HOTW V - Set Up Thread II, or The Return of the Mods

[Robert]

I hope you guys won't ignore my indept post regarding the unequal peace between india and america, now Frank came with his more general ideas regarding diplogames

[NicodaMax]

Frank:...I'm not saying "terra is rigged we shouldn't play it"...

I haven't said you said that

...I'm saying "you have to know how to play terra" in order to play well.

Ok, that can be a part of the problem, but my point was another:

1. Maps should have a validating process (should be checked for potential problems), something we did not do and
2. We should give it the importance it deserves for the next game

[NicodaMax]

Please keep in mind that it is not my intent to redefine the basic principles of diplogaming, or theorize endlessly about game dynamics (that is done elsewhere in this forum ), its just my way of clearing stuff in my head as well in order to respond to what I’ve read through in this thread and contribute to determining what has gone wrong (if anything) and to help make a better diplogame for all of us. That being said…

2. Game Mechanics

This is where the rules come into play. The map is one thing, but how we play it is another totally different. The game’s rules and options (speed and other settings) are well known to us all, so I shouldn’t go into that, but additional rules could be needed.
I am also on the side of simplicity and let it play itself out (The Capo’s point of view) but Cyber has a point. I tend to agree with Deity on the fact that the main thing to blame here is the Tech trading, and his solution, you can only trade techs you researched yourself. That’s one idea that could be implemented later on.
Here also I’d note Frank’s advice/comment on how victory can be determined later on. Btw Frank, where’s that detailed post? I’m interested…
Finally, I am not in favor of implementing any rules regarding how deals, treaties and such are dealt with. Freedom of choice is essential in this game, even if it means the freedom to be a layer and a backstabbing untrustworthy adversary (by breaking deals you just made. You know who you are

Just as an endnote on this subject, I think that marathon speed is too slow for the game, but that’s me.

[OzzyKP]

Nico, he wrote that out in the general diplogame set up thread.

But thank you so very much for sharing your thoughts here Frank. As someone who has "been around the block" so to speak, I think your insight is very valuable.

That being said, I agree with Lz. I hope everyone else here wants to stick with this game, cause I definitely want everyone to stick with it. We must look forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards.... diplogaming.

So... who is gonna play on Friday, and which save are we going to use?

[Robert]

Ozzy, can you react on my issues regarding the 'unequal peace' that cannot be compared with the equal peace I offered to you, with compensations?
And can you answer that you think that it's possible that an unequal peace treaty can last?

[NicodaMax]

3. Diplomacy

One could say it’s the first step in foreign relations conducted as a formality during the strategic positioning of military assets, and directly preceding a massive siege of your cities* or, to use a more formal definition (Go Wiki!), it’s the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or nations.

This is, in my most humble opinion, by far, the weak point in this game. Let me explain why:
First of all, please don’t confuse this with Role-Playing or what I call Psychodynamics (more into that fancy term later). When I talk about Diplomacy, I’m not including the Storytelling aspects, the way IC decisions are affected by plots, subplots, etc. Let me clarify by means of an example.
When we were involved in planning before WWI, our mission was to try to diplomatically avoid Russia’s involvement. Obviously that failed miserably. Also, later on, I was trying to convince Spain to help out a little bit by protecting my city Huamanga from the Russians, with the long term implications that I’d have to give that city to spain later on (which is how it came out in the end anyways ). I totally failed to transmit that message to Capo through diplomacy, mainly because of lack of involvement in the game thread, lack of experience, among other reasons. He could’ve said no anyways, that’s not the point, the point is that there was no negotiation involved. I’m sure you can all think of examples like that and it’s been one of the main complains by lzprst. I’m not pointing the finger at anyone but myself, and I will try to do a better job from now on.

ps. I don't think an unequal peace can last...
ps2. Confirm me for friday
* Check this out, its very funny www.republicandictionary.com

[The Capo]

To Cyber; I know you want Ozzy to make a statement regarding the unequal/unfair peace you are talking about, but that is not an OOC discussion. Whether you like it or not it is an in-game, in character, RP, whatever you want to call it issue. If something happens in the game that isn't fair we can't deal with it in this forum. It isn't right and is wholly against the spirit of diplogaming, its called DIPLOgaming for a reason Cyber, if something is going down that you don't like the responsibility rests on you and you alone, you can't ask Ozzy to make a statement OOC about a treaty in the game, you have to ask Rajaraja Chola.

As far as the diplogame issues debate goes, I think the BEST thing to do right now would be to continue this game without changing anything, ie tech trading, and continue the discussion in the appropriate forums (this one, the HOTW VI set up thread, and the diplogame sign-up thread seem to be good choices). My views are pretty well documented throughout my Diplogaming history, so I don't need to get into them now.

And yes, I also confirm this Friday.

[deity]

I just had a brain wave...

[OmnipotentTrout]

Or perhaps in a HOTW VII since number 6 is running...

[deity]

I haven't caught up with all the latest posts in this thread (I'll try and rerad them later today) but I'm posting something shortly in the story thread.

[KunojiLym]

I'll confirm this Friday too.

And I have to agree with Capo, the issue of the fairness of treaties and what not is an IC issue, not an OOC issue. Similarily to the question of IC backstabbing, double-crossing, etc. IC issues should be dealt with IC; if there are any OOC issues, then we can deal with that OOC.

I'll wait for deity's post in the story thread before i decide on which save to go for

[Robert]

@Kuno and TheCapo,
it IS an ooc issue because it didn't work in game.
And I can see that both The Capo and Kuno don't want to answer it, but the diplomacy stuff didn't work because the players didn't stick to their roles.

I have no problem with Ozzy declaring war on me. That's his role. I have a problem with Russia and China and Spain who did not have an in-game excuse to gang up on America.

And the in-game reasons for that is that it's normal that an un-equal peace is being broken and that normal sane allies would accept that. The gang-up on the smaller nations cannot be justified by in-game means, and that's a problem we have with this game.

Unfortunately you guys don't understand our opinion. After all this talking you still don't understand it, while it's quite essential to role playing and diplogaming. It's the heart of our game. You don't have to agree with our opinion, but you don't even understand our opinion. That's quite frustrating.

If this can't be fixed there's no need for diplogaming, then there's no difference in the end with a normal game from the lobby.

[KunojiLym]

Actually, gang-ups on smaller parties by the big boys do exist in RL. It's called a cabel.

Now, I'm not saying that Peter is justified in presenting one face at the summit while doing other stuff in the background, but he *does* have IC reasons for supporting India, despite their non-royal radical government. While I concede that the details of the support was a little influenced OOC, the fact is that it did not change Peter's IC reasoning for supporting India. Perhaps it may be a short-sighted move by him, or it may be one of his 'bold strokes', but either way, the consequences are IC.

Your opinion as I understand it, Cyber, is that we are using OOC reasons to justify IC actions. I hope I've said enough to show that it's not the case.

[LzPrst]

as I feel somewhat more confident now that ooc reasons are not the base for the actions of certain nations (though cyber has a point, what does spain and china have to do with the situation? ) I'll confirm for friday.

had my first exam today. one stress factor out.

[Robert]

You're getting closer Kuno
Gang-ups do happen in the real world indeed, though there should be a base on that. The USA, China and Russia do not gang-up together, why not, because they are not affiniated. The USA and England are, and they gang up on smaller nations.

Therefor WWI was justified (ic) because Russia/India shared the Hindu faith. India insulted Peter II by rejecting his compromis proposal in a very cruel way and by walking away from the summit Peter II organised. Not to mention that he hugely insulted the Russian faith. (he named the jewish holy books garbage or something, while those holy books are holy to the russian christians as well)

I don't see any in-game reason for Peter II to help India. For sure not after the aftermath of the summit in which Peter, an in-game role of sanity and wisdom, promised to be neutral to Germany and America.

For Spain more or less the same counts. Why would Spain help America if they share nothing, America insulted the spanish faith.

Add to that that America didn't invade India. There was peace again, America just only ended an un-equal peace and re-captured an old american city. Eventhough India may not like that, for sane leaders of sane nations that have no good relations with India, this wouldn't be a reason to gang up on America.

Regarding China, I don't know anything about China in fact.

If ooc feelings play a part in this? Perhaps to The Capo and Ozzy, since they are real time friends? (though the same would count for Dragon and me, though we have an in-game explanation for our alliance, India/Spain lacks that explanation)

So I really really can't see any in-game explanation for any gang-up from the bigger 4 to the smallest 3. You guys didn't even try to prove there was one.
Thus the result is: This is apparantly a normal game in which role playing and diplomacy has no part, and people just gang-up on others. Well, then I don't see the difference between a diplo game and a normal game.

Kuno already admitted that ooc was a part of this in someway. How? This is the first time that one of you guys admits this.