Civ2 PBEM games more like RISK?

[McMonkey]

I have been trying to think of ways to make games more interesting and less predictable. I'm a big fan of the board game RISK and I love the way players swap sides at will to limit the power of a dominant player so that the game ebbs and flows with different nations coming to the fore then being beaten back.

In Civ2 PBEMs it is too common for one player to get into a dominant position and then crush all opposition. I am certainly not criticising this killer instinct, this is a criticism of Civ2's inability to allow players to recover from major setbacks as nations have done throughout history.

One problem we have as a small community is that players are unwilling to betray an ally in one game as they fear the same player will not trust them in other games. Concequently they stick by an ally even if it means they will lose the game because their ally has become so powerful nobody can catch them! Surely there must be some kind of system whereby a player can opt out of an alliance that no longer suits them without harming their reputation as a player.

The Wikipedia article on RISK has this to say about alliances:

The rules of Risk do not endorse or prohibit alliances or truces. Thus players often form unofficial treaties for various reasons, such as safeguarding themselves from attacks on one border while they concentrate their forces elsewhere, or eliminating a player who has grown too strong. Because these agreements are not enforceable by the rules, these agreements are often broken. Alliance making/breaking can be one of the most important elements of the game, and it adds human interaction to a decidedly probabilistic game. Some players allow trading of risk cards, but only during their turn. This optional rule makes alliances stronger and more powerful.

My proposals to improve multiplayer games:

World Domination
Unless otherwise stated in the first post it is to be assumed that world domination is the goal and there can be only ONE winner. Being the junior partner in an alliance that wins should not be counted as a victory. Under this system it would be in players interest to make sure no one nation wins and the balance of power is retained. If you cannot win yourself your goal should be to play for a draw and prevent the most powerful players from winning. If you have to swap sides to achieve this goal then so be it!

Timed alliances
I propose we introduce a list of standard alliances to use that have set time limits. This way when the treaty comes up for renewal it is up to both sides if they wish to renew. I would propose a ten turn standard seems reasonable.
In addition we could introduce standard alliance types. The most common seems to be the defensive alliance, but I'm sure we could elaborate on that a little.


I don't see why every game has to turn into a war of annihilation where the alliances never change for fear of damaging our reputations. If anything all games would become more interesting if no permanent alliances were in place and each nation did what was best for itself. If we were all a bit more mercenary we might actually have more fun! Again, I'm not targeting this at anyone, it has been rumbling around my brain for quite a while

One other idea - Standard PBEM post #1 template:

If we do decide to standardize some of the rules and objectives I think it would be useful to keep a template handy to help ensure all the important rules are agreed upon before the game begins. I was thinking of something along the lines of this:

Delete as appropriate

Players:

Nation 1 -
Nation 2 -
Nation 3 -
Nation 4 -
Nation 5 -
Nation 6 -
Nation 7 - AI

Objectives:

World domination - Only one Civ can win
Alliance victory - Scenario designed with set alliances
Points victory - As in First Strike
Capitals -
Secret missions -
Limited objective wars

House rules:

-Standard
No black clicking
No ship chaining
etc...

-Variable
Spies can / cannot sabotage
Unit bribing is / is not allowed
etc...

-Special
EG. Only European or size 8 cities can build colonists
etc...

Alliance types allowed:

-Defensive
-Timed
-Opt out

I look forward to hearing your views on these ideas.

[Dario]

I think that is fine pointing what kind of objective is needed to win. For example, in my colonialism game i see myself as winner, because i'm winning by alliance, and i think it's best way to reach to the victory for my crappy civ. Again, to specify what kind of goal is required is the best way to avoid "moral" conflicts. Your template is a good solution.

[Radyserb]

I think that is fine pointing what kind of objective is needed to win. For example, in my colonialism game i see myself as winner, because i'm winning by alliance, and i think it's best way to reach to the victory for my crappy civ. Again, to specify what kind of goal is required is the best way to avoid "moral" conflicts. Your template is a good solution.

Your alliance with France loses the game, you are a loser

[McMonkey]

Thanks Dario. As I said in my first post this isn't aimed at any one player. The Colonialism game might have prompted me to post but it is a common theme. I don't blame you for siding with the Hapsburgs. After all, who wants to spend hours building up their empire just to see it crushed. I guess my solution can only work if people value victory over survival. For me the whole point of multiplayer games it to be challenged by intelligent opponents. If I just wanted to build then I would play against the AI! If victory is the goal then every player should try to stop one nation winning and hope that when their chance comes up the others will be unable to stop them. In the Colonialism game I think there is a fair chance that the Hapsburgs might still win even if the Dutch did join the alliance against them. At least if the objectives were clear at the start then we would all know exactly what must be done.

Another option is to set up mission objectives, such as capture the enemy capital or region. Could make for more dynamic games?

EDIT: I wouldn't describe the Dutch as a crappy Civ. You have done a really good job to build large colonies in South America and Australia after starting with only two cities! I would say it is easily the third most powerful after Spain and Portugal.

[Radyserb]

I think we should forbid secret alliances in general, that would be already a great advance...

[McMonkey]

Not a bad idea. Difficult to enforce. I like the PM diplomacy that goes on behind the scene. I guess we are all working on the honour system anyway so it could work. A combination of public alliances with publicly stated time limits could really spice games up. This would also allow other nations to try to get players to change sides when the treaty was coming up for renewal!

[cupcoffee]

Depending on what each turn represent, alliances could be agreed to no longer be any more than 10 years (or twelve months if that's what a turn represents), and you would have to restate the alliance.
It is rather bureaucratic, but I think it would give them an honorable way out of the alliance as well as encourage people not take your border with your allies for granted as safe, since you never know when they might suddenly not renew the alliance.

[Ingvar]

I like this idea.

I think that one simple way to enforce this is, that in games were such is applicable,(in some scenarios alliances are very normal, e.g Crusades I think), that a rule stating simply that there can be no victory by proxy.

In the Colonialism game for example, Dario would now be declared a loser because he did nothing. Would this not be enough to hinder such from happening again?

[McMonkey]

Any rules that get players away from worrying about their reputation and acting in a historically accurate pragmatic way (IE sticking the knife in your allies back when it suits your ambitions) can only enhance games. We should thrash out such rules before the next new game we start.

[cupcoffee]

Speaking of that, got any other scenarios lined up?
I know I've been slow recently due to RL stuff, but hopefully as we go into December we'll all have some more free time.

[McMonkey]

Play Imperialism and American Empires! Now!!!

Hopefully I will get the Spanish Civil War scenario finished soon and then I can work on Bonaparte IV ToT which I think will be a vast improvement over my MGE version Bonaparte III. I have several other projects on the go too but neither the time or energy to make fast progress.

[[VK]]

Not a Civ2 Player but as this also happen in Civ4, I can give you guys one or two hints.

1. You could try a game where you explicitly allow to break alliances and that it shouldn't be remembered for more than this one game. This would have the effect that everybody would be aware of this, so there shouldn't be consequences in the next game.
2. No diplomacy. Simple but effective. There were one or two cIV Games where no outgame (you could still trade ingame, but only with things the game allowed) diplomacy was allowed. The results were great, because there were no Contracts, people could f.e. capitulate and after 20 Rounds break the capitulation contract and be a country again.
3. No Proxy Victory isn't that effective as people still would think (at least for themselves) that they kind of won, or at least choosed the winner.

[McMonkey]

Thanks for the ideas [VK]. I think point one is a kind of what we should be aiming for, however I think there should be some trust left else all alliances and treaties would be meaningless. Thats why I think time limited alliances are a good option as they allow players a way out of inconvenient agreements and ensure alliances aren't permanent fixtures.

Point 2 would probably be a very effective way to ensure universal mistrust, but I do enjoy the diplomacy side of the game and I think it would be a hard one to enforce. Players would surely find subtle ways of communicating the intentions to one another, such as emoticons or images in their posts that let other nations know what they are thinking without coming right out and saying it!

I agree about point three. Sometimes it is better to survive as the junior partner than being destroyed as a proud independent nation.

I guess we will have to work out the best system through trial and error.

[[VK]]

Thanks for the ideas [VK]. I think point one is a kind of what we should be aiming for, however I think there should be some trust left else all alliances and treaties would be meaningless. Thats why I think time limited alliances are a good option as they allow players a way out of inconvenient agreements and ensure alliances aren't permanent fixtures.

Well I tried something like this once. It was possible to break every Contract after changing the Civics. The Result was that in the whole game, the Contracts were only once broken. The Rest of the time everybody sticked to the Contracts he got.

Point 2 would probably be a very effective way to ensure universal mistrust, but I do enjoy the diplomacy side of the game and I think it would be a hard one to enforce. Players would surely find subtle ways of communicating the intentions to one another, such as emoticons or images in their posts that let other nations know what they are thinking without coming right out and saying it!

Well, everybody is already trusting each other that they don't cheat (reload etc) so it shouldn't be that big Problem to trust them, that they play after the rules, especially because it's "easier" to control.

I agree about point three. Sometimes it is better to survive as the junior partner than being destroyed as a proud independent nation.

I guess we will have to work out the best system through trial and error.

Trial and Error is always the best way to find a solution