5BCC Specifics

this poll is to figure out how many cities we can capture when we do a 5BCC. in this variant we can only build a maximum of 5 cities, but we can capture enemy cities. how many should we be allowed to capture or should the cities meet specific requirements? if you vote other, please specify what you want. thanks.

3 per rival civ and wonders. This lacks all the options to make it a good compromise.

Thats too much, Strider.
We might as well just play a damn epic game.

This is about compromise. That is the key word of this game. The limited city game is what we're going to do. It had the most out of anything. Making it so that we build a minimum of 26 cities is far too much. 26 cities is a core with an outer ring. 26 cities is what you get if you have a nice corner to yourself. 26 cities is not limited.

12, on the other hand, is. 12 is for fighting (well, thats really 5, but we can't have our way, so we're trying to compromise). 12 cities is enough for a FP, 3 armies, wall street, SDI, pentagon. 12 cities is enough not to caekwalk through the game. That is exactly what we don't want. A caekwalk. Caek is not our friend here. We had it in 6 after we beat the Dutch and Indians. Lets not walk through 7, m'kay?

SaaM

Stuck_as_a_Mac said:

Thats too much, Strider.
We might as well just play a damn epic game.

This is about compromise. That is the key word of this game. The limited city game is what we're going to do. It had the most out of anything. Making it so that we build a minimum of 26 cities is far too much. 26 cities is a core with an outer ring. 26 cities is what you get if you have a nice corner to yourself. 26 cities is not limited.

12, on the other hand, is. 12 is for fighting (well, thats really 5, but we can't have our way, so we're trying to compromise). 12 cities is enough for a FP, 3 armies, wall street, SDI, pentagon. 12 cities is enough not to caekwalk through the game. That is exactly what we don't want. A caekwalk. Caek is not our friend here. We had it in 6 after we beat the Dutch and Indians. Lets not walk through 7, m'kay?

SaaM

Click to expand...

Compromising isn't taking the losing idea, and then adding a tiny bit of the winning one. Compromise implies a middle ground, which I don't see here. The 'official' defintions of compromise, is one inwhich both sides find an agreement.

This was one side, trying to make there idea more acceptable, because it didn't work the first time. Sorry to break it to you, but this is not a compromise in any form or fashion.

If you don't want a cakewalk, then as I said in the other thread. Up the difficulty to Sid and give the AI more starting settlers/units. There are dozens of ways to make this game where it's a challange, most of them do not include limiting what we can do.

@Strider: then why did 14 (16 if you count Black_Hole and GA) people vote yes on the compromise. that's more than any of the other polls got. the compromise poll got a clear majority: 14-6-1. That's more than 75%.

Strider said:

3 per rival civ and wonders. This lacks all the options to make it a good compromise.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

XCL

greekguy said:

@Strider: then why did 14 (16 if you count Black_Hole and GA) people vote yes on the compromise. that's more than any of the other polls got. the compromise poll got a clear majority: 14-6-1. That's more than 75%.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a compromise, we didn't even get to compromising. You seem to think that all the people who voted for 5cc deciding on a compromise is fair. The only Epic supporter who actually said anything was Daveshack, and he was just offering out ideas, not supporting one way or the other.

BTW, 14 people didn't vote for 'this' compromise. 14 people voted that will be willing to compromise on a limited city variant. You had 5 of those 14 people included on the compromise.

If your going to compromise, than do it. If your going to try to add one new thing to an idea that has already failed, than please tell me. Then I can get ahead with planning an Epic Game. I'd like to get the difficulty level poll up soon, and I can't do that when were still messing around with this.

Strider. I am going to try to hold my tounge here, but youre really starting to rub me like a conservative talk radio host.
16-4-1.
The numbers show compromise for a limited city game. The Epic suporters and the 5CC suporters both supported it. One of the main people who didnt, CH, is being a giant block in any progress. I'm surprised I didnt yell at him when he resigned over loosing the culture victory, as thats a cheap tactic and the sign of a sore looser.

We are here to compromise. God... Compromise. If CG would stop chaning his damn vote every five seconds, we'd have a winner instead of a tie.

You know what... thats it. I think regardless of what the outcome is, you've lost me for the game. I could do better things with my time than argue over cyber-politics.

If anyone needs me, I'll be harloting myself out to the Bloomberg campaign. Or the New York City Democrats main office, if they take my resume.

SaaM
Thurougly displeased at the tone.

Strider said:

Compromising isn't taking the losing idea, and then adding a tiny bit of the winning one. Compromise implies a middle ground, which I don't see here. The 'official' defintions of compromise, is one inwhich both sides find an agreement.

This was one side, trying to make there idea more acceptable, because it didn't work the first time. Sorry to break it to you, but this is not a compromise in any form or fashion.

If you don't want a cakewalk, then as I said in the other thread. Up the difficulty to Sid and give the AI more starting settlers/units. There are dozens of ways to make this game where it's a challange, most of them do not include limiting what we can do.

Click to expand...

there was no losing side, after CG changed his vote 5CC and epic are tied

edit: actually 5CC did win... so lets not be complaining about us limiting cities

5BC with 1 city per civ. I would like to make this only capital cities, too. Capital cities are usually the ones building wonders, so they go hand in hand.

Strider said:

3 per rival civ and wonders.

Click to expand...

If we use a standard map, that's up to 5 + (7*3) = 26+ cities. That's not a challenge, my friend. I'd be lucky if I even got 26 cities on a Demigod to Deity game.

If we do 5 build cities and 7 captured AI capitals, that is a nice 5 mayors for the cities and 1 province for the other 7 capitals. I still would like to stick with a 5CC, but a 5BC+7AI capitals is fine.

I voted for Capitals only, but would also be happy with 1 city per civ...

1 city per rival+wonder cities

Stuck_as_a_Mac said:

You know what... thats it. I think regardless of what the outcome is, you've lost me for the game. I could do better things with my time than argue over cyber-politics.

Click to expand...

please don't leave over one arguement, we really need everyone we can get, especially vets who can be strong leaders.

Unfortunately this poll is badly designed, and will not yield a simple result. Instead of including the rival capitals only, wonder cities, etc, the choices should be 1 per civ, 2 per civ, more than 2 per civ, abstain.

We can fix this problem in-game by just polling to keep individual cities.

Strider said:

It wasn't a compromise, we didn't even get to compromising.

Click to expand...

I get the sense that you're the only person who doesn't think this is a compromise. I certainly do -- my objection to a 5CC is that 5 cities is too few to engage several game concepts, like the FP, a 2nd army, and strategy of what captured cities to keep for best benefit. Allowing us to keep a limited number of rival cities is much better than a strict 5CC, which is why I jumped on and pushed the idea.

You seem to think that all the people who voted for 5cc deciding on a compromise is fair. The only Epic supporter who actually said anything was Daveshack, and he was just offering out ideas, not supporting one way or the other.

Click to expand...

For me, not saying we shouldn't do it means I think we should.

If your going to compromise, than do it. If your going to try to add one new thing to an idea that has already failed, than please tell me.

Click to expand...

Being organizer doesn't give you the right to decide that. Epic and 5CC are tied, and 5BC got strong support. 5BC is the winner, now either organize it or withdraw and let someone else do it.

Edit to add the following

Ok, the above is a little harsh but needed.

Let's examine how 5BC is indeed a compromise. What do the 5CC folks give up? They want a strict 5CC, so they are giving up somewhere between 7 and 20 additional cities -- which in essence means that the game isn't a 5CC any more. They are giving up everything to get something less than a 7th time of expanding to the domination limit. What are the Epic supporters giving up -- expanding to the domination limit, and a little urban planning.

Tell us, what would an epic game supporter want to do to move a 5BC even further towards an epic game, that would give 5CC supporters even a sliver of what they want in the game?

Fine, then I'll resign as organizer and let someone else do it. Consider it official.

Strider said:

Fine, then I'll resign as organizer and let someone else do it. Consider it official.

Click to expand...

Please read my edit and reconfirm. Many of us, myself included, think you're doing a bang-up job on keeping it moving. I'm only concerned that bias toward epic is preventing you from seeing how middle of the road this proposal actually is.

If you do want to confirm you've stepped down, then my opinion of you has just shot upwards. It shows you stand for your beliefs but at the same time place the needs of the many first.

this is stupid, ok 7cc + 2 per rival civ and 3 if the rival civ happens to be persia. In the event that a civ dosent have 2 (or 3) viable citys per civ a can take a another city from another random civ, decided by throwning a dice, each civ will be given a number on the dice in alphabetical order. The person who decideds what citys to caputre is the president, but these orders can be be over ruled by a poll, and these polls can be over ruled by another poll, until we get the stupidist possiable option. In the event of No president to make the choice it will be made by any 2 of the 3 judge. This of course can be overalled by a citizen poll which has a simple 33% majority. Note: Polls to over rule the president must be public, polls to overall the courts will either be a private or public based on which day of the week they start, sunday will be odd and monday will be even ECT , because there is 7 days there will be conflicts, in the event of a conflict will be we resolved by paper sisors rock best two out of three between the Stratigic Leader of Trade and Foreign and the Tactical leader for Foreign and Trade.

Nobody said:

this is stupid, ok 7cc + 2 per rival civ and 3 if the rival civ happens to be persia. In the event that a civ dosent have 2 (or 3) viable citys per civ a can take a another city from another random civ, decided by throwning a dice, each civ will be given a number on the dice in alphabetical order. The person who decideds what citys to caputre is the president, but these orders can be be over ruled by a poll, and these polls can be over ruled by another poll, until we get the stupidist possiable option. In the event of No president to make the choice it will be made by any 2 of the 3 judge. This of course can be overalled by a citizen poll which has a simple 33% majority. Note: Polls to over rule the president must be public, polls to overall the courts will either be a private or public based on which day of the week they start, sunday will be odd and monday will be even ECT , because there is 7 days there will be conflicts, in the event of a conflict will be we resolved by paper sisors rock best two out of three between the Stratigic Leader of Trade and Foreign and the Tactical leader for Foreign and Trade.

Click to expand...

Glad to see someone can make light of the situation.

BTW, are you for or against the idea of a middle ground option which is more than strict 5CC but less than epic?

DaveShack said:

Let's examine how 5BC is indeed a compromise. What do the 5CC folks give up? They want a strict 5CC, so they are giving up somewhere between 7 and 20 additional cities -- which in essence means that the game isn't a 5CC any more. They are giving up everything to get something less than a 7th time of expanding to the domination limit. What are the Epic supporters giving up -- expanding to the domination limit, and a little urban planning.

Tell us, what would an epic game supporter want to do to move a 5BC even further towards an epic game, that would give 5CC supporters even a sliver of what they want in the game?

Click to expand...

Neither side have to give up anything if we'd just up the difficulty. That way they'd get the extra challange without limiting ourselves. Yet, that's not what there true motive is, now is it? They don't really want to make a game more challanging, that was just an excuse to help support what they want.

If they really wanted to make the game more challanging, they'd turn to an alternative method of doing that. Not taking the same method adding something extra, and then hoping it would pass. I've already proven that a varient will both drop partcipation and cause more problems, hell, it's proof enough that we are even having this discussion.

We can, extremely easily, give everybody what they say they want. Will they agree to it though? Nope, because that's just an excuse they made, not the real reason they want it. In a world of nonsense, everything something is, it isn't, everything it would be wouldn't, and everything it wasn't, was.

Why am I even repeating this? Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again.

I offered my support for a city limit variant compromise, because I saw it as a good chance to get things moving without the extra hassle. What I did not support, was a poll that was slanted towards one side. Democracy only works if you give people all the options, even a dictator can be democraticly elected, if he's the only one of the ballet.

I'm done dealing with this, one way or the other. I tried to get everything set-up and prepared in time, but my efforts were wasted. It is useless and hopeless to even try, and yes, I do resign as organizer.