Team AMAZON

Btw, I change my vote to Yes.
The count is:

Yes = 4 - remake20, harvman, wideyedwanderer, Tinkerbell
No = 7 - Sommerswerd, SilentConfusion, link16, fireflames, RasmCiv, Quaczar, mariogreymist

And when we have two Civ's, our research won't go any faster. The game corrects the research needed for pre-defined teams.
 
Uh, shouldn't the count then be:

Yes = 5 - remake20, harvman, wideyedwanderer, Tinkerbell, nabaxo
No = 7 - Sommerswerd, SilentConfusion, link16, fireflames, RasmCiv, Quaczar, mariogreymist
 
I applied, I'm still waiting to get in.

Edit: Just saw that I got in. :D

Welcome to the top secret AMAZON club.

If any AMAZONs have trouble getting in the private forum you can PM me or post in this thread and I'll help.
 
I think you are probably right about that. And I think that this is one of the most important differences between playing one civ and two civs. Playing two civs will require alot more effort/work than playing one.

Also, putting in more effort does not ONLY benefit you if we play two civs. The team that puts more effort into the game will have an advantage, no matter whether we play one civ or two. Its just that with two civs, getting to MORE effort will be tougher than what it would take with one.

Another thing is, that we dont control how much effort it will take to be putting in more than the other teams. They control that, because to be doing more, our effort has to be higher than theirs. The more they do, the more we have to do to stay ahead. What makes it a little tougher, is that since Sirius already practiced playing with two teams, they will be able to accomplish more with less time/effort, because they already know what to do. That means that even if we are spending as much time as they are, we will not be doing as well.

Since most of your disagreements centered around this, I wanted to make sure we were on the same page about it.

With 2 civs, the first turn will go something like this:
1. Turnplayer logs into Civ 1, Settles new city, moves warrior, selects first thing to build, checks the city window, chooses a tech, takes some screenshots, logs out
2. Turnplayer logs into Civ 2, Settles new city, moves warrior, selects first thing to build, checks the city window, chooses a tech, takes some screenshots, logs out

If the first step takes 5 mins for Civ 1 then it will take 10mins for 2 civs. At the end, you will have two cities. It will be this way for the whole game. You will be running two fully grown civs, not 2 smaller ones. Both cities will need defenses, granaries, forges, etc... I'm not sure why you think that the 2 civs will be smaller:confused: They will be 2 regular sized civs... and they will therefore take twice as long to run as one civ... Unless I completely missed something.:confused:

I think you might want to ask about that in the "Double Civ" thread if you are still a little unsure about this.

You are right that some threads can be combined, but Click on the "Team Kazakhstan link in my sig, and check out the Kazakhstan turn log for example. Even if you combine the turn log for the two civs, you will still have to take two sets of screen shots, and write up what you did for each team, so two write ups, which will take twice as long.

You know, I probably should have thought that we would have a bigger map. But if we do not have a bigger map then it will be the same. Only difference, is the logins. It may take twice as long, but once we get to full size it wont be. Just think a regular CIV game, but you start with two cities and warriors instead of one. When you cannot expand anymore, you will not have any more cities that you would have had if you had started with one city. And the amount of cities usually determins how many units you have.
 
I just applied to join Team AMAZON
Yes and we look forward to seeing you in the Team Forum... AMAZON welcomes our newest member... Calis!:clap:

The SABER swinging Calis is no stranger to the challenges we are up against... A seasoned veteran of the CIII (Team SABER) and CIV BTS MTDG (Team Cavalieros), Calis is a player who knows their way around a Forum.

The illustrious Calis is wise, reknowned, and respected Forum-wide and we welcome the infusion of experience to our AMAZON nation.

"So What" you say?... So Lets dance! :band::dance:

To welcome Calis, a visit to the sacred AMAZON beer-falls is in order:
root_beer_waterfall-600x400.jpg

We try to drink the whole waterfall:
girls_drinking_bier.jpg
beer-flickr-a4gpa-05062009-es.jpg


But there is so much beer you can literally swim in it... so we give up trying to drink it all.
hot-tub.JPG

From our beer-bath we watch the traditional fireworks show:
happy_new_year_fireworks.jpg

And Calis shows off some fancy SABER swinging...
Swordsman_in_the_clouds_by_qianyu.jpg


Until Diana shows up with your golden rope...
quiz1257outcome7.jpg

and "lassos" you into the ranks of AMAZON:goodjob:
 
If we be like Rome and use two Emperors (ahem... Presidents? Prime Ministers?) to govern over the two respected civs, then log in times shouldn't be twice as long, right? We have one person log in to the first civ, and one for the second. Or we can have a group of people (prime minister, governors, diplomats, ect.) designated to log in for each respected civ, while still allowing the whole team to vote on matters for the entire empire.
 
If we be like Rome and use two Emperors (ahem... Presidents? Prime Ministers?) to govern over the two respected civs, then log in times shouldn't be twice as long, right? We have one person log in to the first civ, and one for the second. Or we can have a group of people (prime minister, governors, diplomats, ect.) designated to log in for each respected civ, while still allowing the whole team to vote on matters for the entire empire.

We COULD, but I think one person would be just as fast or faster than that.
 
wait, even if we dont have 2 civs, can other teams still have 2? if so then im changing my vote to yes
 
To give us something fun to do while we wait for the private forums. Let's get our team vote on the double civ thing done.:goodjob:

Everyone can just click "quote" (in the bottom right corner of this post) and respond with a simple "Yes" (for double-civs) or "No" (for single civs). I will keep the tally for who voted for what.

And someone please volunteer to send ONE(1) PM only to the AMAZONs who have not voted after a day or so. But let's not have everyone sending them multiple PMs.:)

Also I request that non-AMAZONs politely refrain from posting their thoughts on this issue in this thread... Kindly Use the "Double-Civs" thread for you thoughts, arguments, etc.

NO

I think single teams will make for a far more manageable game.
 
I agree with Damnrunner, to me it seems a little bit too confusing having 2 civs. I see the pros, but i just fear it would get too complicated.

EDIT: I've already voted BTW, so don't count this as a vote
 
Back
Top Bottom