The Disaster Avoidance Thread

[Strider]

But every demogame has been played with mutable plans. In DG5 we practially polled every instruction of every turnchat. How much more mutable can you get? In effect there was no plan at all, just a sequence of atomic decisions. Is that what you advocate, playing like a total democracy with no forethough?

No, pass demogames have used layered planning. Demogame 5 was a result of dormancy and neglect, a situtation I struggled to restore. However, instead of fixing the problems at hand, we produced a depiction of our dream worlds. So what, if our dream worlds would not withstand the onslaught of reality, we still got our dreams.

Our minds are constantly forming ideas within our minds, and the undiminished lack of deep-planning is impossible when dealing with humans. Do you not plan ahead what your going to type? It is impossible to create a reality inwhich no abstract ideas are being formed.

 

[DaveShack]

You are both dropping further and further into rhetoric. I keep trying to bring this back to more concrete questions.

You say this game isn't fun. I can't say anything in response to that, because only you can define what is fun to you. What I can say, and did say in a previous post, is that I want to do what it takes to make the game fun for more people. Strider -- this is the third time (or more) that I have said this. If someone offers an olive branch, you should take it.

Almost anything is on the table. You have to make the next move, which is to tell us what would be fun for you. If you can't do that, I would have to infer something from your silence, and the result of that inference would best be discussed with a mod or three.

 

[Strider]

You are both dropping further and further into rhetoric. I keep trying to bring this back to more concrete questions.

You say this game isn't fun. I can't say anything in response to that, because only you can define what is fun to you. What I can say, and did say in a previous post, is that I want to do what it takes to make the game fun for more people. Strider -- this is the third time (or more) that I have said this. If someone offers an olive branch, you should take it.

Almost anything is on the table. You have to make the next move, which is to tell us what would be fun for you. If you can't do that, I would have to infer something from your silence, and the result of that inference would best be discussed with a mod or three.

We've both told you, many times, why we think the game is no longer fun. Each time, the answer has been the current constitutional framework. Each time, you ask us what is wrong with the current framework, and each time we tell you that it creates redundant discussions and produces rickety and false plans. After that, you usually refuse the see the problem, attempting to inform us that it doesn't, usually by asking us why the game is no longer fun.

As of this moment, no one has offered me an olive branch, there just demanding my surrender. As Curufinwe stated above, and as I said long before the game ever started, I would be willing to compromise. It was not my fault that the so called "compromises" that were produced were unfair and biased against me.

You seem uncapable of understanding, that we do not like the current constitution. Would you be interested in any game, inwhich the rules that govern that game were to your mind illogical and utterly foolish?

We've answered your questions, many times over, we've told you the problem, and instead of taking action to fix it, you attempt to tell us that it's not a problem.

 

[DaveShack]

If the majority vote to change it then I'll still play after it changes. Can't be much more blunt than that. I said exactly the same time more than once.

 

[RegentMan]

Are we really going to change our entire government structure in the middle of the game?

 

[Strider]

If the majority vote to change it then I'll still play after it changes. Can't be much more blunt than that. I said exactly the same time more than once.

Then why keep asking us the same questions?

Are we really going to change our entire government structure in the middle of the game?

Hopefully, before the turn of the next term, we will have a fully workable constitution in place and ready to step up for term 3. Much of the work is already done, but there is still alot that needs to be done.

 

[DaveShack]

As of this moment, no one has offered me an olive branch, there just demanding my surrender. As Curufinwe stated above, and as I said long before the game ever started, I would be willing to compromise. It was not my fault that the so called "compromises" that were produced were unfair and biased against me.

What about the offer, that I made personally, to have the original 6 advisors and 6 deputies, with the advisors doing the strategic planning and the deputies posting instructions. How was that unfair against you? That it still had the concepts of strategic and tactical planning? You refuse to consider any kind of long term planning, and you don't seem to be able to articulate a reason why. Just come right out and say why it hurts so much to think long term. Don't worry, it's unlikely anything you say could hurt me.

 

[DaveShack]

Then why keep asking us the same questions?

Because if there were something which could be done before your amendment passes, and you were able to articulate it in terms other than change the structure, then maybe we could do it.

 

[Strider]

What about the offer, that I made personally, to have the original 6 advisors and 6 deputies, with the advisors doing the strategic planning and the deputies posting instructions. How was that unfair against you? That it still had the concepts of strategic and tactical planning? You refuse to consider any kind of long term planning, and you don't seem to be able to articulate a reason why. Just come right out and say why it hurts so much to think long term. Don't worry, it's unlikely anything you say could hurt me.

You never said it was an offer, I assumed that you were using it as an example of how "similiar" you believed the current two are.

Creating an entire new system is how most of our current problems developed, and I don't think that it will be the best of ideas right now. What needs to be done, is to use the old system, but somehow twink it alittle to provoke more long-term planning.

Oh, wait. I've already done that.

The idea of strategic and tatical planning is foolish. You have half the elected poistions deciding on something, and then you have the second half decide the exact same time a week later! It's a waste of man-power, and diverts attention from other aspects of the game.

Now, really, you can't do anything to produce long-term planning. However, we already have something that could be a very effective way, if the citizens so demand of it. The elections.

Nonetheless, there are still many ways that will help long-term planning along. I've implemented many inside of my ideas already.

 

[DaveShack]

What needs to be done, is to use the old system, but somehow twink it alittle to provoke more long-term planning.

Oh, wait. I've already done that.

Really? Do tell how, please. In the other thread...

Now, if you don't mind there are people who do want to play this term as it is currently architected. We can use your comments on the in-game situation.

 

[Strider]

Really? Do tell how, please. In the other thread...

Now, if you don't mind there are people who do want to play this term as it is currently architected. We can use your comments on the in-game situation.

Actually, I've attempted to stay away from the in-game situtation to prove that the current system will falter with or without me pushing it along that path. Also, part of my reason for pointing that out, was in the hope that you would read the current version and submit your ideas on what would make it induce more long-term planning.

So, no, I think I'll try to stay away from the in-game discussions, and instead work on the construction of a government proposal for next term.

 

[DaveShack]

Also, part of my reason for pointing that out, was in the hope that you would read the current version and submit your ideas on what would make it induce more long-term planning.

We both know what the answer is to the question of what can force long-term planning. All you have to do is look down.

The term is only 2 days and some change old. How about we see what happens with the 2nd term leaders before abandoning the idea completely. Maybe they will spontaneously and voluntarily follow the plotted course instead of running aground.

 

[Provolution]

All I see is a lot of rhetoric here and no analysis.

All we need to do is to reform the Articles C-E, transfer Infrastructure to Governors (close down infrastructure), split the External consul into Military and Foreign Affairs/Trade, close down Culture Consul (transfer to Technology-Trade) and so on.
I posted this so many times, and there seems to be a sort of support for this.
However, constructive discussion is being shot down every single time, due to the same rhetoric. If there is anything worse than the present Articles C-E, is this endless hollow rhetoric with no substantial improvements based on the existing system, or the other version claiming we got a good system and ought to live with it whatever the costs. I have given you guys up and now take the backseat, hopefully I can process your amendment proposals and see if these get the needed support.

I can assure you one thing, this rhetoric show will kill off all support, and none of you will ever get the needed votes to pass it in time, especially as we extended the election process to last a full 8 days.

 

[Gregski]

From my point of view, the following seems to be the case:

We have too many officials who have to work very hard just to avoid stepping on others' toes. I still am confused about how the government is meant to work. What we need is a simple system, where a person is responsible for each of the key areas like military, science, trade/foreign, domestic affairs etc, one president (who in this game should probably be called Prime Minister) + VP and the judiciary.

Citizens should create polls freely to highlight public opinion which the official can accept or reject depending on circumstances. This reflects RL because media, lobbies do this sort of a thing to politicans all the time.

The emphasis is far too much on winning with hardly any fun added. The only notable exception was the Lighthouse poll which brought people out of their shells and added some much needed humour to the game. The game does not always have to make perfect sense. 'It looks cool' is just as valid a reason to want to build a particular wonder as 'it is crucial for exploration', etc.

 

[Strider]

From my point of view, the following seems to be the case:

We have too many officials who have to work very hard just to avoid stepping on others' toes. I still am confused about how the government is meant to work. What we need is a simple system, where a person is responsible for each of the key areas like military, science, trade/foreign, domestic affairs etc, one president (who in this game should probably be called Prime Minister) + VP and the judiciary.

Citizens should create polls freely to highlight public opinion which the official can accept or reject depending on circumstances. This reflects RL because media, lobbies do this sort of a thing to politicans all the time.

The emphasis is far too much on winning with hardly any fun added. The only notable exception was the Lighthouse poll which brought people out of their shells and added some much needed humour to the game. The game does not always have to make perfect sense. 'It looks cool' is just as valid a reason to want to build a particular wonder as 'it is crucial for exploration', etc.

The "old system" is based off of each of the advisor poistions inside of the game, with the added addition of the Judiciary, President, and Governors. I am currently trying to get us to take on this system of government again, for reasons inwhich I'm sure you already know.

I'd be very, very thank full, and it would help my attempt much more if you post here giving reasons as to how the current system fails, and what we can do to make up for that.

 

[Provolution]

True Gregski

Killing off that Lighthouse Wonder for a few petty swordsmen was a blow to morale but a helping hand to the aggressive micromanagers. Yet, the Lighthouse breathed some air into the forums. I am sorry to say that some powerful hands overruled that decision.

 

[DaveShack]

True Gregski

Killing off that Lighthouse Wonder for a few petty swordsmen was a blow to morale but a helping hand to the aggressive micromanagers. Yet, the Lighthouse breathed some air into the forums. I am sorry to say that some powerful hands overruled that decision.

I have to disagree about the "powerful hands" part. The people overruled it in three separate polls. Two of those polls were posted for the purpose of deciding when (never had the highest vote total) and where (other had an overwhelming advantage) it should be built. We found out how bad the situation is, and decided on the common sense approach.

 

[Provolution]

Disagree as much as you want, there are several opinions on how this went about.
we happened to get the short end of the straw this time, as arguments against were strong, but we found the game to be a bit tilted and rigged against us.
Also, the Culture Consul was a pretty hollow position for Term One, and could easily be handled by the Technology Consul (Wonders), President (Overall Culture Strategy) and Governors (Build queues) for the future. There is no point in maintaining a powerless position. The utter fragmentation of power has now lead to a de facto centralization one.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Tips from me (1000BC):

- Trade construction with the Dutch for all their techs and all their money.
- Use the gold, don't store it; it will only get demanded away. For instance: build embassies in close neighbours' capitals.
- Research at a higher sci-rate level Republic.
- Build a harbor in Camelot to be able to buy dyes, gems, furs, Ivory, Silks and other luxuries the AI might have tradable. This allows bigger cities (don't forget aquaducts)
- more workers to benefit more from our commercial trade (roads).
- markets
- The only candidate for a war is Netherlands and then only the cities of The Hague and Groningen. (for now). The dutch are still in expansion mode, which should mean not a lot of military. After that; capture Karachi and Lahore. Capture Bombay and raze Delhi in the future. Our wars should be about increasig our core only.

Playing England is all about seatrade, tech broker, commerce and short wars with specific goals. In long wars or neglected trade opportunities we will meet our doom.

 

[mad-bax]

The policy ATM is to keep research rates down. Obviously, the downside of this is that opportunities to make a killing from tech trades are lower. I don't think that selling construction right now is a good idea long term. I also don't see any reason to research at all. Se have a monopoly tech, and therefore we can switch off research and use our tech to trade for new techs when they appear.

I would prefer to see us with a sack of gold to build chariots, and hosrses and upgrade to horses and then kinights. We should be at war for a long long time within the next half dozen turns.