Announcement

**nbarclay** · April 26, 2003, 06:53

Is there any reason we couldn't post both Aeson's and FP's revised stories - perspectives on the war from two different places? A tweak or two might be needed to ensure consistency - I haven't done a detailed check - but the two basic story lines don't seem inherently incompatible.

**DeepO** · April 26, 2003, 06:59

I was thinking the same, the problem is they really are 2 different stories... and FP's seem to be only half his story, as it doesn't mention the leader.

DeepO

**FrustratedPoet** · April 26, 2003, 07:19

I had no intention of mentioning the leader. Apart from a few small revisions to ensure consistency and to avoid releasing sensitive information (I'll get to that in a minute) my story is finished. If it's too long nobody will read it anyway.

**DeepO** · April 26, 2003, 07:41

FP, everybody will read it, I don't think you know how well you can capture tension. I would have read another 10 pages worth of story...

DeepO

**FrustratedPoet** · April 26, 2003, 07:46

Thanks mate.

I've made the changes to make it sound like the city with the Great Lighthouse is further away from the front line. You could read it either way, I think, I don't believe it really tells them anything that's valuable to them.

I'm happy with it in it's current form. After the next turn I will write another little section that continues the story. I can't really write more right now, since we won't know what happens until we play the next turn.

**FrustratedPoet** · April 26, 2003, 07:51

Originally posted by DeepO
Shouldn't we answer that although we're not certain what is happening, there can be positive WW effects? We are strat forum guys after all, this would only be fair to the rest of the teams...

Hmmm... tricky.

my 0.02 cents = If anybody asks about this in the Strat forum we give an answer to the best of our knowledge, telling them all we know about how we think WW works in PBEM games. If they only post comments in the demogame forum we keep out mouths shut.

They should be able to figure it out for themselves anyway ... except Lego I suppose, since they haven't declared war on anyone yet.

**DeepO** · April 26, 2003, 07:54

a few final remarks: "costal" should prolly be "coastal"
and "it was not made for chariots." to "it was not made for chickens."?

Further, it looks to me like you can post it. But still, mentioning nothing on the leader feels strange... perhaps Aeson can post his as well, once he gets back online

DeepO

**DeepO** · April 26, 2003, 07:57

I don't know about the WW things. It would certainly disadvantage us, but I think it's fair to tell them what we know. We're still friends here, over the teams, instead of only in-team.

DeepO

**FrustratedPoet** · April 26, 2003, 08:29

Originally posted by DeepO
a few final remarks: "costal" should prolly be "coastal"

Thanks.

I've fixed that and a few other typos.

**Harovan** · April 26, 2003, 08:37

Originally posted by DeepO
I don't know about the WW things. It would certainly disadvantage us, but I think it's fair to tell them what we know. We're still friends here, over the teams, instead of only in-team.

DeepO

If you talk about the "war unweariness", it's a well known phenomenon, and there's no need to publish this. It takes place if somebody declares war on you (and not when you declare war) and lasts till a point, where (too many?) units are killed within your cultural borders. I can't serve with exact numbers, but that's the way it works, btw not only in PBEM games, and it is no news. Have you never noticed in a SP game, when you are a Republic or Democracy, somebody sneak attacks you and your people celebrate?

**DeepO** · April 26, 2003, 08:59

SR, certainly I noticed it before, but that's exactly the point. Bigfree makes it sound like there is no effect at all, neither positive or negative. But we know there is a positive effect, just no negative one. This can be easily exploited, and I wonder if GoW used this: we declared war to them (granted, they were in our territory at the time), so they should become happier... so in fact, it is a dirty trick to perform. Even if it is a known phenomena, we didn't anticipate it really well, and we should have known... I don't think all the other teams know about this, or realise it is happening here too. As long as they don't get attacked, they won't see it.

DeepO

**Shiber** · April 26, 2003, 09:05

They need to play their game on their own. If they want help, they can post in the strat forum (like Eli did in his WCs vs. Immortals thread) or get some PBEM experience.

**Shiber** · April 26, 2003, 09:08

I'd rather if GoW wouldn't know about this / wouldn't consider this and pick Monarchy.

**DeepO** · April 26, 2003, 09:41

well the discussion between monarchy and republic is still a valid one, as monarchy will be better if you have many small cities, and many troops. I don't know for sure, but I think for the time being, GoW would have been better of in Monarchy, it can save them up to 44 gold on upkeep, which offsets their extra commerce. Only when towns start to grow to cities is it worth it, for us, certainly republic is the better choice.

Of course, choosing monarchy means you will need to switch later on, again facing anarchy

DeepO

**DeepO** · April 26, 2003, 09:43

Oh, and of course MPs help too, although GoW has an extra lux from RP now, and doesn't have big cities to face happiness in.

BTW, I think they have 10 towns, meaning 40 free units, not 44 as said above (too lazy to edit)

DeepO

Announcement

Public Image

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment