 |
|  |
 |
|
Shiber
|
 |
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002 time: 07:22
|
|
Esteemed Apolytonians,
As you can see from the executive report, the barracks in Gaia were hurried for money in 30BC. This means that our two warriors will be able to upgrade next turn (10BC) and will be ready for use in two turns from now (10AD). However, this was not what we planned.
Our original plan was to hurry the barracks in 50BC so we can have our two new swordsmen ready by 10BC (one turn from now). However, some of the people who were present in the turnchat miscalculated the time it would take the warrior to reach Gaia (not their fault, it was a confusing situation) and I found the error but forgot to point it out, which is why I consider this to be my fault.
This error may or may not cause any serious problems, but I'm concerned that it might. Remember, because of this we caused two swordsmen to be finished one turn late. This turn could mean the difference between seizing an opportunity and missing it, or reaching a city in time to defend and save it or not.
However, this problem can be easily rectified. All we have to do is to go back to the autosave from 50 BC, rush the barracks then and afterwards continue executing all the orders we've executed already until we reach the point where we are now. This will have no other effect on the game (it will not change troop movements or affect the random seed or anything) so everything else should go the same way it did during the turnchat. Therefore I don't think we'll be "cheating" if we returned to 50BC and changed this, we'd simply be correcting a human error which was caused by tiredness and other factors that are not related to the game.
We can do this change before the next turnthread or during the turnthread itself (MWIA will start playing at 50BC, rush the barracks, play through all the other orders we've played through already and then begin executing the new orders, simple as that).
What is your opinion concerning this matter?
P.S. Yes, I know, I'm a bloody perfectionist. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001 time: 17:22
|
|
Yes Shiber is owed some thanks from us for some very timely points. :b
But to this point, I will post once or twice before crashing and sleeping like never before.
The Warriors and Spearman were moved to Gaia from Seeburg to kill the Persian Warrior approaching the undefended Gaia. If we had got the Barracks and upgraded the Swords by now (30 BC), we would have either had to wait a turn in Gaia for the Persian Warrior to get close enough, or leave Gaia after that Persian and risk it either running away from us in slow-moving roadless jungle or attacking (I admit, not much of a risk with the second one). As it is, we gain a small amount of cash from rushing later, and the upgrade takes place in time to attack the Warrior when it is close.
Shiber, I do not see, with going after that Warrior first, how the extra turn will help, as we need to wait for the Persian Warrior. If not, then we leave it roaming around to threaten our workers some more. Is your point that the Warriors should have upgraded earlier and headed straight for Persia, ignoring the Persian Warrior?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
adaMada
|
 |
"The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Mar 2000 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Aggie
No we can't go back, it's just not right. One thing though. Those warriors were supposed to be sent to uber for upgrade when there was no danger to seeberg, I'm not complaining, just wonder why they were delayed. Ya'll did a very good job considering the large number of archers that came into play. Thats the main point of disagreement. Now this wasn't my call since I wasn't there, but why did the sword attack the archer s of geofront. That sword most likely will get killed next turn. Anyway I'd just say continue archers to uber now.
Aggie |
I think I was there for the part with the sword; if it's what I'm thinking of, the thought was that the sword would take out one archer, and then could probably handle at least one counter attack as well (especially since it took no damage). The alternative was moving the sword to block the Archer's path to nearby workers, which would have set up a 2.5 against 2 attack with the advantage to us. By attacking the Archer, we were able to make it a 3 against 1.25 attack. There was also some reason why people thought it would be benefitial to draw the archers out and have them attack the sword... I can't exactly recall why now, however.
Hope this clears things up a bit.
-- adaMada
|
|
|  |
 |
|
kring
|
 |
Wichita,KS,USA
Dec 2001 time: 23:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Shiber
Well, I'm thinking, if we change that now we might be opening Pandora's Box. People will start demanding the president to change other things as well, saying they were results of human errors as well.
Anyway, let's not change it. However there's another thing that I'd like to change: |
There seems to be a contradiction here. You talk about opening up Pandora's box, and then, go on to give a great example of you wanting to open Pandora's box. You have helped us a lot in the games, and I hope you will continue to do so. One problem with reloading is that battle outcomes may well change, and it can go either way. Maybe you win this new battle, but lose a major one that you would have won.
I am against reloading due to human error. After all, in war, battle plans don't survive the first encounter with the enemy to begin with.
People forget. That's life, we accept it and move on.
You are right about it being Pandora's box. Once opened, and this would open it, it would be hard to close, and easy to reopen if it was closed again. It is too easy to go down this path.
I have been watching another DG unfold elsewhere, and this issue has come up before any actual incidents. Basically, the decision is to live with any missed opportunities and even mistakes/intentional disobedience of ministers' orders (impeachment may follow the second part). Unless, the person playing the game goes off the deep end, there is to be no reloading other than for game crashes. After all, IRL, this happens all the time. Like the time the guy missed out on the office lottery pool. He didn't get a share of the ticket because he forgot to chip in. Bet he would like to reload that day, but he can't.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DrChaos
|
|
I also agree - no going back. In addition, I think it is unethical to play ahead for any reason.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|