The Glory of War - Page 2

Donegeal · November 4, 2002, 13:32

I know that Uber likes the Celts for the Galic Swordman, but I am looking at civ traits first.

I like three traits the most and can't decide which one I want the most:
Commercial: The extra commerce in the city square is nice, but I really like the lower corruption. With us being a warmonger team, I anticipate us having lots of cities. the 25% lower corruption could be a game saver.

Industrious: Who wouldn't want faster working slaves? Plus one extra shield in the city tile will mean more units faster.

Religious: A warring civ needs to be a happy civ. The lower cost of culture improvements is aalmost nessasary. Plus NO ANARCHY between governments!

One would think that Militaristic would be required in a warmonger team, but I feel that ST:AOW makes this trait unneeded.

Once again, I am not a despot of this team, if a member disagrees with me, post what you feel.

korn469 · November 4, 2002, 14:28

i think that the militaristic trait is very important, for both the cheaper barracks early on, and the greater chance for unit promotions throughout the game

but Industrious, Commercial, and religious traits are all good secondary traits

so civs with those traits are

Aztecs, Celts, Japanese, Romans, and Chinese

out of those i feel that the Celts and the Chinese have the best UUs

overall i feel that the Mounted Warrior, and Ansar Warriors are the best UUs the keskik isn't as good as the Ansar Warrior, but it is still cheap and powerful so i'd include them in here as well

so if i was going to suggest a civ it'd be one of the following

Arabs
Celts
Chinese
Iroquois
Mongols

UnOrthOdOx · November 4, 2002, 14:50

Looking over traits, yes Industious is nice, and AoW does tend to lessen the effects of Militaristic IF we build/capture it. However, looking at what we are, and everyone knows we will be Militaristic, a good, early UU is also needed to give us an edge in the early going.

The Celtic Swordsmen and the Iriquois Mounted Warrior are both very nice for the early 3 attack and 2 movement (celtic also have 2 def). Both Civ's have Religious, and I would take the Celtic over Iriquois for Militaristic over Expansionist.

Also worth mentioning here, though is the Carthaginians. The Numidian Mercanary would be a nice asset from the get go, 3 def, 2 attack, nice upgrade path anyone? This also combines Industrious and Commercial(I think?). I think that Commercial, however, will be muted somewhat with the smaller map we will be using, but the added commerce will still come in handy, as trading techs is going to be allot different without as many AI's, so we will be needing to actually research on our own.

Donegeal · November 4, 2002, 15:00

korn469, sounds like you made the choice to join for sure. I didn't add you because you only said it would be interesting. Are you in?

korn469 · November 4, 2002, 15:06

UnOrthOdOx

because of the trait's wrt our situation i think that the Celts are a better choice of civs, but the problem with the gallic swordsman is that it cost 50 shields, and i don't think that 3 gallic swordsmen outclass 5 mounted warriors...so does this mean i should scratch the iroquios from the list?

the same thing applies to the Numidian Mercenary, shield for shield it has the same defense power as a normal spear man since it costs 30

korn469 · November 4, 2002, 15:08

donegeal

the only thing is i have an unpredictable schedule so i'm not sure how much i can participate, but when i do i would want it to be with this team, so if you can live with that i'm in

UnOrthOdOx · November 4, 2002, 15:16

No, dont cross them off as I was just saying I would take the Celts over the Iriquois for Militaristic over Expansionis, especially with the smaller map we will be playing.

Personally, I am all for random, and don't really care one way or the other.

I have also found that the build cost of the Numidian Merc is somewhat offset by it's lack of need for strategic resources, and the Industrious trait ensuring plenty of mines early on. As far as the Gallic Swordsmen, yes, that could create a problem, but not an insurmountable one. (btw, can you upgrade warriors to Gallic swordsmen, and for how much?)

korn469 · November 4, 2002, 15:27

UnOrthOdOx

i think we should pick a civ simply because we have committed ourselves to a certain strategy and certain civs could really handicap us. Our stated strategy might fail, but if it does I would rather it be because of our mistakes rather than starting conditions. I would shudder to think what kind of militaristic civ we'd be if we got stuck with a civ that had poor military traits and a poor UU like England or Spain for example.

UnOrthOdOx · November 4, 2002, 16:08

Oh, come now, the English kick so much butt!!!

I realize that our position does give us a disadvantage, so we should pick a civ. I am not sure of the Arabs, am not near my laptop at the moment, what are their traits? I would be tempted to put the Chinese over the Celts for Industrial, but think their UU may come a bit late to help in the early going (which is what I see us having the most trouble with)

Donegeal · November 4, 2002, 18:17

Trip and Togas are on to something I believe. Maybe we should organize a Glory of War chat to get some serious work done on our team. Anyone (on this team) have any objections to this (or ideas as to when we could get together)?

UnOrthOdOx · November 4, 2002, 18:39

No chat with my lousy schedule for the next few weeks. but, I am really fine with nearly any decision reguarding the civ of choice.

The govt stuff needs some work still, but that can really wait some.

Basically all we REALLY need is our first King/President and our civ of choice.

Panzer32 · November 4, 2002, 18:59

Could I please join this group??? Sounds exciting!!

korn469 · November 4, 2002, 19:38

UnOrthOdOx

the Arabs are rel/exp which kinda sucks (they are decent traits but nothing overwhelming) but the Ansar Warrior is an upgraded knight 4.2.3 60, so it's fast and cheap

I too think that I'd go with the Chinese over the Celts, although their UU is an upgraded knight, i still think we could be in a good position by that point in the game, with a golden age putting us over the top

GhengisFarb™ · November 4, 2002, 21:22

Here's what I'm thinking (some of this is from my concepts on how to initialize a $mini-game)

Cities are assigned to new members first (cityless members). The member gets to choose the name for his city (or kingdom) but the name must be approved by at least 50% of the team members and should fit in with the theme of our civ.

The member is responsible for all aspects of his city. Build queues, tiles worked, workers, etc. The High King (president) may demand tasks of this minor kings (such as building a settler, providing a military unit, etc)

There could be two official bodies:

The High Council: each player has 1 vote.

The House of Lords: Each player has the number of votes equal to the pop of his cities. (A player with a size 6 city recieves 6 votes)

That's all I got right now.

We need a system so we can fight each other for land holdings within our civ without actually harming our gameplay. (Hey, we are warmongers after all)

All newly founded cities/territory etc are ROYAL holdings, each High King has personal holdings (they stay that players holdings even when they are not King) and is in full control of Royal holdings while they are High King. Once everyone has a city we should then allow players to bid for new cities or we could have them build settlers to go found their own.

I think it would be easier if we had a set number of team members and assigned cities once we had enough for each player to have one.

Team name ideas:
Warlords, Council of Kings, Celtic Confederation

Donegeal · November 5, 2002, 09:11

How do we determine who gets a 2 city after everyone has one?

UnOrthOdOx · November 5, 2002, 09:42

We would bid on them, similar to new tiles in the $ game, probably with some kind of measure to ensure everyone has an opportunity to get two before someone has 3.

Donegeal · November 5, 2002, 10:23

This is unfinished and open to discussion and change.
I have to be away from my computer for a while to vote and buy PTW, so please feel free to debunk/question/suggest what I have written so far.

PS- I love outlines. I think they are so easy to follow.

I Citizens
A. Emperor
1. Plays the game.
2. Sole power over the Slider.
3. Sole power over foregien affairs.
- to include going to war and changing to/from wartime government.
4. Sells cities to Lords and Kings.
a. Allowed to pick who gets what city and doesn't have to go with highest bid.
b. Gets 10% of the purchase price for his own use.
c. Must sell to Lords First.
5. Acts as King for all cities not assigned to someone else.
- Exception in case of Article I-A12.
6. Controls all settlers.
7. Controls all non-garrisoned units.
8. May assume control of any unit at any time.
9. May make build damands of Kings.
10. Controls the Treasury.
11. Does NOT vote in High Council.
12. Votes in House of Kings only with cities that are actually his.
12. Has deciding vote in case of a tie between the Council and the House.
B. Kings
1. Lords who have purchased a city/cities.
2. Names their city (and geographical areas in city radius) with 50% approval from High Council.
3. Controls WF of their city.
4. Controls build and queue of their city.
5. Controls Garrisoned units.
- No more than three.
6. Votes in the High Council.
7. Votes in the House of Kings.
C. Lords
1. Members of our team.
2. Votes in the High Council.

II Government
A. High Council
1. Composed of all Kings and Lords except the Emperor.
2. One vote for each member.
B. House of Kings
1. Composed of all Kings, including the Emperor.
2. One vote for each population point in city controled by King.
3. Kingless cities are not represented.
C. Matters that get voted on.
1. Great Leaders.
2. City Names (High Council only).
3. The next Emperor.
4. Anything not already mentioned (High Council only)

Donegeal · November 5, 2002, 10:25

Hey! Where are all my spaces and tabs?

Donegeal · November 5, 2002, 10:35

Here, I'll post it as a txt file. You guys can make changes to it (add comments to what you did and why in parenthses) then repost it.

UnOrthOdOx · November 5, 2002, 10:42

Too much power in the Emperor, IMO.

I would like to see some kind of Military leader added, and perhaps add a few more things to the voting list. Perhaps the House of Kings has a say in war, peace, and trading of their resources (with the votes per pop point)? while the High Council will only vote on the next emperor, GL, and names of kingdoms/cities (with one vote per person)?

This will become a big job later, and the Emperor will be needing some help, I would imagine, perhaps some kind of formal advisor positions with a confirmation vote from the High Council? Military Council, Treasurer (to handle the mini game aspects), Royal Administrator (city planner for unowned cities, if there are many)?

Also, changes/mistakes:
C3 needs to be changed to 'the next emperor'

Also, is there a term limit (life span?) to the Emperor, and what should it be? 1 month, 2 month, until an overthrow/retirement?

UnOrthOdOx · November 5, 2002, 10:59

Quote:

Originally posted by donegeal
Hey! Where are all my spaces and tabs?

You need to master the [ list ] function

For example:

Citizens

A. Emperor

Plays the game.
Sole power over the Slider.
Sole power over foregien affairs.
- to include going to war and changing to/from wartime government.
Sells cities to Lords and Kings.
a. Allowed to pick who gets what city and doesn't have to go with highest bid.
b. Gets 10% of the purchase price for his own use.
c. Must sell to Lords First.
Acts as King for all cities not assigned to someone else.
- Exception in case of Article I-A12.
Controls all settlers.
Controls all non-garrisoned units.
May assume control of any unit at any time.
May make build damands of Kings.
Controls the Treasury.
Does NOT vote in High Council.
Votes in House of Kings only with cities that are actually his.
Has deciding vote in case of a tie between the Council and the House.

B. Kings

Lords who have purchased a city/cities.
Names their city (and geographical areas in city radius) with 50% approval from High Council.
Controls WF of their city.
Controls build and queue of their city.
Controls Garrisoned units.
- No more than three.
Votes in the High Council.
Votes in the House of Kings.

C. Lords

Members of our team.
Votes in the High Council.

Government

A. High Council

Composed of all Kings and Lords except the Emperor.
One vote for each member.

B. House of Kings

Composed of all Kings, including the Emperor.
One vote for each population point in city controled by King.
Kingless cities are not represented.

C. Matters that get voted on.

Great Leaders.
City Names (High Council only).
The next King.

korn469 · November 5, 2002, 13:51

here is how i'd set it up

Emperor
*plays the game
*acts in case of emergencies
*has full discretion to make agreements with the AI
*can only declare war with the high council's approval
*can only make an agreement with a human with the high council's approval
*controls all units
*proposes unit upgrades
*cannot vote in the high council
*cannot serve as a Consul
*can only serve one 6 turn term at a time

Consuls (two)
*Proposes builds and hurries for each city
*Proposes research
*Proposes slider settings
*cannot vote in the high council
*can only serve one 4 turn term at a time
*Votes for Consuls are staggared, so only one consul is elected at a time

Kings
*Controls all citizens in their city
*Petitions the Emperor for workers
*can Propose City Names
*must give up their city to serve as Emperor or Consul
*makes up the high council

Matters voted on
*City builds and hurries
*Unit Upgrades
*Slider settings
*Research
*Agreements with other Humans
*Great Leaders
*City Names
*Emperor
*Consul

Donegeal · November 5, 2002, 14:41

Yes, you are right, Unortho. The Emperor does have lots of power, just like an Emperor does in RL. I gave him alot of power because I am hopeing that this MP game is done in a turnchat style. A represenative of each team (in our case, the Emperor) must be present and five turns get played. One team plays a turn, saves, posts, then the next team plays and posts for five turns. We do this twice a week and the pace will be the same as the DG. If this happens, we will be able to adapt to whatever situation that araises because the Emperor already has the authority. With the way its set up, the only reason we would be the cause of a turn stoppage would be for a GL (and I hope that happens often). I also purposely avoided listing "Imperial Advisors" as the Emperor could take on as much or as little as he sees fit by assigning them; although the idea of a High Council approval never occoured to me.

Term limits is something I thought about, but did put anything down because I wanted to hear what the team members had to say.

I am really excited about the possibility of implementing the Mini-game in governmental descions because, lets face it, money runs the world. Note that I did not put any rules in about bribing officials. This will truly make our game a Feudal system.

Speaking of which, how are we going to come up with a fighting feudal system? I was hoping that we could find a way to implement bribes, loans and Kingdom Troops (garrison troops). Plus see alliances form. City-state v City-state.

Donegeal · November 5, 2002, 14:52

Aarrgghh!! Hmmm....
Can't seem to get the [ list ] thing going. Unortho, could you edit your post and copy/paste what you actualy typed in a text file so I can see what and how you used it?

UnOrthOdOx · November 5, 2002, 14:56

The only changes I was really saying to make would be for approval of whatever advisors the Emperor feels he needs, done by the High Council (one vote per person), personally, I would need a Military advisor later in the game, and someone to look over the mini-game stuff. This also gets the lords more involved, somewhat.

And the Feudal lords (kings) having a say over War, Peace, and trading resources. Our group isn't going to need much convincing on going to war, but the House of Kings (with votes per pop in their city/states) have a say in that as well as who sells what resource. IE, Ghengis and I both have excess Gems, we can then squable, bribe, whatnot WHICH of our holdings sell their gems and for how much, and this is voted on in the House of Kings. Remember, we are only playing ONE turn at a time, not like the C3DG, and these particular votes will only add debate and fun to the game as well as provide room for bribery within ranks as we squabble over declaring war on WHICH front, or selling WHICH piece of land. This gets the Kings involved somewhat more.

These changes do several things:

Clearly define the roles of the High Council and House of Kings.

They get the citizens more involved

and they provide opportunities for more fun in the mini game as we attempt to gain enough votes to improve our own position through bribery and in-fighting with the decision of who to go to war with (hey, I want to expand MY border, not yours...) and what gets traded (more specifically, from who's holding does it get traded).

We have plenty of time to poll on these between turns as well, so it should not slow the game any. Besides, how often do you actually DECLARE war or peace, or negotiate a trade? Certainly not every turn...

UnOrthOdOx · November 5, 2002, 14:57

Quote:

Originally posted by donegeal
Aarrgghh!! Hmmm....
Can't seem to get the [ list ] thing going. Unortho, could you edit your post and copy/paste what you actualy typed in a text file so I can see what and how you used it?

Click the 'quote' button, and you will see it all.

It looks like nonsense at first, but then so do most of the Gazette's in such a rough state, you get use to reading it, and seeing the mistakes.

korn469 · November 5, 2002, 15:37

ok maybe i'm an idiot here, but what is the mini game? since i didn't take part in the normal civ3 democracy game i don't really know what you are talking about

i have a few comments and they basically only apply if we are going to play in true pbem fashion, if it is the turnchat method, i think things will be different

1) if you give the emperor too much power, then this game goes from feeling like a true democracy game where everyone participates to something approaching a multiplayer succession game, which to me is far less exciting

2) although the minigame might be lots of fun, it seems like since this is a democracy game all players should get the same representation, so what one player gets the capital with 2 cattle in it's radius and since it's beside of a river it doesn't need an aqueduct, and other gets a city with tundra and mountains, they should both get the same amount of imput in my opinion

3) although we are certainly going to have squabbles over strategy, it seems like we should try to focus on an overall strategy instead of a decentralized strategy, either way we will eventually, because if the game turns sour then with the current system the emperor will just overrule the kings and build what the civ needs anyways

those are just my thoughts

UnOrthOdOx · November 5, 2002, 16:56

I highly doubt that this will go into too much of a turnchat method. Too many schedules.

And, I was saying that the Emperor should have some advisors, perhaps required, just to get more people involved in the day to day decisions. However, too many positions may lead to no-one filling them as well.

The Mini Game used in the C3DG, players would purchase tiles in game, they would then use the shields, commerce, and food from those tiles to make things totally seperate from the actual game. Here, we are talking on a city level instead.

Basically, it is just a way to get people involved. Cities would not be sold until there is one for everyone, the 'crappy' cities would cost less money, so you may have that tundra city, but you are also more likely to get out of debt quicker and gain a second city sooner than the guy who is thousands in debt with that river/cattle city. It has a way of evening things out in the end itself.

There will most certainly need to be some form of assurance that the needs of the nation come first, I agree.

Your system, while certainly even, would also require a huge amount of organization. Polling for each build in each city, for instance, could become a big job later on. We really need to see how fast these turn get moving as well. If we get the chat every other day, for instance, it is going to be hard to poll on every little thing, and limiting terms to number of turns could become a hassle.

UnOrthOdOx · November 5, 2002, 17:00

We should really focus on making the game WORK, then move this mini game stuff in as we get enough cities, however. What we need is an Emperor to play the game, a few other positions to get more involved, and what really needs to be voted on, and how are those votes to be carried out.

UnOrthOdOx · November 5, 2002, 17:01

ahem. lousy double post...