 |
Who should be our first Master Builder?
This poll is closed. |
| quantum_mechani |
   |
1 |
10.00% |
| Tiberius |
   |
4 |
40.00% |
| ZargonX |
   |
4 |
40.00% |
Abstain (he is not a candidate  ) |
   |
1 |
10.00% |
| Total: |
10 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
delmar
|
|
Early cities should be placed so that to minimize the number of turns necessary to move units from one to the other, in order to make a quick reorganization of our defense forces possible. This includes the loose application of the 2-tile-between style mentioned by quantum_mechani and considering the fact that crossing rivers costs a full movement point until Engineering is researched.
Cities should be placed on hills and/or on the "inner" side of a river, whenever possible, to gain extra deffensive value.
Ensuring that strategic resources (practically: horse or iron in the early phase) are within our empire tops everything else in importance, therefore a city might be placed on top of or next to such a resource even if it is far away from other cities. Such a city, if indeed far from the core of the empire, must be defendable (possibly on a hill) and well defended both from military (2-3 units + barracks) and from cultural assaults (early temple, library ASAP).
We might consider to follow a similar approach when luxury resources are slightly out of our reach.
Laborers in cities should be assigned such that the number of wasted shields and bakers (lost when a unit is finished or when population grows) is minimized, and income (commerce) is maximalized. Avoiding disorder is of uttermost importance and perhaps the most important task of the Master Build in the early ages. I believe that the Master Build will have to assign Area Directors to groups of cities in the later phase as he will be unable to ensure optimal laborer assignmet in every city as Legoland expands. Using the built-in governor is a very expensive trade-off that we should be able to avoid given the number of citizens in Legoland. To limit the burden on (and the chance of a mistake made by) any one of the Area Directors, I propose a tentative 5 city/directorate limit with a 3 city/directorate optimum to shoot for.
Dynamic assignment of tiles to cities should be implemented, meaning that a particular tile doesn't necessarily will be worked on by laborers of one and only one city till the end of times. Particularly in the early game, cities at the edge of growing into civil disorder or reaching some artificial population limit (lack of aqueduct/hospital) should stop using high-food tiles and work on productive tiles instead. Cities building wonders have priority access to high-shield tiles as long as they are building that wonder.
Tile improvements should be made keeping in mind that most cities won't have more than 4 citizens for a long time. An important exception to this rule is the city targeted for early wonders. Such city (or cities) should be next to a river (to ensure population growth above 6) and have their own worker for improvements to achieve maximum performance with the given number of laborers.
Improving shared tiles (tiles that are within the 10-culture radius of more than 1 city) has priority in the early phase. This ensures flexibility in assigning certain tiles to one or the other city. Along the same lines, scheduled population growth/decrease (the latter caused by settler/worker building) should be introduced to achieve optimal usage of these shared tiles -- e.g. by the time a city finishes a settler, a neighboring city should grow in population so that it can start using the shared tiles freed up by the departure of said settler.
It is very important throughout the game to optimize the resources available to a particular city such that the drop-off shields that are wasted at the end of a building cycle are minimal. For this purpose, cities producing 5 or 10 shields are generally optimal, cities producing 6 shields are very good for our UU and for settlers, while cities producing 4 or 7 shields are rather suboptimal for almost any purpose in the early ages. While it seems far away at the moment, I would like to emphesize again that this concept should be preserved until the very end -- you don't want to build tanks in a city that can produce 90 shields.
Whether to irrigate or mine a tile should be decided based on a long term strategy, not based on what we want to do in the next 10 turns or so. In general, a city producing 3 extra food is not much better than a city producing 2 extra food, while a city producing 4 extra food is like an "average" city (which produces 2 extra food) with a granary. In particular, irrigating that cow next to our capital indirectly yields 60 shields as we won't need to build a granary.
Also note that irrigation is cheaper (2 turns) than mining (3 turns), so we should prefer plains over grassland.
When in doubt, build a road.
Harbors will become pretty important soon and extremly important later on, especially if we are not on a Pangea map. Therefore we should aim at placing a couple of cities on the shore line early on and more and more later on, as we approach the end of Middle Age. One of the early shoreline cities should be capable of producing large number of shileds (this includes not only good production tiles but also minimal distance from capital, to ensure low corruption) in order to build sea-dependent wonders and should have access to a lot of shore tiles for maximum commerce (tiles actually worked on will be switched based on whether the city is working on a wonder or not -- see dynamic tile assignment above). Such a city can become our cash and science "cow" if we manage to build the Colossus, Copernicus's Observatory, and/or Newton's University in it.
Proper placing of shoreline cities will become very important if we find that the Vikings are one of the opponents. In that case, shoreline cities should be placed in such a way that minimizes the number of neighboring water tiles -- thus minimizing the number of ships necessary to guard against a potential amphibious attack. The afforementioned Sea-Wonder-City will likely be an exception from this rule as it is more important that that city has access to plenty of shore tiles. Consequently, such a city must be defended heavily by ground units.
Building workers and settlers is very important in the early game, therefore this issue deserves special attention. We should attempt to create a few cities whose production can be scheduled in such a way that the production of a worker or settler coincides with population growth. This is important for two reasons:
1. to avoid a fluctuation of shield production capacity (where there are too few people in the city)
2. to minimze the number of (potentially) unhappy citizens (where there are too many people)
To provide an example for this important matter: a city, which produces 6 shields and 4 extra food at size 3, could build 1 Num. Merch. and 1 Settler in 10 turns while growing from size 3 to size 5 and then dropping back to size 3. Such a city would have to have only a single static military unit (asuming no temple nor luxury available) to keep the laborers happy, as the arrival of the new Num Merch coincides with the population growth from 3 to 4. By the time the newly built Num Merch departs with the newly built settler, population is back to 3 --> we created a self-controlling city factory. Also note that this city doesn't need more than 3 improved tiles. The 4th laborer simply needs to produce 2 additional food to keep himself alive until the settler is ready.
Pop-rushing is not a nice thing, but a very important feature that must be used often in the early phase, especially in high-corruption and/or food-rich areas. Most notably rushing Temples is a very good idea as the Temple itself will offset the unhappiness caused by rushing it, and it can start producing culture. Rushing barracks in far-away, high-exposure border cities might be also worth the sacrifice. Care must be taken to initiate the pop rush when it yields most shields, that is when 20 (or in rare cases, 40) shields are missing.
Well, so much at first sight. Does any of the Master Build candidates feels that he can incorporate the above in his program? Or shall I apply for the job myself? 
Last edited by delmar on 07-12-2002 at 06:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I think they will answer your post delmar, even if it takes a while.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
delmar
|
|
Thanks for the encouragement! 
In the meantime, let me try to serve some more food for thought, this time about plans related to our capital...
There are 5 tiles within reach of our capital that can be improved at a reasonable cost: 1 plain vanilla grassland, 2 grasslands next to river, 1 bonus grassland, and one grassland with cattle. The only other type of tile we can use in the foreseeable future is the hills (probably only one of them) next to the river. As a side note: next time we should put the city on that hill to the North East -- it's still next to the river, it would give an extra grassland to work on (the one currently under our capital), and it gives extra deffensive value -- but let's not ponder about the past, let's look at the future, shall we!?
In terms of tile improvement, we have only one fundamental choice to make: shall we irrigate or mine the cattle?
Let's investigate this question with our medium-long term strategy in mind: expanding Legoland. The basic assumption here is that in the capital we want to build settlers and some escort for them until we are close to satisfied with the shape of our Homeland. We will, of course, build a few warriors for basic protection and scouting at the beginning -- the focus of this investigation is what should happen afterwards. We will also most certainly need more workers -- those will be produced by other cities, not the capital.
So let's cut to the catt^H^H^H^H, khm, cheese: if we irrigate the cattle tile, we can easily have a city that produces 4 extra food and 5 shields with 3 population. I would certainly advise us to take this path if we could build spearman. In that case, we could have a city producing a 1 spearman/1 settler combo every 10 turns while growing up from pop 3 to pop 5 and then consuming 2 pop for the settler -- very convenient and very effective.
But, alas, we can't build spearmen, we can only build a Num.Merch. for 30 shields or 2 warriors for 20 shields total. At this point, it becomes clear that further decision making requires input from other Ministers, specifically the Military Architect and perhaps The Enlightened. The three Ministers should decide what is the more favorable solution: having 2 warriors or 1 Num.Merch. as an escort for every outgoing settler. The following analysis is to help to make an informed decision in this regard.
Should the High Council find that the 2-warrior version is favorable, we proceed as outlined above: irrigate the cattle, mine the bonus grassland and one of the other grasslands next to the river. And of course we build a road on all the tiles.
The advantages of this solution are that:
- it doesn't waste any shields nor food
- it is easy to maintain -- once set up, will work without intervention
- doesn't require any extra science or city improvement and can be made available in as little as 12 turns
Should the High Council find that the 1-Num.Merch. version is favorable, we have quite a challenge in front of us in terms of city planning. The ideal setup for producing 1 settler/1 num.merch. combos in this early age is a city that produces 6 shields, grows every 5 turns, and can maintain these qualities across a range of 2 sizes (e.g from size 3 to size 5).
One simple (although not cheap) solution to the above problem is this:
- mine the cattle and the bonus grassland
- build a granary
- maintain a minimum population of 3 in the capital and assign these people to the above mentioned two improved tiles and (surprise!) to one of the (unimproved) hills
This way the city produces 2 extra food and 6 shields -- with a granary, we can pump out a settler/num.merch. combo every 10 turns till the end of times. The extra population that grows into the capitol while the num.merch is built will be assigned to one of the grasslands next to the river. The advantages of this solution are that
- it doesn't waste any shields nor food
- it is easy to maintain -- once set up, will work without intervention
- it requires minimal tile improvement: mining the cattle and the bonus grassland (plus of course the roads, which are implied in any solution anyway)
- we make use of one of the hills (generally not easy to do this early)
Also note that the arrival of the new Num.Merch. cleverly coincides with the population growth from 3 to 4, thus unhappiness is automatically taken care of by means of military policing.
The disadvantage is that we will need a granary, and consequently Pottery, thus it will take at least 20-25 turns to finilize this setup (largely depending on how fast our Science Department can deliver Pottery -- maybe next time we should start with Pottery instead of Bronze Working?  ).
I suspect that every other, significantly different, ie. "mine the cattle but don't build granary" type of solution would result in wasted shields and/or food, and it most certainly would result in unnecessary micro-management as the build and growth cycle of the capital wouldn't be synchronized and would be difficult to predict. We will leave it as an exercise to the reader to (dis)prove this... 
After all these details, allow me to make a few general observations about our starting position:
- There are two promising directions to explore for sites of our next cities: to the West along the river, and to the East in the direction of that bonus grassland that is so unfortunately outside of the reach of our capitol. We should request our Military Architect to send troops into these directions.
- We have lots of jungle. Fortunately we are industrious people, therefore it is only half the pain it could be. Nonetheless we better get used to clearing the jungle as part of our regular activities. While assigning workers to this unpleasant activity, we should pay attention to assign at least 2, but possibly 3 or 4 workers to the same tile so that we can enjoy the fruits of our work early. Assigning 5 workers would be a waste of their effort (base cost of jungle cleaning being 12), and assign 6 or more would be probably an overkill. And, we have to make sure, of course, that cities are placed on a jungle tile whenever possible, for automatic clearing.
- There seems to be a river starting at the foot of the mountain with the gold in it. We should request our Military Architect to investigate that area as well, it might be a suitable place for a city.
- Care must be taken while moving units and especially our first worker around the capital. We should try not to lose any moving points by unnecessarily crossing the river.
Well, this is what I would do if I was the Master Build... now, how about you, guys?
Delmar!
Last edited by delmar on 07-12-2002 at 22:33
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
delmar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vondrack
Expanding the empire while stretching the defenses too thin would be an invitation for warmongering teams to rush us. Keep in mind we are NOT facing AI that will leave you in peace for cheap. The other teams will not demand just some gold or cheap tech to leave us be if we are weak. They will extort us for our right hand and leg, if they feel they have an edge. Thus, our most imminent goal is to get to Bronze Working, cranking out some Mercs (thus: road first, then mine). That should be enough to make others think twice before harassing us. |
I don't recall saying anything about stretching the defense. Chances are we won't even meet anyone for another 1000 years and it will be yet another 2000 before they can attack us. On this scale, having Bronze Working 10 turns earlier or later is probably insignificant. Note that I am not saying it was a bad idea to research Bronze Working first, it is just not that obvious as "they are humans so they will attack so we need defense so we need Merc. so we must research Bronze Working ASAP". I hope that my small analyzis above induced at least a shed of doubt whether researching Bronze Working first will indeed result in more Mercs in the long run.
As a side note, I think it is also important to realize that a team of humans is not a super-intelligent AI running on deity. They are now also fighting to crank out their first units, they are swearing because they are next to jungle/mountains/tundra, they are also afraid that someone will run over them. And once they start to feel strong, and start looking for enemies, do you seriously think that a civ with a 2/3/1 unit will be their first choice? I doubt it. They don't even know how many Mercs we have. They are scared to lose the game early. These are the things (can you say psychology?) to think about when we play against humans, not how damn intelligent they are or how well they were playing single player.
Maybe if we are alone with the GoW team on a small island, maybe then I would be worried.
And maybe I should bring up a small example here. I am playing an MP game with notyoueither (leader of Gathering Storm and apparently a renowned Civ player), another guy, and (originally) 4 AIs. notyoueither is playing the Vikings, I am playing the Russians. I am pretty sure that at the time notyoueither got the Berserks, he could have whiped me out or at least crippled me badly. He didn't dare to attack (of course I am not sure why, so I am not saying he was dumb, mark you), consequently I am in lead now and they will be hard pressed to prevent me from winning even if the two humans team up on me. Of course, "past performance is not guarantee for future results", as our brokers always remind us so kindly, so take this just as an interesting piece of history, if you will.
Thanks for listening!
Delmar
Last edited by delmar on 08-12-2002 at 06:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by delmar
I don't recall saying anything about stretching the defense. |
Adopting the strategy of producing Merc+Settler combos (you proposed earlier) in order to grab as much land as possible indirectly implies stretching our defenses thin. Having our cities defended with just one, pretty costly unit does not seem as a very safe strategy to me.
quote:
Chances are we won't even meet anyone for another 1000 years and it will be yet another 2000 before they can attack us. On this scale, having Bronze Working 10 turns earlier or later is probably insignificant. |
Chances are... we decided to play it safe (which is perhaps exactly what others intend). Once we have BW and Mercs, we shall be safe and free to choose what to do next. What if we assumed we would not meet anyone for 1200 years and we would not be attacked for 3200 years and - dammit - it happened? We might lose the game even before actually getting to play it.
quote:
Note that I am not saying it was a bad idea to research Bronze Working first, it is just not that obvious as "they are humans so they will attack so we need defense so we need Merc. so we must research Bronze Working ASAP". I hope that my small analyzis above induced at least a shed of doubt whether researching Bronze Working first will indeed result in more Mercs in the long run. |
:shrug: The BW first strategy was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the team. The reasoning was not what you mention, but "Once we have Mercs, we will be safe. Let's be safe ASAP." BW will not result in more Mercs. BW will get us Mercs earlier, which is both good for defense and to prevent wasting shields.
quote:
As a side note, I think it is also important to realize that a team of humans is not a super-intelligent AI running on deity. They are now also fighting to crank out their first units, they are swearing because they are next to jungle/mountains/tundra, they are also afraid that someone will run over them. And once they start to feel strong, and start looking for enemies, do you seriously think that a civ with a 2/3/1 unit will be their first choice? I doubt it. They don't even know how many Mercs we have. They are scared to lose the game early. These are the things (can you say psychology?) to think about when we play against humans, not how damn intelligent they are or how well they were playing single player. |
I don't recall saying anything about considering other teams superintelligent AI running on deity. You may even find a post of mine somewhere else on this forum, expressly stating we shall not fear other teams, despite the renowned names, since what they can think up, we also can. OTOH, other teams include players that are well known for their aggressive strategy. They have repeatedly expressed their belief that agressiveness, especially early in the game, can significantly hinder opponents' ability to catch up. It is true that they are likely to be more careful facing humans, but we better not reckon on that.
quote:
And maybe I should bring up a small example here. I am playing an MP game with notyoueither (leader of Gathering Storm and apparently a renowned Civ player), another guy, and (originally) 4 AIs. |
Interesting info. But as you said, we can hardly judge based on a single example.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
delmar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vondrack
Adopting the strategy of producing Merc+Settler combos (you proposed earlier) in order to grab as much land as possible indirectly implies stretching our defenses thin.
|
Only if you assume that the cities produced this way will sit there and produce Wealth or something similarly intelligent. The second city we produce (already defended by the Merc) can start producing barracks to crank out veteran Mercs (or whatever you like) to defend other cities. Just an idea.
quote:
The BW first strategy was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the team.
|
I hope the overwhelming majority of the team also plays as Carthage and on this very same map all the times. Usually I am researching BW first as well. In fact in all the 4 MP games I am involved now, I researched BW first. But that is a different civ/map. And I think we shouldn't take anything for granted because it's always been like that or because everybody is doing it. Maybe the thing that 99% of the people wouldn't even dream about is the key to our victory.
quote:
I don't recall saying anything about considering other teams superintelligent AI running on deity. You may even find a post of mine somewhere else on this forum, expressly stating we shall not fear other teams, despite the renowned names, since what they can think up, we also can.
|
Happy to hear that. I just realized that you are also the head of our Foreign Affairs, so on a personal note: maybe you should go out and play on human weakness. Maybe you could publish a newsletter that reports how many and well placed Mercs we have all over the map (slightly exegarating numbers and strategic value, of course ). That might be worth more than 3 Merc/city.
quote:
OTOH, other teams include players that are well known for their aggressive strategy. They have repeatedly expressed their belief that agressiveness, especially early in the game, can significantly hinder opponents' ability to catch up. It is true that they are likely to be more careful facing humans, but we better not reckon on that.
|
Good. I am happy to see that someone is taking care of this aspect of the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by delmar
Only if you assume that the cities produced this way will sit there and produce Wealth or something similarly intelligent. The second city we produce (already defended by the Merc) can start producing barracks to crank out veteran Mercs (or whatever you like) to defend other cities. Just an idea. |
Was this necessary...?
Anyway, this discussion is just very academic now, as we have almost no knowledge of our surroundings & neighbours. Let's wait till we learn more. Then we talk about general strategies.
quote:
Originally posted by delmar
I hope the overwhelming majority of the team also plays as Carthage and on this very same map all the times. Usually I am researching BW first as well. In fact in all the 4 MP games I am involved now, I researched BW first. But that is a different civ/map. And I think we shouldn't take anything for granted because it's always been like that or because everybody is doing it. Maybe the thing that 99% of the people wouldn't even dream about is the key to our victory. |
And your point is? I said that most people in the team voted for researching BW first. In this game, with this civ, on this map. Thus we went for BW. If the majority of the team wanted to disband our capital, we would disband our capital. It's that simple. This is a team effort and the majority rules. Prior to making a decision, let there be a discussion. Once the team makes the decision, it's over (speaking specifically of the research now). Switching research would kill us. Discussing whether going for BW was fine or not is useless now.
quote:
Originally posted by delmar
Happy to hear that. I just realized that you are also the head of our Foreign Affairs, so on a personal note: maybe you should go out and play on human weakness. Maybe you could publish a newsletter that reports how many and well placed Mercs we have all over the map (slightly exegarating numbers and strategic value, of course ). That might be worth more than 3 Merc/city. |
Like GoW did? Other teams would consider the info just as irrelevant as I consider GoW's fake pic. But if you feel like working on propaganda, feel free to do so. I just don't have time to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
delmar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vondrack
Was this necessary...?
|
I guess the real question is: was it offensive to you? If so, I apologize. I thought we were discussing strategy, so I just wanted to point out that nothing I said so far implies that we won't have good defense.
quote:
Anyway, this discussion is just very academic now, as we have almost no knowledge of our surroundings & neighbours. Let's wait till we learn more. Then we talk about general strategies.
|
I don't fully agree but I can see your point, and I appreciate that you read through all my rather long posts so far. So just one last comment:
quote:
And your point is? I said that most people in the team voted for researching BW first.
|
You said the "overwhelming majority of the team adopted this strategy" and I interpreted this as "most people in our team usually do this so we did, too". Even though you didn't mean this, I would argue that this is the case and in fact this is the reason why the vote came in as it did. Whether it is a good decision or not, is an independent question. See also the poll where it was decided 9 to 1 that we should mine the cattle first and then we didn't mine it first because the simulation showed that it doesn't make sense. As a side note, I couldn't find the thread where the research decision was made so if you could send me a pointer, I would appreciate it.
And my point is: if we are playing based on instinct, even if it is the collective instinct of 18 people, instead of careful evaluation of facts, then we are missing out on one of the huge advantages of playing as a team.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by delmar
You said the "overwhelming majority of the team adopted this strategy" and I interpreted this as "most people in our team usually do this so we did, too". Even though you didn't mean this, I would argue that this is the case and in fact this is the reason why the vote came in as it did. Whether it is a good decision or not, is an independent question. See also the poll where it was decided 9 to 1 that we should mine the cattle first and then we didn't mine it first because the simulation showed that it doesn't make sense. As a side note, I couldn't find the thread where the research decision was made so if you could send me a pointer, I would appreciate it. |
The poll is here. Perhaps I expressed myself incorrectly... what I wanted to say was that overwhelming majority (everybody, to be exact) voted for BW. Sorry if it was bad English (even though I don't think so), I am not a native speaker.
quote:
Originally posted by delmar
And my point is: if we are playing based on instinct, even if it is the collective instinct of 18 people, instead of careful evaluation of facts, then we are missing out on one of the huge advantages of playing as a team. |
Instinct or careful evaluation, it does not matter. If the team votes for something, we are going to do that. If you consider something others propose (say, based on their instinct) wrong, submit a counter-proposal then (say, based on your careful evaluation). If it is backed up by solid arguments, members may change their mind and adopt your solution (which is exactly what happened with the cattle tile issue - the second vote overrid the first one). If they don't, we will play according to their instinct. That's the principle. You can't have the game played to your liking, unless you gain the majority support for your ideas.
Last edited by vondrack on 08-12-2002 at 02:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
delmar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vondrack
Perhaps I expressed myself incorrectly... what I wanted to say was that overwhelming majority (everybody, to be exact) voted for BW. Sorry if it was bad English (even though I don't think so),
|
Not at all, I think it was simple prejudice on my side.
quote:
I am not a native speaker. |
Me neither.
quote:
Instinct or careful evaluation, it does not matter. If the team votes for something, we are going to do that. |
I am afraid my whole point is getting missed here. I am not arguing for ignoring what the majority wants (and expresses in form of voting), even less for changing things that have been decided already and, for example, changing the research direction after investing several turns into Bronze Working. I am not even necessarily proposing a strategy here.
What I am trying to get through is that there is a way to think ahead and see the consequences of our decisions, and it is possible to define our building strategy in more detail than "we will expand and will place cities 2 tiles away from each other" (sorry dear candidates, no offense meant ). I hope that I gave some ideas above as to how to do this "in theory", but if it is not good enough then I will attach a scenario here which can be used to model our situation.
Edit: it seems I can't attach anything here. I do have a scenario nonetheless, so if anyone has any idea how to share it then let me know.
Yes, I did question some early decisions, but not from the point of "why did we do this after most people voted for it" rather "did people have enough information to vote for one or the other".
quote:
If you consider something others propose (say, based on their instinct) wrong, submit a counter-proposal then (say, based on your careful evaluation).
|
I would hope that this is going to be done by the Ministers (that is, describing different scenarios, with their cost, risks, pros and cons, and let the citizens choose), and I also believe that I gave an example here. The starting point of this whole discussion is the simple fact that I wanted to choose a Master Builder and I found that I can give more details about a possible strategy (not the strategy that we must implement otherwise Delmar will cry and go home! ) in 30 minutes than any of the canidates did for days, even though I personally don't want to be a minister at all. And this while we are already actually playing the game!  (Don't worry, I don't take it as seriously as it sounds. )
Now to put some more fuel on that fire, let me point out that the voting about the research direction was finished before the game actually started (last post dated at 30-11-2002 22:29 -- this is why I didn't find it...). While you can dispute the importance of seeing the map before making such a decision, I will find it difficult to accept that you couldn't have made an at least as good decision after seeing the map. Note that I am not saying that it was a mistake to choose BW as target, only that this decision could have been prepared better.
And again, I mention these things not because I want to show you how much better my strategy would have been (I am not sure at all if it would have been better), rather to help us improve our decision making process.
Thanks,
Delmar
Last edited by delmar on 08-12-2002 at 05:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by delmar
Now to put some more fuel on that fire, let me point out that the voting about the research direction was finished before the game actually started (last post dated at 30-11-2002 22:29 -- this is why I didn't find it...). While you can dispute the importance of seeing the map before making such a decision, I will find it difficult to accept that you couldn't have made an at least as good decision after seeing the map. Note that I am not saying that it was a mistake to choose BW as target, only that this decision could have been prepared better. |
I'm glad you want to improve the decision making process. We are only beginning the game, so we sure lack experience and good organization. However, there is a problem which caps our decision making process : many decisions must be taken in a hurry. The whole PtW DG agreed teams should have the save 24 hours max. That's why we cannot have too much clutter (like a mutual veto power for example), and that's why we must meet some decisions too early, rather than too late.
In the very case of the discovery of BW, I'm the culprit, being the one who posted the poll. But hadn't we decided before the game started, we could have wasted 1st turn because of our indecision.
I prefer having relatively bad decisions rather than no decisions at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
delmar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
However, there is a problem which caps our decision making process : many decisions must be taken in a hurry. The whole PtW DG agreed teams should have the save 24 hours max.
|
This is indeed an important factor and I was wondering when we start to blame things on this, khm, must admit that this makes things a bit more difficult.
Now, if we think that this is a problem (and I do think), then maybe we should do something about it. For example, I would like to point out that most decisions can be made based on the previous save, in fact a large number of decisions can be made 5-10 turns ahead, especially in this early phase. So maybe we shouldn't be in such a hurry to send forth the save even if we think we don't have anything to do in this turn, rather wait until our 24 hours are over -- thus saving some time for the decisions for the upcoming turn(s) to be made. This way we could have plenty of time to build a base strategy (that could be followed if everything goes as planned) and we would have close to 48 hours plus whatever the other teams take to think to react to most emergencies or unforeseen events. Just an idea.
quote:
In the very case of the discovery of BW, I'm the culprit, being the one who posted the poll. But hadn't we decided before the game started, we could have wasted 1st turn because of our indecision.
I prefer having relatively bad decisions rather than no decisions at all. |
No question there. And I wouldn't even have disagreed, had I been a citizen at that time, to start such a discussion (maybe not necessarily a poll) that early. What I am trying to point out here is the general principle that we need to use as much information when making decisions as possible. To apply this principle to the case of research direction, I would have waited with the final decision until after the map is revealed. Now before someone replies back and proves me that it wouldn't have mattered: that is not the point here.
Last edited by delmar on 08-12-2002 at 07:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by delmar
This is indeed an important factor and I was wondering when we start to blame things on this, khm, must admit that this makes things a bit more difficult.
Now, if we think that this is a problem (and I do think), then maybe we should do something about it. For example, I would like to point out that most decisions can be made based on the previous save, in fact a large number of decisions can be made 5-10 turns ahead, especially in this early phase. So maybe we shouldn't be in such a hurry to send forth the save even if we think we don't have anything to do in this turn, rather wait until our 24 hours are over -- thus saving some time for the decisions for the upcoming turn(s) to be made. This way we could have plenty of time to build a base strategy (that could be followed if everything goes as planned) and we would have close to 48 hours plus whatever the other teams take to think to react to most emergencies or unforeseen events. Just an idea.
|
THe problem is that right now other teams want the saved played and sent on asap. THey dont want to wait a whole day just to tell worker to build a road, or skip turn, allthough when we get futher in the game, the time we will have to make dessicions will be longer because turns will take longer to play. SO i would not worry about this, because like i said we will get more time as the game goes futher, not less.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2002 00:00
|