Quote Originally Posted by TinCow
I'm curious to hear whether the game seems to work relatively efficiently, whether it is too complex, and whether there are any changes that should be made to improve the actual handling of the movements and/or saves.
I think it is going along as smoothly as it can. Having people dl/ul the saves has not been a problem. Though I still predict there will be "traffic jams" in the real game when we have 20+ people rushing for the save in a 24 hour period.

There seems to be a small learning curve as people learn what they can and can not do with the save, as well as what they need to put in the SOT in order to make sure their wishes are implemented. But that should shake itself out after we have played for a little while. Maybe a short "how to play" guide will be in order for new players to learn what to post in the SOT and what they can do with the save.

Hopefully the real game will have longer turns than 24 hours. While I understand it is to help us get through the test game quickly, I find it hurts my chances at coordinating with the other players. Guillemot basically has to be a "General" and just give orders because I don't have time to ask a question via PM, get a response, send another PM with ideas, get another response, then tell the Chancellor what we want. With only 24 hours, and players spanning the globe, I only have time to send one PM telling them what I want and then I hope the Chancellor will implement what I want if the other players do not submit on time. While this has been working somewhat effeciently, it is muting any possibility at real RP'ing and story writing.

I am also curious about the general perceptions of the Civil War mechanics. Is it working well? Too hard? Too confusing? Is the AI Battle option nice and efficient or simply annoyingly unpredictable?
I've already laid out my biggest concern. And that is the ability for players to react to other players within a turn. I prefer a "we-go" system like we had for KotR. Where everyone submits orders to another party and that person implements them at once. The new rule Ramses and TC hammered out to allow other people the option of moving their allies will help but I still prefer "we-go". The problem with "we-go" however is that it will probably put a burden on one person which is something we've really wanted to get away from.

I find the AI battle option to be both quick and fair. I like the big PvP battles but they are too time consuming to do often. The AI battle allows us to have civil wars be a viable option without fearing that it will bog the game down to a crawl. While the AI is incompetent, it is incompetent to both sides equally. It is the great equalizer. The only catch is that when you plan for battles, you have to think about how the AI will implement the battle, not what you would do in the battle.