Election: Minister of Finance

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Aw yeah bring on the negative campaigning; looks like you'll get my vote.

I voted for Civman.

[civman2000]

Negative campaigning alone is bad. Positive campaigning with a bit of negative campaigning mixed in is OK .

[atawa]

Since I've been made city planner in the civ2 demo I will resign my nomination.

My vote is for our vice president

Btw, not active I post here every day and have made about 300 posts in the last 2 weeks

[Timeline]

Ok, nothing against Civman but I am voting for John and here's why:

I don't think luxuries should be used ever ever ever! Well ok, maybe sometimes, like if war wariness is setting in and you want to trade-off commerce for productivity. But it should NEVER be used as a common method of managing entertainers, and i think we all know that....except civman.

So, I mean, what good is an expert Science Advisor and pro City Planner if someone doesn't manage the Slider right? Now yea, we all say, "Come on, the slider isn't that hard to manage " Yup, that's true, but the way Civman is talking has me wondering if he won't mess everyone up with the slider.

Take a look in the campaign thread and you will see that John does know what he is talking about (dispite what Civman would have you think). I believe John will do us a pretty good job, and give us the science rates we need.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by civman2000
I believe in giving 10% to luxuries as soon as our cities start getting to size 9 or 10 or we go republic, but no more unless we absolutely need more.

Argh. What a waste. The science advisor will love you. What about supporting military, which can supply the empire with extra luxury resources, that cost nil?

[notyoueither]

Sir Ralph has a point.

[Timeline]

Originally posted by civman2000
My Promises: but if we can gain 30 gold per turn at the cost of only 2 turns for science I say do it!

The Science Advisor will hate him

Sir Ralph: I am not really understanding you, by raising luxuries he will be cutting into the science budget in order to free up entertainers, either to grow cities, or to make more shields, correct?

This is totally pointless imho because it will make cities grow bigger and make more unhappy citizens, and also it will slow our science advancement and turn us into a backward people.

So you are saying that he should put that 10% to income, to support our armies. Well, I think it's obvious that he will support our armies, or els he will be running a defecit. 10% luxuries is actually making him pro military, as it shows he supports building armies faster, but the positive side to this is that we could build happiness improvements faster too, and hopefully be able to eliminate the 10% luxury after a time....

Oh well, as a builder/science advocate I support John more. Civmans ideas are just pretty wacked as a whole as far as I am concerned.

[civman2000]

AAAAH You got you're math wrong again! This doesnt end until 6/18!

About the luxuries: That's what I do in my games. What I'm talking about is that case when I need 6 entertainers or something in every city, some cities are shrinking, and productivity is low. In my experience, adding a few luxuries at a small science or gold cost is worth it.

About experience: Yes, anyone can move the slider. But that's not the point, the point is in having experience working with the format and system of a demo game to make good polls and everything. (sorry more negative campaigning) John has shown in some of his posts that he is confused over how it works and everything, whereas I have been active in the civ2 demo game for months. The reason making good polls and getting things like that right is so important is because my strategies will not influence our decisions too much. The people decide in the polls. I must obey the people, and by making good polls we can be sure that the decision is truly the decision of the people and thus probably a good one.

[Harovan]

I am not against playing with the luxury slider, not at all. But saying, I will set luxuries to 10% "as soon as cities grow to size 10" is the wrong way. Here's why:

It may be really free up entertainers, but don't forget, that these citizens will produce not only shields, but also food (unless they work in deserts or mountains, that is). This will make the cities grow again, and a few turns after it, the same unhappiness problem stands again. What shall we do then? Again raise the luxury slider? Starve the city down? Or make entertainers? That could we have had earlier, without spending lots of money for luxuries.

Another reason: The luxury spending goes not only in the big cities, that need it, but also by percentage in small jungle or desert cities, or totally corrupt border cities, that shouldn't grow much anyway. A waste again? I say yes.

It's much cheaper to get the happy faces out of luxury resources. So we don't have enough? Support a big military, and send the bad boys out to get some. So our big cities can't grow anymore? Build a cathedral. And during its construction stop the growth by making an entertainer, but only in cities that need it. This is IMHO the right way.

The only two legitimate reasons to play with the luxury slider are, if we are alone on an island or a small continent and can't have more luxuries by conquest. In this case supporting a big military would be pointless, until we discover Navigation. The second reason is, to fight war weariness temporary in a republic or democracy.

Timeline: That was meant ironically .

[civman2000]

Sir Ralph: This just shows a difference in playing style. I prefer being relatively perfectionist after the period of ICS at the beginning to claim territory. I like big cities. I also tend to be realatively peaceful and prefer cultural victories. Going into lots of wars to get luxuries would wreck my economy (I always go democracy, you can live in wars but prolongued war really hurts you, I once had about 130 out of 150 turns be at war and my economy was in shambles!).

[Harovan]

ICS in the productive area around the capital, and big cities in the corrupt areas, to claim territory? That's perfect indeed. I love this logic.

[civman2000]

No, ICS at the VERY BEGINNING so you dont get overwhelmed by the other civs. ANd anyways, I slowly start excluding the core cities 1 or 2 at a time from the ICS until I halt city building almost entirely (though i still at times make a few new cities here and there).

[Harovan]

You don't mix up ICS with REX and settler production, do you? And what means "exclude core cities from ICS"? Disband them? Or simply stop settler production, which would have nothing in common with "exclude cities from ICS".

[jdjdjd]

I'm just glad to see I am not losing to atawa, who already dropped out of the race. My thanks to the other two people who voted for me (your checks are in the mail).

BTW if you look at my threads in the campaign thread started by John Mcleod, my theories are very similar to civman good luck to him assuming he holds on to his lead and wins.

[atawa]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
I'm just glad to see I am not losing to atawa, who already dropped out of the race. My thanks to the other two people who voted for me (your checks are in the mail).

I'll be waiting by the mailbox, and so will my 'roommate'