Anyone up for a Succession Game?

[Alcibaides]

One thing I notice tends to happen in PBEM games is that once a war has begun it tends to become a battle of annihilation. I guess this is because neither side has anything to lose in the real world, its not even like we are playing for money! In reality most wars have had more limited objectives and once they have been met the peace negotiations begin.

One way to get around this issue is to play a succession game. This is where each human player is in control of a civ for a limited number of turns, roughly corresponding to the typical reign of a king, etc. Say, 35 years or there abouts. Once that time is up, each player swaps to taking control of a different civ.

In this type of game, the idea is not to try to build up a great empire from scratch, but rather to best manage the kingdom that you have inherited and achieve what limited objectives as you can during a real human lifespan.

I think this type of game may prove to be considerably more dynamic and interesting than a regular game where everybody chooses an alliance and then fights an eternal war of annihilation.

In this type of game, you only control the civ for a short time, so your alliances will be much less important and there may be more incentive to go out fighting straight from the start.

Is anybody up for it? I was thinking that a new round of Aeternas Civitas II would work well for this. I was thinking we could just play with about 4 human players and leave the other slots under the control of the AI, this will speed things up considerably. I find that with 7 human players it takes far too long for the game to get going.

So the way it would work is, each player chooses a civ to start with, but then after a agreed upon time, we each swap to a new civ (any of the 7 civs available). I think it would make sense for the Romans to always be played by a human player seeing as they are the historical protagonists.

[Civilionaut]

...

[McMonkey]

I'm up for it. I joined in a Succession game at the We Play Civ site using the vanilla game and it was very interesting. I learned quite a bit too.

I would recomend leaving the Celts and Germanics under AI control. I have been working on an updated version of ACII with better unit stats and some changes like there being no roads in Barbarian country. I could get this finished off if you wanted to play with this version.

[Radyserb]

Good idea, but what could be the "limited objectives"?

[Alcibaides]

Good idea, but what could be the "limited objectives"?

The limited objectives would simply be whatever you set out for yourself as your goals.

For example, you may find that the kingdom you inherit has been totally mismanaged by another player or the AI and is being attacked on all fronts by rivals. Therefore your objectives might be to simply consolidate your power, make peace treaties with some of your neighbors, and develop a profitable economy, and build a wonder in your capital city.

Then on your deathbed, you can brag that your transformed your kingdom from a state on the brink of collapse, to a major power, before being "reincarnated" into another leader of another state.

[cupcoffee]

I've never tried a succession game before, but it does sound like fun.
I don't know if it might make it a bit too complicated, but perhaps there could be a point system that awards the players themselves rather than the civs for certain things, so that people will use more "short sighted" tactics, sacrificing entire armies just for the sake of completing that wonder before their reign ends as a horde of enemies are at the gate.

[Alcibaides]

I would recomend leaving the Celts and Germanics under AI control. I have been working on an updated version of ACII with better unit stats and some changes like there being no roads in Barbarian country. I could get this finished off if you wanted to play with this version.

Yes, I agree with McMonkey. Though I think we should either swap the German and Roman starting wonders, or eliminate the Sun Tzus Wonder from the game alltogether.

Did you incorporate my idea of placing a barrack in each civ's capital city but keep the barrack improvment non buildable? So that the Sun Tzu Wonder is not so strong?

In terms of how the swaping civs would be managed, to avoid obvious "conflicts of interest", perhaps we should suggest that when the time comes for us to swap, you can only swap into a civ that does not share an immediate boundary with you. So for example:

If you play as Rome, you can only swap to play as either Ptolemy and Seleucus.

If you play as Carthage, you can only swap to either Macedon and Seleucus.

If you play as Ptolemy, you can only swap to either Rome or Macedon.

If you play as Seleucus, you can only swap to either Rome or Carthage.

If you play as Macedon, you can only play as Carthage or Ptolemy.

The logic behind this is to prevent you from doing anything near your borders in the last turn of your reign to make it easier for you at the start of your next reign.

[Alcibaides]

I don't know if it might make it a bit too complicated, but perhaps there could be a point system.

Well there is already a civilization score right? So the simplest point system would be to just subtract the score of your civilization at the start of your reign from the score at the end of your reign.

[Radyserb]

Sounds very interesting.

Funny: I know, what everybody has, improvements, military, trade routes, science progresses, because I already played the others

[McMonkey]

Yes, I agree with McMonkey. Though I think we should either swap the German and Roman starting wonders, or eliminate the Sun Tzus Wonder from the game alltogether.

Did you incorporate my idea of placing a barrack in each civ's capital city but keep the barrack improvment non buildable? So that the Sun Tzu Wonder is not so strong?

I think I decided to either get rid of Sun Tzu's or give it to Rome. I will need to check the new save and my notes.

[Radyserb]

Germanics: No traders, no generals (just one at the beginning), no triremes/Quinqueremes, no roads/slaves/engineers, government fundamentalism, no sun tzu, great wall is possible if the romans take a city on the other side of the rhine, then the Germanics get other technologies too per event (for Catapults, engineers, ...)

Celts: traders buildable, no generals (just one at the beginning), no triremes/quinqueremes, no roads/slaves/engineers, government fundamentalism, no sun tzu, no great wall possible

Just as proposal.

The Roman get Sun Tzu.

[Alcibaides]

I think I decided to either get rid of Sun Tzu's or give it to Rome. I will need to check the new save and my notes.

McMonkey, I am sure that whatever you decided makes sense. So let's just go with what you did.

We already have enough players that have expressed an interest:

McMonkey, Civi, CupCoffee, Rady, and Myself.

For now, everyone chooses who they start with, then, on the next swap, people choose who they want to play as in the reverse order that was chosen the first time.

Now, as far as managing the swapping of civs goes, we want to set up some guidelines to ensure that you really play as a whole new king and do not take any of your alliances and animosities with you.

If possible, players should stick to the following guidelines:

1) Do not choose a civ that is adjacent to your current civ. (see my previous post)

2) Try to avoid doing a direct swap with another player, especially if you are currently allied with that player, otherwise there is a danger that you will just continue your alliance but swapping cities.

_________________________________________________

For example, let's say I am playing as the Seleucids, I should not choose to play as Ptolemy or Macedon as they are adjacent to me (Guideline 1). So that means I should choose either Carthage or Rome. Let's say I decide to choose Rome, then the current Roman player should try to avoid choosing the Seleucids (Guideline 2), especially if the Roman player is allied with the Seleucids. That would mean that they would have no choice but to play as the Ptolemids, as Macedon and Carthage would be considered "adjacent".

Of course these are just guidelines that we should try to follow, they are not rules per se. For example, in the situation above, the Roman player would have no choice but to choose the Ptolemids, but it may be that someone else had already chosen them. In that case the player would have to choose another.

The only other thing to choose would be the number of years between each swap. I think 30 years would be good.

[McMonkey]

This sounds great. Hopefully I will get some time this weekend to finish of ACII update but I am due to move house next week so I might have to do some packing too

EDIT: Those suggestions sound good Rady. I think I have included some of them already but I will double check!

[Alcibaides]

This sounds great. Hopefully I will get some time this weekend to finish of ACII update but I am due to move house next week so I might have to do some packing too

Did you manage to finish the update McMonkey?

If so lets get this going, who does everybody want to start as?

[McMonkey]

Sorry, I ran out of time and had to pack up to move house. I will try and take a look tomorrow though I am still trying to unpack and organize my new place. With the other turns to catch up on it might be a bit tricky. Please bear with me though as I think the changes will be worthwhile!