zyxy
Warmongering Fool
CivGeneral said:
I meant OUR iron. (So that we can resume warrior production)
The Disaster Avoidance Thread
- Thread starter mad-bax
- Start date
I meant OUR iron. (So that we can resume warrior production)
MOTH
Emperor
@CivGeneral, m-b and zyxy are referring to our own iron source.
@zyxy, the flip risk to Bentley is currently about 0.7% per turn and requires 6 military units to reduce it to 0. Roosting Tree has a 0.06%/turn flip risk and would need 4 units in garrison. Thus neither is likely to flip in the 30-40 turns as our garrisons will be increasing as we gear up for war.
My opinion is that we should leave the Iron connected and start building vet chariots for upgrade. The horses can be upgraded to Knights and then Cav. The warrior/swords route is more of a dead end witht he upgrade after MDI waiting a long time.
@zyxy, the flip risk to Bentley is currently about 0.7% per turn and requires 6 military units to reduce it to 0. Roosting Tree has a 0.06%/turn flip risk and would need 4 units in garrison. Thus neither is likely to flip in the 30-40 turns as our garrisons will be increasing as we gear up for war.
My opinion is that we should leave the Iron connected and start building vet chariots for upgrade. The horses can be upgraded to Knights and then Cav. The warrior/swords route is more of a dead end witht he upgrade after MDI waiting a long time.
MOTH said:
I do worry about Bentley flipping; I'd like to see the Indian war get started as soon as possible so we can acquire Dehli to eliminate the flip risk (it'd be nice to pick up another luxury, too, when we conquer Bombay).
For that reason I think I'd still plan on using swords in our Indian war; we don't want to discover HBR too soon. Will regular warriors upgraded to swords be strong enough? Or will be lose too many units? I'd definitely like to get a vet sword or two into our attack stack.
LeeT911
Eloquent Silence
Ideally we'd have all vet swords, but we can still use regular swords to fight in open terrain. Shouldn't throw them against cities, but we can use them to pick off archers or warriors caught in the field. Or to deter the occasional pillaging spear the AI might throw at us.
That is, of course, assuming we have enough gold to upgrade all our vet warriors and still have some left over.
Side Note: I'm starting to lean towards an Indian war, but I'm not fully convinced yet.
That is, of course, assuming we have enough gold to upgrade all our vet warriors and still have some left over.
Side Note: I'm starting to lean towards an Indian war, but I'm not fully convinced yet.
zyxy
Warmongering Fool
I would also favor swords. It's true that they will be useful in AA only, but as we have a lot of territory acquisition to do, we'll find a use for them before they become obsolete. We could possibly do a disconnect-reconnect only once, and handbuild after that.
@Moth: Thanks for the data, that's much less than I feared. 0.7% per turn means about 85% chance we'll keep it at least 20 turns, 80% for 30 turns. This suggests some garrison may be useful, but apart from that it should be fine.
MOTH said:
@Moth: Thanks for the data, that's much less than I feared. 0.7% per turn means about 85% chance we'll keep it at least 20 turns, 80% for 30 turns. This suggests some garrison may be useful, but apart from that it should be fine.
Maybe we should enact a temporary measure to give all power to the president...
eyrei said:
No thanks, I don't think this is a good idea at all.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 5,242
Strider: I know you feel strongly about the constitutional issue. However we need to fix the game before Dave hits enter for the next turn. Changing the constitution may be a very worthy thing to do, depending on your point of view, but it won't save the game.
blackheart
unenlightened
Shortsightedness is an inherent problem in all democracies because of the occurance of elections. We can slightly remedy this problem with increased coordination, but with the shuffle of officials every election term, it is difficult to keep sight of a long term strategy.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
mad-bax said:
Which is where are views differ, it's the ONLY thing that will save the game. These "holes" as you call them may hamper our progress, but they will not stop us. These are but minor issues, formed by a much larger problem which needs to be fixed.
DaveShack said:No thanks, I don't think this is a good idea at all.
Well, at least one person fell for my joke.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Long term planning is difficult when we change our collective minds so often. Is disaster really near? Disaster like in losing the game or disaster like in we won't maximize our score? Not being able to look at the save I can't judge for myself.
The problem does not lie so much with the government system or the elected officials. The citizens should be taking an active role in decisions. The people should be directing the elected officers not the other way around. When the people are silent then the ministers can fill in decisions. I don't see how we have the iron problem. Isn't the president still solely responsible for worker actions? Please tell me we're not posting instructions for worker actions!
Anyway, do we NEED war to win this game? Do we need war NOW to win this game? If not then don't worry about the iron and let's continue on...
The problem does not lie so much with the government system or the elected officials. The citizens should be taking an active role in decisions. The people should be directing the elected officers not the other way around. When the people are silent then the ministers can fill in decisions. I don't see how we have the iron problem. Isn't the president still solely responsible for worker actions? Please tell me we're not posting instructions for worker actions!
Anyway, do we NEED war to win this game? Do we need war NOW to win this game? If not then don't worry about the iron and let's continue on...
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
actually the director of the infrastrucute is responsbile for worker actions, but I see where you are coming fromdonsig said:
P.S. Check the date it was posted, DS
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
donsig said:
Your first and second paragraph are fairly ironic, we didn't have this problem last game. People being disinterested and bored with the game as a whole. What's to blame? Well, I'm sure there are several factors. The first and possible major one would be the government switch. We've now alienated several of the much older DG players, while unable to bring newer players into the game to fill the gap. Why can't we bring in new players? Well, we have no way to help them learn this fairly complex game, the Newbies Society had great promise, but fell apart because of the creation new government structure. The new government structure also forces us to plan out every little action, what's the fun in that? We now know what were going to do 2 weeks from now, so I'm just going to come back in about 2 weeks, okay guys? All I've been doing is checking the game on weekends, rather than everyday as I use to. There is no real point to it anymore, it's the same stuff over and over again.
We've turn this game into a micro-management love fest. Really and truely, I'm sure many other people agree with me on this statement. I don't care one little bit about where our workers go, where our units go, or what the hell the governors are doing with there cities.
blackheart
unenlightened
Strider said:
I agree with Strider. We've been micromanaged to death, and everything is planned out too far in advance for any element of fun to be had. I haven't been participating much in discussions because all the little niches and details bore me to death.
On another note, one of the reasons we chose a higher difficulty level is because we knew it'd be a challenge, given the nature of the DG, and also that we might NOT win. There's excitement and danger in that.
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
blackheart and strider, you have gotten me confused,
you think less long term planning and less micromanaging is going to get us out of this disaster?
you think less long term planning and less micromanaging is going to get us out of this disaster?
blackheart
unenlightened
Black_Hole said:
No. I think more micromanaging is going to choke the fun.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Black_Hole said:
The problem doesn't really lie in how much we plan out, it lays within the disinterest there is in alot of the aspects of the demogame. If people were more interested, then everything would easily take care of itself. However, people really and truely don't care right now.
If people actually cared about it, then we wouldn't have this problem.
The primary purpose of the demogame has been at all times to have fun. Winning a game of civilization is secondary. And, in the event that the game ceases to be fun, the secondary purpose will falter as well. I have been a citizen of every demogame so far, insofar as I recall, bar perhaps one when I did not have a computer. Despite this lingering remnant of interest, I haven't actively participated for the last several games. Put simply, the game is no longer interesting enough to keep my focus for any length of time. Strider mentions alienation, and yes, I do feel that. The game has grown too complex for anyone to simply join in at any time, discouraging both new players, as well as the return of the old such as myself.
On a personal note, I've long associated myself with the Ministry for Culture, under its many names, and have in fact spent a total of abotu 1 year in that ministry, in various forms. I remember once, as Minister, looking over every save, watching borders and culture, and intervening where necessary. This power was stripped long ago, and I attempted to bring it back despite much derision. That power remains, however, in potential, as Article I of the constitution (correct me I'm wrong) states that the all elected officials must obey the Will of the People. IN that event, of course, one could start a poll amending a build queue, and in fact any order, through direct democracy, without these elected officials in the way.
Strider is correct in his insistence that the problem, both of the lack of interest in the demogame and of how poorly we're doing, comes from the organization of the game. Only through changing that, can we fix this problem in full. Temporary solutions are like band-aids, temporary, cosmetic, and in the end utterly worthless. We need to and must change the game organization.
On a personal note, I've long associated myself with the Ministry for Culture, under its many names, and have in fact spent a total of abotu 1 year in that ministry, in various forms. I remember once, as Minister, looking over every save, watching borders and culture, and intervening where necessary. This power was stripped long ago, and I attempted to bring it back despite much derision. That power remains, however, in potential, as Article I of the constitution (correct me I'm wrong) states that the all elected officials must obey the Will of the People. IN that event, of course, one could start a poll amending a build queue, and in fact any order, through direct democracy, without these elected officials in the way.
Strider is correct in his insistence that the problem, both of the lack of interest in the demogame and of how poorly we're doing, comes from the organization of the game. Only through changing that, can we fix this problem in full. Temporary solutions are like band-aids, temporary, cosmetic, and in the end utterly worthless. We need to and must change the game organization.
Similar threads
