Intersite Game - Turn Discussion Thread

[regoarrarr]

Sullla - I don't think anyone is criticizing you for missing things, but more along the lines of asking how can things be presented so that it's easier for you to catch some of those things, rather than get lost in the 100 posts as you mention.

[Shoot the Moon]

Someone may have mentioned it, but I moving the woodsman axe back into our territory seems the obvious play to me. Same healing time and closer by to respond to any other barb threats in the area.

Also, I'd say no worries about missing the occasional thing, especially if it as small as the movement pattern of a scout that is entirely safe and can't die from the movement.

[zakalwe]

How about a "turn playing instructions" thread where ideas that pass rudimentary quality control in this discussion thread get promoted?

[mostly_harmless]

If someone has a better way of organizing the decision finding process of a group of 20+ team members with different levels of commitment, play styles, skills and also timezones on a variety of decisions each turn, please speak up.
Until then I think we will have to live with lots of posts in a number of threads.
And if a group consensus has not been found on a particular issue, then lets allow more time for debate. And yes, that will likely involve a lot of posts.
And if there is something unclear, then there is no harm in delaying the turn being played and asking for clarification, I think. After all, we have more than 48 hours available currently to decide and play each turn.
We talked about this before and there are decisions, like for example the woodsman axe healing, that apparently everybody is happy about, hence no posts to clutter up the forums. Then there are other issues that create fierce debate and issues like unit movement micromanaging that need some time to get iterated closer to perfection. Seeing these issues unilaterally being decided in the turn report leaves some players a bit stumped, that have invested time and effort in thinking about it.
As kjn said, nothing major so far.
Still, I think it is valid to raise critique in that direction.

I think everybody likes Sullla's turn reports (I do! And I hope for a larger after action game report in two years.). I think we have team members that mostly lurk and enjoy an interesting ride without getting too involved and only occasionally chipping in with their 2 cents. And then we have people on the other end that form and voice an opinion and plan on almost each decision every turn. And of course positions in between. All of those have to be accommodated, which is tough.
I personally are of the latter camp, hence my critique.

mh

[kjn]

Sullla - I don't think anyone is criticizing you for missing things, but more along the lines of asking how can things be presented so that it's easier for you to catch some of those things, rather than get lost in the 100 posts as you mention.

This.

I know exactly how easy it is to miss things in the threads here. This one is probably the worst, but the other main threads are pretty bad too.

[antisocialmunky]

If you don't mind some more post game book keeping you could make a new discussion thread every major plan revision.

Thread format: Turn [TurnNumber], Plan for [Plan's Purpose].

Then we could make a single stickied thread that indexes all our threads like chapters.

[Tyrmith]

I'm not sure I like splitting up the discussion thread. I think it's useful for significant events (ie Operation Jericho for the poly game), but we haven't had any of those yet. We already have 5-8 threads going at once here, creating new threads is just going to make it harder to keep track of everything.

The turn playing instructions thread is a nice idea, but Sullla already seems to have a good gauge of when we have a consensus that works well for us, and different people will have different ideas about what a consensus is. Pretty soon we'll need a consensus to decide if we have a consensus about something. IMO the best course of action is simply to acknowledge that sometimes things will get unfortunately lost, but Sullla has a good game knowledge and we shouldn't lose too much because of it.

tl/dr- Debate is good, bureaucratic steps to taking steps isn't unless it's really needed.

[novice]

I think the polls will get tiresome. I can see using it for big decisions, but the current issues are too minor IMO. Well maybe except the contact thing.

[mostly_harmless]

I started these three polls to see whether that format works. Lets try this out for a few turns. I take heart by the huge influx of votes, especially from people not regularly posting.

I don't think the Woodsman axe decision in the north merits a poll. Moving 1SE and healing up inside cultural borders before wandering out is by far the best option as Sullla suggested. Especially since no other opinion was voiced up to now.

If you feel there is another option, feel free to post a poll.

Also if somebody feels to set up a poll for the scout movement in CFC land, feel free.

One thing I would suggest is, to keep polls public and only to discuss decisions relevant for the next turn.
Mid term strategic decisions like going for a wonder or agreeing on that purple dot for T167 are likely to change as the game progresses.

Also, I suggest to post here if you are going to open a poll for a specific issue (to avoid double polls). Maybe after some discussion has taken place and a limited set of opinions and options has crystallized. Opening a poll straight away is running the risk of not hearing all potential option first.

mh

[mostly_harmless]

I think the polls will get tiresome. I can see using it for big decisions, but the current issues are too minor IMO. Well maybe except the contact thing.

Tiresome for whom? For you to click a button or for the poll-creator?
Lets give it a shot. They have been online for half an hour only. And its the little things and apparent consensuses that occasionally got overlooked in the past.
The proper discussion should still go on in the main thread.

mh