Mart

SMACX Democracy Game - participation poll

My intended participation in SMACX DG   16 members have voted

  1. 1. My intended participation in SMACX DG

    • play singleplayer DG
      1
    • play extended singleplayer DG
      4
    • play 2 human factions DG
      0
    • play 3 or more human factions DG
      0
    • play any DG setup
      8
    • maybe I would join, and I played in the past
      1
    • I need more info, but I think of joining DG
      2
    • I need more info and I'm uncertain
      0
    • I will not play
      0
    • I delegate broccoli to play
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

136 posts in this topic

Considerations for singleplayer game case:

 

victory or defeat:

 

all players loose if AI conquers our faction, achieves transcendence first, or in any other way wins any of the game victory conditions. With scenario, we could also set up the game with an in-game scenario win condition measured in points.

 

all players win (to some extent) if our faction wins any of the game victory conditions (or scenario condition)

 

part of the players win the most if above is true and the party/lobby they belong to achieves their special win condition.

 

Also, the game might end before actual in-game conclusion if the party/lobby objectives are met.

 

----------------------

 

What would be special victory objectives of parties/lobbies? some examples. We might have to think about several of them that could be even in difficulty to achieve, so each team could have fair chances to win.

Share this post


Link to post

Forums:

 

1) Open forum. This is whole Chiron. Open to all WPC visitors, DG players or not. Factional Newspapers, TV chanels, Recreational commons, Taverns,... all are there.

 

2) Senate forum. Hidden, all game members have access to it, voting for Leader/president, Governors are made here. All players are senate members.

Government threads are here too, so players can be part of factional affairs, double roles here, as they post as lower ranking advisors rather than senators.

 

3) Military forum. Members of armed forces are here. Not all members have access. The group agenda is discussed here, their victory condition also.

 

4) Party A. One of the 2 most influencial lobbies in the faction. Only members allowed.

 

5) Party B. as above.

 

Total 4 hidden forums. As in civ4 demogame.

Victory conditions for Parties/Military are very important.

 

Some way of approaching this, is:

Military - aims to win by conquest.

Party A - win by Diplomacy.

Party B - win by transcendence.

 

There could be also hidden agendas giving our special DGV (Demo Game victory points) to these groups. Something like quests. Though I have no idea what exactly they might be. Something here as you DrazharLn say, but they would not end the game, only award points.

Share this post


Link to post

So some of this is a writing exercise, yes? You have a character and you post little scenes...

Share this post


Link to post

Building intrigue on these three victory conditions might work:

 

military in order to achieve conquest:

- needs researchers for new techs. you can't steal everything. And even then, you will not have more than others, you could only be as good in technology as them.

- needs diplomats to forge defensive pacts and alliances, trade military technologies, prototypes, etc.

 

diplomats in order to achieve diplo victory:

- need military to protect the faction

- need researchers to keep the faction influential by keeping it strong, economically healthy, etc.

 

researchers in order to win by transcendence:

- need military for protection and probing all those other technologies.

- need diplomats to trade technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Building intrigue on these three victory conditions might work:..

if Draz doesn't come up with some other objectives, then this is the way we should go.

 

also, the 'economic victory' objective can be a foundation for a fourth 'party'

 

- Faction: PK, seems the best, and we will shape it into what we want anyway. But as Unity Mission members, we could start with them.
Changing units, rules and factions would somehow defeat the goal of helping newbies.

i don't want the PKs because of the infiltrators and the elections bonus. the 'diplomats' will have an easy time reaching their objective.

my choice is Morgan because of the early restrictions (hab complex and support)

 

also, voted: 'extended singleplayer DG'

Share this post


Link to post

I have NEVER played the PK because I HATE the UN, I HATE Brother Lal and his hypocritical face. :mad:

This faction should have got -2 efficiency to really reflect reality.:D

 

Morgan would be cool. I seldom played Morgan, and probably not the way I should have.

Share this post


Link to post
Morgan would be cool. I seldom played Morgan, and probably not the way I should have.

i think there are others thinking the same way

Share this post


Link to post
...

i don't want the PKs because of the infiltrators and the elections bonus. the 'diplomats' will have an easy time reaching their objective.

my choice is Morgan because of the early restrictions (hab complex and support)

...

 

I agree, we should not have easy infiltration. For that reason, we might set to destroyed Empath Guild from the very start.

 

Considering military side, Cloudbase Academy could go also. In ACDG3, that was the case for both SPs.

 

Morgan would be the best for economic victory. I have impression that with standard ruleset, this is the most difficult win. Or maybe just not that popular. It's somehow easy to spend energy reserves. But I don't think playing Morganities would make this victory condition the easiest one. I may be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
But I don't think playing Morganities would make this victory condition the easiest one. I may be wrong.

the hypothetical fourth party would need a clean 20 years of stockpiling energy in order to reach it, so i guess it's not an easy job the held the executive power all that time.

still, playing the Morganites is their best chance of reaching the economic victory.

 

let's see if there's interest for such a party..

Share this post


Link to post

I go away for one day... ;)

 

We need some decent level of technical playing, because the world created by the game has to be sufficiently meaningful, e.g. if all AI would be completely 'stupid' we would only pretend, that our military efforts in game are important. On the other hand, if AI has 2 planet busters and we don't, then there is something to talk about.

 

I don't disagree at all. This is totally necessary.

 

Considerations for singleplayer game case:

 

victory or defeat:

 

all players loose if AI conquers our faction, achieves transcendence first, or in any other way wins any of the game victory conditions. With scenario, we could also set up the game with an in-game scenario win condition measured in points.

 

all players win (to some extent) if our faction wins any of the game victory conditions (or scenario condition)

 

part of the players win the most if above is true and the party/lobby they belong to achieves their special win condition.

 

Also, the game might end before actual in-game conclusion if the party/lobby objectives are met.

 

----------------------

 

What would be special victory objectives of parties/lobbies? some examples. We might have to think about several of them that could be even in difficulty to achieve, so each team could have fair chances to win.

 

I don't know what the secret objectives might be yet. Perhaps each has to build a specific secret project (and the other team wouldn't know initially if the governor of that city didn't tell).

The secret projects could be located at far sides of the tech tree and modded to make them ridiculously expensive

 

I can see that working really well, actually. It forces a geographical separation between the parties (because they both need to find a governor willing to make the SP for them. The SP would be new ones (they don't actually need to do anything, so the only things needing modding are name, cost and prerequisites and SMAniaC has shown that's possible) and should not be mentioned in the datalinks.

 

To spice things up the GM could even give one or both of the SPs to an AI faction half way through the game

 

Forums:

 

1) Open forum. This is whole Chiron. Open to all WPC visitors, DG players or not. Factional Newspapers, TV chanels, Recreational commons, Taverns,... all are there.

 

2) Senate forum. Hidden, all game members have access to it, voting for Leader/president, Governors are made here. All players are senate members.

Government threads are here too, so players can be part of factional affairs, double roles here, as they post as lower ranking advisors rather than senators.

 

3) Military forum. Members of armed forces are here. Not all members have access. The group agenda is discussed here, their victory condition also.

 

4) Party A. One of the 2 most influencial lobbies in the faction. Only members allowed.

 

5) Party B. as above.

 

Total 4 hidden forums. As in civ4 demogame.

Victory conditions for Parties/Military are very important.

 

Some way of approaching this, is:

Military - aims to win by conquest.

Party A - win by Diplomacy.

Party B - win by transcendence.

 

There could be also hidden agendas giving our special DGV (Demo Game victory points) to these groups. Something like quests. Though I have no idea what exactly they might be. Something here as you DrazharLn say, but they would not end the game, only award points.

 

I don't think the military should have their own separate victory condition. They live to serve the senate and can only win by either siding with a party or getting the faction to an overall victory.

 

I think that only independents should win if the faction gains an overall win.

 

Building intrigue on these three victory conditions might work:

 

military in order to achieve conquest:

- needs researchers for new techs. you can't steal everything. And even then, you will not have more than others, you could only be as good in technology as them.

- needs diplomats to forge defensive pacts and alliances, trade military technologies, prototypes, etc.

 

diplomats in order to achieve diplo victory:

- need military to protect the faction

- need researchers to keep the faction influential by keeping it strong, economically healthy, etc.

 

researchers in order to win by transcendence:

- need military for protection and probing all those other technologies.

- need diplomats to trade technology.

 

Again, I don't think the secret objectives should work like that. They should be more unconventional things.

 

if Draz doesn't come up with some other objectives, then this is the way we should go.

 

also, the 'economic victory' objective can be a foundation for a fourth 'party'

 

 

 

i don't want the PKs because of the infiltrators and the elections bonus. the 'diplomats' will have an easy time reaching their objective.

my choice is Morgan because of the early restrictions (hab complex and support)

 

also, voted: 'extended singleplayer DG'

 

Glad to see you voting bdanv. A new neutral faction with no bonuses is always an option. Or the datajacks, that would kinda fit.

 

I agree, we should not have easy infiltration. For that reason, we might set to destroyed Empath Guild from the very start.

 

Considering military side, Cloudbase Academy could go also. In ACDG3, that was the case for both SPs.

 

Morgan would be the best for economic victory. I have impression that with standard ruleset, this is the most difficult win. Or maybe just not that popular. It's somehow easy to spend energy reserves. But I don't think playing Morganities would make this victory condition the easiest one. I may be wrong.

 

If we go for the suggestion I mentioned above we will need a couple of modified secret projects anyway.

I'm probably going to have to be one of the GMs, I'm going to know too much about the game.

 

I really do think we should move intimate discussion of the inner workings of the game elsewhere. The game loses some of the mystique if everyone knows the mechanics behind everything.

 

Besides, we need to get some more secret objective ideas and I'd really like to keep those totally secret.

Share this post


Link to post

You know, I don't see it as a bad thing for you two to disagree about some things. Some great ideas can arise out of the dynamic tensions in a situation like this. Think of it as a collaboration, and try to find solutions together.

Share this post


Link to post
Think of it as a collaboration' date=' and try to find solutions together.[/quote']

Or do a poll on tough questions.

Share this post


Link to post

Both. An attitude of cooperation is very nearly essential to make something good out of disagreements.

Share this post


Link to post

Count me in. I would vote for 2101 start, but with some extra colony pods, energy and a few independent scouts. That would be enough acceleration. Maybe we could have enough units (CP + scout) so that each player has an 'assigned' one from the start representing him as a sort of avatar. CPs for would-be governors, scouts for future military roles.

Share this post


Link to post

Proposed schedule of tasks to do and the game start date. Less than in two weeks from now. This is also inserted in the first post.

 

======================

SMACX-DG setup schedule

As of Tuesday, Feb 9.

 

Friday, Feb 12 - Decision on the form: sp, sp extended, mp, other... We will take a look at the poll results.

 

Monday, Feb 15 - Decision on the map, factions, final map generation (maps can be started earlier to have something done by then). Final pre-defined units and AI enhancements are set. CMACX-DG forum could be open at this time.

 

Wednesday, Feb 17 - Scenario completed, testing.

 

Friday, Feb 19 - game starts.

======================

Share this post


Link to post

Without reading the rest of the thread, I think the extended DG single-player game would be the best. I voted yesterday for any option though.

Share this post


Link to post

Any proposals regarding the in-game settings, like map visible/hidden, don't restart eliminated player, unity pods scatter pattern, etc. ?

Share this post


Link to post

Anything that will generate discussion is good. I'd say keep the map visible so we can discuss what's on that new undiscovered peninsula. We're also going to be playing an inefficient game, so don't restart eliminated players.

 

Random events ON, I vote, just so when the bad stuff goes down we can all collectively go loopy together.

Share this post


Link to post

New suggestion for how the senate get to see information from the game:

 

How about the CMN gives screenshots of the map with the base production and units hidden?

 

Hmm, I just checked that, we can't show bases and not units. So how about a map without bases or units on (press T in game to cycle through the options for that)? I'm worried that too much information will make some deceptions impossible.

 

Perhaps judicious use of the scenario editor to only selectively show stuff would be better? Just delete all the units off the map and then take a screenshot with base production hidden.

 

EDIT: vote random events on, no restarting defeated player, undecided on map.

Share this post


Link to post

How about factions, Any preferences?

 

I would go with Bdanv advice to use Morganities. What other 6 factions? We can include Usurpers and Caretakers too. Would a multi-choice poll be needed? We could just post a set of factions in this thread instead.

 

I'm thinking about enhancing AI factions somewhat. From ACDG5 and SMAniaC ACDG6 I would say collective thinking is more efficient in defeating AIs. ACDG5 had such tweaks and still AIs were conquered within like 70 turns, iirc. Knowing in advance which factions to use, I could work on set of parameters, that would also be in character.

 

Another a bit time-consuming thing to do is set of pre-defined units. I'm thinking about starting a separate thread for that, as these units are important for gaming experience, they may change rules too much, or be just too weird. Scenario modifications can be very powerful in this. Some basic set is very good for enhancing AI, which does not design well - too many possibilities. And intend to do no rules change, like making some weapons or chassis available before they are usually researched.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd go with Morganites too. They're one of these factions that need a fairly tight energy management game to play, and I'm still learning. It would be good to be part of the decision-making group for that and to learn from more skilled players how to use them.

 

As for length, I frankly think a short game would be a benefit. Multiplayer games are always vulnerable to external interferences from real life and jobs, etc. Keep this first game simple, post up the results and draw some attention, then build from there.

 

Future games can be complex and Diplomacy-style in intrigue. Right now I'm more interested in getting a social game off the ground, even if it's a relatively brief one.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, exactly; demonstrating the "quickest profit" possible is the way to get the newbs trained and show that we can manage a game to completion. I feel overwhelmed by all the deatils under discussion, I know others do, and simple as possible is the best way to ease us into it, surely.

Share this post


Link to post

The engineer's word:

 

- simplicity means speed and efficiency

 

- better not to change many variables at the same time if you still want to understand the results of an experimentation plan

 

Differently said:

 

- if we want to train newbs (and ourselves), I think it's better to keep the normal tech tree and units. Change a little for AIs but not for us (if possible)!

 

- we can make a scenario by changing things or having complex forums interactions or playing the most efficient way possible, but just like "Faster, better, cheaper" you probably can't have all 3 at the same time. 2 at max.

2 probes crashed on Mars in 1999 because people thought they could defy that empirical law.

Share this post


Link to post

In this case, I think map of size 34x68 might be fitting well. Not too small, and not too large.

 

And how about also speeding up the research? It is possible to do it for all factions, say 80-90% of typical cost. This way we accelerate early turns without need to make turns more quickly.

 

As for the start, maybe 4 colony pods? 8 scouts, 3 formers, and 2 unity supply droids (Earth's state of the art in robotics in 2060). All somewhat scattered, as you would think a space accident could result in. 300 EC energy? AIs will get their candies too, but maybe 200 EC.

Share this post


Link to post

If it is a single player game that is CMNd, then the AI factions could be secret, decided by the CMN alone, just to surprise us. Could mass around the colors too, so that the power bar does not give away them either. That could be part of the fun to discover them.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now