Ethelred the Unready

[THARN]

Well- I just can't seem to break past being Ethelred - I think you should be considered a bit higher on the scale if you win- I just played one of the closest contests- I believe I just scooched past Mansa Musa in points in the last 40 turns we were neck and neck- Only way I did it was rush building a great wonder and letting my newly aquired cities from war with the Chinese grow in population . it was me and 8 other civs and the top 4 spots were close in points/ aggressive AI- no tech trading/ no space victory.
I won it with time victory. monarch- It was a tough game the entire time- I am a bit miffed about being called Ethelred- crap- only one above Dan Quayle..?? come on now!

point scoring needs a bit of an update I think. The game is hard enough as it is..

 

[Rane Khan]

You are sorta right. Basicly the only way to be on the top of that list is to have a very early victory (which means Domination or Conquest) and that doesn't do justice to the other victory types imho...

 

[Meffy]

It's small consolation, I know, but Ethelred's insulting nickname has been distorted by the passage of time. The correct word is not "Unready" but rather "Unraed," meaning "ill advised" (lacking in wise counsel) or "indecisive" (a waffler). His proper name was Æðelræd, meaning "well advised," so there was some impolite wordplay there too.

Don't sweat the ranking. Win if you can, and win as well as you can. Satisfy your own idea of how you should rule. That's part of what leadership's about.

 

[Loyran]

The earliest you win, ther higher you'll score.

 

[THARN]

Interesting Historical info there Meffy.

 

[AngryPants]

Don't sweat the ranking. Win if you can, and win as well as you can. Satisfy your own idea of how you should rule. That's part of what leadership's about.

I thought leadership was about razing the enemy cities?

I am a bit miffed about being called Ethelred- crap- only one above Dan Quayle..?? come on now!

I always thought including Dan Quayle was a little mean-spirited and unfair, since he was never President, while every1 else on that list was a head of state. Would he have been a good president? Probably not, but we'll never know. I doubt he could have done worse than Carter. If they truly wanted a terrible American president to put at the very bottom, its confusing that they didn't go with James Buchanan, who is without doubt the very worst. I suppose history judges you harshly for mispelling P-o-t-a-t-o.