Poll, how to deal with villages discovered by Cyrus and Xerxes

[Provolution]

Idle principles, eh? Them's fightin' words, them is. We are on the same team Provo. Let's be nice to each other.

As I said earlier, if we can't deal with a few barbarians what the heck are we going to do when we meet the other teams? With explorers out there we may run into another civ soon. Will we be prepared?

Hey buddy, not fighting words

You were the one nominated me, so I am in full respect for you. What I am saying, is that it is allowed to admit a mistake, as I am doing now. I did not factor in the village pop by warriors outside an undefended city with unescorted workers. Now I mitigated it and solved the problem, no damage.

In fact, I have seen a few zombie splatter movies recently. The Night of the Living Dead, the Land of the Living Dead and 28 Days After, and what these films had in common, was the collective stupidity when opening doors that should be kept shut.

Those villages are those deserted cities in zombieworld, along those goodies, we find hordes of zombies looking for the fresh bite, stumbling into our cities and crawling after our civilian populations, our blood (gold) and our vulnerable
workers.

I just want to shut that door, and exterminate the zombies piecemeal, the most effective way. For Xerxes, he can go in, for Cyrus, he can wait for that big trailer armed to the teeth (settler).Sorry fot those filmesque metaphors, but they are very telling for how stupid it is to pop huts so close to home.
In fact, 2/3 of the huts popped by warriors are zombies. 100 % of the huts popped by new cities, are goodies.

I used the party whip to get the polls in line, since the argument was good enough. I willingly concede when I do a mistake, and alter my views.
There are many samples in this private forum where I have adopted your proposals, to the letter, since they were good. Yet, when we jeopardize our empire for a goodie hut, I thought it was time to put my foot down.

I hope you all understand the rationale here, and respect for the outcome and our survival, in balance with due process. If we die, there are going to be no due process, but our own short process and eventual demise.

 

[donsig]

Hey buddy, not fighting words

They were stinging nonetheless. I've been in the demogames since term one of DGI and I've seen many, many poor decisions make due to poor polling and lack of proper discussion - which in the end always lead to lots of arguing and fighting. I would like to keep our team from going down that same road. At the same time I would like us to maintain the democratic ideal and make our decisons collectively, each with an equal voice and vote. I do not consider these to be *idle principles* and hope that you, as our current leader, share them.

You were the one nominated me, so I am in full respect for you. What I am saying, is that it is allowed to admit a mistake, as I am doing now. I did not factor in the village pop by warriors outside an undefended city with unescorted workers. Now I mitigated it and solved the problem, no damage.

No, you did not solve the problem, you made a new one. Some of us had reservations about sending out unescorted settlers which we voiced. Our concerns were brushed off with the argument that there most likely weren't barbarians about. Well, now we know that's not true and the trouble is we are totally unprepared. This is a failing of our whole team, not just you. It is great that you want to take responsibility for an error and correct it but you should still do so within the framework of our little team democracy rather than politicing to get votes changed so the poll will line up with your new way of thinking.

I hope you all understand the rationale here, and respect for the outcome and our survival, in balance with due process. If we die, there are going to be no due process, but our own short process and eventual demise.

You've made some good arguments for not popping the one hut but I for one remain unconvinced. It seems to me we are giving up a chance to get a free settler by not popping that hut. Getting a free settler and then making two more quick ones as you have planned would give us a very large edge, would it not? Sure, there is only a small chance we'd get a settler but it's still a chance. Nothing ventured nothing gained. And just what do we risk? What would we really lose if we pop that hut and three barbarians came out? Do you really maintain that they would spell the doom of our civilization?

I think we should look at this situation a bit closer and see what the risk really is instead of just seeing the end of the world. Reaching out and taking a chance could net us an advantage down the road. I encourage those who did not vote in this poll to post their votes here - and to vote for popping both huts. Since we've opened the Pandora's Box already I also encourage anyone who did not vote to pop both huts to change their votes and to do so by posting in this thread.

 

[Provolution]

I agree to the terms Donsig, all posted votes here would count prior to Team Doughnuts Timestamp by their leader Daveshack. REmember, Greekguy changed his vote and Gunner voted for option 2. That put option two firmly in the lead with a 5-3 edge.

To make this all more interesting Donsig, I will change my vote to yes to pop both huts, if you are willing to change our official name to a real nation name.
We will still be Team TNT, but our nation and people name would be the following:

Official Nation Name: Irôn
Noun: Ironyan
Adjective: Irônic
Leader: Shahanshah

When we connect resource IRON for the first time, we change our name.
As you see, the reference is Persia-Iran, but also with a hidden edge to our potential neighbors, the Iroquois, or for us the evil nation Iroq, adjective Iroqi.

 

[donsig]

I like the names but would we be running into that rule about renaming things to mislead other teams?

What does everyone else think about the proposed names?

 

[Provolution]

We would not mislead, the namechange should be public and honorable. Irôn makes much more sense than TNT as a nation. As long as you will publicly support these names in the forthcoming renaming campaign, you got my vote for popping those huts.
A 4-4 tie would of course be broken by the turnplayer.

 

[Gunner]

As you see, the reference is Persia-Iran, but also with a hidden edge to our potential neighbors, the Iroquois, or for us the evil nation Iroq, adjective Iroqi.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what that whole sentence means. I think a new thread should be made for the discussion of this possible name change.

 

[vbraun]

Im 99.999% sure we can't change civ-info mid game.

 

[RegentMan]

You can call yourself Irôn here, but in game, you will always be TNT. There isn't a way to change that information in the middle of a game.

 

[Provolution]

LOL, I was all being humorous, can't you see the IRONY? or just IRÔN?
Well, you may of course take it pedantically and in terms of rectification hehehehehehe

 

[donsig]

And of course the biggest irony of all would be you breaking the 4-4 tie in favor of not popping the hut near Cyrus...

So what about the settler from the hut gamble? I willl not get a settler if we pop the hut with a city.

 

[Provolution]

all right
I may actually pop it anyways

The worst that can happen is that we must relocate the worker and lose some 2-3 gold, that is limited damage.

But I would be loyal to the bargain and break the 4-4 tie for popping it, and I still want the IRÔN name as our internal official name. We may be TNT externally, but IRON has more soul to it. Yes, I stick by my offer. What is written in game is not relevant here.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Im 99.999% sure we can't change civ-info mid game.

I'm 100% sure you can't, but I am 100% sure I can (as I have the admin password).
It would require to edit the saved game (I have the tools for that). Fortunately it won't let you unless you have the admin's PW.

To be honest; I don't think that changing the name mid-game should not be done as it creates suspicion (and rightly so) in the other 3 teams.

 

[Chieftess]

While it's possible to use tools to change things mid-stream, I wouldn't advise it. There's always a chance that a 3rd party util could corrupt part of the game further down the road (especially when putting non-standard letters). You can always have that as your "unnoficial" name. (i.e., forum-name, but not game-name).

BTW, I'm not even sure if there's any utils that support a PBEM game. (never tried it...) And, thus, I'm not sure if a util for a single player game won't mess up a MP game.

 

[vbraun]

I'm 100% sure you can't, but I am 100% sure I can (as I have the admin password).

Thats why I left the .001%

I agree with Rik, plus why would we want to put more work on Rik after hes done so much work for us?

 

[Provolution]

Heck, that is only a 2-3 minutes amendment, so we should not dramatize the burden too much. I would like real nationlike name, not the inconsistent names we got. Irôn is as good as any.

 

[greekguy]

i really don't see the point of changing our nation name. let's just stick with TNT.

 

[Gunner]

I'd stick with TNT too.

 

[Provolution]

Well, forget this debate We are TNT internally and externally, but I would like to call the nation as such, or the land, for Irôn. Please take it as an attempt to breathe somelife into the game. Also, please look at the new city plans and that we got a new settler.

 

[Provolution]

You've made some good arguments for not popping the one hut but I for one remain unconvinced. It seems to me we are giving up a chance to get a free settler by not popping that hut. Getting a free settler and then making two more quick ones as you have planned would give us a very large edge, would it not? Sure, there is only a small chance we'd get a settler but it's still a chance. Nothing ventured nothing gained. And just what do we risk? What would we really lose if we pop that hut and three barbarians came out? Do you really maintain that they would spell the doom of our civilization?

I had this in mind, when I thought we rather trigger off three barbarians for the statistical opportunity to get a settler. Basically, emptying the 2/3 barbarian pool. I also temporarily switched the production to wall as I popped the hut, and popped it back to settler afterwards.

 

[donsig]

You did a great job since we managed to pop a settler!