Expression of interest: sign-up for CityStates game - Page 2

Zen · March 31, 2003, 08:13

I'll be in if the commitment is not too much. I don't want to be the "head" of a particular city-state.

1.--I don't have PTW.
2.--I would love to be one of those "advisor"-types...

Setting: Hall of Athens...

ADVISOR: "President, the polls say people are against us losing a war to the Spartans..."

PRESIDENT: "of course they are you idiot. I know that. But how do we AVOID a war with them?"

ADVISOR: "Sir, the polls say the best way to avoid a war with the Spartans is to invite them over for a BBQ, get them drunk, steal their clothes, and while they are in complete disarray, spray paint on their city walls, 'Corinth rules'."

PRESIDENT: "I like it..."

-Zen Blade

Zen · March 31, 2003, 08:16

I am also in favor of the smaller city-state size.

And not having a bunch of far-flung AI opponents...
just "keep it simple stupid" [ KISS ] method.

-Zen Blade

Togas · March 31, 2003, 17:26

Consider this idea for civ set up:

Our starting civs:
India (Com + Rel)
Ottoman (Sci + Ind)
Vikings (Mil + Exp)

Early opponents: Rome, Carthage, Greece: all early GA and all difficult to conquer initially.

Give each civ a challange that fits them: India without any iron or horses, Persia with lots of deserts and little fresh water, Vikings somewhat isolated and frozen, lots of ocean.

Enough room for a few more cities, but not much. Additional room if the civs clear jungles, irrigate deserts, put up with tunda, or found cities on small offshore islands.

Each civ with their own unique resource. For example: The vikings have an abudance of iron in their mountainouse/frozen homeland, the Ottomans have a herd of horses in the grasslands near their desert oasis, and the indians have several luxuries in their secluded jungle homeland.

--Togas

Aidun · March 31, 2003, 18:18

At the moment we have to face reality: we are with very few people, fewer than I expected. If anyone has contacts with people on othet civsites, could you place an invitation there if they like to join with us?

We have now about 17 members. We need to have as much as possible human teams to be stong enough to fight the few AI civs. Ideally we would have about five or six teams, but for that we have too few members, of whom an amount wont even be very active

Aidun

jdd2007 · March 31, 2003, 18:32

id like to join.

ManicStarSeed · March 31, 2003, 19:38

I will re-work what I have to give 4-6 civs, 2-3 super high growth cities each sharing a single continent together.. Do we

Ghengis: are you on board with this? Can we make it one game?
I am assuming we can... considering we have less than 20 people interested in a city states thing.

Mss

GhengisFarb™ · March 31, 2003, 20:33

I was hoping to start both and then if one didn't work we would just gravitate to the one that worked better.

We did that with a PBEM set up and then went with the one that the majority prefered and it worked well, until UnOrthO disappeared for a couple of months with the save game.............

Alternately, you could have each Citystate start on its own island, simply place the Citystate islands right next to one another so that we can see each other's islands.

I also thought about making "sea lanes" strips of sea or coastals that connect various island groups. Initial naval traffic would be confined to these sea lanes due to sinkablity until we advanced to the point of not risking sinkage.

MrWhereItsAt · April 1, 2003, 00:37

There's 20 sign-ups, guys... do I take it that you want me to go and beg Mark for a separate forum? Or is the OTHER idea, GF's "Revised Political Concept" what you are going with?

BigFree · April 1, 2003, 03:04

Put me on the list.

Zen · April 1, 2003, 20:41

I'm kinda confused...

is this being changd from "citystates" to backstabbing, conquering everything???

In the play the world forum... I see a lot of the "private" forums posts...

seems to me that this changes the nature of what Aidun originally proposed.

-what do others think/say as I came in kinda late and don't know what the current plan(s) is(are).

-Zen Blade

GhengisFarb™ · April 1, 2003, 23:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Zen
I'm kinda confused...

is this being changd from "citystates" to backstabbing, conquering everything???

In the play the world forum... I see a lot of the "private" forums posts...

seems to me that this changes the nature of what Aidun originally proposed.

-Zen Blade

No, this is a spin-off of the original concept you described which has its threads in the PTW Democracy forum. This is an alterate version of the PTW Demo game with new teams and altered rules.

Kloreep · April 2, 2003, 02:05

Zen: GF's game is different from Aidun's citystates. The citystates discussion here and the "political" discussions in the PTW Demogame forum are for two different games.

Edit:

Must remember to check the page number before posting.

ManicStarSeed · April 2, 2003, 02:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Kloreep
Zen: GF's game is different from Aidun's citystates. The citystates discussion here and the "political" discussions in the PTW Demogame forum are for two different games.

I am trying to figure out why two? It gets to be a little confusing and what are the real differences? Is it because it is a mod?

Can they be one? I believe we will have a better game of it. Unite, and I see that you can have 6 states with 4-5 people a team. Heck, together we might get a public forum. Lets start with that.

Mss

MrWhereItsAt · April 2, 2003, 04:22

There was originally the idea of CityStates, but it seems GF had something else in mind. This is the original idea, and the one for which I have asked for a separate forum. I know nothing about the other one.

Thrumble · April 2, 2003, 07:22

I do vaguely remember the first time the CityStates idea was brought up right before we started the PTW Democracy game. I guess that was December. For some reason it didn't click with me until GF brought it up again this time. The concept in this thread has deviated quite aways from the original CityState idea though. This is more of a CapitalState with an empire built around a strong central Capital than the original CityState description although both have Ancient Age themes.

Aidun · April 2, 2003, 09:51

Capital state, please explain, this should still be a game with teams that govern very small civilizations of not more than a city of two or three with one of the cities as a strong central city. This is what a citystate is and this is the concept that I presented some weeks ago.

The game of GF is one with political factions. Each team has its own civ, but they are in fact political factions of one empire if I have understood it rightly.

The difference between this game and the Citystates Game is that in the Citystates Game the human teams are not part of a 'larger' empire, but just plain sovereign citystates that can have their own policies.

The citystates do not need to cooperate with the other human teams, but they are too small and too weak to resist trhe AI on their own, so, it would be better for them to cooperate.

In fact it is nothing more than the PTW DG game with very small human-led civs that compete with the big AI empires.

Another difference is that I want to try to play on a natural looking map instead of an artificial looking isle that will be used in GF's game.

Check the Citystates Game thread for more info.

Aidun

GhengisFarb™ · April 2, 2003, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Aidun
Capital state, please explain, this should still be a game with teams that govern very small civilizations of not more than a city of two or three with one of the cities as a strong central city. This is what a citystate is and this is the concept that I presented some weeks ago.

A Citystate is exactly that a CITY - STATE. Its a city that is a self-governing, political faction. In Greece the two most dominant Citystates were Sparta and Athens, they were cities that later conquered or influenced other Citystates to ally with them but even when allied with the more dominant ones they still considered themselves independent Citystates that supported the larger ones to some extent. When Citystates founded colonies they were considered new Citystates and while they usually were more sympathetic to the cause of the Citystate they came from they still considered themselves their own Citystate.

Your project is more imperial in concept. Similiar to the Persian and Egyptian empires where one or two central cities were the heart of the empire. The Roman Empire was built on strong singular cities controlling surrounding provences. I'm not saying that's a bad idea, its just not the Citystates concept I suggested.

The central concept my idea was based on was each group having a single powerful Citystate and manipulating and undermining one another's control on colonies and territory from the home Citystates. Is it political? Yes, but its based more on the Greek Citystate concept which was also very political. By, having everything in the open there is no reason to prevent members switching allegiance from one Citystate to another if they no longer agree with the direction their current Citystate is going, this even happened with the Greeks.

The key factor here is participants. I believe this will only be fun if we have several people working to drive their Citystates to glory over their neighbors. Otherwise its just another PTW Demo game.

The game of GF is one with political factions. Each team has its own civ, but they are in fact political factions of one empire if I have understood it rightly.

Aidun · April 2, 2003, 16:24

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
A Citystate is exactly that a CITY - STATE. Its a city that is a self-governing, political faction. In Greece the two most dominant Citystates were Sparta and Athens, they were cities that later conquered or influenced other Citystates to ally with them but even when allied with the more dominant ones they still considered themselves independent Citystates that supported the larger ones to some extent. When Citystates founded colonies they were considered new Citystates and while they usually were more sympathetic to the cause of the Citystate they came from they still considered themselves their own Citystate.

Well, you understood my concept very well, that is exactly my concept.
You forget though to mention that Athens and Sparta and the others were NO political factions, THEY WERE SOVEREIGN STATES.

Quote:

Your project is more imperial in concept. Similiar to the Persian and Egyptian empires where one or two central cities were the heart of the empire. The Roman Empire was built on strong singular cities controlling surrounding provences. I'm not saying that's a bad idea, its just not the Citystates concept I suggested.

There you are wrong. Have I not stated several times that I want the cities limited to but 2 or three cities? Rather just one city, but then we need more teams then the multiplayer limit. I would be happy if we would already get enough members for 5 teams.

If all of these five teams get but one city, the game is over quite soon unless we play on a small map. Five teams would mean 5 cities if each team would only be allowed to have 1 city. I do not dare to bet that five independent sovereign citystates can succesfully compete with AI empires.

Quote:

The central concept my idea was based on was each group having a single powerful Citystate and manipulating and undermining one another's control on colonies and territory from the home Citystates.

Sorry, that is my concept:

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

EDIT: I see that I have re-invented your concept of citystates without knowing of it. You proposed it before I even joined Apolyton. Let's see if we can join the 2 games into one.

Quote:

Is it political? Yes, but its based more on the Greek Citystate concept which was also very political. By, having everything in the open there is no reason to prevent members switching allegiance from one Citystate to another if they no longer agree with the direction their current Citystate is going, this even happened with the Greeks.

That is still open for discussion

[/quote]
The key factor here is participants. I believe this will only be fun if we have several people working to drive their Citystates to glory over their neighbors. Otherwise its just another PTW Demo game.
[/quote]

Cooperation is another thing. I have seen in the discussionthread, in which the concept is summarrized and discussed several times, that people like option 4.1 the most, so I've chosen to play option 4.1.
There is more challenge in here than in the PTW demogame.

Aidun

Zero · April 2, 2003, 19:23

how about this guys. We all have just 1 city. And any city we capture or found will be called in a neutral largest civ within our city state. They will be considered as groups of less significant city states.

And will participants be citizens of Greater Apolytonia or will we segregate them into members of each city state?

ManicStarSeed · April 2, 2003, 19:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Aidun

....
Let's see if we can join the 2 games into one.
......

Aidun

Let's...

Either way count me in as your custom Modder.
I am slowly pulling the world together with a 6 city-state contenent with plenty of wheated floodplains.

Mss

Aidun · April 3, 2003, 04:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II
how about this guys. We all have just 1 city. And any city we capture or found will be called in a neutral largest civ within our city state. They will be considered as groups of less significant city states.

And will participants be citizens of Greater Apolytonia or will we segregate them into members of each city state?

This idea deserves some discussion.

It is a nice idea, but I foresee 2 problems:

A city founded by a team, team A for instance, has cost team A shields and population. These are very worthy because team A could also have used these to build something else. Team A is thus not likely to give the settler as a present to the neutral state in which the other teams also participate.
If cities of the large neutral state in which all tems participate grow to a significnt size, what should we do with these citis? Will they keep being part of the central state, or do we let them be governed by another team. or something else?

What do you think Calc II?

Aidun

Gramphos · April 3, 2003, 13:03

Could be an interesting gaming system;

---- Start of memories ----

It reminds me of when me and my brother (and sometimes) played Civ1 as a team splitting up the cities inbetween us. (Hey there were no MP on that time, and I didn't have ay other network then a null-modem anyway

). The Capital were cept federal, and for the first turns we worked togeter with it. Then we recieved one Settler each and set out to found our own cities. These cities should have economic balance, and any surpluse was turned into the federal tessury. To use money from it there would have to be very good reasons. You cities should support themselves, and to keep track on who had each city they all should begin on the same letter...

---- End of momories ----

Count me in for now, but I need to know the setup before taking the final desicion. However, I think that PTW have great potential for sush a game.

Togas · April 3, 2003, 17:11

In my spare time this week I worked on a custom mod for Aidun's City State concept. I have created an 8 player map, all of the civs predefined, started THREE city states close together and given them VERY limited growth room. Furthermore I have given the FIVE AI 2 settlers each to start with and set difficulty to Emperer (we'll see if it sticks, given the PTW bugs).

No other rule changes. I'd love to test out the map with 3 volunteers ... however, those people wouldn't be able to participate in this game.

--Togas

Zero · April 3, 2003, 19:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Aidun

This idea deserves some discussion.

It is a nice idea, but I foresee 2 problems:

A city founded by a team, team A for instance, has cost team A shields and population. These are very worthy because team A could also have used these to build something else. Team A is thus not likely to give the settler as a present to the neutral state in which the other teams also participate.
If cities of the large neutral state in which all tems participate grow to a significnt size, what should we do with these citis? Will they keep being part of the central state, or do we let them be governed by another team. or something else?

What do you think Calc II?

Aidun

"Neutral" Civ city states will be controlled by an impartial person (thats not a political member neither citystate civs) and will not play to win. Rather the player will be dictated to perform orders that the citystates come up with. Gifting the neutral state with settler (or founding city and gifting) will be historically recorded, so that we can keep record of who did the most of grunt work.

Zero · April 3, 2003, 19:51

Also, I've been thinking about trait combination for our citystates.... Will we be playing with 3 Citystates? 4 citystates?

Here is the trait combination for 3 civ (to cover all traits)

MI , SC , RE
MI , SR , CE
MI , SE , RC

MR , SI , CE
MR , SC , EI
MR , SE , CI

MC , SR , EI
MC , SI , RE
MC , SE , CR

ME , SR , CI
ME , SC , ER
ME , SI , CR

MS , RI , CE
MS , RC , EI
MS , RE , CI

15 possibilities. Excluding civs that shares similar traits (ex: if we choose combo that has, SI, do we go for persian or ottoman.. etc)

If we go with 4th civ, we can add Japan as the 4th civ. Because no matter which trait we choose, its gonna overlap, but Japan starts out with the wheel, so there is an advantage to that (We could start out with entire 1st tier tech

)

Since Im hoping, that "neutral" civ will be India (if people like my proposal in the first place that is)... I would like R and C to be bound together. My prposal is that citystates be ME , SI , CR... (MR japan if there is 4th civ)

Kuciwalker · April 3, 2003, 20:06

I don't think there should be a neutral civ.

Regarding the political/sovereign debate, I don't see any difference in the actual gameplay. There will still be independence and possibly even civil war. The citystates will still have to work together to win.

Togas · April 4, 2003, 03:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II
I would like R and C to be bound together. My prposal is that citystates be ME , SI , CR... (MR japan if there is 4th civ)

In the City States map I created the three City States civs are: India, Vikings, Ottomans. That covers all of the traits.

--Togas

Zero · April 7, 2003, 14:32

India is gonna be great for citystate game. It does not require resource for Medieval warring, so it can trade away resource to other city states.

Aidun · April 7, 2003, 17:16

I don't know very much of such technical issues, so I'll leave the discussion on that issue up those of you that are more skilled with it.

Aidun

MrWhereItsAt · May 20, 2003, 08:08

Detopping due to being idle.... As for the CityStates thread, a link is in the Directory if it should be needed again.