Oh man...
I'm a little embarrassed ...
I just looked over my last post and I really didnt mean to
Hope I aint ruffled no feathers but seriously...
This game was toast...
To say that you weren't sure of Monarch would appear to be a rather poor joke whilst we are standing in the smoking ruins of the once proud cities of our enemies.
You guys can do better.
Ville - Fighting in this game would have been easy against the Celts... With the cities we had, the tech advantage and railroads down, its just crank out cavalry until it hurts...
If the AI would have been a little tougher then maybe a little stack of 40-50 artillery to join it (once Hoovers and factories were up and running) and they would have been like (slightly bloody) putty in our hands.
Hry - What can I say, an attention to detail that was often better than my own and the drive to push a good plan through.
If this isn't too cheeky I would love to join you in any new SG that you propose if it is at Emperor (or higher

)
If you feel you want to let other players have a chance at your second SG then thats fine, but it was nice playing with all of you.
Can I suggest a few things though...
Please no more maps bigger than standard. The games seem to be won or lost long before the end of the game.
Have a distinct goal in mind, preferably after 10-30 turns of game played. You can normally meet the neighbours and get a good idea of your surroundings.
Just my thoughts.
Melifluous
PS. Oh by the way I thought that the second idea was the best. Intentionally allocating different sets of turns to a new philosophy would allow a specific goal to be achieved in each phase. This would stop you from suddenly wavering and building a few troops when you should be expanding, or buying tech when you should be rushing improvements, or buiding workers...
