Turn 13

Cyrus found a village 2 turns south of him, Xerxes found a village 2 turns east of him. In fact, we are now facing two villages that may house barbarians (2/3 chance if entered by warriors, 1/3 chance to include maps, gold, technology, conscript warrior or a settler, or guaranteed no barbarians and a prize if a city is built next to it). We can choose to pop both huts, pop one of the huts and build a city next to the other one or build cities to both.

What do you choose?

Xerxes goes for the village, Cyrus continues on his way,

Shouldn't we switch away from the settler before popping the hut(s)? After the villages are entered we can switch back to producing the settler.

Also, if the first village is full of warriors I think we should enter the second village.

Well, there is no need, as the settlers are so far away, and our new city is built before potential barbarians even can move. We plan on a dense build here.
We are also chopping forests, so we got no choice.

I think donsig meant we should switch away from settler, just when we grab the GH, so that there's a chance we'll pop a settler.

I voted as vbraun did btw.

Oh I understamd.switch as in this is a sort of non-defined "exploit".

I urge restraint in TEAM TNT, and to vote for only popping with Xerxes, not Cyrus.
If there are barbarians on that Northern hill, our workers and our city may be at risk.
So please vote for the alternative to only pop with Xerxes, not Cyrus.

So we have the first ***** in our plan. We decided long ago (in the absence of proper intelligence it now seems) to send out unescorted settlers. We assumed there wouldn't be any barbarians around, remember? Is it time to revise our plan?

We need to pop both those huts ASAP to try to get a goody. If we can't deal with a few barbarians how do we expect to compete with the other teams in this game?

EDIT: So what's with the *****? Did I use a bad word or something? :confused:

I was trying to say we have the first glitch in our plans. (Now if that's the same word I used the first time...)

Anyway, What are we going to do if barbs do come out of that hut near our city? Haven't seen a city screenshot in ages so I'm not sure how many shields we have at risk now.

@regentman: I think Provo is saying RM actually turned off the naming capability. Is that true Provo?

Edit #2: Wish I could remember what word I used that got *****ed....

Not wanting to clutter your played turn thread, I'll post this here.

By the rules, you are allowed to rename your units. You just can't rename "warrior" to "swordsman" or something similar. That way, a stack of warriors won't look like a stack of swords. Where exactly did Rik outlaw unit renaming?

2.4 - Misleading through Renaming

Description: No team or individual is permitted to rename a unit or city with the intent of misleading or confusing opponents.

Definition: Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to. Units can be renamed to other units and appear to be something else entirely.

Purpose: To prevent the misleading or confusion of another team through malicious use of in-game features.

Verdict: Using this 'feature' or any other feature or exploit that allows misleading or confusing another team is a violation of this rule.

Punishment Level: Once – Red (5-Expulsion and forfeiture of double what was not legally traded)

So we have the first ***** in our plan. We decided long ago (in the absence of proper intelligence it now seems) to send out unescorted settlers. We assumed there wouldn't be any barbarians around, remember? Is it time to revise our plan?

We need to pop both those huts ASAP to try to get a goody. If we can't deal with a few barbarians how do we expect to compete with the other teams in this game?

EDIT: So what's with the *****? Did I use a bad word or something? :confused:

I was trying to say we have the first glitch in our plans. (Now if that's the same word I used the first time...)

Anyway, What are we going to do if barbs do come out of that hut near our city? Haven't seen a city screenshot in ages so I'm not sure how many shields we have at risk now.

@regentman: I think Provo is saying RM actually turned off the naming capability. Is that true Provo?

1. I see no problems in letting that hut by Cyrus stand for a few turns, it wont run away, and we can pop it safely with a new city. Sudden expansion as we have, almost like what we saw Iroq did this turn, is needed to not fall behind. All I ask for is restraint in popping that near hut, threatening our open city, workers and our Eastern scout. Xerxes is another story, as it will take ages to build a city there. several veteran players agree with me that we should leave the northern un-popped for a little while - it wont run away.

2. Yes a tried to rename some units, but it wont let me, so I guess Rik turned off the renaming cabability.

Again, against better judgement, I will pop the huts if the majority wants to pop them. Yet, remember some solid players represented a sizable minority and warned against barbarians. So do not blame us for wanting to wait with the Northern hut.

I will also like to mention that it is possible to alter vote.

I don't even know that it is possible to switch off the renaming of units. In fact, I know other teams have succesfully (re)named their units.

You did try to rename them before you removed their movement points, I hope ? If you tried after moving them, you cannot activate the unit anymore and the unit has to be active for renaming.

Anyway: you figure it out yourself; other teams have shown that it can be done, so it is not switched off (if that is even possible).

Rik, I right clicked the units BEFORE the moves, and the rename option did not come up on the menu. Is it a preference thing?

Rik, I right clicked the units BEFORE the moves, and the rename option did not come up on the menu. Is it a preference thing?

turn on the advanced unit actions and click on the button with the "abc" on it. that allows you to rename units. at least that's how i do it...

Thanks Greekguy :) By the way, will you change your vote of Cyrus to bypass that village?

ok, change my vote for Xerxes enter his goody hut and have Cyrus wait for a settler.

If I was allowed to vote I would go with the second option. It seems that the poll is closed.

For renaming you can also just press Shift+N.

With Greekguys changed vote and Gunners signal to support option #2, TNT forfeits popping Northern village and goes on towards the other side of the river source of River Dyno, finding a suitable spot to place a settler to pop said hut. (City #4).

So now we're going to base our city placement on the location of a hut? I thought we already decided where our next two cities were going. :confused:

BTW, I urge team members to think before voting in polls. I also urge our team leadership to think before posting polls. Having a poll to decide an issue is the democratic way of doing things. Changing votes - and urging those who've already voted to change their votes - will make our decision making process more difficult and can lead to bad feelings among team members. Changing votes is a practice we should avoid.

I said City 4, not city 2 and 3. No worries.
I also learnt about the village risk statistics for warrior opop ups recently, as I looked into it. As long as we survive and prosper, that is what matters, not idle principles.

I said City 4, not city 2 and 3. No worries.
I also learnt about the village risk statistics for warrior opop ups recently, as I looked into it. As long as we survive and prosper, that is what matters, not idle principles.

Idle principles, eh? Them's fightin' words, them is. We are on the same team Provo. Let's be nice to each other. :)

As I said earlier, if we can't deal with a few barbarians what the heck are we going to do when we meet the other teams? With explorers out there we may run into another civ soon. Will we be prepared?

Idle principles, eh? Them's fightin' words, them is. We are on the same team Provo. Let's be nice to each other. :)

As I said earlier, if we can't deal with a few barbarians what the heck are we going to do when we meet the other teams? With explorers out there we may run into another civ soon. Will we be prepared?

Hey buddy, not fighting words :)

You were the one nominated me, so I am in full respect for you. What I am saying, is that it is allowed to admit a mistake, as I am doing now. I did not factor in the village pop by warriors outside an undefended city with unescorted workers. Now I mitigated it and solved the problem, no damage.

In fact, I have seen a few zombie splatter movies recently. The Night of the Living Dead, the Land of the Living Dead and 28 Days After, and what these films had in common, was the collective stupidity when opening doors that should be kept shut.

Those villages are those deserted cities in zombieworld, along those goodies, we find hordes of zombies looking for the fresh bite, stumbling into our cities and crawling after our civilian populations, our blood (gold) and our vulnerable
workers.

I just want to shut that door, and exterminate the zombies piecemeal, the most effective way. For Xerxes, he can go in, for Cyrus, he can wait for that big trailer armed to the teeth (settler).Sorry fot those filmesque metaphors, but they are very telling for how stupid it is to pop huts so close to home.
In fact, 2/3 of the huts popped by warriors are zombies. 100 % of the huts popped by new cities, are goodies.

I used the party whip to get the polls in line, since the argument was good enough. I willingly concede when I do a mistake, and alter my views.
There are many samples in this private forum where I have adopted your proposals, to the letter, since they were good. Yet, when we jeopardize our empire for a goodie hut, I thought it was time to put my foot down.

I hope you all understand the rationale here, and respect for the outcome and our survival, in balance with due process. If we die, there are going to be no due process, but our own short process and eventual demise.

Hey buddy, not fighting words :)

They were stinging nonetheless. I've been in the demogames since term one of DGI and I've seen many, many poor decisions make due to poor polling and lack of proper discussion - which in the end always lead to lots of arguing and fighting. I would like to keep our team from going down that same road. At the same time I would like us to maintain the democratic ideal and make our decisons collectively, each with an equal voice and vote. I do not consider these to be *idle principles* and hope that you, as our current leader, share them.

You were the one nominated me, so I am in full respect for you. What I am saying, is that it is allowed to admit a mistake, as I am doing now. I did not factor in the village pop by warriors outside an undefended city with unescorted workers. Now I mitigated it and solved the problem, no damage.

No, you did not solve the problem, you made a new one. Some of us had reservations about sending out unescorted settlers which we voiced. Our concerns were brushed off with the argument that there most likely weren't barbarians about. Well, now we know that's not true and the trouble is we are totally unprepared. This is a failing of our whole team, not just you. It is great that you want to take responsibility for an error and correct it but you should still do so within the framework of our little team democracy rather than politicing to get votes changed so the poll will line up with your new way of thinking.

I hope you all understand the rationale here, and respect for the outcome and our survival, in balance with due process. If we die, there are going to be no due process, but our own short process and eventual demise.

You've made some good arguments for not popping the one hut but I for one remain unconvinced. It seems to me we are giving up a chance to get a free settler by not popping that hut. Getting a free settler and then making two more quick ones as you have planned would give us a very large edge, would it not? Sure, there is only a small chance we'd get a settler but it's still a chance. Nothing ventured nothing gained. And just what do we risk? What would we really lose if we pop that hut and three barbarians came out? Do you really maintain that they would spell the doom of our civilization?

I think we should look at this situation a bit closer and see what the risk really is instead of just seeing the end of the world. Reaching out and taking a chance could net us an advantage down the road. I encourage those who did not vote in this poll to post their votes here - and to vote for popping both huts. Since we've opened the Pandora's Box already I also encourage anyone who did not vote to pop both huts to change their votes and to do so by posting in this thread.

I agree to the terms Donsig, all posted votes here would count prior to Team Doughnuts Timestamp by their leader Daveshack. REmember, Greekguy changed his vote and Gunner voted for option 2. That put option two firmly in the lead with a 5-3 edge.

To make this all more interesting Donsig, I will change my vote to yes to pop both huts, if you are willing to change our official name to a real nation name.
We will still be Team TNT, but our nation and people name would be the following:

Official Nation Name: Irôn
Noun: Ironyan
Adjective: Irônic
Leader: Shahanshah

When we connect resource IRON for the first time, we change our name.
As you see, the reference is Persia-Iran, but also with a hidden edge to our potential neighbors, the Iroquois, or for us the evil nation Iroq, adjective Iroqi.

I like the names but would we be running into that rule about renaming things to mislead other teams?

What does everyone else think about the proposed names?

We would not mislead, the namechange should be public and honorable. Irôn makes much more sense than TNT as a nation. As long as you will publicly support these names in the forthcoming renaming campaign, you got my vote for popping those huts.
A 4-4 tie would of course be broken by the turnplayer.

As you see, the reference is Persia-Iran, but also with a hidden edge to our potential neighbors, the Iroquois, or for us the evil nation Iroq, adjective Iroqi.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what that whole sentence means. I think a new thread should be made for the discussion of this possible name change.

Im 99.999% sure we can't change civ-info mid game.

You can call yourself Irôn here, but in game, you will always be TNT. There isn't a way to change that information in the middle of a game.

LOL, I was all being humorous, can't you see the IRONY? :) or just IRÔN? :D
Well, you may of course take it pedantically and in terms of rectification hehehehehehe

And of course the biggest irony of all would be you breaking the 4-4 tie in favor of not popping the hut near Cyrus...

So what about the settler from the hut gamble? I willl not get a settler if we pop the hut with a city.

all right
I may actually pop it anyways

The worst that can happen is that we must relocate the worker and lose some 2-3 gold, that is limited damage.

But I would be loyal to the bargain and break the 4-4 tie for popping it, and I still want the IRÔN name as our internal official name. We may be TNT externally, but IRON has more soul to it. Yes, I stick by my offer. What is written in game is not relevant here.

Im 99.999% sure we can't change civ-info mid game.I'm 100% sure you can't, but I am 100% sure I can (as I have the admin password).
It would require to edit the saved game (I have the tools for that). Fortunately it won't let you unless you have the admin's PW.

To be honest; I don't think that changing the name mid-game should not be done as it creates suspicion (and rightly so) in the other 3 teams.

While it's possible to use tools to change things mid-stream, I wouldn't advise it. There's always a chance that a 3rd party util could corrupt part of the game further down the road (especially when putting non-standard letters). You can always have that as your "unnoficial" name. (i.e., forum-name, but not game-name).

BTW, I'm not even sure if there's any utils that support a PBEM game. (never tried it...) And, thus, I'm not sure if a util for a single player game won't mess up a MP game.

I'm 100% sure you can't, but I am 100% sure I can (as I have the admin password).
Thats why I left the .001% ;)

I agree with Rik, plus why would we want to put more work on Rik after hes done so much work for us?

Heck, that is only a 2-3 minutes amendment, so we should not dramatize the burden too much. I would like real nationlike name, not the inconsistent names we got. Irôn is as good as any.

i really don't see the point of changing our nation name. let's just stick with TNT.

I'd stick with TNT too.

Well, forget this debate :) We are TNT internally and externally, but I would like to call the nation as such, or the land, for Irôn. Please take it as an attempt to breathe somelife into the game. Also, please look at the new city plans and that we got a new settler.

You've made some good arguments for not popping the one hut but I for one remain unconvinced. It seems to me we are giving up a chance to get a free settler by not popping that hut. Getting a free settler and then making two more quick ones as you have planned would give us a very large edge, would it not? Sure, there is only a small chance we'd get a settler but it's still a chance. Nothing ventured nothing gained. And just what do we risk? What would we really lose if we pop that hut and three barbarians came out? Do you really maintain that they would spell the doom of our civilization?



I had this in mind, when I thought we rather trigger off three barbarians for the statistical opportunity to get a settler. Basically, emptying the 2/3 barbarian pool. I also temporarily switched the production to wall as I popped the hut, and popped it back to settler afterwards.

You did a great job since we managed to pop a settler! :goodjob: