1BC Civ Forums / Civilization IV Discussion / 1BC CivIV BTS Multi Team Battle / Town Square / Dgame Archive / Should we start over with BtS? / Latest Posts

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

jerm — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:41:53 GMT

Instead of team names, what if we just had an open forum where anyone who wants to present a government type can do so. There would be ground rules like the system has to accomodate 1 turn per day and anything else that we can think of. We can then have a contest where each person joins a team. The top four teams remain while the others drop off (if we start with four, then we'd skip that first step). Then the remaining players (who are teamless) join one of the four remaining teams and the top two are the systems we stick with and we somehow get the teams evenly distributed. That is of course the tricky bit isn't it. Anyway, it's a thought, though not very thought through I'll admit.

How do we evenly dispurse everyone so one team isn't full of all the players? We can't have one team have 7 players while the other has two. This is the fundamental flaw but I think it can be figured out. We could do a lottery, though the problem with this is that everyone could end up on the team they didn't want to end up on. We could have a first come first serve. Once a team reaches a limit it, no one can join it until the other team has also reached the limit. Thoughts?

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Zigeuner — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 20:53:15 GMT

[shrugs]There was an intersite game a while back; everybody called that a D-game, no one called that a PBEM game. This can go whichever way we want (as nothing has been filled in yet :P). It can be a D-game but with one unpredictable civ in the mix...[/shrugs]

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Locus Coeruleus — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:18:41 GMT

Yeah, I'm with Tosk. I think it will work. And it could well be quite good. Team PBEMs have the highest probability for success because they are not reliant upon one player who may or may not disappear, stop playing the turns, have a system crash and become unable to play the turns, etc. etc. etc.

Godspeed! If this thing gets off the ground, I suspect it will be great! :)

As for ideas, you're asking the wrong guy. I won't be too involved, and I have nothing to offer in terms of ideas, at the moment.

And Tosk is right, this has nothing to do with starting over with BtS. It's an entirely new concept! :)

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Tosk — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:14:22 GMT

[quote]Right, I agree. So lets not call it a D-game, or starting over, t's really just a glorified PBEM. [/quote]

Ok Now I am really confused ... isn't there already a forum elsewhere on the boards for PBEM???

Sorry if there was a misconception that I was advocating that a PBEM won't work ... I know it will work ... but it really has nothing to do with restarting a DGame ... or just letting the DGame die a honorable death ... or continuing the version we have going.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Zigeuner — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:49:07 GMT

An interesting exchange of one-liners about how it's not gonna work or be any good. Now let's hear some in-depth analysis containing some constructive ideas... :P

For me, I do not hold much interest at the moment in the D-game side of things, but surely a way can be found to have it be a D-game that plays a turn a day, or 5 turns a week? The division into teams makes sense, because both teams can create their own system of government.

[quote]Well Zigeuner, it seems that when two people who stated that they would never run for public office are both elected ... the only "official" things they preside over is a death knell.[/quote]Maybe that's why I'm loathe to go D-game again... it will just wither at my touch. ;)

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Locus Coeruleus — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:28:07 GMT

Right, I agree. So lets not call it a D-game, or starting over, t's really just a glorified PBEM. :)

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Tosk — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:14:48 GMT

Again, hardly conducive to attracting new players ... or members.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Locus Coeruleus — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:07:45 GMT

Tosk, it seems to me that people are not trying to set up a new D-game for 1bc, but rather a more complex PBEM game for a large crowd to get involved with.... that's just how I see it. ;)

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Tosk — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:00:54 GMT

:D:D:D

Well Zigeuner, it seems that when two people who stated that they would never run for public office are both elected ... the only "official" things they preside over is a death knell.

I would like to be involved, but I would not want to be the one to be absent when the team needed me ... and that is more likely to happen than not.
Will there be a place for observers? It appears that what is about to be set up will be a game where all the decisions are made behind closed doors by one side or the other ... hardly conducive to attracting new players ... or members???

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Zigeuner — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:22:53 GMT

Heh, I see two very "important" people right above me... :Wow:

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

tones — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:11:05 GMT

HA! You are absolutely right. I agree. I was kinda waiting for someone "important" to take charge. If we get into too many polls it'll take for ever.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Palpster — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:55:12 GMT

[quote][b]tones (8/28/2007)[/b][hr]To get this (fairly large and heavy) ball rolling I suggest we come up with a couple of team names.

A few team name suggestions: Alpha/Omega; Red/Blue; Eagle/Bear; Knights/Bowmen; Ying /Yang; Strangeness/Charm; Democrats/Despots; Fire/Ice; Vanilla/Chocolate; Friends of Fluffy/The World

Let's hear some more.....[/quote]

The ball's rolling alright.....wondering about it's direction though and how long it's going to take to get wherever it's supposed to be heading :w00t:

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

psweetman1590 — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:34:08 GMT

I like Friends of Fluffy and The World. :P

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

tones — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:15:17 GMT

Movers and Shakers; Weak and Weary; Dazed and Confused; Hot and Bothered......?

or my current favourite, teams SNAFU and FUBAR.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Locus Coeruleus — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:11:14 GMT

Hehehheheh. You're right. The Politicians are Morons Dressed Nicely!!!

as for teams...

Sunnis and Shi'ites

Protestans and Catholics

Eastern Orthodox and Western Orthodox

Hindu and Sikh

:w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t:

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Tosk — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:05:11 GMT

"But Tosk, all politicians ARE the retards!!!!!!"

fixed

But are they as retarded as the sheep who blindly follow party politics ... that is the question. ;)

Yanks and Rebs

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Terminal_Civ-er — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:55:59 GMT

The Whigs and The Tories

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Locus Coeruleus — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:31:33 GMT

But Tosk, the Republicans ARE the retards!!!!!! :w00t:

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Tosk — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:22:23 GMT

Ok we need to be fair now ... how about republicans/retards???

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Zigeuner — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:51:10 GMT

Democrats vs Despots (as long as I can join the second band (as soon as I manage to get any patch for BtS running (which may be a while)))

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

tones — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:25:58 GMT

To get this (fairly large and heavy) ball rolling I suggest we come up with a couple of team names. Potential players can then volunteer themselves for a team on a first-come-first-served basis. When the minimum requirement (4 members?) is filled, a team forum could be set up so the members can discuss what form of government they wish to operate (I would suggest a time limit here) There would be nothing to stop folks stating their preferences before joining a team if they wished, and nothing to stop further volunteers joining (or, indeed, members swapping teams up until the time limit) As I see no reason at all why these discussions should be secret, it would be ideal if the team forums could start off open, then be protected/locked on expiration of the time limit and (hopefully) the start of the game itself.

A few team name suggestions: Alpha/Omega; Red/Blue; Eagle/Bear; Knights/Bowmen; Ying /Yang; Strangeness/Charm; Democrats/Despots; Fire/Ice; Vanilla/Chocolate; Friends of Fluffy/The World

Let's hear some more.....

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

mongoose201 — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:22:10 GMT

There isn't a password protected option for forums.

I can create whatever forums we need, then designate them for specific teams. At which time, only those members on the specific team (as well as admins) would even see the forum, much less have access.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Warlord — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:16:48 GMT

A question for an admin. If a thread is password locked can all Admins access it? What I'm asking is if say Mongoose set up a password protected forum could any of the others get into it?

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

jerm — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:21:39 GMT

There is certainly interest in the two team game. 8 to 5 in favor. 8 would be enough to squeak by with very simple government structures. 4 on a team, assuming none of the 5 would take part. I think we should start seriously discussing how we're going to make it work.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Warlord — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:46:47 GMT

[quote][b]swordinthestorm (8/23/2007)[/b][hr]i want to clarify something. When you say two teams, will that be a Pbem game with 2 Human Civs? If so wont that take a really long time? Could we do power sessions with 2 teams.

[/quote]

Yes, but each team would only have 24 hrs to complete their turn. So 2 efficient governments must be designed to keep the momentum going.

[quote]

Right now we seem to have about 10 - 12 active members would a demockracy game work with so few plays, would it not just become a complicated Pbem with members taking turns with the turns like a dynasty game? It sounds like this to me.[/quote]

In a nutshell ;). Seems a majority of the citizens want to give it a try, including me. Two civs will either be twice the fun or twice the hardache. Thats why it is important we get creative but keep it very simple. I am more and more liking any dictator style of government. Elect a guy and let him roll, if he screws up then give him the boot.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

swordinthestorm — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:07:23 GMT

i want to clarify something. When you say two teams, will that be a Pbem game with 2 Human Civs? If so wont that take a really long time? Could we do power sessions with 2 teams.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

tones — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:51:17 GMT

[quote]since as site admin, I automatically have access to all areas of the site. This solves one problem as someone neutral would be needed to create the game file and handle any issues that comes up during the game.[/quote]

It would be a damn shame to lose you as a possible player, though the offer is very useful and selfless. Wouldn't most secret communication be via PM? Do you have access to those? If not, couldn't you participate?

Alernative Government structures: PLUTOCRACY (just an idea)

Each accepted team member is granted 10 MCr (million credits) to spend on buying votes (hey, it happens) Every 2 weeks a 24 hour "election"/open auction is held where team members can bid MCr's to become Plutocrat. Multiple and successive bidding is permitted and at the close the highest bidder is declared Plutocrat for 10 turns (2 weeks) The second highest bidder is VP, and in the case of a tie, the first to register a bid is the winner.

Only the winner actually "spends" his MCr's - all other participants retain theirs.

MCr's are transferrable between any two team members by open post announcement at any time except during the 24 hour election period.

When all MCr's have been spent, each current team member receives another 10 MCr. This heralds the start of a new Regime. Latecomers/new players cannot receive new MCr's until the start of a new Regime, but they may receive MCr's donated by other players.

The Plutocrat has complete control of the game actions and play (though he may ask advice of his fellow team members)

A Plutocrat is awarded 1 bonus MCr for completing 10 consecutive game turns on time.

Notes: this system is not as undemocratic as it may first appear. In fact, every member of the team is guaranteed a presidential position should they so wish. If you prefer, think of MCr's as votes, or electoral points. However, I am a great fan of letting the guy in charge simply get on with it and then, if he f***s up, you get rid of him, hence the "transferrable credits". The bonus is a little reward for doing a good job, and maybe keeping you in power just that tiny bit longer to complete your vision. The two week thing is simply because I expect the game will be run along those lines - 10 turns per two weeks with weekends not counting as a lot of people have a problem with weekends. This system does not tick all the boxes since I couldn't remain Plutocrat for Ever, so I shall work on it. Stay tuned.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

mongoose201 — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:53:20 GMT

If we go with the two team option, I think they should both be hosted here. It will be easier to keep track of team membership if that's the case.

I can give each team a public area and the necessary private forums accessible only by team members.

This will probably limit my participation to game admin, since as site admin, I automatically have access to all areas of the site. This solves one problem as someone neutral would be needed to create the game file and handle any issues that comes up during the game.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

tones — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:17:05 GMT

There are a lot of good ideas in the above posts but (at the moment) the poll favours a two team game. This opens the possibility of having two different government systems competing, with interested players joining the system that appeals to them most. The two governments do not have to be diametrically opposed, of course (like my Light and Dark side suggestion elsewhere - that was just a "for instance") but they should be different enough that there is a real choice.

I have a feeling that the two team idea may fall down due to the complexity and amount of work required to get such a thing up and running. That would be a great shame and a missed opportunity in my opinion. The chance to see two sets of (skilled?:P) players competing (even co-operating) with each other under different governmental structures would be fascinating. OK, there may be spies, defections, mistakes, recriminations, changes of government - why not? Sounds like fun to me.

I certainly agree with the one turn per day idea. That is pretty much essential in order to maintain momentum and interest. The governmental systems must also be as minimalistic as it is possible to make them whilst still being functional (intricate constitutions and subsequent detail-wrangling are a yawn-fest, and I am not the only one to hold that opinion I'll warrent)

I believe the underlying interest is already here. All we need do is make it happen. I'll even try to come up with an alternative form of goverment idea. Guess who'll be President For Life? :w00t:

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

swordinthestorm — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:30:05 GMT

Keep it democratic and with turns but what about a Party System and a prime minister rather than a president, well its only a name. Two partys or three (if possible, i doubt it). You can become a party member, switch partys, become leader of a party. Like warlord said you could have campaigns running while the game is being played.

A party would consist of a group of three or more Community members. A party must have an elected first speaker or Party Leader. It must have a manifesto stating its Political stance. When campaigning it must outline its policies. When elected it appoints ministers from its party to positions of Prime Minister (plays turns, finance, civics), Minister of Foreign Affairs (war, peace, trade negotiations), Minister of State(worker, tech research, city improvements).

Elections. To run you must have a party. A party must be declared and given its own party headquarters forum which is only accessible by the members. It must have a policy and manifesto thread viewable to everybody.

I think this would give the multiple team aspect but also with just 1 .sav. Its a rough idea, alot more thought needed. But in short No President, No Senate, No Supreme Court, No Consititution. Parties.

It even sounds more fun

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Warlord — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:33:39 GMT

I like where you are going with this Zig. The Prez would be elected by the citizens based on his agenda. "Make me your Prez and I'll build the economy and increase culture". No, make me Prez and I will build up a great military to conquer the continent". Then the people are stuck with whom they elect, no reports just save files. The Prez would have to play one turn per day and if he can't play it then his VP would.

When he is down to say 5 or 6 turns campaigns could start and elections would ensue to ensure a smooth transition. Any polls directed to the people should be done during the campaigning phase so there will be no stopping play. If the Prez sways from his agenda or from the will of the people an impeachment proceeding could begin. Play would not be stopped until he was voted out by the people and the VP would immediately resume play. The key here is one turn per day no matter what. A country does not stop functioning because the Senate is deadlocked or a Prez is going through impeachment hearings. Why should play be stopped for such things?

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Zigeuner — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:42:00 GMT

Some scattered gibberish... If there are two teams, the prime focus should be on getting one turn played per day, at the most per two days. Everything needs to be rethought and restructured with that in mind.

Instead of having the president do a play request for ten turns, have open enrollment every twenty (or so) turns: "I want to be president for the next twenty (or so) turns, and here is what I want to do, here is what I think is not going right." Vote people into office based on their agenda.

Instead of putting stuff before the senate, put stuff before the populace directly. That visionary Scipio, he was right all along: Down with the senate!

The list of things that the P needs to put before the people should be limited, voting during a P's term should be an exception.

Do NOT have open citizenship. Only have citizens that are involved and might possibly be (or get) interested to run for president. One turn a day requires hardly any time at all...

Bare bones, you'll need only:
- P
- VPs (could be runners up)
- god

As I envision it, this game will stand or fall with people's willingness to actually play the turns, run for president. But, as I said, I'd rather be on the Dynasty end of things, so don't listen to me. (Though godhood has its appeals as well. :P)

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Comedy Dave — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:19:55 GMT

I think sometimes the bueraucracy is a bit of an issue at times with the current game. It has been a bit of a slog at times to get enough people interested in taking up positions in the democracy. I think that's what turned people off somewhat.

It is also a bit of a learning curve in working out how the current government works. Maybe we need to review and slim down the requirements for the government positions so people are more likely to take part?

E.g. A President, a Vice President, and a "Senate" to vote on continued play requests and decide courses of action. The rest of the people would then just discuss and try and convince the senators to vote their way.

There would be elections every so often, like now, but there would be a clerk or clerks to hold such polls.

I'm not sure if the whole SC vs Senate thing is really working out, as we end up arguing about semantics, rather than playing the game.

My 2 cents... ;)

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:09:32 GMT

Well anyways, whatever is done, it seems to me that the way this past D-game was set up, there was more focus in how the government itself functioned, as opposed to how the game was played. Is that what is wanted?

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

morienglyndwr — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:45:05 GMT

I have been turned onto this forum by my friend Nuclearcow, and I too would like to see about being entered into the coming Democracy game. Or put on a waiting list perhaps if it is already full?

Thanks!
Morienglyndwr

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Nuclearcow — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:21:54 GMT

I would be interested in joining if you guys would permit. :)

I only have a 1/2 vague idea of how this all works though.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Warlord — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:59:03 GMT

I'm getting BtS next month. Starting over with BtS and possibly reviewing the Constitution for any tweaks to help the game run a little smoother sounds good to me.

A two team game sounds like a lot of fun. Could be a bit tricky on one site. Maybe an intersite game between 1bc and Civilized, perhaps? I like the idea of one democracy and another form of gov't for the second team. Two democracies just puts a bad taste in my mouth.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

jerm — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:32:28 GMT

Well it is telling that there are no votes to continue with what we are doing. Looks like BtS is the popular way to go but the question is whether or not we do the team way or not.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Bismarck2990 — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:45:59 GMT

As I indicated in the above listed thread, I'm very interested in seeing another game with two teams. However, I can still be counted to participate in whatever is decided.

RE: Should we start over with BtS?

Zigeuner — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:29:05 GMT

If we have one smaller Dynasty-style team, we may not need all that much interest; it will also be less likely to cause delays in gameplay than 2 Democratic teams, or even just one... ;)