(Quick Poll) 0% Science

[donsig]

We have not overextended ourselves with units! How in bloody heck are we to prosecute a war without units? The state we are in is not permanent. Can you not see the benefits we will gain from the war?

Anyway, I 'm voting no. We should not hire a scientist in Tlaxcala. Use the city that has the real unhappy laborer.

 

[Chieftess]

Did I just read that correctly!? Donsig, and Strider, AGREEING!!!!



Anyway, once Tenochtitlan and Tlaxcala are not revolting, you'll see how corrupt/not corrupt they are. Tlaxcala is miles away from the capital, and I don't think it'll be that productive. Also, we need to build more cities, that way, we can improve our economy.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Look closely at the city screen of Tlaxcala in post #7....if we take one citizen off the land, there will not be enough food to sustain the population. The city will revert to a size 1 city and we will have enjoyed the benefit of the scientist for one turn.

However, zero science is not a bad idea if we use the 100% commerce to entice a nice trade a couple rungs up the science ladder. As long as the tech is pretty benign, we could use that new tech to trade to many of the other civs that don't have that tech yet. But this topic is more for the Trade Office.

Responding to the poll as written, I vote NO and strongly urge everybody to do the same.

 

[Kennelly]

Clearly No.

 

[Shaitan]

YES. 0% is where it's at.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
YES. 0% is where it's at.

Shaitan: I think there is enough support for 0% science but this poll is about a specific proposal to have a scientist in Tlaxcala. As pointed out earlier in this thread, both citizens of Tlaxcala must work or else the city will starve. Tenochtitlan has an unhappy citizen that could be a scientist. So the vote that makes most sense in this poll is NO.

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by donsig


Shaitan: I think there is enough support for 0% science but this poll is about a specific proposal to have a scientist in Tlaxcala. As pointed out earlier in this thread, both citizens of Tlaxcala must work or else the city will starve. Tenochtitlan has an unhappy citizen that could be a scientist. So the vote that makes most sense in this poll is NO.

Yup... We want a scietists in tenochtitlan not Tlaxcala!

 

[Eklektikos]

Poll has ended. Proposal has been accepted.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Eklektikos
Poll has ended. Proposal has been accepted.

This is sad news for the residents if Tlaxcala. Unless someone in charge has the sense to throw this out.

 

[Shaitan]

The Scientist was bounced between Tlaxcala and Tenochtitlan as the situation warranted.

 

[donsig]

I'm the first to admit I'm not a good Civ 3 player on the higher levels. Part of the reason I participate in the demo game is to learn to play Civ 3 better. I still have my own style of play including likes and dislikes. I really dislike doing in citizens unless absolutely neccesary. This particular dislike gets magnified in the demo game setting as I take on my role of defender of the people's rights.

So I'd really like to know, from a Civ 3 standpoint, why we had to hire a scientist in Tlaxcala (which starved the city down to size one) when we could have hired the discontent citizen in Tenochtitlan? I don't understand the need for bouncing back and forth. It seems to me that Tlaxcala could have had both citizens contentedly working the fields. Teno could have had the scientist and neither city would have starved.

I understand the reason for 0% science and agreed with that. I thought we could accomplish that without starving Tlaxcala. Please explain why that was not possible.

 

[Shaitan]

Tlaxcala was untenable due to unhappiness. With a single population less they became easy to manage. With Tlax down we could then switch the scientist between Tlax and Teno as appropriate to allow regrowth.

 

[donsig]

I'm not sure what you mean by untenable. In 825 BC there were three units in Tlaxcala which was enough to keep the two Tlaxcala citizens coontent. Letting them work the one or two turns that the swordsman would have been there healing would have been enough to get a bit of surplus food stored up which would have avoided the starvation in Tlaxcala. It seems to me that the switching tactic could have been done starting with Tenochtitlan. The atrocity could have been avoided. I think we need a Committee on the Conduct of the War to oversee things and ensure this type of calamity doesn't happen in the future. It is one thing to kill our enemies on the field of battle. It is quite another to starve those we have conquered when it is not neccesary.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

donsig,

Please do not pick up PTW anytime soon! Your continued dedication to the people is desperately needed in these forums. It is hard to believe that after we spoke out on this matter:

a. it continued to collect votes
b. was implemented by our leadership

Mr. President, in the future please try to treat our newly acquired citizens with the same decency as you would those in Valhalla. Because through our very actions, they are now Fanatikans as well.

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Tlaxcala was untenable due to unhappiness. With a single population less they became easy to manage. With Tlax down we could then switch the scientist between Tlax and Teno as appropriate to allow regrowth.

The next turn they would have left civil disorder and returned to the normal status. Their was no reason why we should have starved a citizen their.

The highest level I can play on seems to be Monarch. (Don't Ask) In regent where I normally play production and citizen happiness is something I check often. I want to make sure my cities are producing the most possible without a civil dirorder. This sitution could have been much better if we put a citizen in Tenochtitlan.