02-04-2003 17:19									#1
	Turn 32 Got spare money?

To be edited by the Consuls and Ministers.

Status:
- Researching Warrior Code at 80%, ready in 5 turns.
- Luxury Slider at 20%
- 29 gold cash, -2 gpt.

Urgent questions:

Military:
W2 'BigFree' moves 2 (South).
W3 'Alva' moves 2 (South).
W4 'BFW' moves 9 (Northeast) onto city tile.
W5 'Theseus' fortified in Apolyton.
Settler S-SW-W (2-1-4), found city on the next turn

Economy:
Apolyton done building a Settler.
Suggestion for the next build: another warrior
(settler next, sped up by the forest chop)
luxury slider to 0%, research slider to 100%

Workers
Worker Dan start chopping forest (1).

Diplomacy:
CDG: NAP in effect. Tech swap in effect; we give WC and Wheel for IW.
GCA: NAP in effect (fm Turn 29). Negotiating future tech swap.

---

Discussion and basic reporting to follow. See the topped thread for comprehensive results.

Last edited by Trip on 04-04-2003 at 04:23

	02-04-2003 18:51									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

What happened to turn 32?

I'll get back to this thread with some (revised) economic plans. None will involve a Modern Armor to cure all our troubles (although I'm often tempted use them in the debug test scenario...).


Dominae

	02-04-2003 19:02									#3
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Dominae What happened to turn 32?

Must be something with the daylight savings time change...

Fixed, sorry.

	02-04-2003 22:06									#4
	Re: Turn 32 Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by vondrack Apolyton done building a Settler.

"A Settler" ? That's Ninot the Settler leaving to build himself a new home!

	02-04-2003 23:01									#5
	Increase Your PM Length

The decision to put the Worker on the Forest was not as bad as I had originally thought. The net effect will "merely" be a few turns delay on the Granary at city 2. We will also probably be slowed down by the need for additional Warriors (not sure where to fit them in yet), but this needs to be done. I'll have an updated queue ready shortly.

Is scouting SE of Apolyton (where we just popped the Hut) really worth it at this point? We're relatively certain no civs lie in that direction. The only problem is the potential loss of Huts to CDG, if they come up to explore that area themselves. If the Warrior survives the Barb onslaught, I recommend bringing him back to our settlements immediately.


Dominae

	03-04-2003 00:07									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I would disagree with the concept of moving W3 'Alva' back to Apolyton. There still might be something valuable that lies in that direction, and I want to make sure that if there is, we'll be the first to find it. Even if it's just jungle to the coast, turning back now would be incredibly inefficient, especially considering we only have 2 scouts as it is.

One way that the other smaller teams could get an advantage over us would be if we continually change our minds trying to optimize our actions. We may have a better team, but if the other smaller teams are more focused and don't continually backtrack, while we do, then even if they were in a situation like ours where they should have turned their Warrior back, they would accomplish more by continuing, while we would be trying to get the most out of every situation, eliminating the effort we've already put in. It's like planning on building your first settler at size 5, but you're already building a settler while actually planning on building a Spearman, though you have 25 shields already in. Do you change it to the Spearman, wasting those 5 shields but keeping to your plan of building a settler at size 5, or do you move ahead with the Settler even though it may not have been in the intial plan. I would go for the Settler.

	03-04-2003 02:42									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Trip I would disagree with the concept of moving W3 'Alva' back to Apolyton. There still might be something valuable that lies in that direction, and I want to make sure that if there is, we'll be the first to find it.

Valuable as in a Hut, right? Do you think CDG is scouting the area in question as we speak, or plan to in the near future?

quote: Even if it's just jungle to the coast, turning back now would be incredibly inefficient, especially considering we only have 2 scouts as it is.

More inefficient than delaying our Settlers?

quote: One way that the other smaller teams could get an advantage over us would be if we continually change our minds trying to optimize our actions.

Optimization is always best. It's the process of selecting among alternatives that is critical. With the size of our team, we can sort of expect to come up with more options than other smaller teams. Where we might falter is if we choose an option that seems best but really is not.

Personally I do not think that 2 Numidian Mercenaries are all that necessary at this point, but we've got a whole team of diplomats and warmongers who think otherwise. How can we tell who is right? By consulting experts. Yet by the very nature of this game (democracy game), expert opinion is on the same level as public (non-expert) opinion. Therefore we may once in a while select sub-optimal courses of action. And this is why we may not be as competitive as smaller teams, who presumably have a higher expert/non-expert ratio. If we really wanted to win this thing for Apolyton, we should give the game to one or two of our best, sit back and watch "us" play "our" best.

By the way, I'm not saying in any way that I am an "expert" here (far from it!), nor am I calling to cut the "weak" players. I'm just saying that the nature of our team (democratic) does not go well with our major goal (to win). Fortunately it does fit well with the other goal, to have fun, so we're not completely screwed up here.


Dominae

	03-04-2003 03:21									#8
	Suffering from ads?

Fun and winning go hand in hand! If we lose(badly) there will be hardly anyone who'll say they had 'fun.'

This is labled as a 'Democracy Game', but with our system of Consuls doing what they feel is best, it is not really a Democratic system as is. I'm not saying that the Consuls don't pay heed to Minister's or Senator's, but they are not obligated to do so other than fear of a CoC. This could be, in effect, "our best" playing the game while the rest sit back. If the current Consuls do not perform as suggested by the Ministers or the Senator's and we do 'badly' in the game, then those Consul's will be gone. If they do perform as indicated by popular vote/demand and we still do 'badly' in the game, the Consuls are more likely to survive in their current posts. If the team does well, no matter how the Consuls choose their actions, they will retain their positions.

We've had a string of 'bad luck' so far, no doubt, but nothing so bad that we can't recover to a degree. I feel that the Consul's, for the most part, are following the dictates of the Minister's and the involved Senator's. No one person's views on every move is going to be heeded, and they shouldn't. This should be as Democratic of a process that is allowed. There should be no one claiming their expertise or even any semblance of it; instead they should make arguments and be prepared to defend them. You can't take what happens in the game and then say "I told you so!" You must apply former knowledge of the game it to the current scheme and layout using arguments/proofs to support your position. When you post something in here, as I was told by a wise person in this forum, you are attempting to convince them of your strategy, not neccessarily degrading another's.

I think our system is working fine up to this point. I'm happy with the level of involvement by team members that wish to be involved. Consuls get a

	03-04-2003 05:31									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

We need more Units, so I say we hold off of makeing any NM's for a bit and make warriors instead. I would rather have a warrior (or 2) to protect our workers and Established Infrastructure than loos them to a barb or 2.

E_T

	03-04-2003 08:56									#10
	Put an end to popups!

I agree with E_T. City1 should hold off on building a Numidian Merc. for now, building perhaps a Warrior or two and a Worker beforehand. This pushes our Barracks back further, but this is a consequence of our bad Hut luck.


Dominae

	03-04-2003 10:00									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Any chance of seeing a modified queue candidate soon?

I won't pass judgement on anything until I can see things in a more concrete manner.

	03-04-2003 11:37									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Personally I do not think that 2 Numidian Mercenaries are all that necessary at this point, but we've got a whole team of diplomats and warmongers who think otherwise. How can we tell who is right? By consulting experts. Yet by the very nature of this game (democracy game), expert opinion is on the same level as public (non-expert) opinion. Therefore we may once in a while select sub-optimal courses of action.

Personally, I find this opinion and point of view to be extremely egotistical and utterly presumptious. The underlieing assumption is that there IS one "right way" to play this game, which could be argued if we're playing against a predictable AI, but most certainly isn't the case against human opponents. And then this assumption rests on a further assumption that there exists "experts" who know what the "right" actions are and that our "experts" (whoever they are) are not being listened to because there are too many non-experts on this team who, for charity's sake or for the sake of "fun," are given a voice.

At some point can we please get past this wishful thinking and the tendency to blame each other for bad luck and illogical opponents? Please?? The idea at the center of our Democracy game is that all of us, self proclaimed "experts" and otherwise, should voice our ideas and concerns and then our leaders can use their wisdom and common sense to make the best and most informed decisions possible.

--Togas

	03-04-2003 11:45									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'll have to agree with BigFree and Togas here. This is ultimately a team effort and even though it has its drawbacks, it has benefits which ultimately IMO will more than compensate this.

The arguments of leaving this to "experts" are the same as turing a real life democracy into a dictatorship. Yes, under a good dictatorship things will get done better. I am no fan of democracy myself but I can't help but think that this is just a game, played in our spare time, and meant to have fun. Nothing more.

So let's learn from our mistakes, but let's listen to all who have something to say, whether they be "experts" or "weak" members (how to classify each one of us is beyond me first of all...). That what this game is all about. If not, we should have just played a PBEM game with one of our "hotshots" playing one of theirs. What's the fun in that?

With respect to diplomacy however, I honestly don't see how "experts" would have made any better. There are no build queues to which to draw upon when negotiating live with humans and mistakes have been made but also successes. Having achieved NAPs with both CDG and GCA and negotiating tech deals is a sign that ultimately, we did a good job, and repaired relations which were VERY rough at first (especially with CDG) and you can ask any other FAM member to prove it.

-MZ

	03-04-2003 12:03									#14
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by BigFree This is labled as a 'Democracy Game', but with our system of Consuls doing what they feel is best, it is not really a Democratic system as is.

It =is= a democratic system, IMHO. We're just not voting over every decision, and that is a good thing, because the game is moving too fast for that.
We =democratically= chose the system of government and the people acting in that system. We're lucky to have three consuls as active as they are now, because the game really needs it. If we, in the future, feel that they're not performing well, we can democratically send them away and replace them with better people.
The consuls also bear responsability for the ministers. If one of them should perform below par, the consuls can replace him.

Actually, in my real life situation, which is democratical, I also get 'few' decisions in choosing the government, but I get no polls or forum discussion thread that the government listens to (and I'm under the impression that they do in this game).

	03-04-2003 12:09									#15
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I understand what Dominae is trying to say.

I think the trick for all of us will be to put aside our own agendas and recognise when someone has a better idea, even if that idea differs from our own preferred style of play. If we can collectively do that, then we will turn our diversity into a strength.

	03-04-2003 18:44									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Togas Personally, I find this opinion and point of view to be extremely egotistical and utterly presumptious. The underlieing assumption is that there IS one "right way" to play this game, which could be argued if we're playing against a predictable AI, but most certainly isn't the case against human opponents..... --Togas

::Nods to Togas:: My sentiments exactly. Early on I heard a lot of "This isn't an Internet MP game" and my thoughts each time were that this is EXACTLY what this game was, but other people's desires not to play it as such were quite limiting. Humans are completely unpredictable, and for the most part, with all due respect to our psychological analysts here, the teams so far have done nothing as we've expected them to do. Reality check: EVERYONE here is trying to view this game within their own comfortable realm of experience. Our huge map players are thinking ultra-long term; our internet players are thinking "Crush on first opportunity to prevent problems later," and everyone else is in-between. This, in and of itself, is very normal. The problem is when the egos start coming into play and the browbeating "You don't know what you're talking about, this is 'this and that' sort of game" goes on. Untargeted insults start floating around, and everyone knows exactly who the targets really are....

I for one have been really put off by the veiled egotism, a large part of why I've started posting a lot less than I used to in the ISDG; I suspect I'm not alone in that. Until the "experts" recognize that they might not know it all, and recognize the assets and contributions of players with other fields of expertise might be worthwhile, you'll find more and more alienation around here.

	03-04-2003 21:00									#17
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Togas Personally, I find this opinion and point of view to be extremely egotistical and utterly presumptious. The underlieing assumption is that there IS one "right way" to play this game, which could be argued if we're playing against a predictable AI, but most certainly isn't the case against human opponents.

Unfortunately you overlooked the disclaimer at the bottom of my post.

My comments were in response to Trip's post where he claimed that we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by doing too much optimization. I disagreed with that statement, and explained where I really think the "weakness" of our team lies.

I am not saying I am an expert, or bluntly pointing out that there are experts among us. What I am trying to say is what I consider a simple fact: smaller teams will play more efficiently, since their best ideas need not go through a sea of discussion and bureaucracy. We therefore must accept the fact that we may not play our "best" game, simply because we're more committed to "playing a Democracy game" than "winning". I'm perfectly fine with this and, apart from my outburst after turn 31, have (I think) been projecting a desire for both competitiveness and community spirit (however these may be at odds).

Let me repeat: I do not think we should hand this game over to the "experts" (if there are any among us).

Re-reading the post that caused all this backlash, I'm actually quite surprised at how clear and non-inflammatory it originally was (to me, at least). Either people did not bother to understand what I was trying to say, or I was not able to express what I have to say (nye somehow understood me!).

And, while we're on the subject, I believe there are "more optimal" ways of playing the game even against human opponents. A big part of this involves the Interior. But it also involves other areas, such as scouting and tech progression. "Humans are unpredictable" is something to keep in mind, but is not a game plan. If this really were a internet MP game, we would be playing a lot differently, and expecting our opponents to do the same. If anyone seriously thinks that CDG is going to march straight for our capital with 4 (upgraded) Immortals the turn they get Iron Working, consider this: we have no defense against that. Preparing for all eventualities of unpredictable human behaviour is impossible. Maybe CDG and GCA are threatening us, hoping we focus on military while they out-expand us. We must take the middle ground, in which lies "good Civ3 play".


Dominae

	03-04-2003 21:23									#18
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon I for one have been really put off by the veiled egotism, a large part of why I've started posting a lot less than I used to in the ISDG; I suspect I'm not alone in that.

This is surely the team's loss. Assuming this statement is directed at me, I am saddened and frustrated that people feel this way.

To my knowledge, I have always provided the reasoning behind my arguments. If I've sounded condescending when doing this, it is only because I've been through it all before in the Strat forum (for instance, concerning city placement), or in the Gathering Storm private forums (for instance, concerning diplomatic issues). It is difficult (for me) not to give off an air of superiority when debating the issue for the second time (especially if the first time helped solidify my opinion). I apologize for this, and will try to approach each situation independently of others.

But I do change my opinion rather frequently, and so believe I am at all times open to discussion. In recent memory I've changed my position on 1) the decision to move the Worker to the Forest at turn 31, 2) precise city placement, 3) the need for extra Warriors after the Granary, 4) what to do after the Granary, specifically the decision to build some Reg. Numidian Mercs. 5) tech research, etc.

I am frustrated because the same people who are complaining that they do not have a voice are not realising that they have more of a voice than they think. Fried-Psitalon, I can guarantee you that people thought long and hard about your "diplomacy at the point of a sword" suggestion. Just because the idea was rejected for the time being does not mean that you're input was useless. Similarly for all the other ideas that we have not adpoted. If you gain satisfaction merely by seeing your own plans put into action, then you can expect to be disappointed once in a while in this game (maybe often), because there are bound to be people who will disagree with you.



Dominae

	03-04-2003 21:26									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Trip Any chance of seeing a modified queue candidate soon?

I missed this post amidst the flutter of other posts.

I'll come up with a proposal today sometime. We still have a few turns to make up our minds (since City1 only produces 3 Shields per turn).


Dominae

	03-04-2003 22:55									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dominae I missed this post amidst the flutter of other posts. I'll come up with a proposal today sometime. We still have a few turns to make up our minds (since City1 only produces 3 Shields per turn). Dominae

Great, thanks.

Despite all that's happening in this thread, I think that the build queues and future planning is highly valuable. I know I couldn't do it, which is why I feel we need someone competant in the MOI position who can.

	04-04-2003 01:49									#21
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Well, I can see another conflict brewing here... and as I certainly don't want (an)other member(s) leaving this team, I would like to ask everybody involved to take a deep breath and regain perspective...

Let me address a couple of points in a rather arbitary order:

1) This is (not) a regular Internet MP game.
2) The "better safe than sorry" approach

Well... it really is not a regular Internet MP game. The combined amount of time invested into this ISDG game is just magnitudes bigger than anything seen in SP or regular MP games. Because of that, it would simply be reckless and unacceptable to risk when possible gains are clearly not worth possible losses. I do understand and agree that popping huts is mostly fine, as they can potentially give huge benefits (techs, settlers). Losing one of four or five 10-shield warriors or having to alter paths or build queues a bit to make it possible for the luck to come to us is acceptable risk. OTOH, risking the life of our only worker just because we might finish a granary in our third city three turns later otherwise is simply not worth it... and thus, the plans get altered, even on the fly, if necessary. I believe - and I have been acting so far to that effect - that this game needs a careful approach taking no unnecessary risks, focusing more on "not losing" or "keeping at par" than "winning" or "beating" the others. If this approach seems to be boring and/or unappealing/unfit to the majority of this team, I guess it is time to call some CoC votes, as both me and nye tend to think this way. (MWIA left out only because we had very little chance to talk about real ingame situations so far - it is not meant to imply he would think in the same/different way).

The problem with this game is that it can't be restarted easily. Whatever "cheap" mistake we do, we are going pay dearly for it - even to an extent that the game might cease to be fun at all.

3) "democratic" nature of this game
I believe that BFM put it very well... while the Consuls decide eventually according to what they feel is right (based upon the suggestions of the Ministers and other members), the process leading to them being entitled the power to do so is entirely democratic. Plus, it takes 96 hours at most to replace any or all of them, if most people believe they are no longer acting in the best interest of the team. This is, IMHO, the most anyone can expect in a game that plays as fast as 1 turn every day. It is damn fast...

4) the whole expert/non-expert thing
What I find quite funny is that even though the very term "expert" is being used in the ISDG forum quite often, it never is used by the person supposed to be that expert. I do not think anybody would be able to dig up a post that says "I am an expert in this and this, so you better listen to me and not to the other guy."

It is always that someone calls someone else an expert on something... and as it happens a lot, it may sound as if there was a bit of elitist spirit here... while in fact, it is just that some people respect other people for what they are more or less apparently good at (this is most true about those folks that know each other from the Strat Forum).

However, whatever is said or suggested on this board is always only an idea more or less supported by solid arguments. I don't give a damn about if it was actually Trip or Dominae suggesting to build 2 Mercs... what I do care about is what reasons the person proposing the idea provides. I am not going to respect and value Trip's scouting directions more than Dominae's just because Trip would be considered an "expert" on the unit movement, while Dominae would be "just the build queue freak". Whoever submits more convincing reasons/plan shall earn my attention and support.

I am actually quite glad to see that the MoI is focusing on building the infrastructure, while putting much less emphasis on military... while the MoW asks for more or less the opposite. It is their job to do things in this way. As long as they both accept their desires will seldom be fully met, it is perfectly fine.

I do not think F-P's post was meant to point out at anyone specifically... rather he said aloud something that many here may feel. To be honest, I believe I was confronted with exactly the same thing in my infamous clash with Sir Ralph after Turn 1. I agree it is sometimes easy to feel a certain "air of superiority" when the Strat Forum regulars speak. To an extent, they do deserve respect for what they know about the game mechanics and about how to achieve certain goals. If we need to find out how to build a granary over the shortest period of time... well, I will ask Dominae first and then just check if anyone else, by chance, comes with a better idea. That's something he can definitely be called "an expert" in.

However, when it comes to considering the high-level strategy and diplomacy, then we have no experts at all. It is simple - with the exception of our PtWDG, nobody has ever played a game like ISDG. Experience from "regular Internet MP games" is applicable only to a limited extent, as teams may (but need not!) be aware of the "much higher stakes" in ISDG... and thus be more cautious (or not!) in what they are doing. Experience from our own PtWDG is, again, applicable only to a limited extent... since all the teams in it knew much more about their opponents, their credibility, skill etc. which undoubtedly affected the strategy a lot. In ISDG, our knowledge of the other teams is quite poor, certainly much worse than what was the case in PtWDG.

Another thing to consider is that our PtWDG went through the ancient times only. We may have some experience with the strategy in ancient times... but we have absolutely zero experience as far as medieval times go. Thus, claiming this or that to be true based upon what happened in PtWDG may also be misleading - who knows what we are going to think of past events at the end of the PtWDG medieval times...

5) ability to stick to plans
If there is anything I learnt in Legoland, it's that plans change frequently (especially in the first 50 turns... and keep in mind Legoland is fairly isolated, "suffering" the lowest level of unexpected events). You have to react to unexpected ingame events - goody hut pops, other civs, barbarians, geography... all those events fundamentally affect the "optimal" strategy (if there is anything like that at all, that is). It is rather obvious that blindly sticking to plans prepared without the knowledge we are gaining every turn may and probably would be sub-optimal. That said, I'm just amazed at how much we were able to stick to the original plan prepared before turns 2-3... even though we had to - due to the particularly bad luck leading to losing Wbetahound - sacrifice some geography knowledge in order to do so... Our plans, even the very best ones, will need to be amended, twisted, tweaked, and further refined, depending on what happens ingame. We should accept that as something quite natural - and while sticking to a certain overall strategy, we should not feel bad about changing details of our plans half-way into them.

6) importance of information & knowledge
Another thing I realized in PtWDG: it is vitally important to have information & knowledge. If we are able to get rid of most "assumptions", however educated they may be, it will be easier to work on the "optimal" strategy. Thus, scouting should definitely be very high on our priority list - yes, the peninsula SE of 'Poly is probably not that big, is probably this, and is probably not that... probably, schmrobably! Until we KNOW what is there, we cannot be sure and all our plans will be based upon assumptions only - which can and most probably would - lead to having to alter them later on. Let's get rid of as most variables as possible! Some variables are difficult to get rid of (like what other teams may do). Some are relatively easy to get rid of - like the geography of our landmass...

7) the need to coordinate
The recent incident with worker being reassigned sort of unexpectedly on T31 was unfortunately an example of what happens when we do not fully coordinate our various activities. MoI was quite naturally expecting the Worker Dan to be free to work tiles "reasonably close" to 'Poly. MoW on the other hand was quite naturally focused on scouting the SE peninsula. But nobody tried to actually put both agendas together. I would like to take this opportunity and urge everybody having time enough to try playing test scenarios and look for such loopholes. I readily admit I do not have more than 1-2 hours of my time to spend on ISDG every day. There is PtWDG, too, and there is my RL, too. Spending an hour creating the turn report, posting it, and maintinaing the most important info threads is the most I can do beside reading all the threads here. I am afraid I do not and I will not have time enough to play with the simulator... which, of course, leads to myself occasionally realizing problems only when they actually happen - and that is usually too late...

Uffff...

Sorry if half of what I have just written does not make sense enough to you... Read the other half, please.

	04-04-2003 01:57									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by vondrack while Dominae would be "just the build queue freak".

Is that all I am to you guys...? Cry, whimper, cry, cry...

But seriously, nice post vondrack. Glad to have you as Consul (now I know why people voted for you in the first place!).


Dominae

	04-04-2003 02:08									#23
	Tired of ads?

Very nice post, Vondrack. I'm just going to post a reaction to this particular passage:

quote: Originally posted by vondrack 6) importance of information & knowledge Another thing I realized in PtWDG: it is vitally important to have information & knowledge. If we are able to get rid of most "assumptions", however educated they may be, it will be easier to work on the "optimal" strategy. Thus, scouting should definitely be very high on our priority list - yes, the peninsula SE of 'Poly is probably not that big, is probably this, and is probably not that... probably, schmrobably! Until we KNOW what is there, we cannot be sure and all our plans will be based upon assumptions only - which can and most probably would - lead to having to alter them later on. Let's get rid of as most variables as possible! Some variables are difficult to get rid of (like what other teams may do). Some are relatively easy to get rid of - like the geography of our landmass...

I agree fully that we need as much information and knowledge as possible. However, with respect to the variables we cannot control/measure/know we must create assumptions. These assumptions might even be based on probabilities: if you're (somehow) 99% sure that a hut will give barbarians, you probably won't pop it. Then, a (temporal) plan may be based on these assumptions.

But there is a pitfall in making assumptions. The danger is that assumptions are going to lead their own life and virtually become 'common knowledge'. I think a good example of this is the question whether another landmass lies to the west of us. We can see a bunch of fish, and fish are likely to swim in coastal areas, but we cannot be sure that there is land until we have actually seen it.

We should therefore not make a plan based on the fact that there is land in the west, but we might plan an expedition to make sure there is.

Other examples are the various assumptions that CDG may or may not turn out to be friendly towards us. And - yes - the probability that the eastern peninsula is worth exploring seems to be big enough to send a warrior. But don't count on it!

	04-04-2003 03:14									#24
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Good post, vondrack.

Ok guys, let's shape up and see some cooperative teamwork - because I don't want to read a vondrack novel every week!

	04-04-2003 03:16									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

You're lucky he's not publishing in Czech language.

	04-04-2003 03:37									#26
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Is that all I am to you guys...? Cry, whimper, cry, cry... But seriously, nice post vondrack. Glad to have you as Consul (now I know why people voted for you in the first place!). Dominae

Dominae:

No, you are much more than that, and the fact that you are MoI I think it is because more than one of us has you in their highest regards.

Perhaps we have all gotten a little carried away in this thread, on the one hand it is good to "let out some steam" when something is bugging us, and hopefully with the input of all we can work around these troubles.

So now that this is all behind, let's get on with the game

BFM:

you are right, I cannot stress enough how important luck (or as we economists call it "probability distribution") comes into play. No matter how good we are there are decisions which will be impossible to plan towards the most favorable outcomes. We must trust our instints and they can, and will be wrong occasionaly. Hopefully, I am optimist and I trust that those same instincts will help us in most other cases (and hurt the others )

	04-04-2003 03:58									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

As in the SP Demo game, there are many different perspectives to playing the game. Where there are not official polls to point to and blame when things go awry (which they haven't, I must stress), all the President/Consuls can do is their best to listen to what everyone posts and judge what is the best course of action based on the broad agreement. If the Consuls/Ministers feel that judgements are made without the full facts, then they post and say why they believe a certain action is better.

Mistakes will be made, and in fact I think the Consuls have so far avoided this at every turn. If one's opinions are not the final decision taken, then OK, you gotta expect this every now and again. It is only if your opinions are ignored that there is something seriously wrong. This is to everyone - sometimes you will not get your way. Hell, I frequently don't in Demo games. You've just gotta do what you can to live with it. That is our challenge. We function as a team, look out for each other and work together, or quit now.

From what I can see there is no huge problem here. A disagreement or two, is all. And I mean it - that is all. Please everyone, let's not get upset over molehills. Relax, take it easy. Listen to those with experience. You may just learn something, and it might change your mind. Well-phrased posts certainly change my mind sometimes (usually once I've already voted ). if not, OK. But no-one should need to get upset. Is this a job? No. Do we lose anything? No. Let's have fun and keep thaat thought at the forefront of our minds.

I'd better stop rambling now.

	04-04-2003 04:27									#28
	Remove this text

MOW fully updated orders edited into the first post in the thread.

	04-04-2003 07:14									#29
	Remove this text

Dominae, you really should come to the chat room every once in a while (as should everyone else). I'm in there every day, for a long as I can be. Sometimes I'm just Idling while doing other things and sometimes I participate in some of the discussions. It's a valuable tool for team play that should not be ignored.

E_T

	04-04-2003 08:38									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Status:

Poly built a settler. Warrior next, in 2 turns.

Luxuries not required to keep Poly in good order, however... I will come back to this.

Barb is on hill 7 from Poly.

2 barbs stacked 3 from Walva. Walva is unscathed.

GCA Warrior, 'Shadow' is 8 from Wbigfree, on the mountain. Maybe they just waited for us to move off so they could catch the view, maybe not.