Gameplay Discussion of Research

CoL hardcoded prereqs:
Either Currency or Priesthood, must be researched, as well as Writing

 

Correct, beat me to the answer...

Either earlier in this thread or the other one, I posted how long it will take going the quick way, and assuming no growth in research. Obviously it will be faster than that estimate. Something like 30 turns, perhaps less.

 

Hmm, perhaps we can take Archery AND get to CoL first? The founding of our second city should speed up research, shouldn't it?

 

Let me make myself perfectly clear on something.

I'm not here to run the game, or try to take it over. I work 60 hour weeks in a technical leadership position, play with my two children, volunteer as a coach and board member for soccer, volunteer at the schools to help with field trips, and play civ in my extremely limited free time.

I'm here to give advice to the people who are running the game.

I'm not arguing CoL to get my way, I'm arguing it to advocate an informed decision which agrees with how the most people want the game to go. Big picture items like this are essential to get right, not just from the game play aspect and the role play aspect, but from the interpersonal aspect. Sooner or later, when one of us active players needs a month off due to RL, someone has to fill our shoes. A key problem in previous games has been that we get lots of excitement and 50-100 people show up, but by the 2nd month we're down to 20 actives. Maybe 10 or less will be left by the 8th month.

Do we poll every decision? Of course not -- that led to a lack of people wanting leadership roles. Only the biggest, most critical issues should get polled, even when we adopt universal suffrage! And the leaders should not be so hung up on our civic and their positions that they are afraid to ask the people what they want, and go along with it.

 

IW also gets a production boost, but we can wait with IW for a bit. But we may still need it for city-breaking units, since I want to minimize casualties to get more promoted units for the long term.

I also think we should only poll for how many turns forwards, not on a gambit level. For example, we could poll Archery-Mysticism vs. Mysticism-Meditation, since that is where I see the divide goes.

I agree that major decisions need to be polled, where there are discontent, yet, Legion got the say.

 

What version of civ are you playing?

 

For the mined Iron mine, I mean, as well as removing jungle.

 

We are Japan, with Samurai replacing Macemen

 

I disagree. It is critically important to decide on a longer term strategy, and not switch paths every 1-3 techs.

However, this does reveal where some of the fervor against CoL comes from. If we did follow the CoL path, the urgency is for getting Confucianism. Obviously if it were discovered by someone else then it is no longer urgent, and we should abandon that path immediately and switch strategies if there is something else which does have urgency.

 

Its curious how you argue for polling a long term strategy that locks our nation, when it fits you, whereas you are perfectly fine with continuously repolling other peoples strategies. We both know we should only poll what is to be played in one session, you argued for it before, but now you are not, since it does not fit your agenda. You change your argumentation as it suits you.

 

You poll a strategy, but you've got to be willing to repoll if the situation changes. We both know that's the best way to run the game.

Polling for everything each session makes for poor planning and gameplay.

-- Ravensfire

 

It depends on how the strategy is defined. Contrast the following:

1. The strategy of the Arethan people is to become the religious power in the world and achieve total victory by being elected religious leader. All actions the nation takes will support this strategy.

2. The Arethan people desire to found a religion. The tech path will follow the shortest path to techs which found religions, until one is founded or all religions are taken by other civilizations.

3. The Arethan people desire to found a religion as one of many national goals. Since a religion is available and may be likely to be founded if we follow the Code of Laws path, we will follow that path until Confucianism is founded (by ourselves or another), at which time the goal shall either be achieved or abandoned.

4. The Arethan people desire to found a religion as one of many national goals. Since a religion is available and may be likely to be founded if we follow the Code of Laws path, we will start along that path. Since no strategy is complete without accounting for unforseen events, we may abandon this path at any time as circumstances merit.

5. Strategy is for game players, and this is a role playing game. Let's decide tech by tech, with no regard to any cohesive goal, or choose a set of techs for a short term goal without regard to the long term consequences.

I support #4, and have not said otherwise. Others seem to be supporting #5, which in my opinion is the worst possible way to do it. There have been instances in the past where people have advocated strategies like #1 or #2, which I have consistently opposed, every time.

 

I am planning long term, do not underestimate me. I want IW for a good reason, and that is to have a clear idea of the odds for a military conflict and to know what it takes, as well as being able to cut down jungle etc. Knowing you would set up a poll like that, portraying me as an idiot and you as the only logical choice, I am happy you are not setting up that poll.

 

Is IW the long term part? What is the strategy? Is it something there is a benefit from for being first?

I'm happy to go strategy vs strategy, any time. That is the choice I want the people to make, between some kind of cohesive religion goal and some kind of cohesive military goal, and perhaps other goals. The 1st tech seems to change all the time -- one time it's IW, then mysticism, then archery, then writing. What's the whole plan, and what's the overall benefit?

 

We are seeing several directions of thought right now, and to be honest, I think its the Triads privilege to make that decision with the understanding of the entire population when we got our cities up. Right now, the three factions are arguing the direction based on distinct faction interests. This is an ongoing process, and now is not the ultimatum time.

 

etc being?

Chopping down jungle is nice i suppose but not really a huge bonus whilst actually getting iron right now is not a massive thing as everyone seems fairly set on getting cities out rather than attacking anyone- hence the desire for archery when we have horses. I don't really see the need for IW or CoL tbh, except for obvious role play issues, for gameplay the obvious choice is alphabet because contrary to what someone says alphabet is not something the AI prioritise at all and on monarch you can often still get it before they have writing.

 

the desire for archery when we have horses was largely in order to be able to create Horse archers, which require it

 

Quite, so we have HA and therefore the only benefit from IW is finding iron and thus having it for when we want to build samurai. However, we already have copper within our borders, therefore any future cities should not be wholly dependant on securing iron within our borders as we're not going to use it initially but instead hold onto it for a bit. We can't build samurai right now and neither can anyone else build anything on par so we can use axes to quite easily take it.

 

In fact, atm turnsession 5 research discussion is considering sailing -> math -> alphabet, which postpones IW..