Game Kickoff Turnchat

Jon Shafer · November 4, 2002, 17:18

Well, not a turnchat per se, but more of an organized meeting thing between all of the teams.

Okay, in order to avoid spending the first month of the game playing through 3000 BC, we need to hold a turnchat to get through some of the early game stuff. Each team should have a representative to have an hour or two to continually rotate the save so we can get the first 10 or so turns done.

alva · November 4, 2002, 17:36

good idea,

but should't all the teams be locked before we start

we should pick-up on pace though, before the exitement fades and people start dropping out

you don't have to own the game to be able to add something valuable to team , do you.
Afterall it's still civ, and first 50 or so turns are allmost identicall

Jon Shafer · November 4, 2002, 17:51

You don't need to own PTW, but to play the game you might.

Just giving an advanced warning to all teams, even though they might not be final. We do have 4 relatively secure teams though, so it will be good for them to start organizing such things.

Donegeal · November 4, 2002, 18:06

Whoa, Trip! Slow down a sec!

Our European brethern don't have PTW yet. Lets take our time and do this right!

If we go hog wild into the game without thinking problems will arize that we didn't think about. Hell, the issue of player defecting hasn't even came up yet.

Togas · November 4, 2002, 18:08

I don't think the teams are anywhere near ready to start playing, but this idea is a good one to do once we're all set up.

We need to settle on the # of teams.
Get enough players comitted to each.
Get the civs and other game details ironed out.
Each team's rules and procedures needs to get resolved.
...

Why don't we start setting dates to be used as goals to get these things solved. For example, I'd like to see us have all the teams signed up by the end of the week, maybe give the teams another week after that to finish organizing. Start this thing AFTER the American Thanksgiving holiday break (from Nov 27-Dec 1) would be nice for me, as I'll be out of town during those days, but that may be too much of a delay for most of the participants.

Bottom line, let's start getting deadlines figured out. We can fudge them a bit, if needed, but deadlines always seem to facilitate things getting done much faster.

--Togas

Jon Shafer · November 4, 2002, 18:11

Hey hey, I'm not setting a date for us to start here, I'm just getting things ready so the teams know what they're going to have to deal with. If we get busy and everyone knows what to do, it will make things much smoother. The Civ 3 Demo Game was anarchy when we started, and hopefully that won't be the case this time around. We have to get some things hammered out, and lay a couple things down to do in the future, even if it will be quite a while before that occurs.

CiverDan · November 4, 2002, 18:12

Is there a list of who is on who's team yet? Even if it's just a rough list, it would be nice.

I saw it after I posted

Jon Shafer · November 4, 2002, 18:15

This thread has a list of teams and members, though it's a tad out of date (by a couple days).

ruby_maser · November 4, 2002, 18:30

Quote:

Originally posted by donegeal
Our European brethern don't have PTW yet. Lets take our time and do this right!

Having PTW is not a prerequiste to joining a team that suits you and participating in the democratic process...
I believe the saves are compatible with Civ3 and PTW anyway... so using Civ3 for reviewing progress and not for play is probably a possibility.

But if not, I'll make a promise not to load a single game until PTW comes out in europe, if we can just get going

*has fingers crossed*

Ninot · November 4, 2002, 20:09

I got PTW today

ok, i had to declare that, now for my opinionated statements

When we started the C3DG, Civ3 had been out for months. PTW has been out for less than a week now (and atleast in my area... since this morning, not to mention Europe and other areas)

And honestly, i dont think we need a turnchat to kickoff the game

a nice slow start would suit me fine.

i think what contributed to the "anarchy" of the start of the C3DG was how we rushed into things. If we woulda taken more time to build up our code of laws, the re-write of the constitution wouldnt have been needed, and certain elected members (:cough: Space5os :cough: ) would have been weened out before they caused needless mayhem

IMHO, if we want to start the game sooner than later, we should play the turns at a gentle pace, and honestly, i think we should wait much longer to see if we can get more members.

GodKing · November 4, 2002, 20:32

I like the idea of a turnchat to start things off, as we only get to play one turn at a time...... that can be weeks or months before we even encounter the first adjacient civ. We will need to keep a reasonable pace here, else myself and others will just find another way to kill our time.

Jon Shafer · November 4, 2002, 21:16

Quote:

Originally posted by GodKing
I like the idea of a turnchat to start things off, as we only get to play one turn at a time...... that can be weeks or months before we even encounter the first adjacient civ. We will need to keep a reasonable pace here, else myself and others will just find another way to kill our time.

Agreed.

2 turns a week means that it will only be 3200 BC after the first two months.

Is that what people really want?

Jack_www · November 4, 2002, 21:33

Well the builder team only has two members so far. I think that we could do something like this on the weekends, that is when I have the time to do something like this. But the builders team needs more people in it! Come on and join the builders team!!

Admiral PJ · November 4, 2002, 22:29

I think the start of the game can be important -
where the capital is built, whether to just build settlers or explore or build units and capture barbarians and weak civs.

before the game starts,all the team should decide what tactics to use - if they should build capital the first turn, or do 2 turns of Recces to find the best location.. by sea/river.
All the available team could be given a screenshot of their First map to decide where to put their capital (or they may not worry about it)

Maybe after the land has been mapped a little, the team can talk again about tactics.. and start to debate their civ fully.

If all teams vote to hurry up the game, and speed up turn times, the team 'commanders' could meet in turn chat, and play 20 or so turns quickly over a day .

Screenshots are useful to record the civ's history,or the players could write down what they did after they've finished their move.
( It will be interesting at the games end when all the teams can see what the others did )

PTW will help a lot, all the units can be named to help track them.

ONE PROBLEM: how does diplomacy work with this system? Is diplomacy worked out at the end of each turn?

Jon Shafer · November 4, 2002, 23:53

Good idea.

Who ever is playing the game ought to record the events of each turn for that civ.

Diplomacy is handled on a turn-by-turn basis. For example, you offer something to someone one turn, the next time he plays it he gets the offer, renegotiates, sends you his offer, which you get your next turn.

Ninot · November 5, 2002, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
Diplomacy is handled on a turn-by-turn basis. For example, you offer something to someone one turn, the next time he plays it he gets the offer, renegotiates, sends you his offer, which you get your next turn.

we can completely avoid this long tedious turn by turn diplomacy thing....

by hamering out deals between teams before the game is opened up to play turns

what a marvelous idea!

Jon Shafer · November 5, 2002, 00:05

But it doesn't slow the game down, you just do diplomacy on your turn, the guy replies on his turn, you get his response your next turn, etc. etc. etc. You still spend the same amount of time, and each team has 4 or so days to hammer out a deal anyways.

Ninot · November 5, 2002, 00:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
But it doesn't slow the game down, you just do diplomacy on your turn, the guy replies on his turn, you get his response your next turn, etc. etc. etc. You still spend the same amount of time, and each team has 4 or so days to hammer out a deal anyways.

its inefficient

since we have the forums, we have an efficient means of communication

since we can talk about the deals outside of the actual diplomacy window, i think it would be to all of our advantages to do so.

Jon Shafer · November 5, 2002, 00:33

Inefficient? Yes. Possible? Yes as well.

But you're right, most likely deals will be worked out beforehand anyways.

Ninot · November 5, 2002, 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
But you're right

of course im right

oops

ok, onwards to a point

yes, we COULD restrict all diplomacy negotiations to in-game... but that would require laws, an honor system, very private diplomacy....

its just so much simpler if we do it on forums, or in private between teams before the diplomacy screen is seen.