Senate Bill: Shall Seti be used to relocate the Palace to Macross City? - Page 2

Jonny · January 7, 2003, 23:09

I say yes. It will be very beneficial to move the palace there.

After the move, we can rush police stations/courthouses in the Central Apolyton/Uber Isle regions, to lower the increased corruption there.

Kloreep · January 7, 2003, 23:56

I voted no. I object to the specific city (it sets us up for a war with Greece, which I do not support now). But a move a little further south (perhaps Here It Is) would be okay with me, so long as such a move had some actual benefit for corruption.

roadcage · January 8, 2003, 01:13

Kloreep, the selection of Macross City has NOTHING to do with a war with Greece. It has EVERYTHING to do with making the IronWorks in Ferropolis worth building.

Let me assure you, that if an Iron tile were to magically appear within the radius of Ghengistown, or a Coal tile were to magically appear within the radius of Antioch, no one would be hot to move the Palace to enable an IW, because The Forbidden City already makes both of these cities productive.

The purpose of the Macross City Palace move is to create that mountain of shields for the good of Apolyton. For all I care, the peace nuts can use that mountain to build a space ship from a single city. Or the warmongers can use that mountain to conquer all of Abananaba. It really doesn't matter to me.

I have played many a game and this is the absolute first time I have seen an IW site with a mix of hills and grass that can support a full 20 pop. Ferropolis truly is special. Please let it realise its potential.

Meshelic · January 8, 2003, 01:40

Roadcage, as always, you have a great point....

joncnunn · January 8, 2003, 10:53

Discussion: Yes. Roadcage suggested it in the Pre-Poll for what shall we do with Seti. The next several posts were all in favor. No one brought up an alternative use on that thread (at least prior to this poll starting.)

As for polls on where to move the palace, Senate Bills require a Yes / No vote and a bill that didn't include the GL would require an additional poll.

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic
Was there even a poll deciding where to move the Palace in the first place? Or even a discussion?

I've been gone a little while, so please excuse my ignorance on this....

joncnunn · January 8, 2003, 10:58

Keeping the GL would deny us the oppertunity of getting additional GLs. We've already had 2 Great Leaders from this war alone and still have several Elites. Saving him could easily cost us another 2 GLs from this war. (And an additional one should we fight a war with Tanks in the late industrial era.)

Quote:

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
There is nothing worth burning a GL over eccept the palace move. The military academy must be built prior to the end of next term and Wall Street must be finished as well. If we don use him soon, we might as well wait for the UN as that is the next one saving a GL for.

E_T · January 8, 2003, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn
Discussion: Yes. Roadcage suggested it in the Pre-Poll for what shall we do with Seti. The next several posts were all in favor. No one brought up an alternative use on that thread (at least prior to this poll starting.)

EXCUSE ME, but I had said at least 10 hours before the Bill was posted this:

Quote:

Quoted from this post
Because the consensus seems to be to use Seti for the Palace move, we have 2 Game turns to fully deside as to were we want to move the Palace to.

Let's get the Poll started (3 days remember) and then play 2 turns. As the War turns takes a lot longer, that will get ut to the point of the debate for where we want the Palace to be at. THis will also allow us to get a few things Rush built the turn that we actually use Seti.

We need to look at all options of where we want to move the Palace. Do we want more of the Southern Contenant? Or is most of the North good enough for us? Where we plan to expand in the future, will really ultimatly deside were we move the Palace.

E_T

So don't say that there were not other possible plans presented, at least before the Senate Bill was posted.

E_T

joncnunn · January 8, 2003, 12:16

A bill that just says use him for a Palace without naming any city is way to open ended.

I'd vote abstain on such a mition, because there's some cities I'd support and others I wouldn't.

In fact there's more cities I'd oppose (Every FP centric city, Uber Island, those exteremely close to the existing Palace.)

GhengisFarb™ · January 8, 2003, 12:55

I would say build an Army with this guy, we need several to trigger the Pentagon option.

Panag · January 8, 2003, 13:15

hi ,

as GF mentioned we should build an army , we dont even need to fill it up , .....

have a nice day

joncnunn · January 8, 2003, 13:28

Existing Calvary would be the units to fill armies with. Any infentry placed in them wouldn't be able to be upgraded to MI with Computers.

joncnunn · January 8, 2003, 13:39

As a reminder, this poll closes in 24 hours + a few minutes from now.

Panag · January 8, 2003, 14:02

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn
Existing Calvary would be the units to fill armies with. Any infentry placed in them wouldn't be able to be upgraded to MI with Computers.

hi ,

why even use CAV , we should wait until we have mech infantry or modern armor , we should only fill them when there is a case of national emergency , ....

have a nice day

GhengisFarb™ · January 8, 2003, 14:33

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

as GF mentioned we should build an army , we dont even need to fill it up , .....

have a nice day

I do that all the time, usually by the time I've hit the Industrial Age I've got 6-8 empty armies sitting around.

Existing cavalry can be used to generate more GL's. The first units to go into the army should be the ones that have already generated a GL and therefore cannot do so again.

roadcage · January 8, 2003, 14:52

If we do not 'enable' Ferropolis and it's IW, we will be lucky to have any Army shells available before Tanks.

It is unbelievable that the rp junkies have managed to sink this bill.

SHAME SHAME SHAME

Shiber · January 8, 2003, 15:25

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I do that all the time, usually by the time I've hit the Industrial Age I've got 6-8 empty armies sitting around.

Armies of Modern Armor are soooo sweet, with their 3 movement points and their blitz ability.

Quote:

Existing cavalry can be used to generate more GL's. The first units to go into the army should be the ones that have already generated a GL and therefore cannot do so again.

My thoughts exactly.

GhengisFarb™ · January 8, 2003, 15:52

Quote:

Originally posted by roadcage
If we do not 'enable' Ferropolis and it's IW, we will be lucky to have any Army shells available before Tanks.

It is unbelievable that the rp junkies have managed to sink this bill.

SHAME SHAME SHAME

Don't jump on us, you're the people who built the Ironworks way off in the boonies from our capital, it's not like Hamburg wasn't closer...........

GodKing · January 8, 2003, 16:03

I might point out that until the final disposition of Seti is determined, the game shall not move forward. If you have another use, please state such.

GK

joncnunn · January 8, 2003, 16:07

Looking at the 1305 AD map, I couldn't find a town named Hamburg anywhere.

I also didn't see any city in our empire with both Iron & Coal within it's City Radius other than the city currently building the Iron Works.

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Don't jump on us, you're the people who built the Ironworks way off in the boonies from our capital, it's not like Hamburg wasn't closer...........

joncnunn · January 8, 2003, 16:25

If this bill fails, our next best option is to use Seti on an Army, and hope for another GL to also use for an army.
It then wouldn't matter what city we build the MA in because it's only value would be culture.

I'm not sure if empty Army shells count towards the 3 that allows construction of the Pentagon (mostly for the culture).

Quote:

Originally posted by GodKing
I might point out that until the final disposition of Seti is determined, the game shall not move forward. If you have another use, please state such.

GK

roadcage · January 8, 2003, 20:48

Sorry joncnunn, a significant fraction of the no votes stated that they supported the palace move but wanted more info before picking the city.

There is no way that a majority of our players will select one Army for Seti.

The Warmongers will insist on enabling Ferropolis to make LOTS of Armies. 1 every 3 turns starting in about 1390 or so

This pragmatist (and maybe a few others) just want to get a screenshot of a size 12 city building a Factory from scratch in 3 turns.

The peacenicks will insist on no Armies

Those 3 groups constitute over 90% of our player base.

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

Meshelic · January 8, 2003, 22:31

As we near closer and closer to the end of the game (we're not even in modern times yet folks, but still) I sense there is going to be continued dispute over how to go about winning it. It could get pretty ugly...

Aggie · January 8, 2003, 22:38

I propose that we move forward in the game, it is unfortunate that we can not agree. However the game must no be held hostage to such disputes. I propose we move forward now.
Aggie

Meshelic · January 8, 2003, 23:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
I propose that we move forward in the game, it is unfortunate that we can not agree. However the game must no be held hostage to such disputes. I propose we move forward now.
Aggie

I agree. Anything we do with Seti would only take place several turns from now anyways, so why delay the game? Good call Aggie.

E_T · January 8, 2003, 23:27

Just what I've been trying to do for the last several postings about this.

E_T

GhengisFarb™ · January 8, 2003, 23:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
I propose that we move forward in the game, it is unfortunate that we can not agree. However the game must no be held hostage to such disputes. I propose we move forward now.
Aggie

We do agree to the need to use the GL before any more combat with Elites. Converting him to an army will allow the army to be disbanded (contributing massive shields to any construction project) and still allow us to generate more GLs.

Kloreep · January 9, 2003, 01:17

As E_T pointed out, we have to hold him for two turns anyway if we go with a palace.

Since it looks like this bill is failing, perhaps we should put forth a bill stating Seti will be used for a palace somewhere in two turns, and the government should play those two turns whether or not the exact location is ironed out.

GhengisFarb™ · January 9, 2003, 01:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Kloreep
As E_T pointed out, we have to hold him for two turns anyway if we go with a palace.

Since it looks like this bill is failing, perhaps we should put forth a bill stating Seti will be used for a palace somewhere in two turns, and the government should play those two turns whether or not the exact location is ironed out.

Only if NO ELITE unit is used in combat for those turns.

joncnunn · January 9, 2003, 12:04

Keeping Seti around for several turns denies us getting additional Great Leaders regardless of weather we use Elites in combat or not.

If we had just built Tanks, getting lots of Vetran tans into Elites would be okay, but it's not the time to be promting Vet Calvary into Elite Calvary; our Elite Calvary should be producing GLs.

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic

I agree. Anything we do with Seti would only take place several turns from now anyways, so why delay the game? Good call Aggie.

E_T · January 9, 2003, 12:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Kloreep
As E_T pointed out, we have to hold him for two turns anyway if we go with a palace.

Since it looks like this bill is failing, perhaps we should put forth a bill stating Seti will be used for a palace somewhere in two turns, and the government should play those two turns whether or not the exact location is ironed out.

Tempus Fugit...

E_T