Here are a few observations regarding the other teams (and our team in comparison):
1.
What I noticed when reading some of the democracy-game threads over at Civforum: some of these guys like to "quarrel" a lot... (Just like justanick in the Conference: he is not able to see other people's point of view and not willing to make a compromise, or even admit that somebody else's idea might be better than his own.)
So when at some point in the game different people have different opinions about something, they do not try to find the "objectively best" solution; everyone tries to force his opinion upon the others...
And some of the things they have said to each other are not really nice... This of course demotivates the ones being insulted. (And having every single member of the team motivated is a key point for success!)
I think we can take advantage of that, if we make sure that we will act as "one band of good friends, united by one great quest we want to achieve as a team". Therefore I suggest the following rules for our internal interaction:
- I think we have 6 very excellent players assembled in this team. So it may well be that sometimes someone else will have a better idea than yourself. Listen to what other say, state your arguments pro and contra objectively and then try to find the "best" idea, even if it's somebody elses.
- Nobody is perfect, so everyone will make a mistake eventually. But we will not make any accusations or shout at each other. Just point out the mistake as a matter of fact, so we can avoid it for the future, but don't get upset/personal about it.
- When dealing with the other teams, we will be courteous and friendly. In my experience this achieves much better results than being threatening or demanding. (And when it really does come to war, most often it allows you to determine the point of time. So you can choose the time for war when it is most conveniently for you, instead of letting the other side call the shots.)
2.
Memento already said it, and I got the same impression that the leading players at Civforum are excellent in terms of Micromanagement and things like F11 analysis, but they are not as good in diplomacy, general strategy and military actions.
On the other hand, I think that we have an expert in every field in our team. In order to assess our strenghts and weaknesses, perhaps everyone of you could state in this thread, what he is best/worst in? So let me start:
I think I'm quite good at diplomacy and at Micromanagement, especially early fast research. But I am weak at fast military campaigns (horsemen rushes, knight rushes). (My domination/conquest games are always 100 years slower than Ivan's, ignas', Memento's or templar's...
)
Sir Lanzelot
)
); mediocre at science; i have little knowledge of IA and MA times in any regards, as i simply finished only a few games ever that lasted that long. i have absolutely no experience with diplomacy amongst human players.
)