Demo Game #4, Second Poll

cavebear · January 5, 2004, 15:18

5 days to vote, and we should probably try to go based on this one...

Edited to add: In the initial (pre-poll) discussions about the next game, a small island start was proposed and almost unanimously supported, so that option wasn't included in the first poll. When we decided that too few people voted in the first poll (and that the voting time was too short considering the holiday time), we decided to repost the poll and leave it open longer. Since an island start seemed settled, though, it was not included in the polls.

atawa · January 5, 2004, 16:03

Island tiles is a tough one, depends on terrain and specials.

cavebear · January 5, 2004, 17:19

Yes, and we won't know what we will get until the game is underway. But the point is to make it a difficult start to force us to get all we can from what is available.

MrWhereItsAt · January 6, 2004, 05:35

Wow - will really have to think about some of these. They really sound quite restrictive.

duke o' york · January 6, 2004, 06:09

Well I'm the fourth person to vote, and voted for a year restriction even though I didn't vote for the one city restriction. This is just so that should the one city win, then we'll have another option, and won't require any more polls.

Come on people! Vote!

MrWhereItsAt · January 6, 2004, 07:43

What do we do if we don't want an option at all, eg no island start? Do we just not vote for any of the options on that poll?

duke o' york · January 6, 2004, 08:24

Yes - maybe cavebear could edit his first post to make that clear to people who haven't voted yet.

MrWhereItsAt · January 7, 2004, 03:35

OK, have voted, and it looks interesting so far. There have been more people voting for which year to start expanding from a single city than there are people who voted for restricting ourselves to a single city in the first place! Some confusion there obviously.

I voted for an island start, but only on the condition we could use Ironclads (God I loved them

). Also I voted for no Diplos or Spies, but voted for Trade, as I loved my position as Trade Minister way back when.

Yes to bloodlust, and I placed our island only 5 tiles from the nearest landmass, and the largest option the poll allows so we have SOMEthing to do for at least a short while.

duke o' york · January 7, 2004, 05:47

I think that the various distance options should be 5,7, etc. squares at least from the nearest land masses, not exactly that distance. Otherwise we can set off some suicide triremes in the knowledge that if one survives, we'll be able to strike land on the next turn.

Zedd · January 7, 2004, 15:12

I did not vote for either bloodlust of Iron Cald option because I am indifferent. However i like the other options we have, It seems that this will be a difficult game

BTW I agree with duke o' york, it would be too much of a give-away to know how far away land was.

Of course we could have a no tiremes restriction

cavebear · January 7, 2004, 15:32

The distance to land would be a minimum, and we would not know which direction the closest land is. We wouldn't be in the center of a round lake.

Hydey · January 7, 2004, 16:53

voted

Sparrowhawk · January 7, 2004, 21:45

/me has voted, but wishes to clarify.....

I voted against spies and diplomats, but I think we need one per civ to establish embassies. I think embassies are a must, but the other uses for dips/spies I welcome restricting ourselves against (in our last game, bribery was key, until the civ switched to democracy, at which point bringing down city walls became key, I think it would be interesting to see how we do without either option)

cavebear · January 7, 2004, 22:17

My understanding of the suggestion we not have Dips is that we not know about other civs, can't steal techs, and can't bribe units or cities. In other words that no Dips means none of the advantages they can provide.

comte_umanov · January 8, 2004, 06:20

voted

atawa · January 8, 2004, 08:18

We could build Marco's and UN, then we dont need any dips.

duke o' york · January 8, 2004, 09:07

I saw Ben in OT. Will he want to play another game? Not necessarily as President, of course.

We've got 9 voters so far. How many do you think we'll need?

cavebear · January 8, 2004, 20:14

9 players is looking viable. More would be better. But we have 2 more days of voting. Hopefully, more people will express their interest.

duke o' york · January 9, 2004, 05:40

Well we're still at 9 votes.

I'll PM Ben and ask him if he's voted. He may have already, but if he hasn't then 10 is slightly more respectable than 9. But I'm happy to go ahead with only nine - as long as I don't have to be in the first government.

(Not that we'll need a large one if we're playing with only one city on a small island for the first years - no exploration, foreign ministry or city planning required)
At the moment, from the votes cast, we'll play with one city until the year 1035 AD - the average of votes so far!

cavebear · January 9, 2004, 14:18

As far as governments go, one of the things we discussed initially was to match game play to the type of government. One consequence of that is that at first we would be in Despotism and would have only one chosen person to run the game, asking for opinions as he/she saw fit. On the other hand, there could be a coup by popular decision at any time.

When we got into Monarchy, the King would choose Ministers as needed. In Republic/Democracy, there would be elections. Fundamentalism might be like Despotism.

Does that still seem interesting to people?

Zedd · January 9, 2004, 17:49

I would favor the current playing style that would allow everyone a chance for greater participation, However if only 9 members are going to be arround then I think it would be a fun way to "shake things up".

cavebear · January 9, 2004, 18:36

We vote for a Despot at the beginning of the game. That person is our leader until a new form of government is discovered (requiring an adjustment) or the Citizens get tired of the person and get together on their own to replace him.

The Despot would be expected to report on the game as usual, and display screenshots. The more the Despot followed citizen suggestions, of course, the less likely he would be dethroned. It is still a two-way street, but without the guarantee of regular elections through the first boring years, nor the surety a leader would last out a single game-session.

Ben Kenobi · January 9, 2004, 22:26

Duke:

Thanks for sending the PM.

Don't know if I'll be very active, but we'll see.

Voted.

duke o' york · January 12, 2004, 05:41

I'm not sure about the government idea.

I have already mentioned, though, that there will not be much in the way of cabinet posts while we are running as a single city, and that turns ought to progress quite quickly until 1040 or so. Exploration won't get anywhere until we have the Lighthouse or caravels either.

With 10 votes, and Ben and I keen, but unlikely to take a major part in proceedings beyond advising and arguing, and SG's map, we can get going very soon!