Roleplay Team

[History Guy]

On Assassination, what are the ways that the intended victim might avoid becoming murdered?

[History Guy]

Now that I notice Togas' note on assassination, I am inclined to agree with him on it.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Togas
As for players killing each other, it might get out of hand and might turn us against each other and make people less willing to play. I propose that only the Despot can be killed, however, he could kill seditioius or traitorous members who would then be unable to "coup" for a week. Once a "coup" poll is created, however, he cannot kill the one who founded the coup until it is resolved.

As I posted in my comments on the issue, I agree about it likely getting out of hand. The rest of your wishes are right in line with my own (and what I suggested), so this is good by me

[Arnelos]

Oh, and Togas, I'm highly interested in the Trusted Advisor/Grand Vizier role.

Interestingly, the "Close Advisor/Grand Vizier" role would place its holder in the position of being forced by circumstance to be loyal to the supreme leader. This person would be actively working to help keep the supreme leader in power and if he sold out the supreme leader, everyone would know it and few would trust his family for at least some time afterwards... This basically prevents anyone who is wise from being the one to knock the supreme leader off from this position, due to their need to protect their family's honor. It would take a true Emperor Caligula in the supreme leader role to compel such a person to knock off the supreme leader.

I understand, therefore, that this is not a position to be taken lightly, as it basically means this person ties their fate to the supreme leader's... if the supreme leader goes down, the closest advisor almost certainly goes down with him (as the coup plotters likely won't want him that high in THEIR government)... yet you can't ascede to replace the supreme leader without him voluntarily stepping down... an interesting role

This, of course, would be an effective reason for hiring me for the job - to co-opt me

As President Lyndon Johnson said:

"It's better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in"

[History Guy]

Arnelos, I don't think you are alone in wanting that coveted position...

[mrmitchell]

UnOrthO: your sig says thanks to Aro for the avatar, did he make the skull one too?

Arnelos: Great LBJ quote,

Team: As far as the Bulders Team, can't there only be 4 teams? I wish not to put down the Builders, but as they have the least members, they might not make it. Also, Someone suggested both teams scrapping the contested civ (in this case Carthage) and each picking their backup. But I liked "Carthage that produces Carnage"...

[Arnelos]

After that research I did on behalf of the Carthage choice, I'd be rather annoyed myself if we ended up w/o Carthage, but I'll live with it. (shrugs)

[History Guy]

Arnelos-- Why's that? Is it certain religious peculiararities (i.e. the sacrifice of babies, my problem with Carthage)?

[Togas]

Our group has been made. As soon as we have our own forum, I'll let you all know and we can then begin discussing things in much more detail there.

I cleaned out my PM box, so you can now send me messages relating to this game and what position(s) you would like to serve in. Should my PM box become full in the future, you may email me. Just click on my profile and there should be an option to send me email.

--Togas

[Togas]

Originally posted by History Guy
How do we go about choosing individuals for these posts?

I'd like to suggest that instead of saying 'Most Trusted Advisor', we simply use 'Grand Vizier'.

Posts are chosen by the Despot -- me. So if you want a particular job, better let me know.

"Grand Vizier" sounds too slavic. Doesn't seem to fit with our Civ choice. Can anyone come up with a better title? For now, my "second in command" will be referred to as my "most trusted advisor." Such person will be a key figure in our government, will manage everything whilst I am away or unavailable, and will always have the ear of the Despot.

--Togas

[Togas]

JOIN OUR TEAM

To all members who have not yet joined:

Please JOIN OUR TEAM. If you're in the Civ3-PTW Democracy Game forum, you'll see the teams in the top-middle of your screen. All you have to do is click on join. Then the rest is up to me.

I will regularly check an admin screen that MarkG has given me access to and confirm that you are a member.

Right now, I'm going to let pretty much anyone who has expressed an interest in joining join. But once we start, it will be more difficult to join.

--Togas

[mrmitchell]

Good join policy Togas, we want as many members as possible to fully support instantaneous creation of ideas and fill in for missing people or people who quit half-game when it's obvious we will win.

[ruby_maser]

Re: JOIN OUR TEAM

Originally posted by Togas
Right now, I'm going to let pretty much anyone who has expressed an interest in joining join. But once we start, it will be more difficult to join.
--Togas

Thats when the sabateurs slip in

[ruby_maser]

lets kick a dead horse!

I hate to rehash this discussion, but for the sake of insanity... lets rehash this discussion

It has not been decided yet which team will get Carthage, but I have to ask: do we really want them? The only reason I ask this question is because I have reservations about how effectively we will be able to expand when we saddle ourselves with a unit that is, granted, a good unit but only if I close my eyes about to the cost of each.

The way I see it, REX will be crucial to our success for obvious reasons, and the Carthaginian UU's cost seems designed to slow us down. Remember: Carthage can't build spearman (which costs 20). The only choice you get is the numidian merc. (which costs 30 and which will defend us into far-to-early of a GA, IMHO, unless that is what we a specificly looking for )

Now, maybe I am over-analyzing this (and if so, please feel free to say so) but, with a little under 3 weeks left before the start) I think some consideration could still be done prior to when we begin.

[Togas]

I'll echo Ruby with my comments.

If we fail to get Carthage, I won't be too dissapointed. I like Carthage for roleplay purposes, and I think we're all prepared to play our parts in reinventing Carthage's history, but gameplaywise, the civ has yet to impress me. I need to try out a few more practice games with it.

Right now I'm playing Spain which trades Industrious for Religious and has a worse UU. My start was much more favorable and my rapid expansion netted me 4 luxuries off the bat even with Zulu and German neighbors. I've fared very well so far with the civ, but have yet to enter any major conflicts.

I like cheap temples, which quickly expands borders and makes me have to use less units to quell revolts.

When I played Carthage I had to send out warriors with the settlers to quell the population and then later send out or build Mercs, but more upkeep was required for each city's defense, culture, and stability.

Carthage has style and security. We won't get trampled if we play them, but at the same time, it does require more time to expand and support the cities.

Bottom line -- Carthage is an excellent builder civ, in my opinion. I'm happy with playing them, but I'll be fine if we lose them as well.

--Togas