Tweet
Meh, I'm against. I can see why, and it makes sense to keep it quite, IMO. Some times might think that this is not our first choice...
-
You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence. -
I too am not in favour of not declaring our list of civ choices.
___
OT : Krill, yeah, Denmark
. You might find these articles interesting :
Comment
-
OT: Has anyone considered Nick griffins' Trial result though? He got off scott free, and he was using incredably abusive language.
If that case becomes precedent, then the law is going to have to be rewritten anyway...You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.Comment
-
5 against, one unsure, one pro. Pretty decisive.
I guess I'll post our objection...
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.Comment
-
I try to analyse that in the KGB thread... if we can map what others will think as 'the GS-way', we can play with that.Originally posted by RoyAl
Brings this question into mind: Do we play "straightforward" or does anybody (already) have ideas on to how to get the other teams thinking we go for other objectives than we actually do? Without deminishing our chances to reach those objectives, of course.
Right now, some obvious things: Pyramids (SPI), Oracle (Strat forum), early archery (skirmishers), and early religion (SPI + FIN). Others will think at least 3 of those 4 will be our goals. We can chose to do so, or we can chose something else. Notice that BW first is not on that list. Neither is settler first. Nor GP-frenzy.
I don't think we need to actively play against what others will probably predict, but it's always better to be aware of how others etimate what you are going to do. If they're good, they will have sensors out to check on our strategy, trying to at least hamper us.
DeepOComment
Comment