Home World Forum: The Bar » GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Tue, 24 June 2008 19:34

Effluviant Walrus

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 91
Registered: May 2008
Location: New York, US

OK, this game would start off with 2 teams of allied races. Each race in the same team would have to be the same (simulating it being one race). Its member' homeworlds placed next to eachother and be on the opposite side of the map from the other team.

The teams would function as democracies: a voting system would be determined by its members before the game started and after that any and every decision, including specific orders and production (all members would examine each constituent race's orders), made for the team must be made according to those rules.

Each team would expand as usual until a date randomly generated by the host (but within a set range, perhaps b/tw 2435 and 2455 or so), upon which civil war would break out. Each team member would take over one of that team's constituent races (which race it is would be publicly decided before the start of the game) and the game would become a free-for-all. Only one winner would be allowed.

I think this would produce a very interesting diplomatic situation, with players trying to hinder the advancement of their teammates while still keeping the team strong enough to defend against an early attack from the enemy team. Players would demand "pork" for their race in exchange for votes on key issues, etc....

The only problem I can see is that this would go extremely slowly, especially if a team makes a bad voting system that can be deadlocked.

Thoughts?

[Updated on: Tue, 24 June 2008 19:38]

Report message to a moderator

Re: GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Wed, 25 June 2008 06:24

m.a@stars

Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left

1st Team to choose a "strong leader" and work as a Dictatorship with everybody else just following orders wins. Silly hair

Then they kill Caesar^H^H^H^H^H^H said Leader and 10 centuries of chaos ensue... Pirate

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Wed, 25 June 2008 08:37

Effluviant Walrus

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 91
Registered: May 2008
Location: New York, US

The point is that if a team chooses a "Caesar", that player could forcefully stymy the other race's on his teams expansion or just "park" large fleets next to their worlds waiting for civil war. He could prevent them from building up militaries, etc... because EVERY decision would be subject to being overruled by a vote (of one in this case). I doubt the other players would want that and thus would not choose a dictator They wouldn't be able to overthrow the dictator they set up.

Report message to a moderator

Re: GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Thu, 26 June 2008 04:29

m.a@stars

Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left

Effluviant Walrus wrote on Wed, 25 June 2008 14:37

That would be a poor choice of a Dictator, then. Razz

And, at least in antique times, when the term was coined, Dictators could easily be deposed by vote. Twisted Evil

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Thu, 26 June 2008 07:30

Soobie

Officer Cadet 3rd Year

Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007
Location: Australia

Speaking of etymology I've always felt that, given it's French derivation, it should be 'coigned' and not 'coined'. Sadly, I fear I am alone in that thought. Smile

[Updated on: Thu, 26 June 2008 07:31]

Report message to a moderator

Re: GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Thu, 26 June 2008 08:01

joseph

Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003
Location: Bristol

wierdly a European Union model would probably work well.

Define a bunch of standards on what you can and cant do and who owns what. Have votes on new and unusual stuff each country having a veto.

Also to counteract the "slow" problem have first turn generate automatically after 1 week.
Then auto gen every 3 days up to turn 20 then make it a week per gen.

Players can only submit a turn when it has passed the vote (what this vote is and how you pass it will be determined by the team).

I can see some real fun developing in this one.

Joseph
"Can burn the land and boil the sea. You cant take the Stars from me"

Report message to a moderator

Re: GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Thu, 26 June 2008 10:08

Effluviant Walrus

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 91
Registered: May 2008
Location: New York, US

Well each member having a full veto might make things hard to get done, but a large majority being needed to approve things (maybe 3/4) might work.

Report message to a moderator

Re: GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Thu, 26 June 2008 10:10

Adacore

Chief Warrant Officer 2

Messages: 156
Registered: February 2005
Location: Shanghai

A three quarter majority would only become relevant with quite large teams, 4 or more a side, probably more like 6 a side - you're thinking of this as a game with lots of players?

Report message to a moderator

Re: GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Thu, 26 June 2008 10:24

m.a@stars

Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left

Effluviant Walrus wrote on Wed, 25 June 2008 01:34

The only problem I can see is that this would go extremely slowly, especially if a team makes a bad voting system that can be deadlocked.

1st item on the Senate's agenda should be the concurrent design of all the races of the team. Twisted Evil

That way teammembers get to sort out the kinks of voting thru several hundred alternatives *before* the game starts. Rolling Eyes

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Thu, 26 June 2008 11:08

Effluviant Walrus

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 91
Registered: May 2008
Location: New York, US

Well the teams are supposed to be a simulation of a single race that breaks up...the multiple homeworlds would be considered "initial colonies." Each race on a team would have to have the same habs (as they are biologically the same race), though everything else can be different simulating different types of cultures/corporations within the race. Thus when civil war breaks out, the team's capitol worlds would be a large area of contention as they would be several 100% worlds right next to each other.

Report message to a moderator

Re: GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Thu, 26 June 2008 11:21

Adacore

Chief Warrant Officer 2

Messages: 156
Registered: February 2005
Location: Shanghai

I think you'd end up with two 'champions' relatively quickly after the civil war breaks out. As you said, if the homeworlds were all close together with the same hab, the first person to get the upper hand and secure that area would get a big advantage. I guess worse than that, you could end up with one of the two democracies generating a single 'champion' quickly, while the other goes into a hard-fought civil war. Then the champion from the other side could just sweep in and pick up the pieces.

Report message to a moderator

Re: GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Thu, 26 June 2008 11:33

vonKreedon

Lieutenant

Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA

Diplomacy would be King. Assuming that the two metaraces have different settings the potential for cross-meta alliances is huge. So in addition to the intitial intrameta negotiations, the smart player is going to set up one or more intermeta alliances and intersettle agressively to be in optimal position to mutually support once the civil wars start, assuming that reaching secret understanding is allowed of course.

The really tricky part of this strategy is getting your metarace to agree to your race settling in your secret ally's area, but this shouldn't be too hard since your meta is technically in competition with the other meta. Or you could get your meta to simply agree that all members can colonize on a first come basis and not have to gain agreement for each new colonization.

Report message to a moderator

Re: GAME CONCEPT: Democracy + Civil War

Thu, 26 June 2008 11:42

Effluviant Walrus

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 91
Registered: May 2008
Location: New York, US

Maybe a "big cheese"-ish rule could be put in to ensure that the civil war for each team lasts a bit longer.

For example, a rule enforcing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" with homeworlds. So if Player A captures Player B's and Player C's homeworld, player B and C would be forced to ally until one of them recaptures their homeworld. Thus, as a "champion" grows in power, the losing sides would be forced to ally together against him.

Public player scores could also be turned on to help prevent the second situation Adacore described. If a team sees that a clear victor is emerging in the other's civil war, they might be inclined to ally in order to fight the common threat

And vonKreedon: An IT-IT intermeta alliance would own. Well, IT-IT alliances always own anyway, but especially here. Perhaps to prevent intermeta alliances becoming too common/dominant (they are supposed to be opposing teams, sort of) races of different teams could never be set eachother to friendly (simulating xenophobia); intermeta alliances would have to be informal as the best the races could set each other to would be neutral.

[Updated on: Thu, 26 June 2008 11:49]

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	What happened to fuel?!
Next Topic:	Serial?

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

Current Time: Sun May 05 15:49:25 EDT 2024