Roleplay Team

[Ninot]

As it is becoming increasingly likely that I will sign up for this team (good membership, good idea, good players).... heres my 2 cents

Togas, ALL of your ideas are gems. I cant find a single one i really have a problem with

but i got a little question about the periods for this civ when it is theoretically supposed to have no more than one dictator (Despot, Monarch...)

To better spread arond the responsibilities, will we still have "terms"... but instead of people getting "elected"... their dynasty ends and gets replaced?

just a question/idea

[Meshelic]

I'd be very interested in joining this team, I love the roleplay and think it's a huge part of the online experience of this game. I'm getting my copy in about a week or less, so I hope to be on a team sometime, and this looks like a great pick!

[Togas]

Originally posted by Ninot
To better spread arond the responsibilities, will we still have "terms"... but instead of people getting "elected"... their dynasty ends and gets replaced?

This is not a bad idea at all. We'd just have to come to an agreement on what would constitute the end of a "dynasty" ... and the people could choose to continue the dynasty, of course, or bring to power a new dictator & his line.

--Togas

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Togas


This is not a bad idea at all. We'd just have to come to an agreement on what would constitute the end of a "dynasty" ... and the people could choose to continue the dynasty, of course, or bring to power a new dictator & his line.

--Togas

we could set a number of turns or years for every dynasty....

or we could just plain do elections, and roleplay as if they are natural occurances for a despotism

[Arnelos]

Hmm.... anyone have a background in studying the "warring states" period of Chinese history? We could model something like that...

Under monarchy, we could actually play as regional leaders... so each member of the team (or groups of members) get a city or a group of cities... and they get complete control of that/those city/cities and any units produced by them... though perhaps we could divide up that further so that each region gets an administrator (CP-equivalent) and each region gets a military commander (SMC-equivalent). This system would be perfectly feudal under monarchy (all lords must maintain fealty to the monarch), but then would be the basis for the senate under republic and democracy.

The centralization of power and the modernization of the bureaucracy could take place it did historically... probably around the time that Education, Printing Press, Gunpowder, and Banking are being discovered...

At that point (as hinted above), we would have the OPTION of establishing a modern bureacracy somewhat like the one in the current single-player Democracy Game. However, that modern bureaucracy would be ruled over by a senate in republic/democracy, by the absolute monarch if we're still in monarchy (you could actually see the transition from fuedal monarchy to absolute monarchy ), and by the central committee of the politburo under Communism (anyone ever play the boardgame "Russian Civil War"? we could use its politburo system as something of a model).

We need to establish some means by which internal conflicts would be resolved w/o fighting with our units, however... as it's actually IMPOSSIBLE to fight the proper civil wars in the Civ games because you can't have your units attack each other Some means of resolving internal conflicts which "come to blows" needs to be devised...

[Arnelos]

RESPONDING TO NINOT'S POST:

If we follow my model... you could have mock "wars of succession" like the War of the Roses, the War of Spanish Succession, various french civil wars throughout the middle ages, etc, etc, etc.

However, as I said, we need some means other than actually moving the units above to "fight" these internal conflicts... (such as wars of succession).

However, I would think that for a monarchy to be a "monarchy", we would keep the crown in the same family line unless that line "runs out" and we have to find a new line. For instance, under monarchy, the "player" established in the monarch position would remain monarch indefinately, but under the system I forwarded (with regional control of most actions), the monarch would be just as powerless as in history. He would have exclusive control over the tax/science/luxuries slider and would have the sole right to declare war (and could do so at his choosing), but would be held in check by the feudal lords (the other players), who control the actual cities and units (though they HAVE sworn an oath of fealty to him).

The same player would remain monarch even if the king died because, under Togas' system, the player then plays as the dead man's son...

The line could, however, "run out" when the monarch player decided they'd had enough with being monarch (not enough time anymore, whatever) and swapped roles with one of the other players.

Under despotism, the monarchy will not travel in lines of succession... it will be decided by whomever "kills" the previous despot and replaces him (regicide to replace the monarch is also possible, but you'd have to kill his entire family and then not yourself be hunted down for treason for committing hte highest of all sins in a monarchy - regicide).

Basically, we need to come up with some fair way of handling assassinations and attempted assassinations (and for handling the role of bodyguards or loyalists to the crown or at least the royal family - able to save at least ONE heir to the throne). An assassination attempt could also spark a civil war, of course... and that still needs a way of being handled as well.

[Arnelos]

So, the short-and-quick of my argument here is that while we won't need a CoL for the role-play game at the start, we WILL need a number of rules (especially pertaining to assassinations and, later on, for all forms of internal warfare).

The regional feudal lordships probably won't come in until we get around to forming a monarchy (or until we discover feudalism???). The ability to start centralizing the bureaucracy couldn't occur I suppose until at least Printing Press, though Democracy or Economics might be a better marker (and even then, it would only be an option... as the "republic" government in the Civ games is supposed to be regional leaders meeting in parliament or senate, not unlike the early parliamentary governments of England, the Netherlands, or even of proto-democracies such as the early United States or United Kingdom, etc.).

[Togas]

Here's one thing I had in mind as I was thinking about how this all might play out.

I imagine that the despot, who cannot possibly control every city in his kingdom, would (for practical purposes and to further the enjoyment of the game for everyone) appoint governors at first over individual cities, then regions. These governorships could be changed if a family became corrupt or inactive (deceased?) and the most loyal or worthy families would be given the most important and largest cities or regions. When we discover Monarchy, we adopt a sort of feudal system where each governor becomes a lord and all owe allegance to the king, but each lord to a large extent controls his fiefdom. When we adopt Republicanism, the Lords become Senators who come together and elect a leader, generals, or even a triumpherate to rule over the nation.

--Togas

p.s. Members, please state your civ preference. We need to narrow it down and start seriously considering who we'll be.

[Togas]

Arnelos has some good ideas. I don't want this to become TOO complicated, though, so if there are any easy ways to handle these sorts of historical events, I'm all for it. If not, we can just make a change of government "Out of Character" and make up the story behind why and how the change occured.

But there is some merit to creating a system whereby we can assassinate a leader or fight over who controls the control, if necessary. We could also set OOC, vote on it, and the winner of the poll can write history as he chooses.

As for passing on the crown in a Monarchy, the nobles families often married each other, eventually making them all linked up in strange ways in the line of succession. I'm sure something can be created that justifies the change in rulers and ruling family names.

--Togas

[Arnelos]

I guess my point is that if you establish rules for how assassinations and internal warfare are conducted... people will use those rules and the historical events we think would be fun to model will happen on their own without having to create any complicated system to plan for them...

DESPOTISM: It's the ability to assassinate the despot that's the principle factor in changing despots...

The establishment of monarchy is so much more stable because "regicide" becomes a very serious crime compared to despotism (where killing the despot is the standard means of succession to new leadership...).

Under monarchy, the new "standard" means of succession would be birth lines. Though assassination is still possible, it is no longer legitimate (any player assassinating the monarch, for instance, should certainly not be permitted to be monarch himself... and his "character" would almost certainly be caught and executed for treason - so only conspiracies of player-characters where one guy takes the fall for being the "trigger-man" and another becomes the new monarch should be possible). Even then, as I stated, it's a lot harder to track down and kill every single member of a royal line than to kill one despot... so even a successful assassination conspiracy under a monarchy might not get the conspirators very far...

PROPOSAL FOR MONARCHY: perhaps the minimum size of the conspiracy is determined by a 'poly poll where a majority has to vote for it... and the person who starts the poll is the "trigger-man" who then gets executed as the price regardless of victory or defeat - which might somewhat discourage people from starting such a poll

ADDENDUM TO PROPOSAL:

Under monarchy, if the royal line runs out (either by the monarch player choosing to end his reign or by the entire line being assassinated through such a poll as stated above), then two methods could be used for replacing the monarch:

1. An election is held for the new monarch. This election would be held in much the same manner as the Holy Roman Empire elected the Holy Roman Emperor throughout much of the middle ages in Europe... so the various feudal lords across the empire would each vote among the choices. The choices might have to be nobles of particularly high standing (there should be nomination requirements... such as having to get so many people to nominate you to be a candidate).

2. Fight a "war of succession" to determine the new monarch. This would use whatever means we establish for handling internal warfare and each regional group would have the option of joining one side or the other, etc, etc, etc. (this would also have very real impact on the distribution of local lordships AFTER the war is over )

[F-PRO]

We could implement a simplified version of the $mini-game (game in the Civ3 DG where people trade and accumulate wealth) in our team, since there aren't a lot of members. Everyone will have some land and wealth. The amount of control one has over his land depends on the type of government and ruler.

This idea just came to me and I haven't worked it out yet, but it might be fun. The members would be inclined to choose rulers (if they can) who will benefit their land and income.

[MrWhereItsAt]

This sounds fantastic...... I am not a member here yet though.

I would be interested in participating for the two weeks I have left with my computer, and beyond then I could likely keep posting, but could not view any savegame.

Is it worth me asking to join?

Aside from Trip's team, a team based around roleplaying and with a surfire group spearheaded by Togas sounds too good to miss out on.

[notyoueither]

Could you make up your mind MWiA? I've already insulted you on another team. It would not be good form to insult you on every team.

[MrWhereItsAt]

There's only two I'm interested in.




At the moment.

[DAVOUT]

A few questions and suggestions:

- Testing this fantastic idea at the same time we play one of our very first MP games is audacious, but certainly extremely difficult; would not it be worth to play an ordinary CIV III game, just to tune the way the roles are played?
- The assassination process could be: a thread titled Coup against the despot would be opened by the one willing to become the next despot; other players would post their support. After 3 days, an independent authority would throw a dice; results would be as follows :
- 1 support ----- dice 1--------------- coup succeeded
- 2 supports----- dice 1 or 2--------- coup succeeded
- 3 supports----- dice 1/2/3---------- coup succeeded
- 4 supports----- dice 1/2/3/4-------- coup succeeded
- more than 4--- dice 1/2/3/4/5------ coup succeeded
- Unless the despot steps down voluntarily, this should be the only way to remove him.
- The new despot would confiscate all properties of the previous despot (except gold), as well as the properties of his 3 wealthiest officers, or ministers or aides.
- Once per term or per month if there are no terms, the despot can confiscate all properties of his most dangerous rival (but not the cash that has been hidden in a safe place).
- The mini game could be in the game; the only difference would be that the lands are given by the despot to whom he wants, in the most arbitrary manner as we can expect from a despot. Basically, the despot would give lands as rewards to those who support him, or are useful to him.
- All players would have the obligation to lead a military unit; when this unit would be wounded in battle, the player would receive a piece of land. If the unit generate a Great Leader, the player becomes a Hero of the Nation, and his properties can no longer be confiscated.

[Togas]

The coup rule is a good one. Simple and easy to do. May be modified if we get a lot more people on this team, but right now it seems fine.

I'm not in favor of adding the mini-game to this game. I have a healthy respect for the mini-game and those who play it ... it's extremely involved. Frankly, it's too involved for me. I plan to remain involved in the Dem game, adding this game will make me twice as busy. I don't really want the added complexity of the mini-game on top of this new game.

Let's keep the good ideas coming, but let's also try not to make this too complicated. A part of my wish to roleplay the governments is my desire to make this game less complicated and structured, to allow us to just join in, get into our roles a bit and have a good time.

Also, please post your civ preferences. We still need to pick a civ.

--Togas

[GodKing]

I have no real preference, as I will make due with whatever we have. Random is OK by me.

Some things about specific civ trates:

Expansionistic - I don't like unless we are on a pangia, to grab all those goodie huts. Otherwise, I find it kinda useless.

Industrious and Capitolistic - always good plusses to have. Good to make the money and build the improvements on any type of map, with almost any style of playing.

Scientific or Religious - any one is necessary for culture, both if going for a cultural victory. I always like to have one of these trates, but which one depends on how we wish to play.

Militeristic - as I suspect we will be killing each other off while still in rex phase, I can see this comming in very usefull for those elete units and those GL's to rush wonders. In how I play solo, this isn't terribly important as I try to stay out of wars until the middle ages.


I just hope that we get a good UU. Germans, russians, ottamins are good ones IMO. Bad ones are koreans (who wants a uu that can be captured?), americans and english.

[Ninot]

I would much prefer Rome to any other civ


and Rome has a very well documented history of civil wars, of which we can take examples

[Nuclear Winter]

Hello!
I strongly support France or Germany.
Maybe Vikings, or Spanish. All those nations had violent wars and revolutions for power! Might be interesting for roleplay.
Though I hate their UU, the Brit might also be cool.
BTW, no one said a word about me joining this, so I´ll assume I´m in (?)...
Newbies r hard to deal with, don´t you all agree?

[Ninot]

Sudden idea for roleplaying (inspired by my thinking about Roman wars... )!!!

Ok.., i suppose this is leaving the boundaries of how C3DG has made us think so far

but what if, in both the Roleplaying sense and the actuall implementation, each feudal lord, or senator, or whatever....


is also a General and Commander of Troups?

This would both allow the division of the Army that was sought for in the early days of the C3DG, and another level of RP

ala the days when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, if everyone of us had control of a certain ammount of units (divided evenly) and a region to defend with them, we could have another RP aspect for civil wars, and...well it divies up responsibilities moreso... and i dunno, tuns of RP?

[GodKing]

Yep. Lots of RP. But we also have a time limit on when we have to turn around this game and email it to the other teams... I would assume you are talking about when we are a republic or monarchy?

[Togas]

I'm trying to keep track of the members of this team in the very first post. Please check to see if I've included your name and if it's in the right place.

Also, I wanted us to use one of the new civs for this team, something new and different. We need a combination of good traits for a multiplayer game, something with a decent UU that will help us at the right time, and a civ with a history that would be fun to RP.

I'm very fond of maneuverable UUs, Industrious civs, and middle-aged GAs, and I'd like something a little more exotic and unusual with regards to civ choices.

If no one is excited about the new civs, we'll default to the old.

--Togas

[mrmitchell]

Term Idea:
Each Despot has 5 turns/term. Coup rules sound good, but otherwise at the end of 5 turns he either reappoints self or appoints new leader.

Civ Suggestions:
Didn't you say you wanted to play a new team? I don't have PtW yet. I dont know any of the new civs but The earliest I can have it is the 6th I figure (our 13000 pop town only the Wal Mart sells comp games sad I know but they sez they slow gettin new games but they have it probably by thursday and I go to other place 6th anyway they probably have it with wal mart supercenter.)

from what ive read i like spain and ottoman.

Excuse the grammar.

(Shouldn't we vote on civ to pick? Slaps self on forehead *Duh*)

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by Togas
...
and a civ with a history that would be fun to RP.
...
--Togas

Pick Spain, drive out Arab, Persia, Ottoman, from land, "discover" and conquer two new continents, use cruelty to rule land, eventually it rebels to form several differnet nations. Be allied with France most this time and then have despotism for long time in modern era but switch.

My history of spam is probably about as acurate as saying cheese evolved from goat herders to become the dinosars, but at least it will be easy to rp the 'conquer new world' part. We can wipe out hte Aztec and their Mingapulco city in that part.

[Ninot]

Honestly... the only civ i truly like of the new ones is Spain (kinda fits your favored conditions, doesnt it?)

Celts look allright i suppose

but i still prefer the glory of Rome

I prefer the original civs over the new ones in most cases.

[Arnelos]

I like the Ottomons (Scientific and Indutrious is the best combo, IMO - and that Sipahi could be pretty powerful...), but it may be taken by another team (I think Trip's team wanted them as well).

The Carthaginians have a great combo with Industrious and Commercial, but their UU is so expensive as the default defensive unit that it can actually handicap this player. The best way I've found around this handicap is to build plenty of mines around Carthage early-on to use Carthage as a Numidian Warrior factory (using your industrious trait to the maximum... faster workers build those mines faster and those mines do more for you!). Once the Carthaginians get rolling, those industrious workers combined with the 25% reduction in corruption and waste is fantastic.... the EXPENSE of the numidian warriors can be a really big handicap, though...

The Greeks, Romans, and Persians are the best old civs, I believe - both for traits and for UUs. The Greeks are my personal favorite because of the Hoplite, but the Persians are great as well because of Industrious+Scientific (which I think is the best combo).

So, if I HAD to order them (with preference toward new civs):

1. Ottomons (Industrious+Scientific)
2. Carthaginians (Industrious+Commercial)
3. Greeks (Scientific+Commercial)
4. Persians (Industrious+Scientific)
5. Romans (Commercial+Militaristic)

We should only go with Romans if we really intend to do a lot of fighting early (which we very well might, since it looks like the 3 other human civs are going to be very warlike )

[Arnelos]

btw... I'm hereby joining the role-play team

[Arnelos]

Ok, re-capping everyone's civ choices so far:

CIV PICKS BY TEAM MEMBERS:

Togas = Carthage, Celts, Spain (in that order)
GodKing = Ottomons, Germans, Russians
jdjdjd = Ottomons
adaMada = ?
F-Pro = ?
Nuclear Winter = France, Germany, Scandinavians, Spain, England (in that order)
Ninot = Rome
Arnelos = Ottomons, Carthage, Greece, Persia, Rome (in that order)

CIV PICKS BY PEOPLE THAT WILL PERHAPS JOIN:

Thud = ?
History Guy = ?
mrmitchell = ?
MrWhereItsAt = ?
DAVOUT = ?

I'd argue that the clear favorites so far seem to be:

1. Ottomons
2. Carthage

Here's my arguments on the advantages/disadvantages of each:

OTTOMONS:

Advantages: They're industrious+scientific, which I believe is the best combo in the game. Their UU is fanstastic (8 attack value cavalry) and well-timed (end of the middle age).
Disadvantages: Their UU, while well-timed when considering a game that runs from ancient age to modern age, may not necessarily be well-timed for a hotly competitive multi-player game where it will be a struggle enough to survive the ancient age (especially if playing on deity level...). The industrious+scientific combo will help, but an ancient UU could come in handy.

CARTHAGE:

Advantages: The Industrious+Commercial combo is very powerful, perhaps the best in the game (not in my opinion, but that of others). The industrious trait will help greatly in overcoming what would otherwise be a handicap with the high price of the UU (which doubles as the default defensive unit... the price thus being a handicap on develpment). The industrious trait can be used to have fast workers build mines around the Carthage (the capital) for building those Numidian warriors faster (and a barracks in Carthage will mean we're pumping out veteran numidian warriors... which is VERY nice - I've now tried it against the AI ). That defensive value of 3 will help immeasurably during the ancient era, especially on deity level. The commercial trait will also help immeasurably if we make it so far as to be a large empire (that 25% reduction in corruption can single-handedly be more powerful than all of the other civ traits put together).
Disadvantages: The highly-priced UU can be a handicap because it doubles as the default defensive unit, replacing the spearmen. While other civs will be spending the requisite ~30 turns pumping out spearman+settler combos, it will take us ~40-50 turns to pump out numidian warrior+settler combs. Now we can use our faster workers to build more mines and reduce that difference a bit, but it's still going to matter (even though the defensive value of 3 could make the extra expense worth it). Also, the commercial trait is not especially useful (other than for the bonus trade on the city tile) until our empire gets especially large... so if we aren't very large, then the commercial trait isn't terribly valuable (though the slight boost in income can give us a bigger military or give us more money to buy tech off of the AI civs at deity level). There's also something to be said for the Carthaginians' lack of a culture-focused civ trait (scientific or religious), as our expensive outposts (numidian warrior+settler) will be more vulnerable to culture flipping (though industrious to raise production and commercial to reduce corruption WILL HELP to make outposts grow faster toward that first temple/library).

CONCLUSION:

The Ottomons are basicallly a straight-up great civ for the long-term vision of our civilization's development from the ancient age through the modern age. They have great civ traits that will prove useful in every age and they have a fantastic UU timed for the end of the middle age. The lack of a UU in the ancient age could be problematic on a tightly packed board with 3 other human civs and 4 AI civs at deity level, however... Also, at deity level, the scientific trait would be far less useful (though each free tech is ~500 gold we don't have a to pay someone ).

Carthage isn't necessarily a break-away favorite for the ancient age as much as a civ that will force us into a certain Carthage-influenced early-game strategy where we have to take into account the subsitution of the numdian warrior for the spearman... and have to use our industrious workers from very early on to raise productivity. This can be done and even could be devastatingly effective, but Carthage is not (from the impression I'm getting from playing as them in single player) an easy civ to play... it takes something of a very specific strategy to do right... something we may not be as open to in the free-wheeling role-playing civilization (though it might be PERFECT for role-playing our despotism form of government... as the enlightened dictator would have the authority to really control the strategy for Carthage and do it right!). Once were out of the danger zone of being wiped out early on, things should get a lot better for us... Carthage will be particularly strong in the middle age with that Industrious+Commercial combo (more production, more money ).

My personal bias is toward Carthage at this point because I expect the ancient age to be brutal and for the commercial trait's increase to income to be more significant than the scientific trait's increase to science (which, at deity level, we're not likely to even be competitive in WITH the scientific trait)...

[DAVOUT]

I have no prefered civ provided they are Industrious and Commercial.

[mrmitchell]

Hey Arnelos, can you do a summary of Spain? What does the Conquistador replace, anyway? How brutal do you think the ancient age will be? I've got a scale for brutalness,

1. "Daddy can I play that computer game?"
2. "Oh crap Persia and their Immortals just declared war on me and I only have Spear and Archer"
3. "Oh CRAP Persia just declared war on me and I only have warriors"
4. "OH #### PERSIA JUST DECLARED WAR ON ME WITH MODERN ARMOR AND I ONLY HAVE ONE WARRIOR" (Ha ha)
5. "Yes, Xerxes, I surrender, oh Great King."

(I only had Persia as an example because I play 'em a lot, know 'em inside out.)