Hey Donnie
I am not upset or anything, I know you were not there. It was someone overruling your instructions with anarchistic jitter, your trade authority was posted and fine. You are not to blame on this one, I read the chatlog, so I know what happened. Turnchats are political events where mobrule overrules instructions, and are in fact a riskful event if a DP is susceptible to cross pressure. Luckily, in what you considered a nightmare, the 17 turnchat, all were happy and satisfied. However, you are right, we are not going to trade away Iron Working, yet, we should do the trade BEFORE we get it, or they will push us for IW or give nothing. Ideally making the trade 1 turn before IW. As opposed to most of the newbees, I read a sizable amount of the DGs before, and the reason you never got to turn 100 in term one, was that someone messed up majorly in term one, floundering the game till someone took control.
We don't really need to cultivate Soviet management practices, or make this a three month rush, however, the game needs a certain pace to keep the people entertained and amused, and I think a large number think the game goes way too slowly, and that is not to deliberately delaying opening the JAck in a Box, but that someone for some reason messes up by not delivering on time. This time I had to talk to Ministers and Deputies as well as the Judiciary in order to line up iron working, yet some little troll surfaced from a little hole in the Earth and capsized a 11 turn schedule, perfectly close to the sacred 10 turns. What is this aversion to a decent pace in the beginning where there is hardly any units I do not know. I would much rather slow down in term 5, in order to follow the military battles in closer details, and not run 22 hour marathon turnchats with 3-5 people present. The reason that people fall off during the beginning of the game, is the legal shadowfighting, stupid delays and in general the lack of stimulating activity that makes the more tenacious individuals more thirsty for blood than gameplay. I am not going to do anybody elses job, but you can bet I will go to the deputys if they are not delivering, and use any legitimate democratic means to keep the process flowing. In fact, few people seem to be focused on keeping up the pace right now, but I was happy on what we wanted to do on the IW trail TC.
That some dark horse hijacked our instructions, is due to other factors.
Yet, in respect for those of us who commit to the game at unfomfortable times, just to watch someone hit space 4-5 times, I would much rather see a slight improvement.
As a compromise, I suggest we go for the production of the settler for iron city, AFTER site G , lawfully chosen by a massive 20 or so votes, and when that settler has been completed, THEN we can have a meaningful debate on the location of iron city, based on map and strategic data influencing the decision. With the Iroquois onthe table, we need more mapping in order to know which iron to position by, if we can deprive some
ciivilization, like the Romans for Iron, that would be a coup. Stopping the TC with a premature ejac... errr, location discussion would only be plain stupid.
We also need a filibustering police in the turnchats so that noone unauthorized can overule democratically decided instructions with some mob rule jingoism.
Finally, 4 plus 5-6-7-8 turns? quite doable, and I will do everything in my power to advocate, AS A CITIZEN
LOL cough, for mysticism., and THEN we can have a decent settler localization debate for IRON CITY , AFTER G is founded and AFTER the settler designated for Iron City is built. And hopefully, I will seee no crazy initiatives to kill off G for a premature iron location we may regret later. You proved with Furuyama that avoiding Gems is plain dumb. Oh, I fogot to tell you, you are one of my favorite ministers regardless of your comfy/sedate outlook on the game progress?
