Hurrying the barracks in 50BC instead

[Shiber]

Esteemed Apolytonians,
As you can see from the executive report, the barracks in Gaia were hurried for money in 30BC. This means that our two warriors will be able to upgrade next turn (10BC) and will be ready for use in two turns from now (10AD). However, this was not what we planned.
Our original plan was to hurry the barracks in 50BC so we can have our two new swordsmen ready by 10BC (one turn from now). However, some of the people who were present in the turnchat miscalculated the time it would take the warrior to reach Gaia (not their fault, it was a confusing situation) and I found the error but forgot to point it out, which is why I consider this to be my fault.
This error may or may not cause any serious problems, but I'm concerned that it might. Remember, because of this we caused two swordsmen to be finished one turn late. This turn could mean the difference between seizing an opportunity and missing it, or reaching a city in time to defend and save it or not.
However, this problem can be easily rectified. All we have to do is to go back to the autosave from 50 BC, rush the barracks then and afterwards continue executing all the orders we've executed already until we reach the point where we are now. This will have no other effect on the game (it will not change troop movements or affect the random seed or anything) so everything else should go the same way it did during the turnchat. Therefore I don't think we'll be "cheating" if we returned to 50BC and changed this, we'd simply be correcting a human error which was caused by tiredness and other factors that are not related to the game.
We can do this change before the next turnthread or during the turnthread itself (MWIA will start playing at 50BC, rush the barracks, play through all the other orders we've played through already and then begin executing the new orders, simple as that).

What is your opinion concerning this matter?

P.S. Yes, I know, I'm a bloody perfectionist.

[Aro]

Hum... It's hard to say what we can do. IMHO, we don't have the right, and our COL don't say anything about. But I can be wrong, lets see other opinions.
Btw, Shiber, you are a bloody perfectionist. Thanks God by this, you saved our a$$e$ more than one time...

[Shiber]

Thanks for the compliment.
I did save your asses a few times during this turnchat!!

[MrWhereItsAt]

Yes Shiber is owed some thanks from us for some very timely points. :b

But to this point, I will post once or twice before crashing and sleeping like never before.

The Warriors and Spearman were moved to Gaia from Seeburg to kill the Persian Warrior approaching the undefended Gaia. If we had got the Barracks and upgraded the Swords by now (30 BC), we would have either had to wait a turn in Gaia for the Persian Warrior to get close enough, or leave Gaia after that Persian and risk it either running away from us in slow-moving roadless jungle or attacking (I admit, not much of a risk with the second one). As it is, we gain a small amount of cash from rushing later, and the upgrade takes place in time to attack the Warrior when it is close.

Shiber, I do not see, with going after that Warrior first, how the extra turn will help, as we need to wait for the Persian Warrior. If not, then we leave it roaming around to threaten our workers some more. Is your point that the Warriors should have upgraded earlier and headed straight for Persia, ignoring the Persian Warrior?

[adaMada]

MWIA, dude, you gotta get some sleep... We need you alive for Tuesday .

Shiber, I think that things turned out alright. We may wind up hitting ourselves on the head for not doing what you recommend, but in general the results of what's happened so far are good, and I say stick with what we've got... Mistakes happen, but they don't always make things worse .

-- adaMada

[Shiber]

Well, I'm thinking, if we change that now we might be opening Pandora's Box. People will start demanding the president to change other things as well, saying they were results of human errors as well.
Anyway, let's not change it. However there's another thing that I'd like to change:
During the 30BC turn we attacked a stack of two Persian archers with our elite horseman. We beat one archer and then we used the second movement point to retreat to the west should the remaining archer attack the horseman. I wanted to suggest that we wait before retreating with the horseman and see if we could kill the other archer with a vet. swordsman from Ubergorsk (which we did eventually, and with much success) and only then decide whether to retreat to the west with the horseman depending on the outcome of the battle, but there was much debate about this issue and eventually I forgot to point this out, and we moved the horseman anyway instead of waiting to the end of the turn.
I suggest that we return to the start of 30BC and not retreat to the west with the horseman. This does not involve moving one turn into the past and will not change the outcome of any battles we've already been through.
What do you think?

[adaMada]

Couldn't that change the outcome of some battles? I thought that changing any unit movements might change the affects of a battle. Maybe I'm wrong, though...

I'm not sure if the Horseman will have that big of an affect... it'd be nice if we didn't move it, but we did, so... I think you also may be right about the Pandora's box -- we probably shouldn't go back and redo stuff unless it's very necessary.

I'll comment more when I hear what others think about the horseman and if it affects anything... I'm not great with visualizing units, so...

-- adaMada

[Aggie]

No we can't go back, it's just not right. One thing though. Those warriors were supposed to be sent to uber for upgrade when there was no danger to seeberg, I'm not complaining, just wonder why they were delayed. Ya'll did a very good job considering the large number of archers that came into play. Thats the main point of disagreement. Now this wasn't my call since I wasn't there, but why did the sword attack the archer s of geofront. That sword most likely will get killed next turn. Anyway I'd just say continue archers to uber now.
Aggie

[adaMada]

Originally posted by Aggie
No we can't go back, it's just not right. One thing though. Those warriors were supposed to be sent to uber for upgrade when there was no danger to seeberg, I'm not complaining, just wonder why they were delayed. Ya'll did a very good job considering the large number of archers that came into play. Thats the main point of disagreement. Now this wasn't my call since I wasn't there, but why did the sword attack the archer s of geofront. That sword most likely will get killed next turn. Anyway I'd just say continue archers to uber now.
Aggie

I think I was there for the part with the sword; if it's what I'm thinking of, the thought was that the sword would take out one archer, and then could probably handle at least one counter attack as well (especially since it took no damage). The alternative was moving the sword to block the Archer's path to nearby workers, which would have set up a 2.5 against 2 attack with the advantage to us. By attacking the Archer, we were able to make it a 3 against 1.25 attack. There was also some reason why people thought it would be benefitial to draw the archers out and have them attack the sword... I can't exactly recall why now, however.

Hope this clears things up a bit.

-- adaMada

[Aggie]

Ok, it does. Personally I would have moved the workers elsewhere, until the fight was over and saved the sword for when there was more than one unit there(so we keep it safe), but since I wasn't there I can't complain. I'm glad to see so much was accomplished.
Aggie

[Shiber]

Regarding the sword S of Geofront: the odds for standing the first archer attack are 7 to 6 in our favor (swordsman: 3 health * 2.5 defense in jungle = 10, archer: 3 health * 2 attack = 6). It's also possible that the swordsman will withstand the second attack but it's not likely.
I still think it was a good idea for the following reasons:
1. As I said the swordsman should be able to counter at least one attack, killing at least one Persian archer.
2. If it looses then it'll leave the archer that defeated it very vulnerable for attack. Currently most of the archers are situated on mountains which give them 2 defense, but if they move to jungle tiles they'll have a defense value of 1.25. This means easy kills for our swordsmen and horsemen.
To sum up, after killing one archer in 30BC, most likely killing another archer that tries to attack it in 10BC, probably injuring the second attacker and then allowing us to kill him with another swordsman or horsemen, this move would eventually rid us of three Persian archers. Therefore I think this was an excellent move.

[Aggie]

Thats fine shiber I was just wondering. What i would have done is use him to attack if a stack or isolated force came into range. That way he could stay inside the city defened by city walls. However now that I think about it more it was a good move. Of course alot depends of how the persian stack moves. I'm still trying to figute out a way to absolutely save geofront. I will order the sp in napolitan moved to it. However if they move N onto the mountain over looking geofront we could be in touble. I am toying wiht the idea of puting a spear there. Between the spear and sword they could be reduced to just 2 units. Earlier I was thinking they would come over the dyes, but now onto the mountain seems most likely.
Aggie

[kring]

Originally posted by Shiber
Well, I'm thinking, if we change that now we might be opening Pandora's Box. People will start demanding the president to change other things as well, saying they were results of human errors as well.
Anyway, let's not change it. However there's another thing that I'd like to change:

There seems to be a contradiction here. You talk about opening up Pandora's box, and then, go on to give a great example of you wanting to open Pandora's box. You have helped us a lot in the games, and I hope you will continue to do so. One problem with reloading is that battle outcomes may well change, and it can go either way. Maybe you win this new battle, but lose a major one that you would have won.

I am against reloading due to human error. After all, in war, battle plans don't survive the first encounter with the enemy to begin with.

People forget. That's life, we accept it and move on.

You are right about it being Pandora's box. Once opened, and this would open it, it would be hard to close, and easy to reopen if it was closed again. It is too easy to go down this path.

I have been watching another DG unfold elsewhere, and this issue has come up before any actual incidents. Basically, the decision is to live with any missed opportunities and even mistakes/intentional disobedience of ministers' orders (impeachment may follow the second part). Unless, the person playing the game goes off the deep end, there is to be no reloading other than for game crashes. After all, IRL, this happens all the time. Like the time the guy missed out on the office lottery pool. He didn't get a share of the ticket because he forgot to chip in. Bet he would like to reload that day, but he can't.

[BigFurryMonster]

Originally posted by kring
I am against reloading due to human error.

What if the president's cat jumps on his keyboard ..?

(you might or might not call this 'human error'...)

[Aro]

Originally posted by BigFurryMonster

What if the president's cat jumps on his keyboard ..?

(you might or might not call this 'human error'...)