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:
My proposals to improve multiplayer games: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.
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.