As discussed in the "Should We Revolt" thread,
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21567
we need to determine if we are going to rush any improvements before we switch our government. After analyzing all the cities that need cultural improvements, I recommend two to have libraries rushed in them before we begin the revolt, Boston and Khatovar. I have posted two seperate polls to keep any confusion from people who might want to rush one or the other, and to keep the choices simple.

The reasons I recommend Khatovar are as follows:

It would take it 12-18 turns to build a Library on its own, even if we switched now.

It currently produces more food than shields, meaning it could replace the population quickly.

By building the Library now, we can at least let the anarchy time work for us by making the library 90 years older when it ends.

Also, the anarchy would be 7 fewer turns of unhappiness taken off the clock.

It is on our southern border, and would expand to fill in a large bulge in our frontiers that could be used by others to build cities.

Eyrei is running a poll on how soon to start the revolution, and so we will need votes on this one before then. The goal would be to have our answers before the next turn chat Thursday.

I certainly support rushing a cultural improvement in Khatovar prior to the revolt. However, if Khatovar will have produced 21+ shields before the revolt, we should rush a temple instead of a library, as it will actually counter the unhappiness and will be a more efficient use of forced labor. Will someone who is not at work please check this?

Justus (or someone else is ok too). Can you give the cost of the rush? How many citizens is it? Can you do it for each rush job you propose? I can not check because I am running 1.21 & they changed the citizen costs.

In each case, the rush will only cost one citizen for a library. Khatovar only has 4 shields built up towards the settler, so I still recommend the library, a temple would cost 2 citizens.

Originally posted by Justus II
In each case, the rush will only cost one citizen for a library. Khatovar only has 4 shields built up towards the settler, so I still recommend the library, a temple would cost 2 citizens.

Agreed. Should this poll indicate support for a rush of a library, it should be carried out immediately to be most efficient. Then it can start on a settler again.

We treat our gold better than we treat our citizens. Anyone care to put their whips down long enough to figure out how much gold a citizen is worth?

Let's see. At 4 gold/shield a citizen that can be turned into 20 shields is equal to 80 gold.

This type of 'accounting' is barbaric.

I hear ya, Donsig. BTW, congrats on the Domestic Deputy post. Khatovar is primed for a rushed library. As long as the powers that be keep Khatovar on growth instead of production, it will recooperate quickly. Even with following the library with a settler, which we need (even tho it will set the pop back down again), Eyrie has stated in two posts (I believe it was two) that Khatovar will get a temple after the settler (immediately after). I think with a library and a temple in the next 3 building queues, the citizens will quickly forget the harshness with which these improvements were brought about. Of Course if they don't get their temple after the settler, the unholy tides of the anguished may rise up again...

Agreed. Should this poll indicate support for a rush of a library, it should be carried out immediately to be most efficient. Then it can start on a settler again.

So does this mean these polls should only be binding if they concur with your chosen policies eyrei?

Join Save our Citizens now! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21639)

yes we should rush it, w can use the science boost

So does this mean these polls should only be binding if they concur with your chosen policies eyrei?

I don't think that's what he meant Donsig, I think he simply wanted to get the library built quickly so if we go into revolution, the libraries will be complete.

I don't think that's what he meant Donsig, I think he simply wanted to get the library built quickly so if we go into revolution, the libraries will be complete.

Yeah, I know but I had to get that question in somewhere!

yes we should rush it, w can use the science boost

But, but, but, but, but don't we have the Great Library?

But, but, but, but, but don't we have the Great Library?

That, Donsig, is an excellent question, do we even need a science rate right now?

Originally posted by donsig


Yeah, I know but I had to get that question in somewhere!
But, but, but, but, but don't we have the Great Library?

Donsig. Rushing a Library will ensure we gain culture even during our anarchy period. If we choose not to rush, & revolt, a library will take 12-18 turns to build, as Justus stated, + the time under anarchy (4-8 turns more). Either way, we will expand our borders some 16-20 turns sooner and achieve a double-culture bonus sooner as well.

Our Great Library will also expire. A good chance of so by the time the library will be built. I see many benefits too.

Lastly, we have 4 luxuries and military police. We are very capable of making our citizens forget how hard they worked.

Donsig. Rushing a Library will ensure we gain culture even during our anarchy period. If we choose not to rush, & revolt, a library will take 12-18 turns to build, as Justus stated, + the time under anarchy (4-8 turns more). Either way, we will expand our borders some 16-20 turns sooner and achieve a double-culture bonus sooner as well.

And just what, pray tell, is so darned important about expanding our borders 20 turns sooner? Why is it so pressing to build these libraries now and not a hundred years from now? Does our culture victory hinge on this?

The library doesn't have to take 12-18 turns to build if we choose not to rush and revolt. As soon as we install a monarchy we can use gold to rush the thing.

Expanding in itself is not critical. Nor are any of the bonuses. But, I think there are enough bonuses, when added together, to make it an attractive option.

Expanded land means more options to work for our citizens. It also will further restrict enemy movement and settlement options. It will also mean we own more land & therefore power that will have to be respected by our opponents. Cultural bonuses add to our cultural value, meaning it is harder for cities to revolt against us.

I respect your opinion too. I see where you are coming from. I just wanted to add some more bonuses maybe people hadn't considered. I apologize for putting your name in there, because while I wanted to reply to you, I mainly wanted to state some additional benefits. :)

Edit: I first thought this:
Using gold will not be cheap. 1 shield costs 8 gold. If we could buy it now, we would be 36 shields away. 36*8 = 288 gold. I'm not sure we want to place that much value on 1 library.

But, I double-checked, & found I was wrong. 1 shield actually costs 4 gold. Therefore, the cost is 144 gold. That is your current library value.

There is no need to apologize - I was not offended chiefpaco!:)

I guess my math was off in the other thread. I thought a citizen was equal to 20 shields and a shield was equal to 4 gold. If it's 40 shields/citizen and 8 gold/shield then a citizen = 40*8 gold = 320 gold. Geez, we should sell all our citizens!

It's a shame though that 288 gold is more valuable than the library but the library is more valuable than a citizen. Seems like it should all the the other way round.

I still haven't heard any pressing need to rush these libraries. Yes, it would be advantageous and efficient but isn't there more to life than that?

Now I need to apologize. You are right about the 4-1. I was confused between "hurry" and "wealth".

So, the cost would be 144 gold. I will edit the first post, so as to not be confusing.

Well, I can see that these polls sparked a spirited debate, which is what I expected. Did not mean to start off my new term in controversy, although I have been arguing for this point for a while. Also, just to set the record straight, this was my poll, and my recommendation, not Eryei's, although I believe he agrees with my point of view.

From the "accounting" standpoint, the final example you presented is correct, since we are playing 1.17, each population rushed is worth 40 shields, (or 36 here since we already have 4 accumulated), x4 gold each would be 144. But not only does it save us 144 gold, it also completes it a century or two earlier, due to the upcoming anarchy. That is 10-20% of the time it takes to hit the bonus. Also, as I tried to point out, I only recommended rushing in a couple of cities that a. had more food growth than shield production, and b. would benefit from the expanded borders. In Khatovar's case, it will help to fill in gaps along our southern boundary, that will reserve space for us to build cities later.

From the "barbaric" standpoint, there are several ways to look at it. Razing cities in war is barbaric also, but it happens, sometimes without our control. Starving a city down after capturing it can be barbaric, and again, sometimes it is out of our control, but sometimes it would be the best strategy. Building a settler (2 pop) to found a city (1 pop) costs population also. But they are part of the game, and I think we have to make the best decision for the nation as a whole. It would be easier if the game let you choose either method (pop or gold), but it doesn't.

Anyway, I knew this would be a controversial issue, and that is why I made the polls, although I am not sure whether they are required or not, I felt I needed to get the will of the people here.
I hope everyone realizes that is what this game is about, and nothing should be taken personally.

Justus II/Donsig - Please see my last reply in "Should we revolt..."

I do not want to have to spend our entire treasury rushing libraries that we could have already had because we did not rush them when we had the chance. If you notice, all three of these proposed rushes are in cities that have almost no production and plenty of population.

<Roleplaying> The people of the cities of Boston and Chicago continue to deny their allegiance to the Phoenatican empire by refusing to work (waste) and attempting to revive the culture of America. This cannot be tolerated as these cities rest on prime land that will benefit the empire when actually worked. These dissenters should be forced into labor to construct monuments to the greatness of Phoenatica, and replaced in the fields by more loyal, natural born citizens. </roleplaying>

Are we not in the second century AD? Why worry about the thousand year bonus now and not 2 or 3 thousand years ago? All of a sudden now we are worried about culture?

We do not have to rush these libraries when we are in monarchy either. We certainly do not have to spend the entire treasury on libraries because there is no pressing need to have them in those cities now. We will do fine even if we let those cities build libraries one shield at a time!

Also, just to set the record straight, this was my poll, and my recommendation, not Eryei's, although I believe he agrees with my point of view.

Yes, but eyrei suggested polls on last minute (before monarchy) pop rushes but has also said they should not be binding.

Originally posted by donsig
Are we not in the second century AD? Why worry about the thousand year bonus now and not 2 or 3 thousand years ago? All of a sudden now we are worried about culture?

We do not have to rush these libraries when we are in monarchy either. We certainly do not have to spend the entire treasury on libraries because there is no pressing need to have them in those cities now. We will do fine even if we let those cities build libraries one shield at a time!


I have been concerned with culture the entire time. We built several culture buildings early on, but then found ourselves having to devote all cities to war time production. We still have 500 years or so to complete culture buildings that will still benefit from the age bonus. If we let these cities build culture buildings one shield at a time, they will never really benefit from the age bonus, and also, I estimate that cities without temples will not be able to celebrate WLTK days unless we secure another luxury.

I have also been supporting building libraries 2000 years ago. In fact, I recommended when we rushed the library in Pherris that we ought to do so in several other cities as well, but understood that due to the war it would have to wait. The cities selected all have reasons that they, or we, would benefit from the library - Expanded borders, access to new resources (Wheat for Boston), etc. The reason this has become urgent is that this is our last chance to rush them before we go into anarchy, and our last chance to rush them without spending hundreds of gold to do so.

I understand, and respect, those who have had such strong differences of opinion, and have every right to protest or debate a decision they do not agree with. That is part of what this game is all about. That is why I wanted to take a poll. So far, the majority of our citizens agree with this course of action, by a 2 or 3 to one margin. I hope everyone realizes that this decision was made taking into account the pros and cons of each side, and with the best interests of our nation as a whole in mind.

A majority of citizens has not even voted in the poll. A majority of those voting in the polls have agreed but that doesn't indicate a great grassroots movement for rushing these things. If these polls had not been posted and we went on to monarchy with rushing the libraries do any of you think there would have been a great outcry? I doubt anyone would have said a word.

This is not a diety level game and we are not in any competition to get a certain level of points (culture or otherwise). our culture is not in danger of being over awed by another civ's culture and our military is conquering our closest neighbors.

There is no dire need to rush these improvements.

I imagine there would similarly be no great public outcry if we did we rush these libraries. We must obey the polls, to do otherwise because we think there would be no outcry is undemocratic!

It is a sad commentary on our country that we will not raze captured cities but fall all over ourselves to turn our own citizens into buildings. If this is our 'culture' I want none of it.

No one is proposing turning citizens into buildings. We simply are going to ask the citizens to work a little extra harder for a unified goal. If a few unpatriotic, rebellious citizens choose to abandon our civilization as a result, then I believe that says more about those citizens then about those interested in preserving our glorious nation. With our civilization at the turning point that it is, we're all working a little harder to make things work. Is it unreasonable for us to ask the same of our loyalcitizens? I think not!

Just what 'turning point' has our country reached? You make it sound like a do or die situation and I just don't see that! You can count me among the "few unpatriotic, rebellious citizens".

What turning point? Have you no eyes to see nor no ears to listen? Our great civilization has recently entered a new age known as 'The Middle Ages'! If this is the middle, then surely we are our on way to somewhere of great importance. Also, there is talk of revolution, with hopefully better days afterwards!

You know, I did notice that middle ages thing and I have heard rumors about revolution. Yet I still don't see either of these things as threatening to our country nor do I see in them a need for turning citizens into libraries.

I don't recall claiming that our nation was threatened. And, once more, no is proposing turning citizens into libraries.

Originally posted by punkbass2000
I don't recall claiming that our nation was threatened. And, once more, no is proposing turning citizens into libraries.

Well actually turning citizens into libraries is exactly what this poll is about.

I agree with donsig. I am appalled at our supposedly democratic government's complete disregard for the citizens who elected them.

Mr. Vice President, those citizens in the newly capture areas will become productive when we build courthouses and impose the rule of law on them. As their situation stands now, there is little reason to behave in a productive manner, given the widespread starvation.

Genocide might be an easy solution, but I for one cannot stand idly by and watch this corrupt government kill it's citizens just so that one's who manage to survive somehow can learn to read.

Yes, punkbass, there is a revolution coming, and this government should fear those days of anarchy indeed...

Bill
In Opposition

"Well actually turning citizens into libraries is exactly what this poll is about. "

Not true. In terms of the game dynamics, one could view it that way, but IIRC, according to the manual we are merely forcing citizens to work harder, causing some to desert.

according to the manual we are merely forcing citizens to work harder, causing some to desert.

That makes it ok? While that sounds better than 'building libraries with the bones of our people' it's still a far cry from caring for and nurturing our citizens. To some of us our citizens are priceless and irreplaceable, the very ends towards which we work, the reason for having a civilization. To others they are merely replaceable means to some (as of yet undefined) ends.

Yes, punkbass, there is a revolution coming, and this government should fear those days of anarchy indeed...
Bill
In Opposition

Our government and our people lost when Bill_in_PDX and Cyc left the cabinet.

:(

Don't blame the government because some citizens aren't loyal.

Originally posted by donsig


Our government and our people lost when Bill_in_PDX and Cyc left the cabinet.

:(

While I am flattered donsig, let me do state that the leadership shown by our President and Vice President during the global war crisis was nothing less than outstanding.

It is on this issue that I am diametrically opposed to them, and I hate the use of last minute polls and chat discussions to decide key issues, including the death/dispersal of our sovereign citizens.

I cannot fathom how the lives of our citizens are worth an arbitrary boundary that I'm sure they both intend to swarm with immortals should anyone dare touch it anyway.

Bill

Originally posted by punkbass2000
"Well actually turning citizens into libraries is exactly what this poll is about. "

Not true. In terms of the game dynamics, one could view it that way, but IIRC, according to the manual we are merely forcing citizens to work harder, causing some to desert.

Actually you are wrong my friend. Look at the prompt screen next time you rush...it will say:

"...will cost the lives of x citizens"

This is not a getting up and leaving town decision. This is cracking the proverbial whip and killing people.

In this case, killing people for a border square....think about it.

Bill
In Opposition

I just thought of an analogy that makes me wish I had voted "NO".

What if cracking the whip had similar consequences in our demo game to what it has in the game itself? What I mean is if a third of the population in a city in the game were sacrificed by pop rushing meant that a random third of the demo game citizens living in that city were sacrificed as well (exiled from the demo game).

When I think of it in those terms there's no way I would vote to pop rush.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX:

While I am flattered donsig, let me do state that the leadership shown by our President and Vice President during the global war crisis was nothing less than outstanding.

I would say the entire first term government did a very good job and I'm sure the second term gov. will do as well. In lamenting the 'retirement' of Bill_in_PDX and Cyc I meant no disrespect to anyone else in either the term 1 or term 2 government.

I also never said or implied that rushing improvements during despotism was not advantageous to our country. Our current leaders put forth the analysis that showed how we gained by it. My point all along was that we (as a country) were strong enough to be able to forego those gains, that we had the luxury of not having to rush these improvements.
As Bill_in_PDX pointed out the game does use the phrase "will cost the lives of ... citizens" and I felt that in the context of the democracy game this is wrong except in dire emergencies. Shaitan's analogy had also occurred to me some time ago and it only strengthened my reslove to "Save our Citizens!"
My only hope now is that since the revolution was delayed we do not get another round of 'last chance' rushes!:eek:

I am hesitant to respond, because the last thing I want to do is reignite a controversy, but after being gone for the weekend and catching up on posts, there are two points I would like to make.

First, as to the "Last minute polls" comment. I remember the decision to rush a library at Pherris during the first term, and it was a last minute decision. However, the most recent three cities in question were posted two days before the appropriate turn chat (well, 1AM on the first, after checking). That still allowed all day of the 1st, and up to the turn chat on the 2nd, or over 40 hours for debate and discussion. The question did not come up until after the previous turn chat, when it was decided we would be soon revolting, and leaving despotism. After conducting my analysis, and making my recommendations, I decided to post a citizens poll to get input from as many people as possible.

This was precisely because of the outcry after the Pherris decision, even though as I understand it building decisions rest with the Domestic Leader, with the Culture Minister having the right to overrule in cases involving cultural borders. The method listed for deciding such cases would be a cabinet vote, not a public poll, which was NOT required. As I stated, however, I wanted to get the feelings of the public before making a decision I knew would generate honest differences of opinion.

IF I had wanted a last-minute decision, why would I have even posted a Poll? Much less given enough advance warning for opposition groups to form, etc. I was actually glad to see that, in my opinion that is what this game is supposed to be about, intelligent debate over issues. And, if the poll had been a majority against rushing, then I would not have done so. However, the voting in all three polls was 2 or 3 to one in favor, with a similar margin in each poll, so I felt that the democratic process worked, even with a legitimate, and vocal, minority opposition.

The second point I would like to respond to is the analogy by Shaitan. Although it is a good analogy if you want to put this issue in personal terms, I think if we look at some other applications, it might put things in the proper perspective. For example, when Falcon's Haven was attacked and razed by the Egyptians, would that mean Falcon should be banned from the game for a month? While it might be more "realistic", it would not be as much fun, certainly not for Falcon! Similarly, we could assign certain citizens to specific military units, and if that designated Immortal is lost in combat, they would be kicked out of the game. (As a "real-life" member of the military, I think that would sometimes be a good idea for members of our "real-life" government leaders, but that is a different subject, and probably far off-topic).

My point, however, is that if we go too far into the "realistic" side, we will lose sight of the fact that this is the Democracy GAME. Yes, rushing buildings under despotism costs population. Yes, attacking size-1 cities results in auto-razing. Often, capturing a large enemy city results in starvation. But those are the parameters of the game, and in order to make decisions on how to play the game, we have to operate within those rules. You still have every right to disagree, or argue that the lost production of that citizen outwieghs the benefits of the library, which is what the Democracy part is all about. Someone could (and probably will) argue against the new Deforestation proposal on the grounds that it hurts our environment. That may be true in "real life", but in terms of the laws of Civ nature, it comes down to a decision about food and shield production. There are a host of other issues that could be viewed as real-world moral issues, but I think if we go too far in that direction, we lose focus on the fact that we are operating within the confines of a game, and we need to play by those rules. For example, are captured Egyptian workers "slaves"? If so, maybe we should return them! etc. etc. In my opinion, things like rushing and forest harvesting are there to balance out the high corruption rates, and generally is when I use them.

I hope future issues generate as much interest and debate, although I do hope it can be kept on a less personal level. I would like to believe that none of us would actually enjoy whipping or killing real people, I know I wouldn't. Within the context of the rules of Civ, I felt using the "pop-rush" function to complete a Library in these cities to be the most effective way to put our Civ in the best overall position. I don't think that makes me "barbaric", or a participant in "genocide". But everyone is entitled to their opinion, that is why they call it Democracy.

Justus,

You raise many good points that deserve further discussion. My first question to all is: Are we just playing a game of democracy where we play the game to victory as if we were playing by ourselves? Or, are we playing the game of democracy to simulate forming a government and building a civ within the game.

If it is the former, then I submit that we could all save a lot of time by simply allowing Grey Fox to play out the game to victory.

If it is the latter, then I believe all of the things you mentioned are valid questions to be answered in the context of a true democracy.

If the deforestation is not a valid issue, why did it become a cabinet poll? I am actually in favor of cutting all of those trees, but in reality it is a valid issue to discuss. Again, otherwise why are we all going to all of this effort when in fact we could just allow our fine President to play the game.

For the issue of pop rushing. In my own games, I rarely do it, but on the higher levels of difficultly, I have done it often. But that is just a game. My understanding was that in this case, we are simulating a government, and pop rushing is killing our own citizens, no matter how much we would like to ignore it.

My comments have not been aimed at anyone personally, just toward our government as a whole in regards to this issue. I am having a difficult time reviewing my notes and seeing any personal attacks. If anyone took them that way, then I am sorry.

If the object of the game is too watch Grey Fox win, then so be it. Let me know and I will go away. If not, then I hope you will continue to respect the opposition view on this issue.

Bill

Bill_in_PDX,

I hope you did not misconstrue my comments either. First, I did not imply that you, or anyone in particular, was making personal attacks, just that some of the language used could be taken personally. Second, I did not mean to imply that any of those issues were not valid questions, they are. And in my opinion, that is why we are playing this Democracy game, to simulate a government that debates issues on the merits, and even personal preferences, and then by judging the opinions of the members we arrive at decisions, that Grey Fox (or whoever the president is) implements.

My point is that I think these debates should maintain the perspective that this is a game, and that even a catastrophic decision only affects our final score, not someone's life. I think you or anyone else has the right to oppose the recommendation of someone in government, and argue your point, but I think when we start applying moral judgements to in-game decisions we are losing perspective.

I welcome the opportunity to debate decisions based on any number of factors, from strategy to economic analysis or even someone's personal preference. I just don't like the implication that because someone recommends using this method, they are bloodthirsty or uncaring people.

For example, I would find it immoral in a real life situation to order a band of men armed only with swords to attack dug-in men with muskets, as it would be a suicide mission. However, in the game, I might very well attack a Musketman with an Immortal unit to soften it up before attacking with my Elite Knight to get a Great Leader. Now you could argue pros and cons of whether the loss of that unit would be worth the potential gain, and I think in within this forum we would have every right to do so. But if you or I had to write letters home to the spouses, it would be a totally different decision, and frankly I would no longer call it a game.

I am all in favor of role-playing and getting "in character" but I would hope that we can keep within some reasonable bounds.