I am trying to bring back Diplogames...

[OzzyKP]

Deity, Your God had no intention to play a diplogame. Not once did he talk to Japan or I, yet he built cities right on our borders to shut us out. We just wanted to talk about the matter but he ignored us. With him refusing to stop or negotiate, Japan and I had no choice but to attack. When we did, Your God threatened total war, ending only in destruction of him or both of us.

He was playing like Eyes of Night, NOT like a diplogamer. Diplogames are a specific type of playing, and allowing duelers to come in will ruin them. He knew nothing about diplogames and didn't care to. He didn't give a damn about our game, its rules, its traditions, or its community. It is no loss that he is gone.

Taking the attitude he did, our only other option was to destroy the Mongols entirely. Under no circumstances would he have agreed to peace. Do you think eliminating him is better for the game than replacing him?

At least the game still has 6 civs, and can retain some sort of balance. If the Mongols were wiped out it would change the nature of the game entirely.

We did what was in the best interest of this game. Obviously Your God didn't give a damn about the game, so I honestly don't give a damn about him.

[deity]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Deity, Your God had no intention to play a diplogame. Not once did he talk to Japan or I, yet he built cities right on our borders to shut us out. We just wanted to talk about the matter but he ignored us. With him refusing to stop or negotiate, Japan and I had no choice but to attack. When we did, Your God threatened total war, ending only in destruction of him or both of us.

We all said that this spiced things up. What we did was to artificially control the game which I think is a mistake.

He was playing like Eyes of Night, NOT like a diplogamer. Diplogames are a specific type of playing, and allowing duelers to come in will ruin them. He knew nothing about diplogames and didn't care to. He didn't give a damn about our game, its rules, its traditions, or its community. It is no loss that he is gone.

Upon reflection I think Your God had a right to play it that way. It was very interesting and a quite legitimate role for a diplo-gamer to take; just like the Vikings, I don't think negotiation was their first choice. One day I'm going to play that role in a diplo-game and not negotiating is a legitimate strategy.

It's a big loss that he's gone. In time he would have learnt the art of diplo-gaming I'm sure.

Maybe a rule we could set is that ALL players must post at least a few lines after each session.

Taking the attitude he did, our only other option was to destroy the Mongols entirely. Under no circumstances would he have agreed to peace. Do you think eliminating him is better for the game than replacing him?

At least the game still has 6 civs, and can retain some sort of balance. If the Mongols were wiped out it would change the nature of the game entirely.

We did what was in the best interest of this game. Obviously Your God didn't give a damn about the game, so I honestly don't give a damn about him.

It's best to not arbitrarily decide what is best for the game. We must let the game unfold without any of us controlling the game unless a rule is broken. The only influences on the game should be our in character attempts. The IC appeals to Your God failed and the game didn't continue. The game had to be reloaded and Your God got expelled. We'll never know what intersting tales could have been told based on the true timeline that would have occurred on this world. BTW I'm not so sure the Mongols were written off. (Trev said he had a massive army)

[deity]

Originally posted by Ljube
Reducing maintenance and increasing tech cost aren't at odds.

Increasing tech cost addresses fast pace of research. Techs so researched might become to precious to trade, particularly military techs.

Reducing maintenance will encourage expansion which will probably lead to earlier conflicts making military techs even more important and making tech trades even less likely.

Agreed and I'm in favour of this but I'm pointing out that reduced maintenance will improve the tech rate. So a doubling of tech difficulty is not quite double.

[The Capo]

My thoughts on the issue...

First of all I whole-heartedly agree with what happened to your GOD. I understand what you are saying deity, but I honestly don't think his attitude was meant to spice up the game what-so-ever. One huge tenet of diplogaming is to preserve the countries involved, the only time countries get eliminated by conquest (that I have seen in diplogames at least) are when there is no available sub for that country and it is partitioned among the others, I think that happened to Mali in HOTW2, but I could be wrong.

When we are in a situation like the one we were in, where the player refused to negotiate and wanted to fight to the death, including when his own country was at the brink of destruction we run into problems. Ozzy is totally right that Mongolia's conquest would have skewed everything in Japan and India's favor. Now I'm not NECESSARILY against either of these countries coming into total power, but the WAY it would have occured wouldn't have been the diplogame way!

As far as the legitimacy of India/Japan's claims that Mongolia was being aggressive and thus they had no choice but to fight can be debated, but that's part of a diplogame. So is diplomacy.

Since HOTW2 the diplogame community has sort of given a new "anything goes" mandate to the way the games are played, and HOTW2 was a great example of how war can become a normal activity in a diplogame. But there's a major difference between the wars that occured in HOTW2 (which were all limited conflicts) and what happened in the game. We can't have a diplogame where everyone acts like its a duel, that's why a duel is a duel and a diplogame is a diplogame.

Now, there is a way to play this differently. You said you may consider a "viking-like" approach to the game, and that's fine, but the Vikings were NOT just marauders. They had recognized leaders that conducted diplomacy with other leaders, and they certainly didn't attack people for conquest. So there's a difference here.

So far we've been very relaxed as far as forcing people into doing anything, Moker is a great guy to play with and a very talented civilization player but he doesn't like posting. So we let it slide. But this we couldn't let slide, and the fact is that if Mongolia or any country had a leader that would be willing to let his people be conquered then that leader SHOULD be ousted anyway. So I don't see how this ruined anything, it can be easily explained, and who the hell is your GOD anyway? I've never even seen him on Apolyton before.

As far as mandatory posting, which I believe we had in HOTW2 (even though we probably didn't need it), I am for it on its face, but I don't want to force anyone into posting when they aren't into it or have nothing to post about.

This could be a good discussion for us seeing as how we have two weeks before our next session, so let's all chime in here and try and settle the matter.

BTW; do we need a Mongolian player?

[Frank Johnson]

I just want to note, on the other end of the specturm, alot of the games we have played so far have been amazingly tame, up the the point where they have been builder games.

I think alot of people now have the wrong idea about what a diplo game is. Its not a game where diplomacy is the only option. Its simply a game where at the core, balance of power is the goal. It sounds like this Gods character forgot that when he took on two powers at once and turned his country into a power vaccum.

However, a player who garrisions there country with low levels of weak units is doing the exact same thing, and deserve the blame for not defending their empire. There have been no empires in history worth mentioning who forgoed the maintainance of armed forces, only using artifical ideas about "dialog".

If one of those "dialogs" were to take place it would be like: "Uh..looks like you got a warrior there for a capital garrison. Seeing how its 1000ad and I have knights I think I'll take your captial. If you'd like to GIVE it to me, that would also be acceptable."

The interesting diplomacy comes from balancing powers in the game. If you have no power to balance, there can't be interesting diplomacy. If you want peace, prepare for war!

[Master-Mike]

Well the diplo game we played today turned out not to be a diplo game. As the player who attacked me out of the blue thought it was a duel game, so it was all ou fault for not making sure he understood what a diplo game is.

Now correct me if im wrong but were all using the same threads here, so why are we not playing the same style diplo game, this is very confusing.

Is it or is it no ok to attack some one without warning and conqere them, some say it is others not. Which is it.

From all the previous threads ive read diplo games are ment to be for diplomacy/negoating. Sure some one can use there power to force other civs to do things such as give up cities, tribute and so on, and as a last resort go to war.

Such as what happened to the mongols in our friday night game. They refused to negioate, greivances were made public and all voiced there opinions. Once negioations had failed it left only 1 option war, was very fun and tense time.

If Diplo games are going to be standard duel or war games then i wont bother with them. I just play in my normal group for standard games. The reason you play diplo games as there different to normal games, anyone can go aorund conquering, but using diplomacy, building your empire over time is alot harder way to win and far more rewarding. Continial conquest gets boring and mundane, been there done that.

So can we make a set standard rules for these diplo games. If other people want different forms of diplo games fine, then i know which diplo games to avoid as it dosnt suit me, i would prefer normal duel as i dont see the difference.

I prefer Capo's style of diplo games as there is a huge difference from the normal style of game and far more rewarding.

My thoughts anyway.

[The Capo]

To Frank...

I totally agree with you Frank, however what happened in the game is nowhere close to what you referred to in your post.

As far as I know I was the only country to leave its cities defensless so far and that's because I had to take them all from my cities just to fight barbarians because I didn't have any copper.

So I don't think that is what happened, Mongolia expanded into what Japan and India perceived as their rightful territory, Japan and India attempted to conduct diplomacy with Mongolia, Mongolia refused so they declared war.

Now, nobody is complaining about the war here. The problem was that Mongolia wouldn't negotiate at all, and I mean at all! He refused during the game when Ozzy brought the issue to the world's attention, and I believe he said something to the effect of "this is going to be a holly (sic) war... a war until one of us is destroyed."

Now, I know the difference between a peace-mongering builder game and a war-mongering duel, and then I know what a diplogame is.

Look, the whole point here is that your GOD wasn't going to play a diplogame, and this is a diplogame. I think we're going to set a dangerous precident by allowing this kind of activity to go on in a diplogame by explaining it away as a "new style of diplomacy."

Finally; the simple FACT that he was willing to let his country be destroyed without negotiation is the most DAMNING evidence against him. How on Earth could THAT mentality be considered positive for anyone?

EDIT: Nobody has answered my question yet; is Trev going to be Mongolia? Do we need a new sub? Does anybody know anything about this anyway? Because I sure don't...

[The Capo]

Hey!

Master-Mike, where is your "D"?

God dammit!

[Frank Johnson]

Yeah Capo, I was talking about a different situation. We couldn't muster enough for the Sat game so we played a small map with whoever we could grab. Some people knew the rules, some hotjoined 10 turns in from the AI, so I guess the mentalities were different. However, what I previously described, an empire with little or no defense, got hit, and I just want to let everyone know that encouraging someone to attack you with bad defense is just as bad and diplo games are not pacifist games. After the attack the bad blood started immediately and the dialog that should have taken place, couldn't because everyone was argueing about game rules. I'm just saying please freaking defend your empire its not a builder game.

Its like every damn game we play needs a chartered consitution in bold print so people know the rules.

[OzzyKP]

I agree it shouldn't be a builder's game. I was actually glad the way the Friday game turned out since we had a bit of excitement right away in the 2nd session, and didn't do what the Saturday game did and just sit and build the entire game.

The good diplogamers (in my opinion) are actually the warmongers. Most wars that I can recall from the HOTW series were started by like Raz or Capo. No matter that Capo and Raz were the weakest in their games, they still always got down in the mud to mix it up. War makes things interesting, and it should be encouraged. If I'm in a game I'll definitely look for an opportunity to create or push us towards a war just to spice things up and avoid the game getting too boring and turning into a dull builder game.

So if Your God roleplayed the whole thing, and had some in-character reason for provoking us, and some well substantiated reason to refuse to negotiate then I'd be more inclined to accept him. But he had none of that. It seemed quite obvious he had no idea what a Diplogame was. No clue. And he didn't have the slightest interest in finding out.

However accepting annhilation as an outcome for any war is not acceptable in a diplogame. That is definitely a rule. Wars of elimination are not at all encouraged. Its in the FAQ. The goal is to get a good group together and enjoy playing with each other. If our goal is to "kick out" people from the game by destroying their civ, then that goes against the spirit of the game and shouldn't be allowed. Same is true if the civ you are looking to destroy is your own.

Mike and I had every intention of waging a limited scale war. Your GOD, even after we had dealt him some big defeats, refused to even speak to us. Since he would never agree to peace, Mike and I's only option would be to keep going till we finish him off and remove the threat. That would be bad for the game.

Mike definitely understands the diplo style, and I am very grateful to have him, as a new diplo player, in our group (he could post more though), but Your GOD is definitely not one of us. I shed no tears for him.

So in summation:

Builder game
Diplo war
Total war w/ no diplomacy

And Capo, I don't know about Mongolia, my thought is that yes, we do need a new permanent player. Trev did not seem happy at all with the civ. Perhaps we can try to get Raz in. He is used to taking over stunted civs and turning them around.

[tepshen]

hey all I am brand spanking new to the forum and don't even have civ4 yet. (wife says she is getting it for me for Xmas) but when I do get it I would definately like to get into a diplogame if one is available. seems like the best to learn to play the game and have fun with what seems to be a good group of gamers. I have read about what happened with my god and can promise that I would not follow that path. I would *try* to be more along the lines of Teddy Roosevelt "speak softly and carry a big stick" (i am sure i got that wrong but you all get the general idea) I would try and develop an IC personality so there would be reasons for why and how things happened. well anyways just dropping a line and hope to see you all around.

[OzzyKP]

Excellent.

You couldn't have come at a better time, we definitely need a new player for Mongolia. Check out the story thread for the game, and check out the Diplogame FAQ (in the Civ2-MP forum) so you are brushed up on this game and on the genre altogether. And then after you get the game, play it like crazy so you have a good handle on it before you start playing in our game.

[Rasputin]

Ok as one of a few of the "Experienced " diplo gamers here (apart from the people still playing them)

Here is my understanding of WAR in Diplo STYLE..

Firslt It is no different to war in any game.

In HOTW2 playing as the Israelites. I had a bad start as the AI and some other humans started the game. I knew that a surprise attack on naighbours was my only way of expanding my empire.
So i roleplayed a border dispute but ended up hitting a different newighbour (Capo) this was continued till i felt i was strog enough to take on the mali. I built my armies and barracks and then placed a garrison on a mine to provoke the MALI. This worked and my sub took "revenge". in the end we almost anjnihalted them. but ended up with a truce that kept us all playing. So it wasnt a remove a player from the game WAR
HOTW3. I invaded my FRIENDS the Indians with no warning, no dilpomacy nothing, (just encoragment from some secret players)
This turned out to be a mass war. Indians were actually better prepared than i hoped ) but again it wasnt an elimination war)

So no you dont have to use Diplomacy, you dont even have to openly declare war, surprise attacks are ok.

But the rule is, NO ONE Gets Eliminated.

now in a duel or normal MP game, it is usually to your own advantage to allow someone to be crushed and so forth, but in a Diplo game, the unprovoked attack on a neighbour SHOULD lead (especially if the person attacked is same religion, or maybe govermentent types) to a full response from the rest of the Civs.

The only previso in all this is that POSTING here at POLY is a MUST.

If you are only playing to WIN then dont play. The fun and experience is about the ROLE played. The ability to claim that the land yo uconquer is rightfully yours, or you were expelling heathens etc.

That is what diplo now is. it has evolved and it is good. A duelist would not enjoy a Diplo game as he would need to Role play and possible reveal too much information. But if you get a warmonger, you better treat him like a Hitler and gang up on him.

But also remembering, Hitler was supported by a lot of american companies and busienss men before USA finally joined the war.

So someone might be profiteering at your expense

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by tepshen
hey all I am brand spanking new to the forum and don't even have civ4 yet. (wife says she is getting it for me for Xmas) but when I do get it I would definately like to get into a diplogame if one is available. seems like the best to learn to play the game and have fun with what seems to be a good group of gamers. I have read about what happened with my god and can promise that I would not follow that path. I would *try* to be more along the lines of Teddy Roosevelt "speak softly and carry a big stick" (i am sure i got that wrong but you all get the general idea) I would try and develop an IC personality so there would be reasons for why and how things happened. well anyways just dropping a line and hope to see you all around.

Btw, we play on Friday evenings in the US. Start around 8 PM EST, and generally run till midnight. Let us know your AIM, and just get online next Friday (not this friday) so we can bring you into the game. Don't install the patch on your game. Just use it out of the box. Again, definitely play a good deal to get familiar with it. Especially get good with forest chops, that'll be your path to recovery as Mongolia.

And Raz, if you could be available too, that'd be excellent. You should have had more than enough time to familiarize yourself with the game. We need you! I believe the Saturday game has an opening as well.

[Rasputin]

a little longer , need to play on a few higher levels ...