Perhaps it will be better for the DP, if the city instructions will be in the order of the ingame and not for the province: NoneOfTheAbove, Equus aurum, Riversight, Copper, Reims etc.
I'm not sure. Keeping the build queues separate from the worker actions and from the tile allocations is certainly needed. Screenshots for tile allocations are helpful. Build queue example:
City A: granary, library, university
City B: aqueduct, library, catapult
City C: barracks, maceman, maceman
Having all the build queues in one place would also be helpful. Couldn't governors (or whatever they are called now) submit build queues to a head governor or domestic leader who then bundles them all together into one instruction post? It would be nice if all worker actions were together in one place as well.
I agree on your general point, hopefully this session will remind Donsig of the difficulty of following instructions to the letter in all cases.
Following the instructions in this thread cannot be compared to following the game play scheduling initiative. Since you brought this up, I'll further state that I realized I made mistakes after making them and admitted it.
To just point two cases, both concerned with NE cities:
1) Berlin was said to change production to granary.
Never was made.
2) Munich was said to build military as requested by Warlord.
DP says some requested catapults lacking, but Munich builds a bank.
(To decide if my instructions were clear or not, please read post 3).
If you look at other regions, for instance Coppertown, the play didn't follow
the instructions.
But, as we are not Yatsunians in RL, all good, just please do not apply the
"sometimes" rule.
Best regards,
Berlin was an oversight on the granary and I really don't see how I missed it. Sorry about that. Munich did not build military since other cities were building catapults faster and the warlord instruction's were along the lines of
build this if you can.
The Coppertown error I realized while I was still playing - but after the observatory was built. As I said earlier, I thought Coppertown was included in the cities that did not have order. It was another mistake on my part.
And you certainly can't have done as bad as me!
From what I read everyone was very pleased with your play. I must admit this was a difficult session for me. I had been up since 6 am which is not usual for me. I thought I'd be able to concentrate on the game at 8:30 but that proved not to be so since some work things popped up. Then the laptop went out once. It was really lucky that I had been doing the log on my work computer so it wasn't affected when the laptop when down. Still I had to redo 3 turns. Micro-managing is difficult to put into instructions and so the DP has to do most of that. That's not one of my strengths. Also, I do not know how to set up build queues in
![[civ4]](/images/smilies/civ4.gif "Civ4 [civ4]")
! How do you do that?
Anyway, I make this post not to cause arguments but in the hope that we can find better ways of doing things to prevent the same mistakes from happening in the future.
). We got liberalism and that was the most important thing, and I think all DP's have skrewed up (I know I did).
Playing till 2 am when I had been up since 6 am didn't help.
It was very difficult having to go back and forth between the game and the instructions and remembering which cities actually had instructions. I know I erred on Coppertown since it is grouped with the French cities and that didn't stick in my mind. We definately need a better way to organize instructions.
That sounds like how it's done in Civ III. Why the heck didn't I think of that before! 
