Call for Peaceful Citizens!

[eyrei]

I am dismayed that our more dove-ish citizens seem to have abandoned the game. Maybe this is because the war mongers are far more vocal, but I seem to sense that there is little activity by anyone else. In all honesty, I do not think this game will be much fun for anybody if we are ruled by the desire to go to war. The structure of the democracy game lends itself more to peaceful building and diplomacy rather than conquest. Warfare is certainly a viable victory strategy for civ3, and is quite fun for the person playing. However, only a few people will ever actually play this game. I think it would be far more fun to build an impressive, culturally superior civilization that more resembles a country than the result of Nazi victory.

Anyway, I am tired of feeling outnumbered by the warmongers, so all citizens who agree with this vision for the democracy game, please post in this thread and lend your support.

Also, do not be afraid to post your opinions because you play at a low level, or are intimidated by the more vocal members. Everyone is a citizen in this nation we call Phoenatica, and everyone has an equal voice. The purpose of this game is to provide fun for everyone involved, not to win. We will almost definately win, as monarch is not too hard of a level, and with the level of micromanagement involved, we have a significant advantage over the AI. I would like to build a civilization we can all be proud of, as well as a sense of cooperation among a very diverse population.

Sincerely,

Eyrei
Domestic Leader

 

[Immortal]

I'm hardly an outspoken individual (knowing to go into fit of rage on more then one occasion). But I for one am wary of those demanding we go into a multi-pronged, multi-fronted blitzkreig. We must stop to consider the consequences of such an action. Every action has a reaction, does anyone think that if we attack the babylonians and drive them back to their borders and demand peace, they will make it their aim to see us destroyed?

Our commerce and our military are weak now, yes this is true, keep in mind we are in the 11th century BC in the game. This is quite literally because we are heavily settling our areas, in a desperate land grab. Our military can and will be built up, and we will fight against Americans, and any other enemy who threatens our citizens, all this will be done in time, to do so right now (with babylon having unknown numbers of units approaching our cities) is utter sillyness. Our military is not strong enough to battle a 2nd rate power (the americans comparatively speaking) and an unknown enemy, even if they are the weakest, the number of units needed to sucessfully approach, attack and defend would be explosive. Not to mention the number of turns it will take to build our military and move it to the other side of the map.

This is hardly directed at anyone, and please do not feel as though I'm demanding a halt to military operations, we should defend ourselves from the babs. However some of our more interesting debates have not been about if to attack the americans, but how quickly. What if the babylonians are closer then we think, just ouside our borders waiting for their signal to attack. And some people want to attack the americans as well as fighting back the babs. Im fearful of the consequences of a stalemate or even a defeat. WHo knows what units the americans are defending their cities with, could be horsemen, could be spearman, could even be workers.

Grain of salt to be taken accordingly

 

[donsig]

I'm sure I'm classified among the outspoken warmongers however:

I voted to build infrastructure because we have not been wholeheartedly preparing for war. In our position (even before war was declared) we were not ready for war.

I am a believer that we must conquer one or two other civs to become a major power.

We have the popular(?) doctrine of manifest destiny. To implement that we have to be aggressive early.

Now that we have the Babylonian Crisis (and I was in the chat room advocating with holding our maps) we must re-appraise our desire to attack America. At least the timing of the attack.

I do hope the 'doves' are still with us. This is fun and there is much to be learned. I am dubious of the proto-immortal idea but would like to see how it pans out.

One thing that is discouraging about the game (the democracy game not the course the Civ game is taking) is that it is difficult to know what the current plans are, what descisions are being made and

how us citizens can be a part of the process.

 

[Cyc]

edit: @immortal - donsig must have posted nano-seconds before me. be aware I as a peace-monger took many a hit for my stance. hold true to your beliefs. (and btw, aren't you posting in the CDB?)

yes, yes, you're absolutely right. you sound like me in my younger days. but i feel that we NEED that Northern Territory to grow and be able to fend off the rest of the world. It's a must.

With all I've read in the History books, govrnments have always promoted the building of armies (at least the most well known ones). But if you read between the lines, the government tells the army who to attack and which way to go. The better equipped and more trained the army is, the more battles they win. The more battles they win, the farther they advance, the farther they advance, the more distance there is between them and us.....
which is how golden ages are started, and wonders are built, and stories are written of the men who gave us the spare time to do these things.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by eyrei
I think it would be far more fun to build an impressive, culturally superior civilization that more resembles a country than the result of Nazi victory.

Whereas I'd agree with your first point, I do not find being called a Nazi particularly funny......

Also, do not be afraid to post your opinions because you play at a low level, or are intimidated by the more vocal members. Everyone is a citizen in this nation we call Phoenatica, and everyone has an equal voice. The purpose of this game is to provide fun for everyone involved, not to win. We will almost definately win, as monarch is not too hard of a level, and with the level of micromanagement involved, we have a significant advantage over the AI. I would like to build a civilization we can all be proud of, as well as a sense of cooperation among a very diverse population.

Good point.

But I'll also have you know that this game has not attracted any number of the regular forum posters (i.e. those in the top 25 or 50 by postcounts), unlike the Civ2 game. These would have turned out to be the most vocal and combative (post-wise) lot of posters of all political spectres but very unfortunately, they're keeping out of sight.

Yeah, and the only peace I wish for is eternal peace for all our enemies.

 

[disorganizer]

im also a "peacemonger".
but i got convinced that especially as persian civ and in such starting conditions, we are propably forced to use military actions in the beginning.
i believe a peace movement will start sooner or later, but we will really need more cities for our empire. i think we will have a hard time, even if we make war not peace.

but one thing is disturbing: some ppl really take a almost inflamatory way of making warmongery posts. but the other side is catching up with the "nice" posts...

so maybe we should all be more polite... we are here to learn.

i think the problems during the last turn were brought to us because of the chaos in the threads. it is impossible to find the most up to date info on most threads. maybe the departments should use the 3rd post in their threads to leave the uptodate info for the next turn there (via edit) (1st post=rules, 2nd post=principles of the department politics, 3rd post=infos for the next session).

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by disorganizer
but one thing is disturbing: some ppl really take a almost inflamatory way of making warmongery posts. but the other side is catching up with the "nice" posts...

so maybe we should all be more polite... we are here to learn.

OK, OK, I'll keep silent and be nice from now on.

Now, how to make 'nice' warmongering posts.....

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Whereas I'd agree with your first point, I do not find being called a Nazi particularly funny......

Good point.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that anyone was a Nazi. What I meant was that in most games I have played where I took a very aggressive approach, the landscape often looked more like a sprawling wasteland than a country.

 

[crabapple]

I nearly always play peacefull games, but now when we have so small area to expand we need a early war then when we have more cities we can begin a build up.
A Great Libary is very important or we will always be after the computer.

First war, then peace

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by crabapple
I nearly always play peacefull games, but now when we have so small area to expand we need a early war then when we have more cities we can begin a build up.
A Great Libary is vey important or we will always be after the computer.

First war, then peace

We do not have a small area. I am not sure why people have this idea. We are third in land area already, and if we pump out a few more settlers, we will probably be 1st or second.

 

[crabapple]

Ok I´am for peace now. when I took a second look at the screen shot and I saw that we have large area of land now.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by crabapple
Ok I´am for peace now. when I took a second look at the screen shot and I saw that we have large area of land now.

The screenshots can sometimes be misleading. I strongly suggest that everyone download the save, and take a close look. Just remember not to actually do anything.

 

[Grey Fox]

I would like to have 2-3 Constant settler Factories. (For awhile)

 

[SKILORD]

i second the settle factory idea

 

[Kentonio]

I think one problem is that in order to find out what the hell is going on you have to wade through numerous threads, many of which make bugger all sense most of the time. Why not have a single sticky thread called Progress Journal or suchlike that ONLY lists exactly what has been happening, no discussions, no opinions, just a simple account of events.

Another reason I think the quieter members are not here in numbers is that when it comes to citizens contributing there has not been a great deal of listening going on by those running this game. I have read LOTS of posts from people asking about this and that or whether such a thing could be done and they are usually either ignored or told 'no, that didnt work in the civ 2 demo game'. Whilst I know you people who are experienced in civ 2 demo games might feel like you already know what works its not helpful if you end up losing all your players cause they feel like they have nothing to contribute.

Finally maybe you could let people do what they want a bit more perhaps? Im not talking anarchy here but when I saw Hi 2K's New's thread pulled it was an early worrying sign. Yes it was returned but with a 'dont offend anyone' warning attached. Well I dont think im alone here in thinking there are plenty of people in the Civ world with a vastly overblown ego and a bit of lighthearted piss-taking never hurt anyone. Basically why not just chill out on the rigid rules a little and let people express themselves. Who knows we might even get some entertainment out of it

Kentonio

 

[donsig]

Right on Kentonio!!!

Phree Speech for Phoentacis!!!

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Kentonio
I think one problem is that in order to find out what the hell is going on you have to wade through numerous threads, many of which make bugger all sense most of the time. Why not have a single sticky thread called Progress Journal or suchlike that ONLY lists exactly what has been happening, no discussions, no opinions, just a simple account of events.

Another reason I think the quieter members are not here in numbers is that when it comes to citizens contributing there has not been a great deal of listening going on by those running this game. I have read LOTS of posts from people asking about this and that or whether such a thing could be done and they are usually either ignored or told 'no, that didnt work in the civ 2 demo game'. Whilst I know you people who are experienced in civ 2 demo games might feel like you already know what works its not helpful if you end up losing all your players cause they feel like they have nothing to contribute.

Finally maybe you could let people do what they want a bit more perhaps? Im not talking anarchy here but when I saw Hi 2K's New's thread pulled it was an early worrying sign. Yes it was returned but with a 'dont offend anyone' warning attached. Well I dont think im alone here in thinking there are plenty of people in the Civ world with a vastly overblown ego and a bit of lighthearted piss-taking never hurt anyone. Basically why not just chill out on the rigid rules a little and let people express themselves. Who knows we might even get some entertainment out of it

Kentonio

I agree with much of what you said, particularly about it being difficult to find out what is going on. It is not just the regular citizens, but also the administration that often finds this hard. This is a very bad thing when the game is played differently than it was supposed to out of ignorance of what was supposed to be done. I am going to start a thread for suggestions about better organizing our information, so please add your suggestion there, so it will be seen.

I think you overestimate the number of people here who played the civ2 game. Noone in the current government played, and I think these veteran players post mostly in the warmonger threads for some reason. It makes me wonder what happened to the more peaceful members of that game.

As far a freedom of speach, I certainly do not think that it is curtailed much by us not being allowed to blatantly insult each other. Rules like this are forum wide, and will likely not be changed for this game. Personally, I do not mind the occasional insult, as long as the general atmosphere remains friendly.

 

[Mr Spice]

Originally posted by eyrei

I think you overestimate the number of people here who played the civ2 game. Noone in the current government played, and I think these veteran players post mostly in the warmonger threads for some reason. It makes me wonder what happened to the more peaceful members of that game.

They were all sacrificed to the war gods, for better luck in beating up our enemies.

You have a point that not many of us C2DG players are present here. But then again, most of us are no longer present there either. Perhaps people just lost interest in the whole idea. As for what happened to the peacemongers, I am one of them. It is just that Civ 3 is a totally different game that promotes war much more than Civ 2 does.

 

[Kentonio]

I agree with much of what you said, particularly about it being difficult to find out what is going on. It is not just the regular citizens, but also the administration that often finds this hard. This is a very bad thing when the game is played differently than it was supposed to out of ignorance of what was supposed to be done. I am going to start a thread for suggestions about better organizing our information, so please add your suggestion there, so it will be seen.

I think you overestimate the number of people here who played the civ2 game. Noone in the current government played, and I think these veteran players post mostly in the warmonger threads for some reason. It makes me wonder what happened to the more peaceful members of that game.

As far a freedom of speach, I certainly do not think that it is curtailed much by us not being allowed to blatantly insult each other. Rules like this are forum wide, and will likely not be changed for this game. Personally, I do not mind the occasional insult, as long as the general atmosphere remains friendly.

As usual Eyrei I agree with most of what you say however in regard to 'blatently insulting each other' I do not believe this is strictly accurate. I certainly would NOT support anyone for being rude or personally insulting about another player, however as far as I am aware Hi 2K did no such thing, he simply started a comical tabloid style thread which was removed 'in case' it became insulting. This is what I object to, the idea that a humble citizen could not be trusted to know where the line is between humor and offensive behaviour. If I missed something and he was actually insulting then I apologize for my mistake but I have seen nothing myself to support this.

Kentonio

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Kentonio


As usual Eyrei I agree with most of what you say however in regard to 'blatently insulting each other' I do not believe this is strictly accurate. I certainly would NOT support anyone for being rude or personally insulting about another player, however as far as I am aware Hi 2K did no such thing, he simply started a comical tabloid style thread which was removed 'in case' it became insulting. This is what I object to, the idea that a humble citizen could not be trusted to know where the line is between humor and offensive behaviour. If I missed something and he was actually insulting then I apologize for my mistake but I have seen nothing myself to support this.

Kentonio

I wasn't referring to Hi_2K's thread, but rather to the general forum rules. Duck just saw that at first as a possibly inflammatory thread, and thought to avoid serious flaming by removing it preemptively. While most posters are mature enough not to insult people (at least not blatantly), there are those who do not have this common goodwill. The rules are to keep these 'bad apples' from ruining everyone elses fun. For the record, I do not think we have any of these 'bad apples' here, although, a quick trip to Apolyton's Civ3 General forum can provide an entertaining diversion along those lines.