Discussion Turns 81-100

[lost_civantares]

How much danger will barbs pose to it though? We've had trouble enough with warriors making their way down, would a missionary be able to do it?

 

[gbno1fan]

Anyways the upgrade chooses a Spearman...what a useless unit So now we have 7/35 on a Spearman.

If it is a useless unit, why are we training one? How many turns will be wasted creating a unit we don't want? Why don't we cut our losses and switch the build to something we want?

Re:Missionary - I, too, agree that at this juncture in the game it is too dangerous to send a missionary to King Kong's lands. Better to negotiate for open borders and hope that our glorious religion spreads faster than theirs.

 

[DaveMcW]

If it is a useless unit, why are we training one? How many turns will be wasted creating a unit we don't want? Why don't we cut our losses and switch the build to something we want?

Good idea. I'll order a switch to a granary.

Re:Missionary - I, too, agree that at this juncture in the game it is too dangerous to send a missionary to King Kong's lands. Better to negotiate for open borders and hope that our glorious religion spreads faster than theirs.

We have a very interesting position in the north. Our borders pushed back the fog enough to be safe from barbarians, but not enough to see the coast. So I'm sending the missionary to scout for coastal resources.

 

[General_W]

If it is a useless unit, why are we training one? How many turns will be wasted creating a unit we don't want? Why don't we cut our losses and switch the build to something we want?

I agree with switching the build to a granary - but (just so you're aware Ben) in Civ4 there is no switching hammers to new builds. the 7 hammers we have towards the spearmen will stick with that spearman until we finish building him or until the hammers degrade down to zero over a long period of time. When we start on the Granary, we'll be starting at zero.

EDIT: I also love the idea of using the Missionary to scout the coast!

 

[gbno1fan]

Originally Posted by Peter

Clarification (since I believe this is the second time you've made the mistake in the last couple weeks) - my sn is gbno1fan and if you were thinking of my real name, it is Ben.

As for the hammers sticking to the spearman, I'm aware of that. Think of it as sunk cost. I'd rather see us spend the remaining hammers on something we like than on something we don't want/need.

And I also like the idea of using the missionary to explore the coast.

 

[General_W]

Sorry Ben!!! I don't know why I keep doing that.

But all the evidence has been erased you can't prove anything!

And good point on the sunk cost - I totally agree. I just misunderstood why you were questioning the training of a Spearman (and since it's possible I thought you were Peter, who only recently got Civ4... or was that you... ) then I just jumped to trying to be helpful!

 

[gbno1fan]

Don't worry about it.

I got Civ4 about a week ago and have been playing it quite a bit since then. Should be making the move to Monarch difficulty soon, and hope to play the upcoming GOTM. Also in the beginning of a PBEM with Chamnix, who recently made the move to Civ4 as well.

 

[peter grimes]

Jerks! Why are you all using my sweet sweet name???

Was it because you didn't want me to try and get in on a pbem with you guys??

My name is Peter. That's not tough.
General_W's is xyxyxy.xyxyxy
GBno1Fan's is xyx.[i forget]

*sigh*
I'll just go reheat some Indian food while awaiting a response [/OT]

Back on topic - Do accumulated Hammers really dissolve over time if left in the build queue over many turns?
Is the rate related to difficulty level?
How many turns are we talking about?

I've just never experienced that before

 

[lost_civantares]

IIRC it's 10 turns, but Chamix was saying something different the last time we were talking about it...

 

[Memphus]

Wow it seems as if with the new "explosion" of what is going on I am finding it difficult to follow what is going on and know where to say what

Maybe it is time to restructure our discussion threads?

Perhaps one for each city?

One for Mobilized units?

Keep the Existing threads?

Thought ideas?

 

[Maniac]

IIRC it's 10 turns, but Chamix was saying something different the last time we were talking about it...

10 turns for units, 50 turns for buildings.


For the record, in my Apolyton DGs, once a lot of stuff starts happening in the same turn, the usual method is to have one thread per turn where all the related stuff is posted. Then you don't have to look at five seperate threads to know what's going on.

 

[gbno1fan]

I suggest we begin using the different department threads for discussion.

 

[Kylearan]

Hi,

For the record, in my Apolyton DGs, once a lot of stuff starts happening in the same turn, the usual method is to have one thread per turn where all the related stuff is posted. Then you don't have to look at five seperate threads to know what's going on.

I would very much like that format Maniac is suggesting. As it is now, I'm very confused where to read or post about what as well, especially since we're not supposed to post in certain threads and have to use other threads to talk about the things we've read in the read-only threads...

-Kylearan

 

[General_W]

Just for the record, I'm opposed to the "one uber-thread" idea.

If you want to know what's going on, Memphus's excellent Turn Updates (State of the Empire) thread should be more than sufficient to let anyone quickly catch up on what's happening.

If you want more detail on Foreign Matters – then my Foreign Ministry thread has a pretty good running log of all the happenings there (if anyone actually slogs through my dense reports? Maybe I should shorten those&#8230

That only leaves discussion. I think it's highly beneficial to have specific discussions centered in different threads. Otherwise you end up with a post on diplomacy, then 2 posts on domestic stuff, then post about military stuff, then a response to the diplomacy post, then 3 comments on the military, then someone speaks up about domestic… and it all gets quite difficult to keep straight or go into depth on any specific topic.

In fact, if anything, I think the "Discussion Turn 81-100" thread could go away in favor of focusing discussion into the various departments.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[DaveMcW]

The problem with department-specific threads is you have to memorize our Constitution before you know where to post.

I would rather encourage people to jump right into an active discussion.

 

[peter grimes]

I think I understand where some of this confusion comes from.

There are 6 threads stickied at the top of our forum. Those are supposed to be 'archival' or 'reference' threads, in the sense that they should remain free from discussion.

Then there are duplicates of all of those threads, in which we are supposed to confine discussion. It makes it confusing, to be sure.

However, if we open those stickied threads to discussion (on relevant topics) then we simplify things quite a lot in one fell swoop.

The Turn Orders thread and State of the Empire should remain reporting threads, however.

So I guess what I'm saying is that in order to make it more intuitive where people should discuss things, we should start using those first stickied threads for discussion instead of just being headers in our forum

For Example, look at The Office of Domestic Policy
Inside, we find links to 7 different threads, only a couple of which are relevent at this stage of the game. Let's scrap the "Office of Industry", Department of Great People, &c, and just have one Domestic Discussion Thread.


Is this post comprehensible?? I tend to think not

 

[peter grimes]

The problem with department-specific threads is you have to memorize our Constitution before you know where to post.

I disagree with this. People don't wait to read the constitution before posting. They respond to what they've just read. That's the danger General_W was warning of. It makes it very time consuming (especially to people on dial-ups) to sort through several pages of a thread just to be stay informed on a single topic.

Productive and succinct discussion demands good thread organization. Treaty matters should not be discussed in the State of the Empire thread; Military unit moves should ideally stay out of the Domestic thread; &c. It is understandable that every now and again there will be cross-over, but that would happen only when it makes sense (if we need more MP units to prevent unhappiness, for example)

General_W is right to suggest we split the Discussion thread into a couple topic-specific threads.

 

[DaveMcW]

Ok. Can we ban read-only threads though?

 

[Memphus]

Ok. Can we ban read-only threads though?

I would be For All that but do Like Control of Certain Threads:

I.E Turn Order should be for elected officials with their orders.
State of the empire is another good example.


That or we need an instruction on where to go (i.e. a stickied thread with all the discussions)

I guess I can always manage by going to the turn orders to figure out what to do....

 

[General_W]

As I understand it, the motive of the read-only threads is to enhance forum organization and record keeping… not offer yet another place for discussion. (although, I suppose we could just ask Rik To delete extraneous posts in those threads when they get unwieldy?)

Personally – I fail to see what's wrong with our current organization.

We have 3 kinds of threads.

1) Information Threads

• State of the Empire turn updates (only president should post in general)
• History Thread

2) Discussion Threads

• Foreign Ministry
• Domestic Ministry
• Defense Ministry
• Various Embassies
• All miscellaneous

3) Organization Threads

• All the sticky threads to help people find their way to the key threads mentioned above.

Is that too complicated or hard? I really don't see how!!

And, No – I don't want to campaign for this just because "it's the way we've always done it" - but this seems like a very good way to organize and discuss topics to me! Pretty clean and simple and still allowing the kind of in-depth discussions that have helped make our team strong and successful so far.

If really want to help new people, maybe we should just post this basic description (or something like it) in our "Info for New Members" sticky ?

Anyway. That's how I see it