Carthage.....

GodKing · November 11, 2002, 13:52

Ok. Looks like at least two teams want Carthage as their civ.

Roll Play:
1st Choice: Carthage
2nd Choice: Spain

Builder:
1st Choice: Carthage
2nd Choice: Egypt

I also hear rumors that another group is considering Carthage. So this thread is to figure out how to resolve this delima.

UnOrthOdOx has volunteered to act as a neutral 3rd party if needed.

I would recomend that each team select a representative, each one decide either heads or tails, then ask unortho to toss a coin. He posts his results, and we move on from there.

Any other suggestions are more than welcome. If Togas does not mind me doing it (it is his dictatorship after all, I would pick tails for us - the Roll Play team) to save some time. However, before we ask Unortho to toss the coin, I would like to see posts from each team considering Carthage regarding their ideas for how to solve this delima.

GK

Jon Shafer · November 11, 2002, 13:53

Glad I'm not involved in this mess.

Maybe one team could make a deal with the other to concede certain things later on for possession of the Carthaginian civ.

Spiffor · November 11, 2002, 14:02

In this thread, we had several ideas on how to deal with it. I like SirRalph's idea's best, that is to have several third paries to whom the teams PM their choice between stone / paper / scissors.
Redstar1, SirRalph and Unorthodox have volunteered to be third parties (but Redstar1 is a member of our involved team, so I don't know if the RPers will want him as a judge).

What we now need is for each team to decide what they want between stone, paper and scissors.

Arnelos · November 11, 2002, 16:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
What we now need is for each team to decide what they want between stone, paper and scissors.

Just select someone for that.

GodKing · November 11, 2002, 17:19

if we do it that way, just have each team leader send their choice by PM to either SirRalph or Unortho and ask them to judge the results. Not deciding now is only going to hurt us, so the sooner the better.

Spiffor · November 11, 2002, 17:34

I support our leader, Jack_www, to play RPS against the Roleplayers

notyoueither · November 11, 2002, 17:38

Civ choice is not required to start the team. Is it?

I am not prepared to say that our team will not want one of those mentioned civs.

Arnelos · November 11, 2002, 23:08

NYE... Every other team has finalized its civ choice(s).

Speak up, or forgo the option....

that's just my opinion though...

Jack_www · November 11, 2002, 23:33

I would like to get this done soon so that we can get our team set up. When can we do the rock and paper thing to decide who gets what civ?

notyoueither · November 12, 2002, 01:13

Sorry Arnelos, it has never been discussed that we had to make civ choice now. We understood that we would have till near the end of the month, and that at that point any disputes would be resolved.

The map options haven't even been finalised. If you wish to rush off and pick civs before you know the game you will play, that is your option. We are against that.

Spiffor · November 12, 2002, 01:29

We'll play RPS no matter what you say ! ta ta !

Arnelos · November 12, 2002, 01:36

Spiffor, if our two teams RPS and then NYE's team RPS's the winner, that gives NYE's team an unfair advantage for being LATE.

As such, this essentially forces us to put off our RPS competition. I suggest we use the meantime, as NYE seems to suggest, to re-think our civ choices in light of potential map options

(maybe we won't end up competing for Carthage afterall... ok, fat chance of that, but still...)

notyoueither · November 12, 2002, 01:50

I'm not trying to be difficult. However, I thought we had until at least the 25th to get to this point. If it is true that the builders are waiting for a civ assignment to finalise names, then we will try to accomodate by eliminating some choices for ourselves.

Awaiting word on a hastily dispatched PM. Please be patient.

/Edit. And we are not LATE. Nowhere was it stated that a civ choice was required to launch a team. If the builders wish to do that, then fine. Let them. However, this is being sprung on us from my POV. So don't call us LATE.

Arnelos · November 12, 2002, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
/Edit. And we are not LATE. Nowhere was it stated that a civ choice was required to launch a team. If the builders wish to do that, then fine. Let them. However, this is being sprung on us from my POV. So don't call us LATE.

Oh, you know very well I'm just kidding with you

Spiffor · November 12, 2002, 02:08

IF the TTA want Carthage (which is far from being sure, since they're completely opened for now), then they'll get to play RPS against both the Roleplayers and us. The team who has most wins get the Carthaginians. It might mean one of us would roll back to Carthage.

But we're far from being sure Carthage will be picked by the TTA, and I thought you roleplayers wanted to be sure about your Civ choice to start roleplaying as soon as possible...

Arnelos · November 12, 2002, 02:10

Well, we need to be SURE of the civ choice... that's precisely the problem.

notyoueither · November 12, 2002, 02:15

I feel it safe to say that we want neither Carthage nor Spain. If RolePlay take Spain and Builders take Carthage then the issue is resloved.

WarriorPoet · November 12, 2002, 10:59

Don't forget that the French should also be a viable builder choice.

UnOrthOdOx · November 12, 2002, 17:49

To those concerned, I have recieved PM's from both Togas and Jack_WWW, and have PM's each of them the results as requested. If needed, I can announce that here as well.

Harovan · November 12, 2002, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by WarriorPoet
Don't forget that the French should also be a viable builder choice.

The French are an excellent civ for the power builder, after the commercial trait has been improved. I played an awesome builder (well, not always

) game with them, in Civ3 on a huge map. Things haven't changed in PtW, afaik.

But for some reason, Spiffor seems not to like them

. I guess, for being pink, and stuff.

redstar1 · November 12, 2002, 18:31

I think its mostly the unsuitability of the French to the situation. We are not assuming everyone wants to play a nice game of diplomacy and we want to survive.

WarriorPoet · November 13, 2002, 10:13

I'm saying that, if for some reason, two civs in the same game wanted to be Industrious, Commercial, but one of them could not choose the Carthaginians, then they should feel alright choosing the French. I know I would play both civs well. Afterall, isn't the Numidian Merc, just an ancient version of the Musketeer????

redstar1 · November 13, 2002, 10:21

That word Ancient says it all......

I would have thought there would be more scope for role play with the French though.... or anyone else but Carthage....

WarriorPoet · November 13, 2002, 10:59

True, Redstar, however, I included the comment that France would be a great settlement if one did not have the ability to play Carthage.

You're also right that getting such a great unit in the ancient era is a great advantage, and more of an advantage for its time than the Musketeer.

Randolph · November 13, 2002, 11:02

It doesn't take much for a UU to be "better for it's time" than the Musketeer. 2/3/1 vs. 1/2/1 is world of difference from 2/4/1 vs. 3/4/1.

WarriorPoet · November 13, 2002, 11:58

True, Randolph, but would you rather play the #2 juggernaut civ, if you could not play the #1 or settle for a lesser civ with a better UU? Personally, I'd choose the #2 civ, because I'd be able to produce more units than you, and I'd outlast you...even if you were the Ottomans or the Persians or the Scandinavians...

It's simple: Production=Power and Industrialism is the most influencial, while commercialism runs a close second.

Randolph · November 13, 2002, 12:10

oh, I completely agree. On average traits are more important than UUs IMHO. UUs are sometimes very valuable, but traits are always valuable (except in some cases expansionistic, which is more of a risk).

Randolph · November 13, 2002, 12:14

BTW I do think that the traits are more balanced than many people seem to think. Each trait work well with certain play styles and games situations, and not so well with others. I really don't think there's good and bad traits (at least not to the extent that there are good and bad UUs, although this is often over estimated also IMHO).

WarriorPoet · November 13, 2002, 15:50

Randolph, yes, it is true that your play style should determine the traits you enjoy. In the right hands, these traits should be more balanced. Non-industrial needs more cities and workers...so change your play-style, and you'll do fine

UUs for me are not relative to what makes a great civ, and as others have aluded to, if you don't know how to play, then it doesn't matter who you pick