Something more

OPD · October 5, 2002, 10:29

I thought I'd move from this thread as I'm not only talking about ethics

Is our aim mearly to win the game? As if it is I'd say the game has been ours for a while now. I'm not saying we should stop as getting together to play the game is what makes this fun and it still will be good but we could go beyond this and come together to run a society or nation as if it were a real nation.

Anyone of us could have played a game like this and got to this point. We've all played and won games on our own but is that all we want from this game? When we finish the game it is going to be an anticlimax as all we'll have accomplished is something anyone of us could and has done on our own.

There is not much difference between this and a 1 player game. The only difference is that there alot of us playing the game. But this gives us an opportunity to make this a completely different game where rather than playing a computer game we govern a nation.

If you look at the orders for this turn. They are all very good and will serve us well. Things like building a courthouse in x is what should be done as it is the best way to win the game and anyone of us could have come up with "similar" orders. If perhaps instead we were to build a pikeman in x to defend the people or build a market place so that the people can exchange goods and be happier.

Rather than just limiting limmiting orders to what will win the game we can open ourselves up to all possibilities. Everyone will have a different opinion on how best to serve the people and we can disscus these options before deciding what to do. Rather than just doing what will win the game based on our previous experience of playing the game.

We go to war with the US soon. Why? They are no threat to our people and they have done us no wrong. It's just that they are easy prey and taking there cities will maek us stronger and more likely to win.

Anyone of us can and has won the game, the fun is in coming together to be a community and do more than just play a game so why not make it more than that.

Why are we doing this? is our aim to win the game or to be a community that forms a democracy?

DeathByTheSword · October 5, 2002, 10:38

I havent read all of what you said above sorry

but we (DGsmac) have got the same debate much earlier in the game and from what i could tell RP and fun was above winning the game we want to win but we are playing the UN peacekeepers and we are not going to attack any other factions without provocation and even with provocation some people dont want a war. And i support it all. I have been voting against the war against america and persia because here we dont do anything else than attack and fight other nations. there was even an time (in the DGsmac) that the people were talking about abolishing atrocities and war and put it in the constitution (CoL) i was against that because i think the constitution is only for meta-game. but I see that as a big different between the to DGs

civ3 wants to win no matter what
SMAC wants to RP more

jdd2007 · October 5, 2002, 10:38

We must strike a balance between taking the world and appeasing [rp] the DIA/republican whiners and bickerers[/rp] who want to do what you suggest. btw, we arent conquering america. we are annexing their lands to protect the people from the barbaric aztecs

GhengisFarb™ · October 5, 2002, 10:43

Quote:

Originally posted by OPD
I thought I'd move from this thread as I'm not only talking about ethics
We go to war with the US soon. Why? They are no threat to our people and they have done us no wrong. It's just that they are easy prey and taking there cities will maek us stronger and more likely to win.

Their land is the only accesible terrain that could support the oil resource. Without the American territory we WILL NOT have oil. With it, we have a chance at having oil. Besides they are no longer part of the game. They cannot exert pressure are contribute to alliances as they are just too small and insignificant so they SHOULD be absorbed by one of their neighbors, namely us.

OPD · October 5, 2002, 10:48

I'm not saying we should or shouldn't attack the US. I'm saying the way we decided to attack them and the reasons for it are wrong. We attack them and then later in the game we get oil, great. I did the a similar thing in a game I played the other day.

Arnelos · October 5, 2002, 11:21

I have to agree with OPD on this one...

Only one comment attached to that, though:

OPD, you sound like you're going soft for a warrior

Hot Mustard · October 5, 2002, 11:57

I do believe this would make the game more fun. Imagine if everyone roleplayed citizens, mayors, or whatever from different cities in our nation, including their voice in the collective about how we should conduct ourselves, and also about how to make their own lives better.

[RP]
Genghis: Oil - What is that?
[/RP]

Another possible challenge, hinted at above, is to play the game WITHOUT relying on foreknowledge of the tech tree, game trends, etc.

Arnelos · October 5, 2002, 12:13

Quote:

Originally posted by dejon
Another possible challenge, hinted at above, is to play the game WITHOUT relying on foreknowledge of the tech tree, game trends, etc.

Were this possible, it might be really fun.

Inverse Icarus · October 5, 2002, 12:27

i'm working towards the genocide of every non-apolytonian citizen, and global domination. the fun part it trying to convince the populus that thats what they're working towards

DAVOUT · October 5, 2002, 12:43

There is a point never discussed : do we try to imitate real life, or do we try to built an original democracy, internally logical, but not refering permanently to RL ? For instance, all citizens could have the right to vote but in the following way : they would be grouped by seven people; the group would decide to vote for a candidate or an issue, and that would count for one, then the poll would be resolved in the normal way. What would be the consequences of such a system ?
For ethics, we could imagine rules adapted to the periode, and have them evolved up to the rights of men as we know and accept them today.

Just thoughs.

GePap · October 5, 2002, 13:03

I first have to agree that it is impossible to try to play this game without some forethought to what comes next- the AI does it with city placement- it is a basic part of the game, knowing, as ahistorical as that is, the future.

I don't think anyone wants to loose this game, and currently, I don't see how we might.

I generally agree with OPD in questioning how we play this game, and I do think a large amount of roleplay, and offshots from the game make for a more interesting situation: just look at the market trading sessions we now have: have nothing to do with the game and yet it catches peoples attantion. This is also why I want to make an Atals of this world: to make it more than a random map, to add depth to this situation. Before this dem. game, I had lost interest mainly in civ3, and what drew me was not the chance to win a game by just making poll decisions about what to build in city X and so forth: it was the fact that in this dem game, we coud fill in the one aspect of real civs. that the civ games have always lacked, or been unable to represent, internal politics. Most civs die, even the ones conquered, from internal struggles, and this is what this community gets o represent. Thats why i support parties, and arguments, because that is real. When we all decide to play just to win, thats when this dem game wil loose its fun.

Ohh, on the war with America: we are a glorious Monarchy, ruled by a wise King under the tutelage of the lord Banana. For the glory of the King and God, it is our duty to extend the realm of the King. Now, if these rabble rousing 'republicans' overthrow our grand King, then perhaps a new debate on war can take place.

zeit · October 5, 2002, 13:11

I think that what we have here is much more of a community and a virtual nation then just a game. Yes we want to win, but what citizen doesn't want his nation to be succesful one?
If we won't try to win, will this make the game more fun? I hardly think so. We act as politician and state leaders- we work for the best interests of our nation, and as far as we saw it, this included conquering (or rightfuly defending) other territory, trading and acquiring, building our might in every way possible, which we still do. What those who play the SMAC DGare after is acting as the UN, i'm fine with, but that does this make their community stronger, and their game more like a RL nation management? IMHO it is not. We have nothing to be ashamed of, we have strong community with lots of humor and roleplay.
I don't about you but I'm proud to be an Apolytonian!

ruby_maser · October 5, 2002, 14:02

I had thought about this recently aside and wondered why so many people are citizens of our nation and yet at the same time we continue to see a select few who consistently participate in the forums.
I'm for the idea of expanded roleplay along the lines of the debate of real issues that affect our nation (though I personally have not yet been enticed into the economics of the minigames). And I think that by expanding the roles of the common citizen in the game, it might refocus the interests of the commoners who, just as in real life, feel they cannot make much of a contribution to the outcome of the game beyond the generalities of the major issues such as war vs. peace.
But as much as I like the idea of it all, I have trouble with seeing that it would fly (though I would love to see it do so). In real life, we are somewhat blind to the outcome of the future, emerging technologies, the value our lands might hold one day, etc, etc. So people take sides on issues without a thought to whether or not they are being progressive or counterproductive to the common good. To do this in Civ3 requires a percentage of the people to pretend to not see the ONE favorable outcome that the game allows.... namely winning.
If we could get beyond that and the burden of foreknowledge that we have as players, we would really have a chance to build a world community. I have personally always been amazed at the internet's ability to bring so many people from around the world but all with common interests together in one place.

I will say that, for all their good intentions, beware the utopian schemes...
but otherwise, I'm all for it

Meshelic · October 5, 2002, 14:23

Chances are that all of us could beat this game without each other's help, and that's because we like this game and we're good at what we do. But the real challenge is what we are doing now! Debates, issues and roleplaying are fun ! Before I joined the game I had no idea how unique of a game we've got going here, and the fact that everyone gets a chance at making decisions or at least has a platform to speak from makes this it still fun, whether you abolish going to war against other nations or whatever...

When CivPTW comes out, that's when **** will go crazy I believe...