Team AMAZON

[Tinkerbell]

We could also start a new thread: "Amazon double civ poll"

 

[Sommerswerd]

Is this the best way to do this? It might affect they way people vote if they see the results before they vote. I understand we are all bored. Maybe we could not do a running tally though. Just my thoughts.

Seeing the results definitely has an impact on how people vote, but not seeing the results also has an impact on how people vote.

Also, Anyone could spend the time going through and counting up all the votes themselves anyway, so keeping a running tally just save them the trouble.

Polls work the same way, but we dont have a private forum yet so we cant post a private poll. And we shouldn't post a poll in the All-teams forum (AKA, the UN forum) because other teams can vote in it.

Finally, it will make it alot easier at the end to see what the result is, if we keep a running tally, instead of trying to count up all the votes at the end.

 

[SilentConfusion]

Seeing the results definitely has an impact on how people vote, but not seeing the results also has an impact on how people vote.

Also, Anyone could spend the time going through and counting up all the votes themselves anyway, so keeping a running tally just save them the trouble.

Polls work the same way, but we dont have a private forum yet so we cant post a private poll. And we shouldn't post a poll in the All-teams forum (AKA, the UN forum) because other teams can vote in it.

Finally, it will make it alot easier at the end to see what the result is, if we keep a running tally, instead of trying to count up all the votes at the end.

Alright.

 

[Link]

i vote no

 

[remake20]

Come on people, it's a great idea. If you want to see LP reasons for why it is a good idea look at the opening post of the thread "Double-Civ Setup?".

 

[remake20]

Don't forget all AMAZONs living in NA get on chat from 8-9 EST.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The count is:

Yes = 2 - remake20, harvman
No = 4 - Sommerswerd, SilentConfusion, Tinkerbell, link16

 

[fireflames]

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.

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.

My vote is no. Although I would be curious to hear from someone with a bit more experience with these things advocate the double-civ case.

 

[Sommerswerd]

My vote is no. Although I would be curious to hear from someone with a bit more experience with these things advocate the double-civ case.

The discussion (and open poll) on the issue is here: Double Civ Option Thread. However, as promised, I will give a re-cap of the Pros and Cons, and try to be as objective as possible.

Pros:
1. Two sets of Leader traits
2. Two Unique Buildings (one one each civ)
3. Two Unique Units (one on each civ)
4. Start with an extra settler
5. Start with an extra city
6. Start with an ally
7. Tech rate is faster (because we start with extra tech and also with trading between the partnered civs)
8. For AMAZONs, Two Civ means double the polls, double the things we get to vote on
9. Double the things we will have to discuss, so AMAZONs will have more to talk about
10. Easier to defend ourselves with two civs making armies

Cons:
1. Turnplayer must log in and out of 2 different Civs every turn
2. Turnplayer must do twice as many moves each turn
3. Turns will take longer to finish (maybe twice as long)
4. Members of Team Sirius have experience playing this way and we do not, so AMAZON will be at a disadvantage
5. One civ per-team is easier for new turnplayers, and thus easier for AMAZON, because we will be taking turns being turnplayer
6. Two Civs means double the arguments, double the disagreements
7. Two Civs means twice as many threads in our forum (to keep the actions of each Civ seperate)
8. Turnplayers will have to take twice as many screenshots, and do twice as many turn-logs
9. Two Civs means double the polls to post and keep track of
10. With two Civs, we will have less time to devote to each one, so turns will be more rushed

The count is:

Yes = 2 - remake20, harvman
No = 5 - Sommerswerd, SilentConfusion, Tinkerbell, link16, fireflames

 

[RasmCiv]

I vote no

 

[SilentConfusion]

The discussion (and open poll) on the issue is here: Double Civ Option Thread. However, as promised, I will give a re-cap of the Pros and Cons, and try to be as objective as possible.

Pros:
1. Two sets of Leader traits
2. Two Unique Buildings (one one each civ)
3. Two Unique Units (one on each civ)
4. Start with an extra settler
5. Start with an extra city
6. Start with an ally
7. Tech rate is faster (because we start with extra tech and also with trading between the partnered civs)
8. For AMAZONs, Two Civ means double the polls, double the things we get to vote on
9. Double the things we will have to discuss, so AMAZONs will have more to talk about
10. Easier to defend ourselves with two civs making armies

Cons:
1. Turnplayer must log in and out of 2 different Civs every turn
2. Turnplayer must do twice as many moves each turn
3. Turns will take longer to finish (maybe twice as long)
4. Members of Team Sirius have experience playing this way and we do not, so AMAZON will be at a disadvantage
5. One civ per-team is easier for new turnplayers, and thus easier for AMAZON, because we will be taking turns being turnplayer
6. Two Civs means double the arguments, double the disagreements
7. Two Civs means twice as many threads in our forum (to keep the actions of each Civ seperate)
8. Turnplayers will have to take twice as many screenshots, and do twice as many turn-logs
9. Two Civs means double the polls to post and keep track of
10. With two Civs, we will have less time to devote to each one, so turns will be more rushed

Sounds like more than anything the double civ thing will reward teams with more active participation. Teams with less participation can discuss less and therefore manage all the decisions required for two civs less effectively than that same team if it was handling only one civ. If we're willing to put in more effort than the other teams, I guess having two civs could be advantageous. I voted no, but I'm trying to see the other side.

 

[remake20]

Cons:
1. Turnplayer must log in and out of 2 different Civs every turn
4. Members of Team Sirius have experience playing this way and we do not, so AMAZON will be at a disadvantage
5. One civ per-team is easier for new turnplayers, and thus easier for AMAZON, because we will be taking turns being turnplayer
7. Two Civs means twice as many threads in our forum (to keep the actions of each Civ seperate)

Theses are really the cons. Here is the full list with my explanations.


Pros:
1. Two sets of Leader traits
2. Two Unique Buildings (one one each civ)
3. Two Unique Units (one on each civ)
4. Start with an extra settler
5. Start with an extra city
6. Start with an ally
7. Tech rate is faster (because we start with extra tech and also with trading between the partnered civs)
8. For AMAZONs, Two Civ means double the polls, double the things we get to vote on
9. Double the things we will have to discuss, so AMAZONs will have more to talk about
10. Easier to defend ourselves with two civs making armies

Cons:
1. Turnplayer must log in and out of 2 different Civs every turn
2. Turnplayer must do twice as many moves each turn No, because you you will not build twice as many units, becuase the two civs will not have more cities that one civ would in a normal game. It's more like two smaller civs compared to one large one.
3. Turns will take longer to finish (maybe twice as long) I don't see why people think that, plus there are the same amount of things to do.
4. Members of Team Sirius have experience playing this way and we do not, so AMAZON will be at a disadvantage
5. One civ per-team is easier for new turnplayers, and thus easier for AMAZON, because we will be taking turns being turnplayer
6. Two Civs means double the arguments, double the disagreements Read 2
7. Two Civs means twice as many threads in our forum (to keep the actions of each Civ seperate) Who says you can't combine more than one issue in a thread?
8. Turnplayers will have to take twice as many screenshots, and do twice as many turn-logs Read 2
9. Two Civs means double the polls to post and keep track of Read 2
10. With two Civs, we will have less time to devote to each one, so turns will be more rushed

The NA chat will start in 20 minutes for whoever wants to join.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If we're willing to put in more effort than the other teams...

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.

Cons:
2. Turnplayer must do twice as many moves each turn No, because you you will not build twice as many units, becuase the two civs will not have more cities that one civ would in a normal game. It's more like two smaller civs compared to one large one.

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 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.

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.

The count is:

Yes = 2 - remake20, harvman
No = 6 - Sommerswerd, SilentConfusion, Tinkerbell, link16, fireflames, RasmCiv

 

[wideyedwanderer]

I vote yes, and here are the reasons why:

We Amazons are a vast nation. We outnumber our opponents. We may not be the most experienced team, but I think participation will be good. With our numbers we should be able to handle 2 civs better than most other teams. 2 civs means more things to vote on! So I vote yes. Maybe it isn't the wisest decision, but at least it should be fun.

Sorry I missed the chat. I had to work late. I rarely work late, so I expect to be able to make the next ones, if we have any.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The count is:

Yes = 3 - remake20, harvman, wideyedwanderer
No = 6 - Sommerswerd, SilentConfusion, Tinkerbell, link16, fireflames, RasmCiv

 

[Quaczar]

I voted no. Team AMAZON is should be one all-powerful civilization, not two lesser ones. Diana and the AMAZONs yield to noone including to ourselves. (I know they would be working together but i just feel it would be better to run 1 civ per team)

 

[SilentConfusion]

I just realized something. We have been going about this all wrong. Any time I have ever said anything that remotely comes across as a swear word, immediately gets the admins jumping on me giving me infarctions (or whatever it's called), even when I didn't quite make any.

So.... for the sake of saving this pitboss farce and getting an admin to show up in here.... I will take the brunt of it for everyone else. Here goes all, wish me luck:


JESUS CHRIST, WTH IS WITH THE <removed> ADMINS ON THIS <removed> FORUM!??

HOW <removed> LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET JUST ONE <removed> ADMIN TO SET UP A <removed> PRIVATE FORUM?

JESUS H. CHRIST. YOU ADVERTISE ALL OVER FOR A <removed> PIT-POSS AND THEN MAKE EVERYONE WAVE AND DROP OUT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T <removed> SPEND A FEW SECONDS TO GIVE THEM THEIR FORUMS.

ABSOLUTELY <removed> GENIUS.



Ok, that should get their attention. I think?

The "few seconds" you so eloquently mentioned is actually much longer than you realize. It takes about a few hours to set them all up privately, including setting-up the usergroups, usergroups leaders, set the viewing permissions, test them all to make sure they are correct etc etc.

They are now set-up.

People will have to go to the Group Memberships manager in their "My Account" page, and select the group they want to join. classical_hero and DaveMcW have been set-up as group leaders for ALL groups, and will have to activate / approve each person joining manually.

Once you are a member of the particular group, the private forum will be visible at the top of this forum.

Thanks to the admins we have our private forums!

Go to the Group Membership page and request to join Team Amazon and wait to be accepted.

It is said that when you are accepted into the group, our private forum will be visible at the top of this forum, as per ainwood's instruction.

 

[mariogreymist]

I vote no...One civ is all we need.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Team Forums are available
1. Go to Group Memberships Page
2. Click on the box next to Team AMAZON
3. Click join groups at the bottom of the page
4. You will be prompted to give a reason... "I am an AMAZON" should suffice.
5. Click join group to join.

The count is:

Yes = 3 - remake20, harvman, wideyedwanderer
No = 8 - Sommerswerd, SilentConfusion, Tinkerbell, link16, fireflames, RasmCiv, Quaczar, mariogreymist

 

[nabaxo]

Why abstain? Are you just unsure about the choices, or are you just not ready to vote for now, or worried about offending someone, or do you just not like voting in general?

If there is any way I can help you (or any AMAZON) make up your mind, let me know. I will try very hard to always present the options as objectively as possible to someone trying to make up their mind.

No I just hadn't really made up my mind. Well, if I have to vote, I vote yes. It should make for some really interesting dynamics in the game.