the descendants of Adam and Eve"

------------------
Scouse Git[1] -- git1@scousers.net

It wont be hard to organize small games when 3-4 people are playing, but for the "main" game it will cause some problems.

I'm still thinking about it, any ideas on how to solve the problem are welcome.

------------------
Builder.

"Antisemites? They are just the descendants of monkeys and are jealous of the descendants of Adam and Eve"

The other details, like Government Type, tax rates, Science Goal, etc, are chosen by the whole crew...

quote: Originally posted by rixxe on 04-06-2001 07:26 AM Let's assume that there is 5 people playing together...What if every player is deciding what to do for 1/2/3 cities (and of course, deciding of the movement of the units belonging to his cities)... The other details, like Government Type, tax rates, Science Goal, etc, are chosen by the whole crew... [This message has been edited by rixxe (edited April 06, 2001).]

Yes.
After some time we will have lots of cities and small things to manage, and this may be the best option.

It is very similar to a way a country is running actually.

There must be a few restriction in the way people are governing their cities;

Hi Folks,
I don't think I would qualify for a role as I am still a little green. But I could see that Three simultaneous games would be fascinating, an ICS, OCC and Perfection. All starting from the same position.

It could be done with three teams, each compiled of those most experienced in each field. Each team would be run democratically, as any government. This would be excellent for us beginners to get some insights into tactics, and also to maybe give our civ icons some new ideas.

But get me a civ2-->TOT savegame converter first!

------------------
Builder.

"Antisemites? They are just the descendants of monkeys and are jealous of the descendants of Adam and Eve"

quote: Originally posted by rixxe on 04-06-2001 07:26 AM Let's assume that there is 5 people playing together...What if every player is deciding what to do for 1/2/3 cities (and of course, deciding of the movement of the units belonging to his cities

You haven't played much ICS then rixxe?

------------------
Scouse Git[1] -- git1@scousers.net

This sounds like a republic in action! Each player would need to take the effect on the whole state into account and alter his personal strategy accordingly. There would be the potential for bickering and alliance within the republic, influence peddling, tradeoffs - in short, diplomacy!

The obvious problem is logistics. Each player would need to submit his actions and votes, and the leader would have to implement them and distribute the game. Or the 5 players could all implement them - each game would have identical actions, but unique outcomes. It could be an interesting experiment...

It would be a weird game, if some play ICS and the others play perfectionist.

Perhaps the best way to avoid the type of discord that would spoil the fun is to set up an agreed code of conduct beforehand. Essentially, each player agrees that decisions made by the council of 5 are supreme. If a player does not cooperate, the others can dethrone him and find a replacement.

Hi folks
My vision seems to be a little different. I was more thinking of three different games running concurrently. Each game would be on the same map with the same starting position. We could then compare the three (main) styles of play. IS this possible?

quote: Originally posted by Boney on 04-06-2001 11:05 PM Hi folks My vision seems to be a little different. I was more thinking of three different games running concurrently. Each game would be on the same map with the same starting position. We could then compare the three (main) styles of play. IS this possible?

This can be interesting...

Yes, I think this is possible.

So what you should do is have your discussions ever these boards so that everyone will be able to see and download the game.

I also suggest the following: Each game consists of basically 5 people. A republic if you will. In elections, held on request or every 40 turns a new head is decided. The head is not to be a dictatoral leader but one who will break the tie and have the main say.

The five players need not bee constant through out all of the game as participants may get tired \ bored.

All the discussions are posted here. Anyone can participate in the discussion but the 5 players have the final say.

As later the 5 people devide the republic according to provinces, in the first turns before there are enough cities, decisions are made together.

The leader is the one comitting the turns. He is to play a turn twice. Once he does not commit any action but only writes down every decision he is prompted to make with it's choises and writes it down on the forum.

After all decisions are made he reloads the game with the same turn and applies the submitted and decided uppon choises for each decision.

In case of a unique event demanding real time attention:
Some events are random that may happen during play time, such as a special request by the AI civ, a demand to withdraw, make peace anything else. for that option the actuall turn is committed while players are online so a conference may be held.

The leader must be online together with at least one more player to decide or commit turns. Those two however can't be the only one deciding. They must hear the advice of atleast one more person.

The devision of cities isn't permanent and isn't equal. It can be equal but it isn't required. That is, if one player has sprawled many cities, he can give some of them bordering other provinces to other players to effectively devide responsibility.

Also if there is one player especially succesfull at raising new cities, he should be put in charge of new cities. If one is good at getting good happyness, he should replace another player for the time of the rebellion.

No selfishness! A selfish player should be voted out of the game!

People can ask questions about chosen decisions and it's the duty of the players to answer why they did this instead of that.

There is no limitation or copyright on games. That is, if one team, determined to play OCC and one player wants to use the first turn save to develop it into an ICS he is allowed to do so. Infact he is welcomed to do so.

No one game is to be considered the ultimate one or the perfect one. All teams try to perfect their game according to their strategies, the circumstances and the advice they get.

I think it is very important that natural dieties and very good players participate since learning is a big part of it. If you don't want to participate as a player, fine, but do visit the forums and give advice.

These are the joint team open source civ games.

I suggest a first group:

Taurus, Builder and I.

On Emperor I win if i'm lucky enough, and on Deity only on maps that I make, on which the AI stuck on mountains.

Ok, I'll play.

Deity Dude said he wants to play in the first game.

Btw, time zones can be a problem. DD, ni what timezone are you?

------------------
Builder.

"Antisemites? They are just the descendants of monkeys and are jealous of the descendants of Adam and Eve"

But... If Eli is playing and he didn't win a single Deity game (AFAIK) I can play.

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov on 04-08-2001 07:17 PM I'm in the same time zone as you eli, what a stupid question!

I was talking to Deity Dude!

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov on 04-07-2001 09:35 PM The devision of cities isn't permanent and isn't equal. It can be equal but it isn't required. That is, if one player has sprawled many cities, he can give some of them bordering other provinces to other players to effectively devide responsibility.

Good caveat. I can see these feudal providences getting into a little "friendly" competition.

"Oh?!! Were you planning on building cities here too? So sorry. Well, looks like that rocky mountain range to the east still has some space for new cities."

"We'll see what the King / Neighborhood Planning Committee has to say about your shoddy sprawling slums. I see you've forgotten to zone any city improvements and totally ignored the guidelines on exterior paint color! And don't expect my knights to rescue your 'defended' by one warrior cities when the enemy comes along."