Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Setup Thread]

[St Jon]

I have only one preference which would be for no random events. I regard them as a nuisance at best and they are just a matter of blind luck. Being in the middle of a war only to have a major city hit by an earthquake is not funny.

[Robert Plomp]

Note to myself and anybody who may have to create the map:

40 civs mod: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=234779

important explanation about this:

Okay:
The 18 civs are hardcoded in the CvGameCoreDll. Without a new .dll, you can't get more than 18 civs on the map.
There is one 3.19 .dll for 50 civs in the database, you can use it.

If you then look at the scenario files/maps:
Normal maps have all the slots for 18 civs in them, even when they are "empty" (but they are there).
If you use a more civ .dll, then all these slots have to be added via a texteditor, because without your maps/scenarios will just crash.

(source: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=363929)

[Toni]

Good settings and solid rules

[OzzyKP]

Excellent.

I've gone off ozzy maps btw

What? Could someone translate this into American?

[The Priest]

4: a penalty would be good, but what kind of penalty? It's also hard to judge. Do we really want to give a penalty to people who just wrote something in the heat of the moment?
I see your point, but maybe the thing is that we must learn to deal with the idea that in diplogaming everybodies reputation will one day or another day be damaged by a conflict.

The beauty of our group is not that we never collide.
The beauty is that we still cling together despite that. It's maybe even better that way.

You are probably right, i was just struck by the contrast between the serious penalty for not voting, and the lack of penalty for something you were stressing so much with bold text etc. Just seemed a bit inconsistent. And out pf the two - not voting and creating ooc arguments while we might all be guilty and the group/game can cope with both, its the second which in my mind creates more of a problem.

[Robert Plomp]

The vote penalty is there because civs get an advantage by not voting.
Others don't get their vote, while they continue to get the vote of others. It has everything to do with a fair gamescore. Yelling and accusing has to do with emotions. They are never fair anyway

[The Priest]

That makes sense

[Exploit]

If you are still looking for players then I would like to give this campaign a shot.

As for the rules, they look great. I love the storytelling and playing like a real nation concept. I am in favor of random events as they add new story plotlines.

I would like to make the case for Vassals being turned on. Given that the goal of the game is for no civ to be annihilated and wars to be of limited scope then vassals seem to be a perfect in game mechanism for achieving this. If the losing nation is allowed to capitulate to another nation then there is an in game mechanism for the end of the war. The vassal's maintenance cost decrease allows them to recover from the war ravages quicker while the master's maintenance cost increase stops him from running away with the game. Also the vassal/master relationship makes for great story telling and intrigue.

Regards,
Exploit

[St Jon]

As an idle thought, could we try a Toroidal Map this time?

[The Priest]

Never played on one, but i can see that might be fun, and would give more directions of connection between nations and so avoid some seeming to be stuck in a corner.

And I agree with you about random events - I don't mind them but we should be able to make our own fun.

More importantly on maps is to avoid a New World situation, which always just gives a bit boost to the top few powers. They grab all the best bits of the new world when they get ships ahead of everyone else, even if they then make a big play of helping other small nations get a toe hold in barren wastes.

[Robert Plomp]

Welcome, Exploit!!
We must discuss random events, maybe just make it a poll. (I'll start that later).

The vassal thing: there are 3 problems:
- vassalage turned on makes overseas colonies uber expensive. (it's not possible to create colonies, because the AI will rule them and it'simpossible to take them over)

- capitulation is permanent. We have done it in the past, but it always turned out to be not fun.

- voluntairy vassalage lasts only for 10 turns, after that the vassal can end it any moment (but the master can never end it.) this is very bad for the master. he has this allie that can always turn against him, but he has to pay those extra upkeeps, and the allie may even not give him goodies anyway.

That's the experience we have.
Before I was like you, and thought it was an excellent idea though.

We can make a Toroidal Map a vote as well.
I have never played on one, I must admit.

[Robert Plomp]

I agree with The Priest. We've always has new world games. Perhaps it's time to leave that behind for this one.

[Exploit]

The vassal thing: there are 3 problems:
- vassalage turned on makes overseas colonies uber expensive. (it's not possible to create colonies, because the AI will rule them and it'simpossible to take them over)

- capitulation is permanent. We have done it in the past, but it always turned out to be not fun.

- voluntairy vassalage lasts only for 10 turns, after that the vassal can end it any moment (but the master can never end it.) this is very bad for the master. he has this allie that can always turn against him, but he has to pay those extra upkeeps, and the allie may even not give him goodies anyway.

If the vassal decision is set in stone then no problem but in case it is not I will attempt to rebut the above 3 points.

1) More expensive overseas colonies is not necessarily a bad thing. Two or three overseas cities is not that expensive as long as you do not have a large number of cities and it is generally offset by the increased trade route values (mainly only pertinent if you are running mercantilism or otherwise have no trade routes with other civs). The only case when the overseas colonies become truly uber expensive is when the civ in question has lots of cities or lots of overseas cities.

In the first case a civ with lots of cities is generally winning the game and the increased maintenance costs is a good in game mechanism to give the other players a chance to catch up.

In the second case, the solution would be to build the palace or forbidden palace on the second continent which should reduce costs significantly. The only case where this doesn't work well would be a civ that populates several islands which realistically should have a higher maintenance cost and is an exceptional case.

2) Capitulation is not truly permanent as the civ can be freed if they achieve either 50% of the land and population of the master or have their own lands reduced by 50%. This gives two diametrically opposed options to earn your freedom. Either the vassal can support his master's wars and hope to win more territory then his master can or he can secretly undermine his master's efforts and aid his master's enemies to take enough of his master's cities to earn his freedom that way.

Either is quite feasible to accomplish as long as the master does not have a dominating lead over everyone else.

3) I totally agree that voluntary vassal is generally a bad bargain for the master however the value of the free city visibility (approximate value of over a 1000 EP depending upon circumstances) is not negligible. It is very difficult for the vassal to hide any treacherous intentions from his master as a result.

[Dubhghlas]

I love the toroidal idea!

Brings to mind one of my fav math jokes: Did you hear about the topologist who had trouble with his breakfast? He couldn't tell the donut from the coffee cup!

[BranksDilly]

As I am but a noob in this group I am fine with wtv rules are agreed upon.

Count me in!

[The Priest]

I love the toroidal idea!

Brings to mind one of my fav math jokes: Did you hear about the topologist who had trouble with his breakfast? He couldn't tell the donut from the coffee cup!

He just needs to eat jam donuts not ring ones and he could breakfast in peace.

[trev]

Beginning tomorrow I have an interstate trip for work that will take about 6 days and therefore will be unable to take my turns if the game commences within that timeframe.

[Hercules]

I am still in. I am in favour of tech trading but not tech brokering. But it probably would need some form of voucher type scheme to enable tech catch up.

[Robert Plomp]

Trev: We will not start in the next 6 days!

Signed up so far: (bold indicates that this person has reconfirmed after the 'relaunch' of this game last sunday)

1. Dubhghlas
2. Hercules
3. Pinchak
4. St Jon
5. BranksDilly
6. Toni
7. WarningU2
8. Rempedaalops
9. Black Knight 427
10. deity
11. The Priest
12. dacole
13. amarriner
14. 2metraninja
15. mzprox (uncertain)
16. trev
17. Exploit
18. Robert Plomp

12 confirmed

OzzyKP and The Capo have not responded to my PM, so far.
----------

List of things we have to vote on (not yet!!)
1. huts
2. map type
3. events
4. tech trading / brokering / voucher? / not at all
5. vassals
6. yell-penalties ()
7. New World
8. Timer

Anything else? Don't vote yet!

[Rempedaalops]

I'm in!

[Black Knight 427]

I reconfirmed I'm still in!!!!

[deity]

What? Could someone translate this into American?

Now get your American ass into the sub position needed in DoD...

[deity]

As an idle thought, could we try a Toroidal Map this time?

Yep, agree on this.

Played ONE Toroidal game and the polar routes make it very interesting. Great idea for diplo!

[deity]

b. Trading cities during wartime with anybody but your enemy is not allowed unless all your enemies agree.

War time is defined as "at war" in game mechanics?

Note that Korea in DoC traded a city but was not at war (although was working against some civs and helping ones at war)

[deity]

06. Civs will never be annihilated.

Personally I think caps should not be captured because this amounts to annihilation.

However, I think that capturing a cap may be necessary from time to time so I propose that caps be returned before 5 turns pass (allowing diplomacy/story telling/peace negotiations to take place).

[The Priest]

@Deity

Cities - yes I presume it means when at war in game, designed I take it to stop a situation in which you have expended lots of energy to invade and bombard my city's defences and then at the last minute I give it to another nation.

Capitals - I don't think you can make special rules about this. Capitals are moveable, and therefore any rule is exploitable. Also you can have situations when a capital is the border city and your only connection point with a nation. Therefore if you are not allowed to attack and hold that city, you effectively could never attack that civ. And, depending on play style, capitals are not necessarily the most important city - a shrine or coporate HQ can easily be more important.

[Robert Plomp]

During DoC it happened a couple of time that a city that was about to fall was quickly given to a friendly nation, preventing the invading nation from conquering it. I think it's an exploit.

[mzprox]

As I said I will skip this one. I could make a funny map for you though if you want

[Robert Plomp]

That leaves us with at least 1 extra spot for another player. And we will certainly consider your offer, thanks!

[Rasputin]

During DoC it happened a couple of time that a city that was about to fall was quickly given to a friendly nation, preventing the invading nation from conquering it. I think it's an exploit.

if it happens just declare war on the friendly nation too....