Save Game Thread

[1889]

Originally posted by Beta


Team Babylon has come up with a better approach. Stock civ is a bit more straighforward, and something we are more familiar with. So we disbanded two of the settlers and two of the workers. Makes the opening move much simpler.

Good thinking, thats like 17 shields right?

[Beta]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
You abandoned two of your workers and settlers?

Earth to Lord Nuke. Earth to Lord Nuke. Come in please....

[Beta]

Originally posted by 1889


Good thinking, thats like 17 shields right?

Yep. Hey, we want to build a temple. We are the Babylonians after all. We think that long term the culture build will be more important.

The warriors were the tough decision. The military faction wanted to keep them.

[Gamecube64]

Originally posted by Beta
The warriors were the tough decision. The military faction wanted to keep them.

Cuz they have axes, that are shiny!

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Beta


Earth to Lord Nuke. Earth to Lord Nuke. Come in please....

You abandoned the Earth?

[Beta]

Yup - that too.

We have ascended to a higher plane of existence.

[Tassadar500]

Don't be looking at our start position.

[snoopy369]

hehe

anywho, albeit mcmeadows is accurate that 12 hours will probably be acceptable for us from here on out, the vote was 3 turns (by my count, i'm tired so i may be wrong), so no skipping until 24 hours has passed until after 3900bc.

That is all ...

[Paddy]

Originally posted by snoopy369
hehe

anywho, albeit mcmeadows is accurate that 12 hours will probably be acceptable for us from here on out, the vote was 3 turns (by my count, i'm tired so i may be wrong), so no skipping until 24 hours has passed until after 3900bc.

That is all ...

not sure why you keep saying 3, when the poll shows....

[1889]

Good lord Paddy is that the actual interface you use? Yech.

[sabrewolf]

OMG, that's what i call bad choice!

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot


not sure why you keep saying 3, when the poll shows....

Because I read the post I posted about how the poll would be interpreted. (And it got 3 more votes for 5 days btw, after i posted that ...)

Still, 3 is the choice, because over 50% of the voters voted for 3 or less. That was the rational for choosing a winner; no one of the choices won 50% of the vote, so instead it was a graduated poll.

[Aqualung71]

Snoopy, your reasoning is tantamount to what we Australians call a gerrymander, in political terms.

If you offer enough alternatives, there is no way any alternative will ever reach a majority. You have no way of knowing whether those who voted for 2 or 1 turns would prefer 3 or 5. To do it properly, you should employ a "2 party preferred" system, or what you would call a "run-off".

Failing that, there is no argument that can logically be used to claim that a result that achieved 4 votes is more popular than a result that achieved 9 votes. Your invention of this so-called "graduated" system of interpreting the voting, basically amounts to selecting the answer you want to achieve and finding a ballot-counting methodology that gives the selected answer.

Edit: And another point - your methodology assumes that the lower numbers are more popular, which statistically is invalid (in my humble opinion). Why not start at the other end?

[1889]

I'm sure that by now everybody is convinced that they would rather just turn on the 12 hour clock next turn.

[Tassadar500]

DR, where is the save?