OK, here's the scoop. A majority of us wanted to play 5BC, in a vote taken back a couple of weeks ago. I have no qualms about that as a point-in-time decision, however the "Ravensfire" version of the constitution puts the 5BC right there at the top, as Article C. That version also requires a 67% majority to change it.
Fine, we don't want to be changing the game style left and right -- but think a little about what this means. Suppose there are 30 of us playing. I can name, without really trying very hard, 10 people who I think will automatically vote no on removing 5BC, no matter what the in-game circumstances, no matter what the state of the out of game experience. We could end up being in excruciating pain playing an unwinnable game, or at least one which cannot be won within this restriction.
Don't misunderstand my intent here. I voted in favor of the 5BC game style and still believe it is the way to start the game. It will probably work out OK. If it is going OK then the pro-5BC movement, myself included, has nothing to fear because people won't want to change it. I'll be honest too, when I have games where I reach the Middle Ages with no saltpeter and behind in units, or Industrial with no coal and can't buy any with all my resources and all my GPT, I quit and start a new game rather than endure the actual loss. Will this happen? Probably not, but don't stand around in front of the crowd if it does.
I ask you, straight up: should this provision be in the Constitution, where it almost certainly can never be changed because of that block vote against any such change, or should it go in the CoL where it is still hard to change but not insurmountable, or should it not be in the law at all?
I say put it in the CoL if it has to be written somewhere. We should not be entering into suicide pacts which could result in a game which isn't fun for anyone.
Fine, we don't want to be changing the game style left and right -- but think a little about what this means. Suppose there are 30 of us playing. I can name, without really trying very hard, 10 people who I think will automatically vote no on removing 5BC, no matter what the in-game circumstances, no matter what the state of the out of game experience. We could end up being in excruciating pain playing an unwinnable game, or at least one which cannot be won within this restriction.
Don't misunderstand my intent here. I voted in favor of the 5BC game style and still believe it is the way to start the game. It will probably work out OK. If it is going OK then the pro-5BC movement, myself included, has nothing to fear because people won't want to change it. I'll be honest too, when I have games where I reach the Middle Ages with no saltpeter and behind in units, or Industrial with no coal and can't buy any with all my resources and all my GPT, I quit and start a new game rather than endure the actual loss. Will this happen? Probably not, but don't stand around in front of the crowd if it does.
I ask you, straight up: should this provision be in the Constitution, where it almost certainly can never be changed because of that block vote against any such change, or should it go in the CoL where it is still hard to change but not insurmountable, or should it not be in the law at all?
I say put it in the CoL if it has to be written somewhere. We should not be entering into suicide pacts which could result in a game which isn't fun for anyone.
If we are going to have this challenge, then stick to it through the good times and the bad times. We wanted a challenge, because we won on Emporer so easily, so we must have this challenge set in concrete, so we must stay true to the course.
