There are a couple that have been called for

1) to approve the current admins
2) difficulty level
3) method of choosing civs

1) I think if they want to do the job (and did for MTDG1) then thats fine with me

2) it will only affect happy citizens, tech rate, barbs and goody huts, so I would go with Emperor (or DG)

3) method of choosing civs looks to have already been decided (3 teams voted for same as MTDG1) which I have no problem with. This means we would need to come up with a list of 5 civs - potentially before we know the map.

#1 is merely a formality; the answer is yes. Emperor seems good for difficulty.

Yep, #1 is a done deal. DG is my preferred difficulty level (knocks down the odds of someone sweeping a bunch of AA techs from goodie huts, and I like the happiness challenge), but I'll go with Emp if everyone else agrees. As far as civ selection goes, we should start finalizing our choice of five civs in the other thread.

I agree on emperor level so that's our vote.
I would definitely agree on GA and RM as admins. That will also be our vote as I see no one that would disagree.

Emperor is my vote.

OK, great. I will assemble our UN votes in this post to keep them in one place. Please keep them in this thread for clarity. The discussion on which 5 civs to choose can commence in its existing thread.

Barbarians Poll
-No barbs (SM, Daghie, TimB, MadV, AtK, Rick)
Map Style Poll
-Rik decides (SM, Daghie, Bugs, RFH, AtK, Rick, TimB, MadV)
Map Size Poll
-Rik decides (SM)
-Std (Daghie, TimB, AtK, Rick, RFH)
-100x100 (MadV). Dunno what that equates :crazyeye:
Ruleset Poll
-Keep from mtdg1 (Daghie, Bugs, TimB, MadV, AtK, Rick)
Custom Rule Changes Poll (e.g. change to SoZ? Editing of naval units? etc.) ?
-Default, no sgl's (SM, Daghie, MadV)
-No sgl's, no SoZ, no naval edits (Bugs, TimB)
-No sgl's, No respawn civs (AtK, Rick)

Statue of Zeus
-No (Bugsy, TimB, Daghie, RFH)

CAII to be allowed
Yes (Daghdha, RFH, Rick, AtK)

I'd say no barbs
Rik decides map style
Map size- standard
Ruleset - keep from mtdg1 (spare us another round of that)
Custom Rules - default, no sgl's

No barbs.
Rik decides all map features, including size.
I would have preferred some wild variations with the civ choices, but I can see that the discussion was too amorphous to get anywhere, so keep the system we have from MTDG1.
All defaults, except no sgl. I assume that means accelerated production is off, and all victory conditions are enabled. I wouldn't be adverse to Rik playing with a wonder or two, however.

Let Rik decide on the map.

keep the MTDG1 rule set.


No SGLs, No SoZ and no fancy naval stuff.

Let the Great Meleet decide. :cool: Less work for us. ;)
No SoZ and no fancy naval stuff.
No Statue of Zeus? What fancy stuff do you mean? :scan:

presumably differential naval movement like some early GOTM (move cost of 3 on coast, 2 on sea, and 1 on ocean, with the navies movement points doubled IIRC)

Barbarians Poll
-No barbs
Map Style Poll
-Rik decides
Map Size Poll
-Standard
Ruleset Poll
-Keep from mtdg1
Custom Rule Changes Poll (e.g. change to SoZ? Editing of naval units? etc.) ?
-No SGLs, no SoZ I guess

No barbs
rik decides
100x100
Ruleset - keep from mtdg1 (spare us another round of that)
Custom Rules - default, no sgl's

Why no SoZ? It's one of my favorite reasons for playing the French! :hammer: Is it really that much of a killer? (Well, yes, I suppose it can be. That's why I love it. :devil: ) Other than that, I see no reason to change any of the default settings.

map - let rik decide (and not tell us before we pick civs)

Barbarian Poll
No barbs. No goody huts.
Map Style Poll
The Great Rik Meleet decides.
Map Size Poll
Standard
Ruleset Poll
MTDG1 Rules
Custom Rules Changes Poll
No SGL's. No Respawn Civs.

We have a separate UN poll on the SoZ HERE (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4777517#post4777517), so we have to have a clear team vote on that one.

I vote No SoZ

I vote no SoZ

Diff. level is decided in UN. We will play Emperor

On the barbs we have voted None. Team Babe voted Raging with adding:this was also suggested in our poll if there is no clear majority (ie : 3 votes for one setting)


Quote:
Seems like the actual winning setting could be determined by a rating system with:

0 = no barbs
1 = sedentary
2 = roaming
3 = restless
4 = raging

Then add up the total points and divide by the number of voters to get an average. If the average were, lets say 3, it would mean the UN vote would be for restless. Slightly less agressive barbs might be somewhat more acceptable to those who prefer none at all.

Niklas answer (Team B) I do not agree with the above reasoning at all.

I have voted no barbs in our team vote, primarily since I dislike the randomness that goody huts bring to the game. However, my second choice would be raging, and sedentary last. So please, no false average calculations.
I suggest we support Team B in this matter. Whaddya think entertaining people of the Gong Show?

Agree with Team B. Straight up or down vote.

size standard

no Soz - no other changes

I also support team b (I too would like all or nothing with the barbs)

Barbarian Poll
No barbs. No goody huts.
Map Style Poll
The Great Rik Meleet decides.
Map Size Poll
Standard
Ruleset Poll
MTDG1 Rules
Custom Rules Changes Poll
No SGL's. No Respawn Civs.

:goodjob: All good to me

We should cast our vote on the SoZ in the UN. This is what we have so far:

Statue of Zeus
-No (Bugsy, TimB, Daghie, RFH)

3 teams have voted Yes so we'll have to stick with that. What we can influence is the cost. 2 teams say default cost 200 shields. The Council says >200 and I think we should support a higher cost.

If no one opposes I will say No Ivory Required and 300 shields.

Actually, arent most teams saying 300 shields? :confused:

But anyways...sure, lets have a Statue to this man called Zeus. :)

No Ivory and 300 shields, but still produces AC? Can I change my vote to playing France? :lol:

Since they want to have it, let's make it as hard as possible. I'm with you Daghie.

No Ivory and 300 shields, but still produces AC? Can I change my vote to playing France? :lol:
Yes you can. I have stalled the pm on civ selection for exactly this reason. As UN votes completes (an we have a hint on map style) we can make an even better list.

EDIT: Then we have the vote on CivAssistII. Does anyone here have it? I lean towards allowing it but only if we have access/knowledge within our team.
UN thread HERE (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=193587)

Side Note: I've noticed the change in profile RF. Gooood that we have a bean counter on our show :dance:

For SOZ no ivory and 300 shields looks OK (would we still built it at those rates? - that's little better than 3% per turn if you value the AC at 50 shields)

With regards to civassist II, I play with it all the time, it does reveal some information that wouldn't be available direct from the multiplayer game (number of cities, which technologies and resources are available from the opponents, how much gold they have). The difference comes from the fact that in multiplayer you don't see the other people's half of the trade screen. The choice comes down to flavour, do we want it to seem more like a multiplayer with mystery surrounding the trading, or a more analytical game closer to the single player version. I prefer analysis (and would have to keep reminding myself not to use it) so I vote yes, but I do understand the reasons for not allowing it.

I vote yes for Civ Assist II and any other soft program that can help us win.

I usually use CivAssist to assist me in city planning.

Yes, I believe we should be able to use it.
Is there a reason not to (such as revealing information to other teams) ?

IMPORTANT
After lengthy discussions in the UN, a ruleset is about to be polled on. Those who whish to do so can find it HERE (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4843913&postcount=139) and make comments. If no one disagrees I will vote OK so we can get the show on the road.

seems good.

The ruleset most recently posted seems workable to me. I had to read the section on breaking into the build sequence a couple of times to get the gist of it. (I originally thought it meant that you couldn't prebuild and or change your build orders in any way.) Anyway, the only time that's been an issue for me is when I've been playing it tight with tech research and have to change a prebuild in the build sequence after research completes but before the build completes. (Forgetting to do this has gotten me a couple of inadvertant palace jumps. :cringe: ) Anyway, the rules seem fine.

Looks good to me.

agreed .