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

[Robert]

I have to go to the university, a quick response though to Ozzy (didn't read the other posts)

Ozzy, your idea about the Sita mariage is good!
The way you did it is very creative! I do not blame you for doing it. I don't think it's stupid, I just think it's not role playing. You are right that there's a huge imporant factor: who's interested in being an ally to you. That's more important then the pacman, I agree on that with you.

Few points though:
1. I was very interested in being an ally with you, we've had much communication (I checked my PM log) and I've putted efford in that that way. I have chatted with you about the Sita thing as well, I just didn't understand where you were going at. I was not happy with giving my King in your hands (where he may die). I have talked about alternatives with you, and while we were talking, suddenly the Russians had won. So: I understand that your 'wannabe involved' thing is more inportant then 'playing pacman', though I just am not happy that all the roleplaying time I putted into 'our relation' means nothing and is wasted time in the end.

2. Playing pacman is not roleplaying. If I play pacman, it's Robert Plomp who plays pacman, not Rho'd Berth LXVII, King of the Americans. I'm pretty good at playing pacman, though I wouldn't have done it, even if I would have known that you would have been my 100% allie no matter if I insult you or am I crazy bully to my neighbours, I still would not have done it, since it's not true to the game (imho)

3. You should know that thursday night LzPrst and I were chatting untill 01:30 our time, while (I at least) we had to wake up early for work/college.
Why did we do that? a. we love the game b. we love the role playing
In the end it appeared that it was all wasted time. And that counts for all the huge communication I've send to you and Russia. I could talk whatever I wanted, I could be 100% right or wrong about Boston, I could switch to the religion of the pope, to your religion, I could offer money, all my daughters, the body of the king himself, but in the end it didn't matter, since your posisions were fixed. You had played pacman, and nothing could change that, not even 4000 years after Sita died of old age.

That's not true to the role playing.
Our allies England and the Incas were not our allies anymore, which is normal. Time had passed by, they had no interested, so they said: "Help yourself"
We had no fixed alliance.

Sometimes alliances can be fixed. France and me were fixed for 100%, but that's because our capitals were 4 tiles from each other!!!! We couldn't afford a war. I hated that, since people would feel like "They are allies because they're brothers". I tell you, in most games we are our greatest enemies

But we had a role-reason for our alliance as well, we shared judaism, together with Germany. Russia and India had no role-playing reason anymore to be allied in the end. India had REALLY REALLY REALLY insulted Peter II intensely on the summit, and he had REALLY REALLY REALLY insulted the pope. But that didn't matter, since the Russian/Indian alliance was fixed since pacman.

I'm not angry about that, I do'nt blame you, I just hope we can learn from that for a next game. Because I loved this game, but I'm really a little bit dissapointed now that I've wasted perhaps 20 hours on diplomacy and communcation, but it all appeared to be useless and a waste of time.

That's (LzPrst may corect me) imho the reason why LzPrst left. Being backstabbed is ok in civ. But we felt like: "What is the purpose of this game if even now Russia helps India"
It's like playing chess, and agree on a non-aggressive packt. You are allowed to do so, and move the pieces for eternity, but does that make the game fun?
Well, for you it may, but you're retarted (had to give that back to you at least once )

4. If you add all of that to our really horrible starting position (I have 6 cities now, one on a 2-tile island within the fat-cross of my capital, 3 in the jungle and Washington and Robingthon, both are fine cities, but nothing special. I had hardly any resources. That made Boston pretty important.
Like I said, I had to fight a culture war with Dragon from the beginning, or I had not been able to LEAVE my capital anymore since 3200 BC. (or something)
I have had to build a obelist early in the game.
Still I was able to be in the lead quite early, building my 2nd and 3rd city as one of the first.

Though then there was no room anymore, and only jungle anyway.
France was in the same situation, as was Germany.
Then england and Germany discovered the islands before we did. Besides that, the distance to the islands would have been too far for me to use anyway.

But that doesn't matter, being small and unimportant is civ as well (in the other diplo game I founded 6 religions)
But if you combine that with all the stuff before, it's just not really very fun anymore. For sure if you keep in mind that I play from 00:30 till 03:30, all the connectivity problems, etc.

If then India, Russia and China apparantly are even going to gang up on us, the small nations of terra, end there's no change in diplomacy, then that's just very hard for us to grab.

I agree that it was not really nice of LzPrst to leave immediately, we should have talked about it. Though I really understand him, and want to back him up in the end. The game was not enjoyable for us anymore. And not because we lost, since we lost from the beginning on. We've never been winning.

I agree with China that we should have rules.
I think that marathon games are possible though.
But:

- Pangea, not Terra anymore. the new world is only for the lucky and the large nations, and unballances the game. (I could never have come there, I'm not a civ-rookie)
- Only trade techs you researched yourself
- Stay true to diplomacy, you must have in-game reasons for being allied.
- much players are good, but they should be involved more (Dragon)
- No early wars
- Everyone should have a fair start position, no civs that meet each other on turn one, otherwise: restart
- Pangea: more land for all, all have more change to develop from the beginning

There may be more.
Conclusion: I do not blame you guys, things went as they went. You guys have played a good game. But for hte next game we should learn lessons. People put over 50 hours in the game, then it should be a good game.

Robert

[deity]

You doth protesteth too much

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Ok, lemme explain this as clearly as possible.

Everyone is complaining that it isn't fair that the big powers are all allied together. You say the game is unbalanced. You say all us big powers are ganging up on the little guys.

That's not true.

Did Kuno and I get together one day and say "hey, we've got the most points, lets ally together, we'll be unbeatable!"

No.

No.

No.

Couldn't be farther from the truth. That didn't happen. Lemme tell you what did happen. Here is the full chain of events for how my perfect roleplay story came together.

- I built stonehenge.
- I looked on wikipedia for a famous Indian astrologer to write a story about involving stonehenge.
- According to the entry the king at the time was Janaka.
- I wrote the post and started using King Janaka.
- China starts talking about marrage alliances. That interests me.
- I do more research, I see that King Janaka held a CONTEST for the hand of his daughter Sita.
- I thought it'd be a brilliant idea to replicate such a contest here for our game.
- So I did, and I contacted EVERYONE inviting them to try for it.
- Now, I wanted to be FAIR. So instead of just picking someone to ally with (which is what you guys accuse me of), I decided to have an ACTUAL COMPETITION where all of you would compete for Sita's hand (i.e. an alliance with me).
- The only fair way that would give everyone and equal chance, would be to play an actual game. I chose pacman since it fit in best with the story (fighting spirits in a jungle maze).
- I really, really, really wanted everyone to participate. Only China & Russia did.
- I tried to get you guys involved, but most people declined.
- So Russia won, and China came in second.

BECAUSE OF THAT, India allied closely with Russia and developed a friendly relationship with China.

If you guys had cared, then India could have had a close alliance with America, or Germany, or England, or Inca, or France. But no. You guys said no.

But of course, Rho has a problem with how I conducted this. First he accuses me of stacking the deck against him by forming an alliance of all the big powers. I show him CONCLUSIVELY that that isn't the case. Then he complains because I used a fair method of picking an ally and invited every one to participate.

Let me say that again.

Rho is mad because I used a fair method of picking an ally that gave everyone an equal chance to be my ally.

How many times do I need to say this for it to sink in?

Russia and I were not allied since 4000 BC. As Rho said, he and I were more friendly at the beginning than Russia and I were. I went looking for an ally, and Russia volunteered. Where was AMerica? Where was England? They didn't care, they didn't compete. So they weren't my ally. Your decision.

Rho says that roleplaying involves talking not playing games, and that my pacman idea was stupid or somehow anti-roleplaying (yet at the same time accusing us of stacking the deck). So let me explain it in role playing terms.

Whether or not pacman is thought to be valid, what it shows is that Russia was so interested in my friendship that they put in the time to help me develop my story. Is it any wonder I would feel extra affinity both in the story and OCC for Russia? If America had made an effort, then I'd be allied with them now.

But again, I can't win. No matter what, its my fault some how. I did something wrong somehow.

Its my fault for deciding to ally with all the biggest powers. AND its my fault for developing a fair, impartial way of deciding who I ally with.

[deity]

That was Quick Rho?

[deity]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
This game is far more fluid than people admit, and it depends on the choices we make in the game. Sometimes people will get ahead, and sometimes people will fall behind. That's the nature of the game. Everyone should be actively working to improve their position.

But in this game India and Russia (& China, Spain) were always ahead for 5000 years and never gave each other much of a hard time - unheard of. Instead these big 4 super powers with most of the land constsantly contrived reasons, under the guise of role playing, to frustrate any efforts of the 5 small civs. And this was done without any logical derivation of the game play from the storyline.

I can't blame lz for feeling the way he did but I deplore his action.

But for Russia to upgrade umpteen Indian units to Cossacks for the purpose of attacking/threatening the little nations once again was diametrically opposed to the Russian story line.

Kuno and ozzy made a farce of a good game but even so we all kept playing. And if lz hadn't done what he did we might never have had this discussion.

I wish to continue the game and hopefully we can get lz back.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Few points though:
1. I was very interested in being an ally with you, we've had much communication (I checked my PM log) and I've putted efford in that that way. I have chatted with you about the Sita thing as well, I just didn't understand where you were going at. I was not happy with giving my King in your hands (where he may die). I have talked about alternatives with you, and while we were talking, suddenly the Russians had won. So: I understand that your 'wannabe involved' thing is more inportant then 'playing pacman', though I just am not happy that all the roleplaying time I putted into 'our relation' means nothing and is wasted time in the end.

You say later that it makes sense that you were allied with France & Germany because you were all Jewish. Don't you think it makes sense that I was allied with Russia since we were both Hindu? Don't you also think that your adoption of Judaism and your spread of it could be a sore point - story wise, for my Hindu leaders?

The Russians didn't "suddenly" win. I set a deadline. I needed to have this thing done by a certain day so I could start writing all the story posts before the session. I made it explicitly clear what was going on and when people had to finish this. Don't blame me because you were unwilling or unable to follow through.

Originally posted by CyberShy 2. Playing pacman is not roleplaying. If I play pacman, it's Robert Plomp who plays pacman, not Rho'd Berth LXVII, King of the Americans. I'm pretty good at playing pacman, though I wouldn't have done it, even if I would have known that you would have been my 100% allie no matter if I insult you or am I crazy bully to my neighbours, I still would not have done it, since it's not true to the game (imho)

Then how else would you have set up a fair competition? A contest that allowed everyone to participate equally? Cause the alternative is that maybe I would have just decided myself to ally with Russia. Which it seems would have been worse... so there is no pleasing you.

But again, pacman IS roleplaying. I wrote the biggest ****ing story of the whole game so far about that. It all fit together remarkably well into the story, as we acted out the Ramayana. If characters in a story all compete, would I the King rig the event to have one person win? No that wouldn't be fair. The only fair way would be to give everyone an equal shot (so I don't get accused of trying to stack the deck... not that it seems to matter). But answer me, how else could I do that fairly?

Originally posted by CyberShy 3. You should know that thursday night LzPrst and I were chatting untill 01:30 our time, while (I at least) we had to wake up early for work/college.
Why did we do that? a. we love the game b. we love the role playing
In the end it appeared that it was all wasted time. And that counts for all the huge communication I've send to you and Russia. I could talk whatever I wanted, I could be 100% right or wrong about Boston, I could switch to the religion of the pope, to your religion, I could offer money, all my daughters, the body of the king himself, but in the end it didn't matter, since your posisions were fixed. You had played pacman, and nothing could change that, not even 4000 years after Sita died of old age.

I could say the exact same thing to you. Nothing mattered to you, no matter what I said you weren't going to return Boston. You surprize attacked me with NO provokation and you act like its my fault. I just don't get that. You wouldn't even entertain the possibility that what you did was wrong, or that I might be upset over that. You refused to discuss it, you refused to admit any wrong doing.

That's another thing about conduct in the game that needs to be discussed. When I plan to attack I let everyone know in the story. I make lots of posts and build it up a lot. Why? To give people a fair opportunity to respond. A surprize attack is very poor form. Especially a surprize attack with shaky reasoning. But I've been victims of two surprize attacks. Several actually if you think about it. In the Great War, Germany & France gave no story reason for declaring war on me. And the Inca & English never gave any story reason for declaring war either. No warning for any of it.

So its not that Spain and Russia are with me no matter what. They knew I was wronged, and they came to my defence (sorta in the case of Russia). Hell, even England seemed to recognize that I was wronged when they gave me some gold after you attacked me.

Originally posted by CyberShy That's not true to the role playing.
Our allies England and the Incas were not our allies anymore, which is normal. Time had passed by, they had no interested, so they said: "Help yourself"
We had no fixed alliance.

Sometimes alliances can be fixed. France and me were fixed for 100%, but that's because our capitals were 4 tiles from each other!!!! We couldn't afford a war. I hated that, since people would feel like "They are allies because they're brothers". I tell you, in most games we are our greatest enemies

But we had a role-reason for our alliance as well, we shared judaism, together with Germany. Russia and India had no role-playing reason anymore to be allied in the end. India had REALLY REALLY REALLY insulted Peter II intensely on the summit, and he had REALLY REALLY REALLY insulted the pope. But that didn't matter, since the Russian/Indian alliance was fixed since pacman.

Uhhh, Russia & India shared Hinduism. And what the heck do you mean India insulted Peter II? What are you talking about? America & Germany were being obstinate and not willing to discuss the return of Boston or recognize any fault in the surprize attack, so yea, India got upset at your failure to discuss matters. That isn't an insult to Russia at all. But ****, maybe if Germany hadn't just walked out you could have stuck around to see Russia's explination. But you guys rush to your own conclusions instead of actually reading the stories behind this.

Germany gives you a massive army to surprize attack me with and you say "oh he was neutral he was just letting me borrow a big army to attack you with." Russia upgrades some of my units and you say "OMFG they are evil bullies with a fixed alliance out ot destroy mankind!!11!!1" Gimmie a break.

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm not angry about that, I do'nt blame you, I just hope we can learn from that for a next game. Because I loved this game, but I'm really a little bit dissapointed now that I've wasted perhaps 20 hours on diplomacy and communcation, but it all appeared to be useless and a waste of time.

And I feel like I've wasted a whole lot of time with the Great War, which consumed a great deal of planning and strategy. That was really my crowning moment in this game, despite being massively out manned and out gunned I was able to fend you guys off with strategy alone - and maybe a bit of luck. I had a brilliant move taking Boston out from under your nose. I enslaved half of my population just so I wouldn't be totally conquered by you. I was set back greatly because of all the despiration pop rushing and pillaging of Delhi, but it seems to all be useless. Since after all that drama, all that combat, the peace treaty we signed was meaningless to you.

You just thought you could erase all that hard work and strategy by stabbing me in the back when I wasn't looking and wasn't preparing for war AT ALL. Well ****, you better damn expect that I'm going to be mad about that, and better damn expect I'm going to respond to that. But guess what, when I responded I LET YOU KNOW. I didn't just drop a huge army on your border with no build up.

Where was the peace summit before you attacked Boston? Oh yea, there wasn't one, cause you just took it with no notice.

Originally posted by CyberShy
4. If you add all of that to our really horrible starting position (I have 6 cities now, one on a 2-tile island within the fat-cross of my capital, 3 in the jungle and Washington and Robingthon, both are fine cities, but nothing special. I had hardly any resources. That made Boston pretty important.
Like I said, I had to fight a culture war with Dragon from the beginning, or I had not been able to LEAVE my capital anymore since 3200 BC. (or something)
I have had to build a obelist early in the game.
Still I was able to be in the lead quite early, building my 2nd and 3rd city as one of the first.

Though then there was no room anymore, and only jungle anyway.
France was in the same situation, as was Germany.
Then england and Germany discovered the islands before we did. Besides that, the distance to the islands would have been too far for me to use anyway.

The islands would have been too far away to use? They were a lot closer to you than to England, but England seemed ok with using them. Why is that? I think you and France absolutely should have made use of those islands, maybe you'd be doing a lot better now if you had. Its definitely helped Germany & England. Hell if your land sucks so much, take over those islands and move your capitol there. Make that your new base of opperations.

But heck, Rho, you are organized. You are the only civ in the game who is organized. You have a better ability to expand away from your capitol than anyone. The costs would be much less for you. AND you have the shrine for the biggest religion in the game. The religion and being organized should allow you to afford far away cities easier than anyone.

But again, why did England send a ship all the way from the top of the continent down to the islands in your back yard? Because England was smart enough to know he had limited land - and crappy land (much crappier than what the southerns had btw), and that he needed new land. So he looked for it. *gasp*. He didn't just sit there and complain about things being unbalanced. Now England is very much on the rebound.

Originally posted by CyberShy But that doesn't matter, being small and unimportant is civ as well (in the other diplo game I founded 6 religions)
But if you combine that with all the stuff before, it's just not really very fun anymore. For sure if you keep in mind that I play from 00:30 till 03:30, all the connectivity problems, etc.

If then India, Russia and China apparantly are even going to gang up on us, the small nations of terra, end there's no change in diplomacy, then that's just very hard for us to grab.

How many times do I have to tell you that we didn't gang up on you? I say it again and again and again and again and again and again, but it doesn't seem to penetrate. They were only my allies because they were the only ones who showed interest in being my allies and participating in the contest for Sita. If you had done it, then I would have allied with you.

I say it again and again and again, but you still accuse me of "ganging up on you" which is preposterous.

AHHH, this makes no ****ing sense. You say I picked the biggest guy in the game to be my ally so I could 'gang up' on you. Then I show you that I didn't pick him, he won a fair competition that you had an equal chance of being in. Then you complain about that and say I should have picked him instead.

Originally posted by CyberShy
I agree that it was not really nice of LzPrst to leave immediately, we should have talked about it. Though I really understand him, and want to back him up in the end. The game was not enjoyable for us anymore. And not because we lost, since we lost from the beginning on. We've never been winning.

I agree with China that we should have rules.
I think that marathon games are possible though.
But:

- Pangea, not Terra anymore. the new world is only for the lucky and the large nations, and unballances the game. (I could never have come there, I'm not a civ-rookie)
- Only trade techs you researched yourself
- Stay true to diplomacy, you must have in-game reasons for being allied.
- much players are good, but they should be involved more (Dragon)
- No early wars
- Everyone should have a fair start position, no civs that meet each other on turn one, otherwise: restart
- Pangea: more land for all, all have more change to develop from the beginning

There may be more.
Conclusion: I do not blame you guys, things went as they went. You guys have played a good game. But for hte next game we should learn lessons. People put over 50 hours in the game, then it should be a good game.

Robert

Whoa... the whole POINT of the new world is to give small civs with poor land a place to go. That is the whole point! What on earth are you talking about?! Big civs can't take the new world land, because if you expand too much in this game your economy will collapse. England and the Inca are going over there, why aren't you?

Hell I personally swore off going to the new world just so I could give countries like you a chance to come back. As Nico said, we all pick our strategy. You apparently picked a very very poor strategy if you swore off expansion. You don't want to go to the southern islands, you don't want to go to the new world, what, did you think whining would be a winning strategy?

We don't need more rules, we need people who realize that sometimes in games (as in life) not everyone can be the biggest and the best. And if they aren't the best, then actually do something about it.

[OzzyKP]

As I said earlier, I like being down and out in these games. I like the challenge of it, plus, honestly, I know that I can handle it whereas when other people are down and out they just whine and complain and quit in a huff (where have we seen that before). But anyways, this is what I would have done if I were you guys.

And I'm opening up the session 1 save for each of you. I suspect its early enough in the game that it won't affect anything now if I peak at 2950 BC.

GERMANY

Damn, Germany has some really good land. Flood plains, a river, gold (!!), hills, lots of resources, lots of forest. The only draw back is your proximity to France. Especially since you start with mining, my first priority would be to mine that gold hill. It would be 3 production and 8 (!!) commerce after mining. That would give you pretty much double the commerce as anyone else in the game. That's a great advantage.

Also, you had your back to the sea, so you only had to expand in one direction. That's a good position. Just focus on getting settlers and grab some land. Instead (at least in this save) you are building warriors and archers. With other civs so close and your back to the sea you have the least to worry about barbarians. You should have just built your settler and not built military. Heck I didn't build many units early on and I had more barbs to deal with than you did I'm sure.

Then even in the 2950 bc save, you can see the edge of that island. You should have jumped on that right away. And you were right to tell the English to screw off when they wanted to go down there. Remember, I supported you in that. You shouldn't have let the English colonize down there, it was worth going to war over. Hell you had a golden opportunity to cement a close relationship with India over that. Remember, I was willing to give you resources and units to help you out in that war. But then you just caved in to England and never talked to me again... thanks.

With those islands you would have had as much land as anyone else in the game. You could have been number one easily. With cheap granaries & cheap lighthouses you could have gotten your population up real quick.

And of course, build some wonders. Though you did, you just let it slip that you were 5 turns away, and I burned three population to beat you to it. If you stayed quiet you would have had the great library, not me.

FRANCE

I know you didn't found your city right away. I don't know where you started, but usually I just found immediately since those first few turns are quite valuable. If you were gonna wander, you should have gotten that stone in your initial borders. Not only does it give production, but you can build wonders very easily. Or maybe wander a bit further away so you aren't overlapping America (unless that was your plan, to handicap them with your culture, I dunno.

Being so very close to your neighbors, the first thing you should have done is negotate borders. As India I made agreements with both America & Russia early on, so I knew where I could expand safely and I didn't have to worry about rubbing elbows too much. We negotiated a fair arrangement. From the look of how things turned out, France really did get screwed. So either your neighbors gave you a really bad deal, or you never negotiated land you just grabbed stuff and you lost.

Also, even if it was a grabbing situation, you had the best traits in the game for such a situation. With your creative trait you could have pushed everyone back easily. Assuming you didn't go for a border treaty, you should have aggressively built settlers since you could have grabbed a lot of land with your culture.

Add to that your industrial trait AND that you started right next to stone.... whew, you could have been awesome. Stonehenge is a really cheap wonder that comes really early in the game that gives out a lot of culture. Not only for the city that built it, but for each of the cities you start. You could have beat me to it easily if you connected that stone right away. Delhi has the highest culture in the game - it could have been Paris if you worked for it.

Hell my whole early strategy was based around stonehenge. You could have seriously ****ed me up in this game. I built stonehenge not because of the culture, but so I could get an early great prophet and use him to rush Civil Service (the slingshot). So my whole early strategy was based around that. You could have screwed me up... or better yet done the slingshot yourself, which would have been great for you.

You started with stone and industrious and you didn't build a single wonder all game. I'm speechless. If I was hard on you earlier, its just cause the stars aligned for you, but you didn't take advantage of it. Even if you played it small and didn't expand much and just built up wonders, you could have done that really effectively. While everyone else was worrying about settlers you could have outbuilt everyone.

So yea, if you aggressively expanded you could have been great. If you focused on building wonders you could have been great. I'm still not sure what exactly you did..

AMERICA

Out of the three of you, you definitely played it the smartest. I see in 2950 bc, you are half way done with your first settler. No doubt that was what became Washington. Which was a great move to block out your southern neighbors from expanding north. You made a pretty good land deal with me, you expanded early, you have a great trait combination (financial and organized). And you made a determined effort to found judaism (good move). So you've got income from religion, you've got income from financial trait, you've got income from organized.... you should have been the richest player in the game.

The jungles suck, yes. Starting next to France sucks, yes. But it seems like you did a lot right. You really, really should have looked for more land though. You, more than anyone else in the game, could afford to expand. You are able to support a lot of cities better than anyone. You should have built a ship and gone looking for land early on in the game.

I think you were very smart in the Great War too. I was definitely not prepared for it. Even more so not prepared for the entry of Inca & England into the war. Very good move there. You should have defended Boston better of course, but by now I'm sure you are well aware of that, heh.

Then again, you should have participated in the contest for Sita to be my strong eternal ally. That would have made all the difference.

Also, jump ahead to current day (no I didn't peek) your cities are all really small. Why is that? Did you use pop rushing a lot to build your army?

After your defeat in the Great War, you should have poured everything into getting to the new world. You should have had the most commerce to be able to do that (you built lots of cottages... right?) but instead you choose to surprize attack your bigger/stronger neighbor. And do so in such a way that pisses him off quite a lot, and gets sympathy from other onlookers.

[LzPrst]

the reason I decided to give up, is simple. the large nations are allied together against the small. and no amount of roleplaying or diplomacy can seem to change that.

this is not a diplomacy game, its a permanent alliance 4 vs the rest game. I'm not interested in that.

I didnt get a good start, I didnt get to build the GL, I didnt get the Taj Mahal, we didnt win the first war, england settled on islands right outside germany by signing an open borders with the ai to get there, and my 2 mainland were cramped by french culture.
But thats was not a problem. All those I consider minor setbacks and I'm willing, and able, to work around them.

However, working for a diplomatic solution for days, only to find it totally ignored, finding the RP of the game totally ignored, finding that the 4 most powerful nations all agree to support eachother against the 3 smallest ones, completely ignoring the concept of balance of power is in my opinion not in line with a diplomacy game. India is the most powerful of the southern nations, yet they could not accept a reduction of one city they originally didnt build. instead they get the other 3 largest powers of the game, freely give away techs and weapons among eachother in order to wipe the small nations who try to get back in the game off the face of the planet.

gamewise, maybe its good, but if a diplogame is merely a game concerned with the gamewise mechanics and a lot of meaningless BS in between, then I'm not interested.

find someone else to play germany, the AI will probably fit your irrationality just fine.

[LzPrst]

and just for your information oz, I would have done what you're suggesting, but the AI played my civ for those 2 important sessions and I was still trying to get back in the game for it.

but no matter, I've lost all interest in playing with you guys as you are more interested in wiping your rivals out than playing by the rules of diplomacy that I thought this game was about.

[OzzyKP]

So why is it ok for you to invade a country and not me?

[The Capo]

First thing I'd like to ask, before this continues is why everyone assumes this is going to be a 4 v 4 alliance the whole time.

What four? Are you referring to China, Russia, India, and SPAIN? SPAIN?

I Spain did not (a) supply money to India, or (b) supply troops to India. Spain said it would observe the war and see what was going on, and I think everyone in the region can admit Spain did that peacefully. Out of all the countries in this game I have recieved the rawest end of the deal; I had AI control my country and a religious trait so I wasn't there to create the wonders I wanted (ie Stonehenge) and go along the path that I wanted to, so when I got there China had blocked me from the coast and I had three cities which were in positions where I couldn't settle along my coast in my own territory (the rest of my land, which everyone seems to think is glorious, was tundra). So from there I had to compete with Russia and China (the two highest ranked countries then and now mind you) for territory. My solution; to become friendly with England and the Inca who would serve as a protection from Russia (ie if Russia attacked me they would be on the other side). During that alliance I had to put up with the Inca settling in lands that I thought should be Spanish, but whatever I dealt with it. Then suddenly my so called allies are supporting a foreign war, far away from where we live (as we are the northernmost civs) and I didn't want to join. The war proved to be a five on one situation to start and I realized that my friends had no interest in being allied to me when they had three other nations to ally with and no more reason to help Spain, then India asked me to help them. My army was small, so I told them I wouldn't be much help as I have many issues to address. They offered tech so I can use my money for armies, and I figured FINALLY I could remove that Incan blemish (Huamanga) from my lands. That was the Great War, and as you know it was not too long ago.

So I am confused; where is the eternal alliance I formed to crush the smaller states?

Ozzy is right guys; you can't blame him for doing exactly what you did JUST BECAUSE he is stronger. And honestly, you may have considered it rude when I said it last time to Dragon but it is true; if you don't LIKE playing, don't play. We would be much better off if someone who actually enjoyed themselves played instead of people who don't want to do it. This is supposed to be fun and if you aren't having fun you shouldn't play. I guarantee you we can replace you, so don't feel obligated to continue.

I don't think there is any room for discussion here, the rules suggested by Cybershy are too much. Diplogames shouldn't have rules, for instance; there is NO specific map a diplogame is played on.

I think the players in this game got far ahead of themselves right when it REALLY looked like the tides of power were going to turn, but like I said, they were too busy feeling sorry for themselves to realize changes were occuring. And honestly, I think everyone should stop taking sides. Deity, are you seriously saying LzPrst and Cyber make sense here?

I mean, please people, let's not try and make a valiant figure out of LzPrst, no offense to the guy but he quit. Plain and simple, he didn't give an opportunity for Russia to respond, he didn't give any opportunity for an explaination or even begin to discuss surrender with India. He simply quit, and that is unacceptable. Cyber points out the summit they had with India, Germany and Russia, and points out that Ozzy quit that, but the two events are not the same. People leave diplomatic discussions all the time out of disgust (and Ozzy even explained that he had to go anyway OOC, so i don't understand how Cyber could even USE that as a comparison). I mean, its not like you guys are out of it, its just going to take a while for you to catch up, a few deals, a few cities grow a few more sizes, and voila! It doesn't take much, honestly if Inca and England think they are stymied, or think the south is stymied why aren't they giving them tech? They have Astronomy, why won't they trade with Russia or India? I don't understand, and you may say "Well they don't want them getting the technology." Which makes sense, but is hypocritical on two points (1) when you say that you can't complain when others say the same thing and (2) it creates a static situation, the very same situation you are complaining about now, and is an example of how the weaker nations aren't helping themselves.

In the end its a bit preposterous for weak countries to imply there is some sort of obligation on the part of the strong countries to help them, or to "wait" (I guess) until they catch up to fight them, especially considering the gall that America showed by sneak attacking Boston, and then complaining when India came to avenge it's loss. Honestly, I feel like I am being villainized for stating facts and not sugar-coating my rhetoric. I'm sorry, I respect LzPrst a great deal and was in the process of honoring an IC request he made of Spain, but at the same time a quitter is a quitter.

And LzPrst quit the game.

[LzPrst]

its about balance. america didnt wipe out india when they had the chance, they just wanted boston back so they could get back in the game.
You sacrificed a lot to win the first war, maybe so, but after that you traded techs with russia china and spain, you were on the top of the list. we tried to communicate with the other powers but they had no interest in doing so. China just called me a few times to check if I had any techs and I couldnt seem to get them talking about anything. spain was never interested in having anything to do with us either it seemed. I offered them a deal for nationalism in return for education, in stead they turn to one of the other great powers and got it possibly free from what I gather. you had a huge tech lead, far more land and the southern nations were still in the medieval times. who is the weak one here? india or america? in the interest of balance I supported the reclamation of boston. your response was to build an army and wipe the southern nations off the planet. who needed boston the most? India could live without it, america couldnt. thats why america and germany didnt want to back down on the issue.

also, the first war was not a sneak attack, it built up for several days until america and russia declared war on eachother. you then joined the war. it wasnt exactly a surprise for anyone.

also, the massive army I sold america was 9 units.
2 catapults, 1 swordsman, 2 longbowmen and 4 spearmen. that was it.
9 units out of 44 total.

the army you brought against boston consisted of at least 10 cossacks and loads of other stuff, including chinese crossbowmen, now I dont know the price it cost to build and upgrade all those units, or even if you paid for them, but the fact is, the result is the cooperation of the 4 largest to keep one of the smallest down and out of the game.

[LzPrst]

and as I stated above, I dont mind being small, I dont mind a few setbacks. what I do mind is the lack of coherence between rp/diplomacy and action and the cooperation of the largest powers continuing despite any changes in the rp section of the game.

the indians murdered sitas indian descendant relatives. that alliance should then at least be strained. russia reacted by, oh well, they're still our friends even though they slaughter our royal relatives.

also, spain declared neutrality in the first war again and again, then suddenly change their mind and join in.

and capo, being weak and small doesnt matter, I worked for many turns to change my AI-nerfed situation and I managed, slowly to get back, a little at a time by expanding upon my islands and working out mutually beneficial deals with england. america had no such alternative, the only possibility of doing better was getting boston back. they were far behind in tech and developing the technology to go the new world would probably have taken as bout as long as it would have taken for india and inca to conquer it all.

[LzPrst]

and as for quitting, having india declare that they are gonna wipe germany, france, america off the earth, then having russia declare neutrality, then finding out that russia supplies india with the army to do what they have been speaking of. why should I bother to stay and fight an army that at least the 3 most advanced civs have teched for, far ahead of us, and then the same 3 largest most powerful civs help put together an army.

the reason I quit was because I was disgusted by the futility of my efforts, and because I wont be bothered to see India destroy my civ, with russia, china and spains help.

[LzPrst]

and furthermore, the great war was not 5 on 1. it was 5 on 2, and the weakest 5 against the strongest 2. your northern neighbours didnt join because they were blood thirsty, they joined because they realized that india+russia would be too powerful and too great a threat to them as well if they could expand on the southern neighbours. its about balance of power.

I joined the war only to maintain the status quo, which is why I didnt militarize extensively or participate more than I thought was needed.

and did you not offer India 1000 gold as a compensation for boston? what about your troops already in place in india? were they there to observe the peace that may have been brokered at the moscow peace summit? or were they there to help india retake boston, thus sinking america from any position of interest in the game and then helping them take more land?

and as for quitting. if china had announced the desire to destroy spain and russia had stated that they would stay out of a coming war, and then china shows up with some 10-15+ chinese cossacks, what would your reaction be?

india declared again and again that their aimed to take boston, and more of america, and demilitarize germany and gladly smash through france to do it. why should I bother to fight a futile fight and be wiped out? try my boots on for size. and as for poor spain, you have a large empire, but whats more, you're not 5 techs or more behind the leaders who cooperate to spread those techs amongst themselves.

having a bad position I dont care about. watching my civ be wiped of the map in a diplogame, thats too much for me. sorry.

[The Capo]

Your country was never going to be wiped out.

What I don't understand is why you quit BEFORE any of this **** happened!?