Revised Political Concept. - Page 2

Aidun · April 1, 2003, 17:16

It would be better that this game should not be named Citystates game to avoud confusion.

Let s name thi one something with politics, the Citystates Game is here.

Aidun

HarryH · April 1, 2003, 21:50

Maybe just call it Colonies. Basically, you are setting up colonies throughout the world.

With only one city in range of your palace and spread out islands and AI landmasses, corruption will be a problem. You may want to reduce or eliminate corruption. Also, you may want to make it so the palace can not be moved (or maybe just an agreement with all teams not to move it).

GhengisFarb™ · April 1, 2003, 23:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Aidun
Let s name thi one something with politics, the Citystates Game is here.

Just to set the record straight, that one is a spin-off of this one which was the original proposal.

Wittlich · April 1, 2003, 23:12

Ok then, how about "Open Citystates"

Thrumble · April 2, 2003, 01:49

Yes, this is how I understood it to be. I viewed this as something mirroring the Ancient Greek Citystates of Sparta and Athens. In this case the Greeks were all aware of the other citystates and worked together against common enemies but also fought each other for dominance and control. I may be way off, but I had assumed this is where the "Citystates" title came from.

Aidun · April 2, 2003, 10:16

Yes Thrumble exactly like my first proposal in which I laid the comparison with the Pelopponesian war.

GF, I believe the games are separate of each other. You came up with a c game with political factions first. Instead of it I proposed an idea with citystates, as I called the little states in my proposal. My idea is as original as yours.

To be clear to anyone here. The Citystates Game is not a spin-off from Ghengis's game, but my idea, and I have no idea what the concept of early december is. The only thing I know is that I proposed an idea that interested me and of which I hoped that it would interest others too.

Here is the original post of the 15th of March

Quote:

Originally posted by Aidun
What would people think of a "Citystates" game. Some objective person would have to create a random map in the editor, put some cities and a large amount of civs on it and make sure it is designed for more than one player.
Each team plays a citystate: a very small state of a maximum of 3 cities. This compared to the large empires that the AI civs will build. Only through a perfect cooperation the Apolytonian citystates can survive. However, citystates are free to decide to cooperate with othet citystates ar be in war with them.
It is also possible to play without AI. We can simulate the peloponnesian war for instance.

Please post some comments on this concept.

Aidun

GhengisFarb™ · April 2, 2003, 11:24

HeHeHe, my quote:

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb on November 17, 2002
Another really out of the blue idea I had.

What if we played a PTW Democracy game where there were 2 AI civs (say at Diety level) and all the rest were human civs.

Each player gets one city, that is the players city and the player sets its build queu and whatever. The first city for each civ is the capital of that civ and is under the control of the elected leader of that civ.

Sound normal? Here's the twist. Any player can switch civs at anytime if the new civ will have him. All military units, treasury, techs, are civ property and stay with the civs. There would be a "safe civ" where you stay between switching from one of the other 5 civs to another, but you can only stay in that "safe civ" for a specified period before you have to join the new civ that accepted you.

It would be a sorta Citystate Democracy game.

There's a lotta rules and guidelines that still need to be hashed out, but I thought I'd see if anyone finds it interesting.

I'm not 100% sure that your city improvements go with a city when you give it to another civ though, can someone enlighten me on that?

We later changed and altered the format quite a bit as we wanted to make something workable but I think I beat your post by a little bit..........

Not that it makes any difference, I was just kinda suprised to go to the Demo game forum and discover someone had started a signup thread using the name we were using for this game and it was a completely different concept.

Master Zen · April 2, 2003, 15:03

all I know is that now I am just MORE confused...

and now I feel like the guy in line for some free stuff who really doesn't know why he is in line for...

Aidun · April 2, 2003, 16:36

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb on November 17, 2002
Another really out of the blue idea I had.

What if we played a PTW Democracy game where there were 2 AI civs (say at Diety level) and all the rest were human civs.

Each player gets one city, that is the players city and the player sets its build queu and whatever. The first city for each civ is the capital of that civ and is under the control of the elected leader of that civ.

Sound normal? Here's the twist. Any player can switch civs at anytime if the new civ will have him. All military units, treasury, techs, are civ property and stay with the civs. There would be a "safe civ" where you stay between switching from one of the other 5 civs to another, but you can only stay in that "safe civ" for a specified period before you have to join the new civ that accepted you.

It would be a sorta Citystate Democracy game.

There's a lotta rules and guidelines that still need to be hashed out, but I thought I'd see if anyone finds it interesting.

I'm not 100% sure that your city improvements go with a city when you give it to another civ though, can someone enlighten me on that?

Ghengis what are we disputing about? If I had known this before, we wouldn't have needed to dispute.
You presented your concept before I even joined Apolyton. Summarized, I re-invented your idea without knowing of it.

Let's go on: now that the dust is removed, I think we can better discuss if it is possible to let the 2 games join into one.

Aidun