Unnoficiat Poll - What do you want to play in the next DG?

[Inverse Icarus]

also, what do we do about the Constitution and the court system.

hell, we're starting over, we can make all the changes we want now before the next game starts.

[isak]

Originally posted by Aro
All I'm saying is: WE NEED ANOTHER CLASSIC DEMOCRACY GAME, NEW MEMBERS NEED THAT, POLY NEEDS THAT.

And of course, if you choose DyP, I'll put up a big link on the DyP site to the DyP Democracy Game, and the DyP site gets an average of 6.000 hits a month, so it would also help Poly attract new customers




Sorry, j/k - I'll let you get on with the discussion now

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by isak


And of course, if you choose DyP, I'll put up a big link on the DyP site to the DyP Democracy Game, and the DyP site gets an average of 6.000 hits a month, so it would also help Poly attract new customers




Sorry, j/k - I'll let you get on with the discussion now

If you guys agree to have a Jiggle-Motion Democracy game all try to get me computer revamped to generate them and put a link to the forum on my site.

[Inverse Icarus]

i think the game should be more faction orientated, and should allow for large scale mini-games that actually impact the game.

for example, the governmental system itself. what? revolution? who said that?

i think it would be AWESOME if the citizens of the game were assigned to regions / cities based on population.

perhaps the regions could have a certain # of votes (for empire-wide affairs) based on population, production, and trade (before corruption, of course).

If people were assigned to places (or, if they could move there, or if we assigned them in the beginning of the game), then they could have local elections for regional administrators. This way, there would end up being (in old game terms) DIA regions and UFC (or Hawk) regions.

The Administrator was elected by the people that live there, and he will do what the people wanted him to do. The DIA zones would end up having their whole infastrucure crap, and the UFC zones would be pumping out armies. The capital region would led by the current President, and would (ideally) be a mix of all parties.

This also allows for a fractured military. Now you're thinking how stupid that is, i'm thinking how awesome that is It's kinda like farb's idea, but it's all one civ.

I'll dig up my old ideas for GoW's feudalism system if anyones interested

[Nikolai]

The Double your Pleasure mod seems interesting!

[CiverDan]

I have played DyP and would be more interested in a DyP demogame then a regular civ3 or PTW game for a couple of reasons

1) Variety. Already being involved in 2 PTW demogames, another "vanilla" civ3/PTW is not going to hold my interest.

2) Dfiferent strategy. the DyP mod forces players to adopt different strategies in city placement, units/city improvement builds, etc.

The negatives are:

1) less familiarity with the mod. Fewer ppl have played this mod than civ3, so we would not have as many as we do for the first DG.

2) more time. This mod does lengthen the game.

Despite the negatives, I would prefer a DyP demogame for for variety and a different type of challenge.

[Togas]

Following up on Uber's suggestion, I think it would be a great deal of fun to do a PTW demo game with a somewhat fractured/divided system of government & regions. Perhaps a Republic or Confederacy sort of style of government where the central government is weaker than the regional governments? Would be fun interaction and lots of debate, and would be interesting to see if our less-than-ideal government structure can still come together to defeat a common foe.

Lots of good roleplaying and politics mixed in with all of the typical fun Civ3 issues.

--Togas

[pikesfan]

I wish the DyP mod had some words that explained what’s in it.

[Aro]

pikesfan,

DyP has lots of bonus resources, luxuries and strategic resources. Two new palaces (Summer Palace and Winter Palace), with the effect of a palace and barracks (all Palaces now work as barracks, too). Lots of city improvements, new techs, new units... New Great and Small Wonders, 7 (seven!) new government types... It's a whole new game!
You can say this in DyP's favor: you're in the dark at the beginning, because the traditional civ3 experience will not help you too much... If we want a challenge, DyP is a big one.

Spam Time: Please, folks... You must remember, no matter what we choice, we need a traditional (vanilla) Democracy game (even if we have to play two DGs at the same time!). It's very important for Poly and for the new members.

[mrmitchell]

Vanilla PtW, 1.21f (or whatever letter it is)
---
DyP--nah. Just sounds like a little too much work, and I've got too much inertia.

However if someone comes up with a good reason, then we might do so. (We do need to keep a vanilla DG for n00bs )

[OPD]

I doubt any vanilla SPDG would have enough interest to keep it's head above water.

IMO there must be a SPDG and it must use DYP

[theViking]

one word: BS

[Aro]

Originally posted by theViking
one word: BS

What's BS?

[GeneralTacticus]

It's short for BullSh*t.

[Aro]

Thanks, GeneralTacticus...
Well... theViking, what exactly do you mean?

[GeneralTacticus]

I think he was referring to OPD's statement that any future SPDG had to use DyP.

[Shiber]

I agree. DyP, or any other mod, or the interest in the next SPDG will drop faster than you think.

[Aro]

Oh... Thanks again, Generaltacticus.

[Aro]

My sugestion: Two games, one of them with the "Citystates concept" (this one needs a lot of discussion and planning), and the other a vanilla game (PTW patched 1.21 or Civ3 patched 1.29, the whole idea is in benefit of new members).
Can we afford this (I mean, do we have enough people?)? I think so, but it's me.
Comments?

[Aidun]

Members are not the problem. W're quite short on members now, especially if we want to play the Citystates Game.
However don't forget that: there are many apolytoners member of the PTW DG who are not a member of the SPDG, these members are enthusiastic members and will join these new games because 1)they are not that far developed as the SPDG was when the PTW DG started. 2)because the second game is a new concept: the modes make the game different, the Citystates Game is entirely different from the common way of playing Civ3.
Second, a groop of new apolytoners will join when an article of the games will be put on the Civ3 main page.

Please post some comments on the citystates concept: Citystates Game.

Aidun

[realpolitic]

DyP - we're already playing 2 MP games with otherwise conventional rules, this would give people more choice. DGs are a great place to learn more about civ.

[realpolitic]

DP

[realpolitic]

DP

[MrWhereItsAt]

There's lots on DyP vs Vanilla, but not so much on the AU mod, which has a lot of support also.

Remember the AU mod is the mod the expert players use, and it has been successful enough to spawn at least half a dozen AU games in the strategy forum. I have personally never played one of these, but they look to be excellent ways of learning and refining strategy. As this is what the Demo game is all about for me, this is my vote - I want to learn and test what I have learned, and if the AU mod works for the experts, it's good enough for me.

[Inverse Icarus]

i vote AU, highly factionalized (feudal) game.

[Master Zen]

I'm new to the SPDG so I think it is most fitting that I do my first post here.

I say let's try the AU mod. It'll be a challange, and we have to prove just how good we are as a team.

[Verto]

Voted for 2

[Aro]

Welcome, folks!

[mrmitchell]

So what are we having? A Vanilla and a DyP? A Vanilla and a Citystates/GhengisFarb/Whatever-His-Idea-Means? I think we definitely have enough votes for Vanillas (combined) to be pretty sure that a 1.29f Vanilla is possible. (PtW fans, sorry , but more n00bs have 1.29f than PtW )

[Zero]

AU

or

vanilla ptw.... as the Koreans!