Nice vent. I'd give it 7/10. Too much false indignation and too little quoting of the entirety of the text with too much cheery picking of small angles of little interest and way too much "I don't understand you claptrap" as the excuse to whitewash great swathes of text.
Buttercup, what actually is your problem?
This is a vent thread. Have you any idea at all how tedious it is listening to a micro-point pedant who phrases their posts in an obnoxiously arrogant fashion and who completely misses the point of the thread.
Any sane person would be able to understand this and associate a vent thread on a forum as a place to share venting stories. But no. Some people can only see avenues to express their prowess, no matter the topic. Even when it hasn't been asked for. To which I've already provided a metaphore - like boasting that you could re-sail the Titanic's route and not sink your ship. Here's another metaphore: Like a person who sees a small object in the sky far above them, only to read on the news that night that a 'point' was seen flying over your city earlier today, professors baffled as to why it was flying over your city in particular that day.
In post #16 you basically write that you disagree with everything I said. It is only natural that in such a case I would like to prove that I'm not wrong, isn't it? So basically I am saying "well, if you don't believe me, give me the chance to prove that I'm not wrong." And then you reply with a page-long rant about things that I don't understand what they have to do with the current game at hand...?!
I said you were wrong because you misunderstand the point of the thread. Because your use of wording was vague and meaningless which, when stripped of what small facts it contained, was overly-arrogant and dismissive in approach, designed to belittle rather than educate. Further evidence can be seen thusly in your above quoted lines where you claim that this is somehow a 'rant' thread.
As if you have an automatic reaction towards the thread which pertains to distorting meaning to the worst possible image of myself. You cannot cope with the idea of a 'vent' so you invent some fantasy of superiority where I am but some random 'ranter'. The difference in word emphasis being obvious to even the least bright observer.
Anyway:
After about 15 turns, the starting island is completely explored, so you know - even without pre-knowledge of the map - that you are on a Gilligan's Island. Then a good player would adjust his strategy accordingly and go for a plan as outlined above. Of course it is not clear at that point yet, whether other landmasses will be in reach without having to resort to suicide galleys. So I would probably start an early pre-build for the Lighthouse in that situation.
I started as you describe and did indeed beeline The Great Lighthouse, as has been either inferred or stated several times in this thread by myself. And yet here you are advising me to do exactly what I did, but within a pretext of "Well sunny boy, now, what a GOOD (cough cough, highlight, emphasize) player would have done is...". What remarkable cheek this emits.
The only 'strategy' you've displayed is a desire to accomplish one small failing of this particular game - to Capture the Capital of a rival Civ - and to do it by some randomly specific date - and to achieve this from a start point of the year 4000BC. Have you not noticed how the game is currently at 1660AD and there are no previous saves and that I display no coherent interest in caring 'that much' about how I could simply 'Play last world' and have another go.
Perhaps if any of my posts had been overwhelmingly in a state of begging for someone to show me how to start from scratch and take the Capital you could be onto a winner, but, alas, you're reading comprehension again seems somewhat obscured by the fact that no matter the conversation level of the proceedings, the correct course of action must be to impart some greater wisdom to the lesser mortals in a delightfully unconversational manner.
In post #18 you said that you were only playing around for fun and not taking it seriously and if you were to play it again, you could also do it, but that is not what you said in post #16. In post #16 you said you disagree with my statement. If you had said already in #16 "yeah, could be, but I was only fooling around and not playing seriously", then I would have known and wouldn't have to defend myself. But as you said "I disagree, you are wrong", it's clear that I want to prove otherwise, isn't it?
Well now... had you broached the post in the casual form you suggest you did then you might well have received a casual answer. However, you filled your post with brash superiority didn't you... "pretty
strong", "
No problem", "(Cow, wheat, two oasis, and horses
exclamation mark!!!!!)", and not only taking Cuzco, but "setting up
a new Palace in Cuzco
by 1000BC", and then the "
or perhaps" I could have taken a bunch of other spots on the map that are quite obviously way beyond the pale of even sea squares, the "or perhaps" wafted into the post like a French aristocrat deciding whether to annex Britain or Russia just before the revolution.
How about you phrase yourself less jarringly and perhaps said "That start isn't quite so bad, I've seen worse" (which is what I actually said in the first post) and ten gone onto to say "yes, you got yourself in a bit of a muddle there didn't you. Looking at it now you must feel a bit annoyed as that doesn't look like a particularly hard Capital to take"
To which I could have heartily agreed, as I have pretty much stated so already by means of inference and other interesting literary techniques. But no, you have to, and I mean
have to, express yourself in the most overbearing form possible. To which we return to my original complaint, that of acting like a 12 year old - no, mate,
you started it.
With "pretty strong for a Regent game" I mean that the start position is good enough to win this game on Regent level any way you like.
How bizzare, I though you could 'win'
any Regent game from
any start position in
any way you liked...
Heck, I've won regent games from worse positions than this, and I've inferred so already. I even stated in the opening post that even from this terrible position in 1660 I could have waited for a UN victory - but I also, much less subtly, stated that I couldn't really be bothered with the game any more, it had served it's purpose and now it's only purpose of existing is to form part of a narrative in a thread for vents.
To which you don't even know the difference between a rant and a vent - so I'm not at all surprised you have no idea what this thread is even about and are just posting by instinct - which is even more worrisome, because that instinct is a pretty ugly and jarring one.
vent:
the release or expression of a strong emotion, energy, etc.
give free expression to (a strong emotion).
Rant:
speak or shout at length in an angry, impassioned way.
Am I expressing myself emotionally? Yes. But also factually. The two can be bedfellows.
Is my emotion anger? No. My expression of emotion, if you read properly, was 'frustration'. I'm not angry that you're spoiling the thread, I'm frustrated by your inability to understand the thread and your inability to communicate without arrogance.
To which it is now my turn to be arrogant - I'm a top-class venter, you are welcome to challenge me at venting, but I can guarantee I'll have you
and your palace by 3950BC
I know I'm a bit perfectionist and school-teacher-like, but people who know me usually confirm that I'm quite agreeable and helpful.
It's not that bad! Don't Jump! 
