08-12-2002 14:44									#31
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by delmar Do we have a rule that allows us to hold the save for 24 hours or not? As the other teams are not citizens of Legoland, I assume they are not looking for our best interest and therefore I consider it irrelevant if they want something that was not enacted as a rule. In fact it might be considered psychological warfare (if not outright unfair) to push other teams into hurried decisions (I mention this for future reference, dear Department of Foreign Affairs ).

I think it's much simpler than that : everybody wants to have fun, and as such, nobody wants to wait a week (7*24 hours) only to press the "end turn" button.
I could say I range among the 'psychological warriors' , since I like to see our turn to be done quickly, and could push us to be faster. I don't want the ruin of the Legoland team, but I don't want the ruin of the game because of too great length at the beginning.

(And even if our rivals will be atrociously vicious in-game, I don't believe they'do such lengths in the meta-game : they are fair play, erm, as far as fair play can go in Civ3 )

	08-12-2002 21:39									#32
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I think it's much simpler than that : everybody wants to have fun,

So to summarize: we are playing the game without a strategy because we want to have fun?

I am sure you will accuse me of misinterpretation and quoting you out of context, but I seriously think that this is what it boils down to. And I also don't have a problem with this, as long as this is a conscious decision of the citizens of Legoland, not just "how things happen to be".

quote: and as such, nobody wants to wait a week (7*24 hours) only to press the "end turn" button.

For the record, they don't have to. They are free to pass the game in 10 seconds if they want to and thus they will have to wait only 24 hours and 1 minute in worst case.

quote: (And even if our rivals will be atrociously vicious in-game, I don't believe they'do such lengths in the meta-game : they are fair play, erm, as far as fair play can go in Civ3 )

I am not accusing anyone of playing unfair, I just wanted to point out that we seem to be screwing ourselves as badly as if someone was playing unfair against us.

	08-12-2002 21:55									#33
	2 warriors + settler OR 1 merc + settler ? Put an end to popups!

The num. merc has a great advantage, being an overly powerful defensive unit, but it has also a major flaw : it costs 10 shields more than the spearman it replaces.

In Legopolis, once our cattle and shield grassland will be mined, the production will look so, when our settler is finished :
- First 7 turns with one pop : 3 shields per turn. Total 21 shields.
- Second 7 turns with 2 pop : 5 shields per turn. Total 35 shields.
Total shields before Legopolis reaches pop 3 : 56 shields.

And, to build merc + settler, we'd need 60 shields, i.e one more turn. OTOH we can build 2 warriors + settler (or any 20 shields unit we have at disposal), and waste 6 shields.

Here's a comparative table:

code:




Numidian Mercenary + settler
2 warriors + settler


The Good
- Better defense, unmatched safety in the ancient age

- It means we are sure not to lose our settler stupidly
 (HUGE advantage that is)

- No wasted shields

- Less units -> less upkeep costs -> higher tax rate
- One more unit to explore,
i.e to discover new fertile lands
 and to know earlier where our rivals lie

- No wasted time, we are at full speed




The Bad
- We are one turn late in the settler race

- We explore twice as slow,
 and might end up not exploring at all,
 since the merc is likely to fortify in our cities
- Having twice more units will cost us
 twice more in upkeep, while our
 2 units combined are worse than a merc.

- We risk losing our settler to barbarians
 or other, tempted teams.

- We waste 6 precious shields

	08-12-2002 22:04									#34
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by delmar I am not accusing anyone of playing unfair, I just wanted to point out that we seem to be screwing ourselves as badly as if someone was playing unfair against us.

Let me disagree. I think we're simply clicking the "end turn" button as fast as possible, so that we arrive to the more interesting part of the game before everyone gets bored. As you can see with my contributions, I'm not against discussion and strategy, but I do think we should only bother to discuss what our future decisions should be, rather than what the previous decisions should have been. Hence my previous post in this very thread.
When we'll have tougher decisions to make (such as choosing our new research if we get BW in a goody hut, for instance), I sure will want to take enough time so that most of us can discuss and vote. But I don't want to hold up the game for 24 hours when the only decision to meet is "should we move our warrior E or NE ?". Having a discussion beforehand for this matter is good, but if it's impossible to discuss it beforehand, then our military architect will be the one who'll meet the decision alone.

Edit : When there will be more orders to issue, as Jack_www said, we'll take our time, as everybody will do.
I understand you want us to have time to discuss, but I think the current pace of the game really allows us to discuss plannable matters : in the above post, I just suggested a 14 turns plan, something which should last 2 weeks or so if it's accepted.

Most planable issues are related to city planning and reseearch. If my plan for Legopolis is accepted, we've adressed ca. half the planable issues. And people agreed it was too early to decide on a grand plan regarding science. I suppose we can still discuss whether our worker should first road or mine our shield grassland.

	08-12-2002 22:35									#35
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Let me disagree.

I'm glad you do. In fact I hope there are at least 9 others in Legoland who disagree, because that would mean that everything is fine.

quote: As you can see with my contributions, I'm not against discussion and strategy, but I do think we should only bother to discuss what our future decisions should be, rather than what the previous decisions should have been.

I agree. My opinion (or should I say: fear?) is however that previous decisions were made without proper consideration and as a citizen of Legoland I feel that it is my responsibility to improve this. The only way I could think up to initiate such an improvement was to point out that in my opinionthose decisions were made without proper consideration and to provide an example how it could be done differently in the future.

quote: When we'll have tougher decisions to make (such as choosing our new research if we get BW in a goody hut, for instance), I sure will want to take enough time so that most of us can discuss and vote. But I don't want to hold up the game for 24 hours when the only decision to meet is "should we move our warrior E or NE ?".

I personally don't like this aproach where someone implicitly ridicules certain opinions or alternatives. For example: "I doubt there will be any NO, but it's very possible that some people disagree with the general consens about BW." I beg you not to take this personally and I apologize in advance if you do. It is an unfortunate coincidence that the quoted sentence is from you. My point is: we shouldn't assume that something is not important or is obvious because it is like that for us. I assert that there are situations where moving the warrior E or NE is important (just an example: that warrior might be needed to prevent civil disorder somewhere).

And as for tougher decisions: mining or irrigating the cattle was a very significant decision. And I am not mentioning this because I believe that the decision we made was wrong. I am mentioning this because similar decisions might be lining up to be made in the very near future.

	08-12-2002 23:06									#36
	Support Apolyton

Some observations about Spiffor's strategy:

1.) Why is he not running for the MB position!?

2.) 2 warriors don't necessarily cost twice as much as 1 merc as 4 units/city is for free under Despotism.

3.) Having twice as many units don't necessarily speed up exploration after a certain limit. I believe that having more than 4 units doing exploration is not significantly better than 4. Nonetheless exploration is critical.

4.) Two warrior defending a settler is more than enough against barbarians. In most cases you can outrun barbarians (until they come on horses) by moving one warrior first to see +1 tile ahead.

5.) "We waste 6 precious shields": I personally consider this a huge disadvantage.

6.) I once read a study about strating strategies and one of the important points there was that keeping the base population of cities relatively high is good for the long run. Specifically the argument was that increasing population costs 20 food regardless of size (up to size 6), while, say, 3 citizens can obviously produce more shields than 1. What I am getting at is that a basic decision to make here is what the base population of the capital should be. I am usually going for 3. Spiffor suggested 1. This should be carefully evaluated.

	09-12-2002 09:44									#37
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Whoa, go away for two days and you miss an awful lot, it seems! Was away for the weekend, but I see there was some quite in-depth discussion in my absence.

Delmar; it will take me some time to read through everything that has been discussed, but I will gladly share my position on the issues you've raised in regards to my running for MB. It might not be until tomorrow, but it's coming.

	09-12-2002 10:36									#38
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by delmar 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.

True, it is entirely possible that we won't encounter anyone for 1000 years. It also equally possible that we may be on an island entirely by ourselves. However, it is equally as possible that there is another team located 25 tiles away on the other side of the desert or jungle.

My point is that I think it is in our best interests to assume that we will encounter someone sooner rather than later. While it may not actually turn out that way, it is better to be prepared defensively for an encounter that may not happen then to be ill-prepared for one that does; if you see what I'm saying.

Err on the side of caution is my basic message, and I think one that will keep us safe.

	09-12-2002 10:46									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I think it's much simpler than that : everybody wants to have fun, and as such, nobody wants to wait a week (7*24 hours) only to press the "end turn" button. I could say I range among the 'psychological warriors' , since I like to see our turn to be done quickly, and could push us to be faster. I don't want the ruin of the Legoland team, but I don't want the ruin of the game because of too great length at the beginning. (And even if our rivals will be atrociously vicious in-game, I don't believe they'do such lengths in the meta-game : they are fair play, erm, as far as fair play can go in Civ3 )

I think, in all honesty, that how long we hold on to a turn will be decided, dynamically, by whatever decision needs to be made. If it's a matter of pressing "End Turn," then that's that. If it's a matter of deciding whether to go to war, we'll probably hold on a little longer, no?

Keeping the turns moving quickly will keep people interested, and keeping people interested will mean more people will participate. More participation means more discussion about the strategy of the team, and that means probably a more succesful team in the long run. I don't think we'll ever actively rush a critical decision to keep the game moving, but at the same time we don't really need to hold on the turn 24 hours deciding whether to road or mine first. It should have been decided ahead of time, and as has been shown; it was.

What I'm saying, basically, is that I think a balance will be reached between turn time and decision time, and that we don't have to worry about it too much. I don't think anyone one this team would shoot themselves in the foot just to get the turn out an hour faster, right?

	09-12-2002 10:55									#40
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Spiffor: That looks pretty solid to me.

The way I look at things, however, might be considered more fluid than others. While I think having a ten-turn plan at this moment is reasonable, I am not willing to commit to anything beyond that until we have some exploration done. Our surroundings are critical to any longer-term planning. If there is another civ next to us, that will require a completely different tact than if we are on an island by ourselves. And then, from that point, further planning depends on how our diplomacy goes. Even my own stated policy of where I would like to optimally place cities is moot if the surrounding terrain won't support it. Don't even get me started on what happens depending on what we find in goody huts...

	09-12-2002 11:45									#41
	Got spare money?

Well, it looks like there's a big split here: quantum_mechani thinks we should build our cities two tiles apart, the others seem to say 4 (though they stress a [i]few] tiles overlap is okay).

To the candidates: would you consider 3-tile spacing? This is the maximum you can space without having gaps in your border, BTW.

	09-12-2002 17:00									#42
	Put an end to popups!

Delmar, you're killing me with these long posts! I barely have time to read and comprehend them, and I am supposed to answer, too!

*sigh* OK, here it comes:

1)
I agree that luxuries and strategic resources should be one of our main concerns during our expansion phase. This is what I implied when I said opportunistic approach.
Placing cities on hills is really something that depends on the terrain. You can’t plan such thing: sometimes it is good, sometimes not. I won’t place a city on a hill when the city spot is lacking production tiles.
I don’t like the “2-tile-between cities” placement style. I hate to limit in development exactly those early, carefully placed and planned future power-houses. Moving units in time to border cities can prevent succesful enemy attacks.
Some of your observations are so logical and self-implied that I supposed (and I’m still supposing) that (almost) everybody knows them (like what you said about harbors, dynamic assignment, tile improvements or pop-rushing).
I really don’t have the time to answer in detail all your questions/observations, so feel free to judge me based on what you’ve got. In addition, I’d like to answer some further issues that I feel are important before anybody could run for the MB. See 2) and 3) below.

2)
Reading on what you expect from a Master Builder (and generally from a Minister, from the other thread) I can safely say that I don’t have the time nor do I feel like doing at least half of these things. Outlining a strategy is one thing, but I have a job and even at home I have better and more important things to do than making scenarions with every single shield that should or should be not assigned here or there. This is way too much for me, I’m sorry. Generally too much in terms of time and in particular too much in terms of fun-hours. I want to actually have fun in those few hours I have to enjoy myself, and pinpointing every wasted shield does not fit in my idea about fun. If this is what the citizens of Legoland wants from a minister, then I forfeit from any executive position that I could ever obtain in Legoland.

3)
Reading your comments that we should hold the save for 24 hours only to play with all those numbers to see what is better: mine or irrigate (well, an extreme example, but you get the point) made me think obsesively since then on what is your primary goal with this game: to win or to have fun? I know the obvious answer is both, but if you had to choose, what is your uttlerly most important goal? Because mine is to have fun, to learn and only on the 3rd place comes the winning. If I wanted to win and only to win, I would have joined some other more balanced team, 'cause it is well known that civ3 is more suited for aggresivity than for peaceful building. If the owerwhelming majority of people from this team wants to win by any price, I better play alone at home where I can have fun.

	09-12-2002 19:50									#43
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Tiberius : what do you think of my plan ?

	09-12-2002 21:01									#44
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Tiberius, thanks for taking the time to read my posts. Keep in mind that I am only 1 of the 18 citizens here, so in theory you can feel free to ignore anything I say (until I post a vote and win ). This is something the other candidates should keep in mind, too. Don't be scared if you think that I won't be happy with you, because it just doesn't matter.

Now back to criticism:

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius 1) Some of your observations are so logical and self-implied that I supposed (and I’m still supposing) that (almost) everybody knows them (like what you said about harbors, dynamic assignment, tile improvements or pop-rushing). [...] I have better and more important things to do than making scenarions with every single shield that should or should be not assigned here or there.

Do I sense a slight contradiction here? My main purpose for mentioning this is that there seem to be a whole lot of things that many people think are "obvious" only to find out later that we did or should have done something completly different. See the issue with fortifying the warrior, if you will.

The secondary purpose is that I want to let our esteemed candidates know that I won't vote for anyone who doesn't promise at least aproximate evaluations of what would happen if we assigned a tile to one or the other city and careful consideration of wasted shields when assigning cities to unit building, because this is something I can do real time when playing against people.

quote: made me think obsesively since then on what is your primary goal with this game: to win or to have fun?

I will answer this question in the Role of the Ministers thread.

	09-12-2002 23:18									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

No, there isn't any contradiction if you are willing to understand my post rather than only reading it and searching for weaknesses. (Of course I micromanage my cities in the early years, just not 20 turns ahead). So my point was that I don't have time to plan in advance every single move "outlined to a satisfactory level of detail". IMHO you are confusing the word "strategy" with something else. Strategy means an outline, a general plan, not pinpointing tiny details. I'm not and don't want to be a chessprogram that calculates every single possibility in advance with 100 moves to see the best possible outcome. There's no fun in that for me nir do I have the time to do it. I'm not saying that it is bad to do this, it might be very efficient after all (as long as you don't lose the big picture while playing with the details). I just don't feel like doing this.

quote: The secondary purpose is that I want to let our esteemed candidates know that I won't vote for anyone who doesn't promise at least aproximate evaluations of what would happen if we assigned a tile to one or the other city and careful consideration of wasted shields when assigning cities to unit building, because this is something I can do real time when playing against people.

Hah. Then don't. If this is fun for you, go ahead, be Master Builder.
My post wasn't addressed only to you, I'm not so desperate in becoming a minister. It was a general question to the whole team (read my post again). If they want a Minister like this, than I forfeit and let others.

	09-12-2002 23:37									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Spiffor, sounds good, but I have my doubts:

How long can you do this? This whole strategy depends entirely on whether we are alone or not. We can do this for our second settler, but after that? Should we discover that we are not alone, we must build mercenaries. Simple as that. We can't continue to build warriors when some other guys could have archers!
I'm sorry, I'm kind of tired and can't follow all the math, so maybe I'm missing something. Please let me know if I misunderstood something.

	09-12-2002 23:49									#47
	Put an end to popups!

Tiberius : no problem, you understood
I never wanted this to be our default for eternity, but I felt it was better in the very early game, for our second settler, and maybe our thirs if we really discover no neighbour.

	10-12-2002 00:01									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well, then shouldn't we discover that we are not alone by the time our first settler is built, I agree with this procedure.

	10-12-2002 00:10									#49
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius Spiffor, sounds good, but I have my doubts: How long can you do this? This whole strategy depends entirely on whether we are alone or not. We can do this for our second settler, but after that? Should we discover that we are not alone, we must build mercenaries.

This has been my point all along. We must explore our extended surroundings before commiting to an extended path. Granted, I think we're flexible enough to work with whatever comes up, but I think that as a matter of time, it's not worth investing massive energy into plans that may not even be valid.

Call my crazy or lazy, but I think at this point in the game the MB can afford to make some choices without providing a full dissertation on why they did so. We all know how to play this game, and I would trust every one of you to make a good decision, and I hope you would trust me, too.

	10-12-2002 00:28									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by ZargonX This has been my point all along. We must explore our extended surroundings before commiting to an extended path. Granted, I think we're flexible enough to work with whatever comes up, but I think that as a matter of time, it's not worth investing massive energy into plans that may not even be valid. Call my crazy or lazy, but I think at this point in the game the MB can afford to make some choices without providing a full dissertation on why they did so. We all know how to play this game, and I would trust every one of you to make a good decision, and I hope you would trust me, too.

As if I you took the words from my mouth.

	10-12-2002 03:33									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sure, but I wanted to warn about the risks of building a merc too early (major problem being the lack of scouts). The whole production plan + math just meant I got a little carried away .
I did this because I had some time, and I don't expect you to do it if you don't want to : this game is intended to be fun

And it's always better to have a plan handy when we're still not sure about the one responsible for city planning (again, here speak bad memories of the SP DemoGame, when we hadn't a city planner for 2 months ; I designed a plan so that the government didn't have to poll on every single issue)

	10-12-2002 04:43									#52
	Tired of ads?

Wow...I also have been gone on an extended weekend and found this interesting discussion.

May I suggest to all (Spiffor, Delmar, Vondrack,...) that we use our intellect and energy to combat the future. Let's put and end to this discussion of the past.

I was very sceptical about the plan of 2 warriors + 1 settler, but upon further review I suppose it has more positives. You probably would not go wrong either way. But exploring our territory would give us knowledge to base future decisions. The first warrior can be exploring while the second is being built. Further exploration can be done by both warriors until the settler is built. Then we will know the best placement of our second city.

	10-12-2002 08:31									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius Hah. Then don't.

Even though the rest of your post worries me a bit, this part gives me some hope that after all you do have the right attitude.

	10-12-2002 10:46									#54
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

When I play a game, I usually keep building the exact same escort/settler combo in my capital for a long time. I find this a good aproach because it allows me to optimize the surroundings of the capital to that particular task, and then the worker can move on to build the road system and to improve the surroundings of future cities. Consequently I feel that it is worth investing time into detailed calculations such as what the heck will happen if I irrigate or mine the cattle. I suspect that this small piece of information would have been useful at the beginning of my post that analyzed the possibilities regarding our capital.

Edit: An additional, Demo Game specific advantage of this aproach would be that we could agree on it once and never discuss it again. This just occured to me and now I am a bit scared by the thought that we might need to discuss and vote about every single unit our capital builds for the next 2000 years.

Scouting is also very important. For this reason I usually build a few warriors while the worker finishes the tile improvements that are necessery for the aforementioned optimized setup. If I feel that the warriors produced during this period are not sufficient for scouting, then I build further warriors in the second city. This is often not necessary because I find sea in one or more directions, limiting the scope of scouting by warrior. In any case, I wouldn't delay the start of the escort/settler production much after the optimized setup is ready for the sake of building scouts, as having more than 4 units per city for a prolonged period indirectly means that we can't keep our research set to 100%, which I consider an extremely important thing this early in the game.

Some voiced their opinion that a strategy this early is useless because it will change anyway. I don't agree with this statement, as I can hardly imagine any situation where I wouldn't want to build settlers for a long time and obviously the settler can't go alone so there must be an escort as well.

I realize that one of the major issues at hand is what that certain "escort" should be, and that it seems to depend on many yet unknown things. For example whether we are alone or not. My answer to this question would be that we should shoot for a strategy that will work in most cases. Specifically I wouldn't dare to count on being alone, therefore I would not even consider a strategy that needs changing if we meet another civ.

I don't know whether the 2-warrior escort is good enough for the case where we are not alone. I never build many warriors, only 3-4 for exploring and suppressing early unrest in the capital, for the simple reason that their upgradeability sucks. An exception to this rule would be if I wanted to have a bunch of swordsmen, which I usually don't. Therefore I am tempted to say that the 2-warrior version is inferior.

At the same time I can see the adventage of having 2 warriors in each city permanently, for supressing unrest and for basic protection. They might be also useful, after upgraded to swordsmen, to take out enemy units before they can attack.

If we find (later on) that 2 warriors are not enough for protection, then we can build a city (or two) optimized for producing Mercenaries.

Last edited by delmar on 10-12-2002 at 11:09

	10-12-2002 11:47									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Wow, a lot piled up while I was gone.

Kloreep: I don't think the three tile method would help anything as the main advantage of the two tile system is the one turn defense reinforcements.

Delmar: I agree with most of your ideas (especially the city spacing ), but if you really need someone to micromanage to that degree you should run for Master Builder next election. BTW, I belive that long term grasslands are equal to plains.

	10-12-2002 13:05									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by quantum_mechani Delmar: I agree with most of your ideas (especially the city spacing ),

Yes, I noticed that city spacing thing, too. I am a bit surprised that some folks are on one hand afraid that someone will steamroll us before we can say "Numidian Mercenary" and on the other hand are worried about not being able to use all the 20 tiles around a city. Well, all I can say is that we will have what the majority wants...

quote: but if you really need someone to micromanage to that degree you should run for Master Builder next election.

I addressed the question whether I should run for MB position or not in this thread. In short, I am more and more convinced that I shouldn't.

quote: BTW, I belive that long term grasslands are equal to plains.

Because?

	10-12-2002 13:17									#57
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The winner is ZargonX.

Believe it or not, I’m happy somebody finally voted ZargonX so he could win the contest.
I was worried that I should forfeit while being in advantage in the poll, which would have been quite a strange situation. I’ve realized that I won’t have time for this. Due to some family and work arrangements, I’ll be offline starting with dec. 20 until the beginning of the new year (with the exception of maybe a few days). Also in january I won’t be able to post on a daily basis, maybe once or twice a week. This could change at the end of january, but until then don’t count on me on a regular basis. This of course exclude me from any executive position.

I want to thank everybody who voted me. I am confident I would have done a good job. To quote Zargon, who said it better: “I think at this point in the game the MB can afford to make some choices without providing a full dissertation on why they did so. We all know how to play this game, and I would trust every one of you to make a good decision, and I hope you would trust me, too.” I’m a little worried that I wouldn’t have the time to run some of those much needed simulations (like the road-mine or warrior-warrior-settler issues) so it is better this way, that my RL gave me the excuse .

Thank you.

PS You should find somebody to update the “Guidelines for the President/VP” thread after dec. 20.

Edited: I removed any reference to delmar. I thought he was the one who voted Zargon, while apparently he didn't.

Last edited by Tiberius on 10-12-2002 at 13:55

	10-12-2002 13:34									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius The winner is ZargonX. Believe it or not delmar, I’m happy you voted ZargonX

Believe it or not, I didn't vote because nobody promised what I asked for.

And as for the implied accusation that I hate you, I don't.

I think you might have missed one important part of one of my earlier posts, so let me quote myself:

"Keep in mind that I am only 1 of the 18 citizens here, so in theory you can feel free to ignore anything I say (until I post a vote and win ). This is something the other candidates should keep in mind, too. Don't be scared if you think that I won't be happy with you, because it just doesn't matter."

	10-12-2002 13:44									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

If you didn't vote, please vote ZargonX, so the poll could officially end with his victory.

	10-12-2002 14:08									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Delmar, I wasn't assuming you were hating me. I assumed that you childishly voted against me because I didn't approve you playing style. I apologize for that.

I am very close to follow your advice and ignore whatever you're saying. It is not because I have anything against you, but your posting style could be sometimes truly annoying. You have good ideas and good intentions; only if you could post them in a more attractive style. The majority of people around have a RL and little time to spend reading and answering posts, especially very long ones, filled with all kind of speculations and sometimes accusations. You seem to assume that no one except you have a strategy, while confusing strategy with nitpicking.

Just my 2 cents.