Turn Chat Criticism 50AD - 250AD

tao

Deity
Joined
Aug 15, 2002
Messages
2,831
Location
Germany
Preface 1:
I post this as very concerned citizen of Fanatica. I want to give my impressions on the "progress" we made in the last turnchat. I do not want to put any blame on individuals (e.g. the DP, the President, the ministers, or governors) or on the citizens who gave their instructions in the polls. But I feel the urge to communicate my impressions.

Preface 2:
In my last criticism I used words like "stupid" claiming absolute judgment. I am however happy to concede that there are lots of better Civ 3 players than me. Thus I will from now on make relative judgments like "I wouldn't do it".

Preface 3:
Another possible argument may be "this is too complicated for the democracy game". IMHO we should concentrate on making good game-play possible in our game.

Basis is the 250AD save.

Government
We researched republic 9 turns ago but are still despotism. I can't think of any justification for this, not even the war. There was no immediate danger, and republic is so much superior to despotism. And in republic we can cash-hurry units and improvements. I consider this as a huge wasted advantage we had on the AIs.

Cities
Deux Rivieres: I would have build the granary first.

Vandelay is building settlers and that is good.

Vo Mimbre: I would mm for growth until we reach pop 6.

Groton goes for culture which is good. I would build a library however.

Montpellier built a granary and is now on barracks. But what it needs is a culture building to get access to all the bonus grasslands. I would work the mined grassland for faster growth; the extra shield from the plains is lost to waste.

Huntington has switched from barracks to harbor and that is just as good to open trade routes to Egypt and Greece. I would work the mined tile to get it in 9 instead of 12 turns. Also I would have mined an additional tile before clearing jungle.

Sanction is building a settler which I wouldn't do, but it is acceptable; barely.

St. Octaviansburg is building a library which is good for our research and culture.

Mure built a worker which is good, is building walls which is also fine, and needs culture to avoid flipping. I would build a road N or E and then move some of the troops outside to avoid loosing them in case of a flip (as long as we are not under attack).

Santa Lucia is building another sword when I would build barracks first. And horsemen, not swords.

Cijam builds granary which is fine.

Raven's Flight builds a library which is good to expand vs. the Greeks and to get access to the fish. But I would never clear and mine the jungle and then not work it!

New Falcon's Haven builds a granary which is fine. But I would have improved the tiles worked.

Bootsville is in an excellent position. I would build barracks before units.

Cabaret Voltaire should get a library instead of a temple. It will be low on pop because of all the desert and the happiness is not needed.

Culture
Our culture is even weaker and we will have the risk of flips. Thus we need temples or libraries. I always advocate libraries since their science boost easily allows to have happiness by 10% more luxury slider while still researching faster. We are working on culture; slow, but we have started.

Military
Our military is weak compared to Babylon. That is not good. Especially since Babylon probably is in it's Golden Age and we only got one ally instead of many (see below). We build swords and that I would never do. We have 14 warriors waiting to be upgraded to swords. I would build horsemen later to be upgraded to knights. They are also faster and have the retreat capability vs. Babylonian bowmen. And we only have 3 now.

Workers
The Director of Infrastructure has classified the cities in priority classes which is good. However I would apply good judgment in addition.

Deux Riviers has 7 improved tiles, 2 more are mined, but has only pop 3. I would never ever do this, but send workers to road towards Cabaret Voltaire, improve New Falcon's Haven's tiles, clear jungle faster at Raven's Flight, road towards Mure.

Settling
Founding Cabaret Voltaire and Bootsville in my preferred positions obviously gets my approval.

Research and Trading
Our research for republic was successful. We now research feudalism which I would never done since it is a tech preferred by the AIs. If I do min research at the beginning of the Middle Ages, I always choose engineering, very often successful.

Formed an alliance with Russia vs. Babylon. We give Russia 6 gpt for the alliance.
I could hardly believe it when I saw this. The way I would have traded is
  1. Greece gives 11g, wm for philosophy.
  2. We donate currency and construction to Greece.
  3. Greece gets free monotheism. This lowers the price, which was formerly too high.
  4. Greece gives monotheism for literature, 20g, contact with Babylon and India.
  5. Germany gives alliance vs. Babylon, 60g for contact w Greece, Egypt.
  6. Russia gives alliance vs. Babylon, 120g for contact w Greece, Egypt.
  7. Egypt gives 93g, wm for contact w Babylon.
  8. Greece gives alliance vs. Babylon, 20g for wm.
  9. India gives alliance vs. Babylon for ROP, polytheism, construction, 25g.
  10. Egypt gives alliance vs. Babylon for currency, philosophy, construction.
    [/list=1] Thus instead of paying 120g for 1 ally, we get monotheism, 260g, 5 allies. :goodjob:

    Please see my comments as input for the discussion to prepare for the next turnchat. The citizens will decide. The government will execute the will of the citizens. I will only comment.

    Of course I am open to criticism on my criticism.
 
Whew! That's an amazing piece of work, tao. Right or wrong, you've put an awful lot of thought into the workings of the Demogame save. What's more, you've transferred that thought to the forums. Few times have I seen this done with such fervor and consistancy. Your post above, even if it is in essance a repeat performance, is exactly what this game needs.

So are you running for IA Minister or President soon? Your post above is the kind of leadership that our nation always seeks. I believe zorven is doing a good job as President, but I would like to see your "shotgun" approach to the game take the reigns for a Term or two. :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by Cyc
Whew! That's an amazing piece of work, tao. Right or wrong, you've put an awful lot of thought into the workings of the Demogame save.
Actually no. It was straightforward. The longest time was spent 4 finger typing. ;)
What's more, you've transferred that thought to the forums. Few times have I seen this done with such fervor and consistancy. Your post above, even if it is in essance a repeat performance, is exactly what this game needs.
Thank you. That exactly was my intention.
So are you running for IA Minister or President soon?
Definitely not.
 
@ tao

Your analysis seems correct, but I can't check it now; I am NIFOS.

These trades are nearly impossible to do in a Demogame setup. The amounts do change with every trade (on which you even count and speculate; <quote>Greece gets free monotheism. This lowers the price, which was formerly too high.<quote>). You can very easily decide every step to take, when the previous step has been taken. We can't do that in this setup.

I do remember you suggested trading Greece into the Middle Ages, and now (when re-reading your posts) see that you did indeed laid out this plan in more detail. It is a missed opportunity. But you are also to blame; I responded to (the first part of) your suggestion, but no-one (not even you) took this discussion further. Perhaps your proposal deserved a thread of it's own.

I think it is wise if you have a plan, create an own thread to that plan in the citizens section in which you explain in detail what each step is and why. You can also always post your T&T - related plans in the T&T Governmental thread.

I wouldn't want to miss an opportunity like this in future.
 
That analysis looks pretty good to me. BTW, one thing about assigning workers to improve terrain. I am completely at the mercy of what governors decide to do with micromanagement. I could say, "Irragate the floodplains". I can't say, "Put the worked tiles in DR on the floodplains". That's the governors job.

That, I think, is the weakness of the demogame. Micromanagement requires a huge plan. We have micromanagement split into 3 seperate groups now -

Department of Infrastructure (note the word - infrastructure, not labor). We might need a Department of Infrastructure and Labor (a.k.a., Apolyton's "City Planner" posistion that I saw oh-so-long-ago).

Internal Affairs

Governors.

DoI is able to say what tiles should be worked, but is at the mercy of governors who put laborers to work, and at the mercy of the IA (and people) as to what new cities are going to be built.

Governors (atleast most of them) hardly post any discussions, and mostly say, "Build this and that", with little regards to micromanagement.

IA should be making more city plans, especially from the start, but they can't say what tiles the city should use. They can't say what type of city it should be (i.e., military, settler, worker, culture, etc.).

I think the largest factor is skill, and the fact that there's many hands that don't know what the other is doing. Sure you could say, "They should talk to each other". But, remember that there's only 4-5 days between chats, and there needs to be 3 days for discussions and polls. People also have lives (most of us anyway...) so they're not going to be around 24/7 (how many times have I said THAT? :p).

What I think is really needed (especially from the start of a game), is a city planner (or "Department of Development") that would do the following: (if not, then it's the Domestic Advisor (IA) that should be doing this, if not more... or governors...)

1 - Assign workers to certain tasks (i.e., roads, rails, mines, irragation).
2 - Assign tasks to cities (i.e., settler factory, worker factory, military city {offense, defense, support}). A city should not spend 20 turns building a granary, then a barracks when at war. It should build a barracks, then military units. A city should not spend 20 turns building a spear. It could be a worker factory, even if its' sole purpose is to add on to core cities. They would also create guidelines of what should be built. (i.e., never build a barracks in a settler/worker city. Never build a granary in a military city. Never build an improvement that's not needed - i.e., courthouse in the capital, or 1st ring).
3 - Assign city laborers to worked tiles. This would help with being a settler factory, or a mlitary city.


Granted, you could say that 2 and 3 are interferring with governor jobs, but I really think the micromanagement of cities and workers (the infrastructure) needs to be more centralized.
 
I agree with most of what you say above. Let me focus my reply on
Originally posted by Chieftess
Granted, you could say that 2 and 3 are interferring with governor jobs, but I really think the micromanagement of cities and workers (the infrastructure) needs to be more centralized.
IMHO micromanagement of cities and workers needs to be better coordinated (not centralized). ;)

I proposed some time ago that the governors get responsibility for worker tasks, because that would exactly allow this coordination.

IIRC I said that the DoI (?) should be responsible for global worker allocation to provinces vs. strategic needs (e.g. for our war vs. Babylon at the southerns front). And to non-provinced cities.But the governors should know how many workers they may use for the next 10 turns.

The DoI may (must?) advise the DP on worker actions, e.g. by PM or in the turnchat or by composing an global list, or by any other means feasible.

The DoI should try to talk sense into those governors in need of it w.r.t. mm and tile improvement. But the ultimate decisions reside in the governors, because this is the demogame.
 
By centralized, I meant 1 person...
 
Originally posted by tao
Government
We researched republic 9 turns ago but are still despotism. I can't think of any justification for this, not even the war. There was no immediate danger, and republic is so much superior to despotism. And in republic we can cash-hurry units and improvements. I consider this as a huge wasted advantage we had on the AIs.

I'm responding to this, as it was my call to make. This is a significant decision, one that I deemed need to have significant support. I checked the poll as I was creating my instructions for that t/c. The option for revolt immediately had more votes than anything else, but did not have at least 50% of the total votes. Therefore, I made the call.

Although there was more support than anything else, the supporters of an immediate revolution failed to convince at least half of the votes to go with their position. That's a key part of the DG game - if you like an idea, you must convince enough people of it's importance - this was not done.

-- Ravensfire
 
So, I take it we're staying with despotism then? :undecide:
 
Originally posted by Chieftess
So, I take it we're staying with despotism then? :undecide:

Gotta have enough support for it. I've got a discussion going - post your thoughts in there, and let's convince people to change quickly!

-- James
 
Back
Top Bottom