Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Proposal: New Dynasty?

Veto - DK
Reopened for voting by Purplebeard, as we’re in hiatus.
Refailed by Ienpw

Adminned at 01 Apr 2010 07:41:21 UTC

Add a new Rule titled “New Dynasty!”:

If a Proposal passes (after the enactment of this Rule), the Commoner who has written the Proposal may achieve victory.

I liked this Dynasty, but it seems nobody wants to play this one any more. So we could (and should) start a new one?

I do not like this Proposal, but I am not sure whether there are other solutions…

This proposal was illegally resolved, as we are in hiatus until Josh posts his Ascension Address. Reopened for voting. -Purplebeard

Comments

Josh: Observer he/they

31-03-2010 11:50:52 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

31-03-2010 11:57:56 UTC

against I will be very surprised if this dynasty does not end within a week.

In fact, if my calculations are correct, either Anonyman or Darth Cliche could catapult me into an instant victory right now by transferring me all of their resources.

Josh: Observer he/they

31-03-2010 12:02:01 UTC

Not quite, PB - even if you had the resources, you’d still have to erect your billboards in seven different counties. Both of them together could coronate you, sure, but be fair, they could do that for just about anybody. In fact, they could do it by just giving anyone all of their coal.

ais523:

31-03-2010 12:10:52 UTC

against People seemed to be getting bored, so I picked a victory condition which was moderately easy with a bit of teamwork, and should be possible even solo relatively soon.

Purplebeard:

31-03-2010 12:11:22 UTC

No, either one of them would be enough. To be fair, one of those two could probably let the other win as well, and there are several possible three-player blocks that can obtain victory for one member.

Josh: Observer he/they

31-03-2010 12:15:06 UTC

Hang on, let’s work this out.

A single billboard must cost, at least, 25 coal. Assume it’s tomorrow; you need seven of them. That’s 175 coal. You’ll also need to convert enough resource to QS / CG; in your case, PB, you’d need probably another 18 QS and 5-ish cogs. So that’s another 23 coal.

Then, you’d be able to place 4 for free, but would then have to spend 90 coal moving with the flanged wheels 3 times. So, 288 coal on the nose for PB for an instant win.

I’d need the above, plus enough coal to rebuild the parts of my observatory - another 38 coal with an Armature and flanged wheels. So I can do it with 326 coal. Any other player would need between 2 and 12 more coal in order to add wings and legs to the above.

So, yes: a small consortium can win instantly quite easily (Keba, DC and I could combine for a Sympathiser Victory without any real sweat, for example).

Keba:

31-03-2010 13:06:28 UTC

Well, do you have any ideas for a new Dynasty theme? If I liked it I could transfer you some Coal…

Klisz:

31-03-2010 15:58:45 UTC

against  against  against  I admire ais523 for his resistance to the urge to veto this.

Klisz:

31-03-2010 16:16:32 UTC

CoV for  Actually, I do think that this dynasty is rather boring…

Klisz:

31-03-2010 17:18:43 UTC

Josh, as part of Joshteck, I am willing to give you all my resources for you to win.

Josh: Observer he/they

31-03-2010 17:19:50 UTC

Okay, if you do that then I can win instantly.

Klisz:

31-03-2010 17:23:27 UTC

What’s your dynasty idea, Josh? Personally, if I won, I was going to do a cyberpunk dynasty, given the close link between steampunk and cyberpunk.

(Creating trade offer…)

Klisz:

31-03-2010 17:25:00 UTC

Offer created.

Purplebeard:

31-03-2010 17:45:07 UTC

Pity, I was hoping Josh would accept my offer. It would have been funnier for him to steal all your coal instead of you giving it to him.

Purplebeard:

31-03-2010 17:45:53 UTC

(You posted a conditional trade offer of 5 coal for 0 coal that he could have completed as many times as he wanted)

ais523:

31-03-2010 18:09:50 UTC

veto to prevent this passing in the next dynasty rather than this one.

ais523:

31-03-2010 18:10:19 UTC

veto to prevent this passing in the next dynasty rather than this one.

Josh: Observer he/they

01-04-2010 13:29:36 UTC

Re- veto