Tweet
From what I gather there are among us different styles of player with builders being the most prominent. Remember the advisors in Civ II? There are many of us certainly, we could divide up into groups that put forward suggestions to a leader elected from among us. That leader could be a builder in peacetime, a militarist in wartime, and those seem to be the two primary groups. In Civ II there was the spy gal, the money man, and the entertainer. I don't know if groups could develope from such posts. Perhaps the spy could be folded into the militarist group and the money man and entertainer into the builder group. Then there's religion, but I don't know if that warrents its own post or should be the builder group.
Perhaps players could move between the groups and the group with the largest population would put forth a national leader.
Perhaps this will be yet another thread to fall, and that's fine, but right now we're a commitee. If we don't do something that's what we'll remain, which is ok too. Without a discussion on the subject that's what we get, is that what we want? Or do we want to be a couple or more commitees with a leader?
There's alot of us.
Perhaps players could move between the groups and the group with the largest population would put forth a national leader.
Perhaps this will be yet another thread to fall, and that's fine, but right now we're a commitee. If we don't do something that's what we'll remain, which is ok too. Without a discussion on the subject that's what we get, is that what we want? Or do we want to be a couple or more commitees with a leader?
There's alot of us.
We'll just continue with the 17 groups we now have then shall we? 
Add them to the one courageous individual who voted for the idea and I predict this concept will go on to a landslide win! 
Comment