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

[Robert]

Wow, Ozzy got 1000 gold when he surrendered Boston. And still he thinks (even ooc) that he deserves Boston more then I do........... that's quite amazing 8)

Boston is important to America, perhaps it's only a small city for the Indians. It's an important city for the Americans. (that already shows the huge difference between India and America). There's about one important reason why Boston is that important: Because of the resources.

And yes, currently I'm cultural losing 1% to Delhi every turn, eventhough Delhi is lik 6 tiles away. Another clear sign how much the differences between India and America are.

[LzPrst]

just because you didnt consider boston an important city to you at the time doesnt mean that it wasnt an important city to america, or more specifically a potentially important city. as america stated it was its 2nd best city site, given time it would have probably been one of americas most important cities and your cultural control of its nearby lands would have subsided. if it is as you state such a fringe city then why wont you under any circumstance give it up yourself? because it was a fringe city for america, but not for you? isnt it more correct to say that it has great potential, period. despite it being at the time a "fringe" city doesnt mean it would always be so. on the contrary according to what you managed with it. but the game mechanics are the same. america would probably have managed the same if they had been allowed to keep it.

furthermore india IS that big. your cities are bigger and have bigger potential than any of ours, you have a significant tech lead, leading over germany with 3-5 techs that it will take me some 100+ turns at the minimum to research, despite me trading techs with england and inca. you have china and russia that are huge financial civs that seem to be supplying you with tech, money and troops. and you have more wonders than any other civ. america has none of the advantages I've listed and is probably equal to you in population, economy and production only if you throw in france as well. and dont get me started on them.

"all the financial civs", other than your allies russia and china, those are england and america, both of which have extremely little land total and apparently englands is quite poor. you have to remember that without an abundance of good land (grassland/floodplains) cottages will hamper city growth resulting in small cities with little income, regardless of the financial trait. with small cities and a weak economy getting the tech for a new world trip is difficult and even more so to establish a presence there. it takes a long time for those colonies to begin making good money.

furthermore, following your statement war should in no way be used as an alternative if a peace treaty has previously been signed? or as a means to reduce a rival? the fact that boston was american to start with lays the base for ic and ooc reasons to want to reclaim it. as you absolutely flat out rejected the very notion of returning it, should america just forego that claim forevermore?

what else could america do? take over france? kinda rotten wiping an other player out IMO which is why I havent smashed them, even if I could have and wanted to several times. should america go through france and try to conquer the 2 tiny german cities they have on the main continent, (i assume that even you would consider taking my capital would be somewhat extensive) they would be isolated and squashed by france's massive culture. try to conquer germany's islands? strategically impossible if you look at the map.

peacefully build and go to the new world? is that the only strategy they should be allowed to pursue since it is the only strategy that suits you? inca has long ago beaten everyone else to the chase and are probably settling in the new world like rabbits. england is apparently also capable of establishing a presence there and are probably well on the way as well. but these 2 nations have been specifically working together for that goal. I doubt there will be much land left for america to settle once they all by their lonesome manage to get there. england and inca wont give away the only advantage they have and america doesnt really have anyone else to cooperate with for that purpose. what about france you're probably thinking? have you seen their land? they've squeazed in 4 cities wheres theres barely room for 2! they have no base for an economy that can support that kind of research, they are dependent on amerian charity and have very little to offer in return.

if america had known that your peace agreement wasnt worth a damn, then they would have pushed on and smashed india. like you are threatening to do with them now, but they believed that your peace agreement was sincere. your claims that america has plans to gobble up all india piece by piece doesnt seem to rhyme with their actions after having boston returned to them, offering peace, open borders, compensation and a renewal of your early good relationship in order to restabilize the situation.

a peace of the vanquished, as was the result of the great war, is not a good basis for continued stability and peace. ic or ooc.

furthermore, germany modernized their weaponry disbanding old units as I built new, and half of my troops are placed on my island colonies to protect them from potential hostile conquerers. yes it was a large army, but in a time when no one else was training or upgrading their troops significantly. it was also in a time when germany had recently gotten weapons tech that other civs had posessed for centuries, and it was soon to become outdated by the tech leaders. we looked powerful at the time, but that was very relative in a time when other civs were not focusing on weapons. Look at the power chart now, india far outstrips any other nation including germany that is not even among the top 3 at the moment, neither is america that we supposedly sold a "huge" army. (9 units)

and finally, germany is not interested at all in conquering indian territory, we never have been and we likely never will be, as we have no claim to it and laid no claim to it. we merely wanted to help america protect what we considered to be theirs. which is one of the reasons I negotiated neutrality with russia on the condition that our war effort would be purely defensive.
a treaty not worth the keyboard tear it required to negotiate.

you claim that india is weak compared to the combined strength of germany AND america AND france. obviously you're not as strong as those 3 nations combined that I admit. should you be? regardless, russia probably is. and they're unconditionally supporting you. and so is china. and spain.

germany has its own agenda and that is first and foremost dependent on a balance of power. I'm not unconditionally supporting america. I've decided each time to support them in the desire for balance.

also, about your desires for alliances with others, I dont know about the others, but I for one didnt want to join an alliance with india as they were already in league with russia and china, as it would have, once again, distorted the balance of power too much in the favor of one large bloc.

about your claims that we want to just conquer india, it may be a valid point of view for an ic character, that you are so paranoid ooc is imo highly exaggarated. noone wants to conquer india. never, not once has anyone stated that they had aims or claims of conquering or subduing india. before the great war america grovelled and begged for peace. you could easily have averted the situation by simpy cancelling the open borders agreement. it seems to me quite clearly that you wanted a war. and the reason was probably boston.

I think you should try starting up the game and load it as america, or france if they'll allow it. get some perspective before you state that they are powerful civs. it is true that germany has potential, but it also has huge expenses from city distance, quite limited growth potential for all cities and a poor strategically defensible sprawl requiring a large navy and a large army to even hope to defend it.

germany is not a natural enemy of india, we just want to make sure noone gets too far ahead, as india is now doing, with tech and power. of course russia is even further ahead, but we have no opportunity to limit their lead, other than to split them from their allies, which seems impossible, or to weaken said allies.

you say you dont mind playing an underdog, but your actions dont correspond with your words. the loss of boston would have been a minor setback for you, not resulting in much of a total loss in economy or production. but you act like its the most important city in all your land, and that it will completely ruin you to lose it. i dont see it, and it wont even make you an underdog if you give it up, you'll still be far ahead of the majority of civs in tech. and you have lots of wonders, iirc you have more wonders than anyone, heck if we count you might have as many wonders as the rest of us combined... you're not an underdog and the loss of boston wont make you one. it isnt really a big important city yet. it may weaken your potential, but considering relative worth it will weaken america's even more not to have it.

[LzPrst]

capo. first of all, not all of us have the same amount of experience as you do with diplogames. I probably had mistaken expectations of how this would be. I thought that some additions to the faq or game might help prevent similar situations occurring in future games and possibly even improving the game. it was something I figured we could discuss, AFTER the game, to see if any changes would be desired considering that civ4 is new to the diplogame as I understand it.

And, again. I quit because I got the very clear impression that diplomacy didnt have any effect. as I have said before, that was probably an incorret conclusion and I acted rashly in response to that conclusion. I was tired, and some RL issues werent helping. I'm sorry and I've stated repeatedly that I will be willing to resume the game.

also, you gave india 1000 gold to defend themselves? against what? america agreed to peace after reclaiming boston, in fact they asked for it, they had no further intention of conquest and made that clear.
my impression was that your donation was in order to compensate India for their loss, and if so, India reconquering boston was a mockery to spains gift, with what I then saw as no resulting rp consequences. the lack of rp concerning the transfer made this unclear. I was incorrect based on a false assumption, as I realize now.

also, you may not have planned to give india your conquistadors, but that stack of conquistadors looked very hostile and I got the impression that you were going to use them against us. I also got the distinct impression, from india's posts and ooc statements, that they intended on reducing the southern nations from ever having any influence in the game again. that so many would support this is part of what I found too much to deal with. I've said before, being weak is no problem for me, being reduced to a puppet state, with no apparent chance of participating in the game by diplo was a problem. it seemed to me that that was the intention. it probably was paranoid, but I hadnt during the entire course of the game gotten any indications of the contrary.

the point of this discussion isnt to haul peoples strategy out of them, it is IMO an attempt to clear the air and assure everyone that the game isnt stuck in a hole. I now feel more confident that the game isnt rigged from the first or second session as was my worst fears earlier. I'm sorry for not trusting you all to be impartial, but I dont know you that well yet. face it, we havent even played a whole game together and I dont have any other references. I've come to realize lately that I should not be so pessimistic about people and I apologize again for not giving you all more benefit of the doubt.

also, ozzy, me, deity and cyber have some disagreements over what the situation really is and as a result, what should be considered a reasonable reaction under the circumstances. you're probably right that it wont lead to anything, and maybe we should just stop right now. I didnt see your post as you made it while i was making my previous one.

and finally, chill. I admitted that I was rash. I admitted that I was wrong. I've admitted that I made mistakes. And I agreed to resuming the game. theres no need to be angry, that certainly wont lead anywhere. I had my reasons, but I've accepted that those were bad reasons, and I'm apologizing for my mistakes and willing to learn from them.

[Robert]

I get the feeling that ooc reasons are behind the Russia/China/India gang on Boston.
I feel like Ozzy was really pissed that I took his city, and just wanted it back, no matter how. And that's why he tried everything to get Russia and India involved.

I think that after the summit Russia wanted to be neutral for real, but India came with arguments to let Russia be involved. India said: "Germany gave german units to America, so you can do the same"

How far am I from the truth

[The Capo]

Extremely.

[OzzyKP]

This whole discussion is really in weird territory. Everyone is talking about what is fair or right. Boston "should" be American, etc. What?

Maybe people are misinterpreting diplogames. It is true that we try not to eliminate people from the game and to not cripple them. But that doesn't mean we try to impose equality upon the globe and divide up land based on some vague notions of justice.

Sometimes stronger nations take things from weaker nations. That is just the way the world works. Both in diplogames and in the history that diplogames seek to recreate.

So Lz, when America invaded me to retake Boston I was upset, but I decided to respond in the game. I didn't start whining about it OCC about how that's not fair and they should give it back or anything. I dealt with it in game, the same way he dealt with things in game by taking it from me in the first place.

America is free to pursue any strategy or tactic they want to. I'm certainly not saying they can or can't attack. I just think its a dumb move to make when the guy they are attacking would get mad and respond. They chose their strategy and should have considered the consequences of it. Attacking neighbors isn't a good way to make friends.

Certainly they are free to attack me, but when I counter-attack they shouldn't whine about it since they started that ball rolling on their own.

To answer Rho's last comment, I think my OOC and IC reactions are quite similar. It wasn't that I lost it in a peace settlement of a great war. But the way in which you stole it away riled me up, and riled up the Indian people. Such tactics are dangerous both IC and OOC in that any time you feel like grabbing a city, just wait till everything is calm, borrow an army from someone and show up on my border en masse.

But yea, I wanted that city. There has to be some result from winning a war. If wars don't change anything, then what's the point? We fought a well matched war, and I won. Shouldn't I get something for that? Especially considering how it was my land that was pillaged from that war, and America was unscathed.

Not to say that America doesn't have a right to take it back - which they did. But that also shouldn't preclude India from taking it back again. Which I was about to do before you guys threw a fit.

[The Capo]

Alright, I'm going to try and become as calm as possible for this, there is one reason I got angry and that is because this talk, in my mind, is ruining diplogames.

You have to ACTUALLY be able to see the difference between IC and OOC statements. Any statements Ozzy made OOC about the game such as "Germany must be destroyed!" is in jest, believe me. You have to stop taking this so seriously.

You also have to realize that India reluctantly signed the peace treaty with America which gave Boston back. Just because they signed a treaty doesn't mean anything, honestly Cyber can you tell me for ONE SECOND that you didn't sign a treaty with India and then attack Boston?

I'm not saying you are wrong for doing that, it makes sense, and I understand why you did it. But you can't do that and then act surprised when India does it back to you. This is what happens in Diplogames, there are wars. Not all of them are justified, and not everything is black and white. Actually almost none of it is.

The "Big 4" as you have taken to calling them are by no means great friends. In fact China and Spain have had horrible relations for nearly their entire histories, it is only through Russia that they are able to get along. I understand that in your minds we may seem to be a juggernaut, but in fact it is a very tedious alliance that is only around to keep eachother in check. We realize we are strong, and we realize that at any moment we can fall and the others will invade us, at least that is what Spain understands. So if you can't beat em join em. That's what happened. The fact that the aggression from the south to Russia (or vice versa?) occured just hurried that situation along, the fact that the Inca settled near Spain bothered Spain, the fact that Russia is geographically centered means they have nations surrounding them, the Chinese were always bothered by Spain's expansion (even though China and Spain are basically the exact same size) and India has always had to deal with three countries to its south who share the same religion. For you to smiply write off any diplomatic reasons for the friendship of China, India, Russia and to a lesser extent Spain is a little selfish.

Change will occur naturally. I know its tough to read all of the posts but if you see HOTW2, and you can even ask Deity to tell you, my country the Adriatic League went from one of the best Empires in the world (we owned Europe, part of the Middle East, the Southern US, Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and Hawaii) to nothing (reduced to France, Spain, Germany, and parts of Russia) by the time Deity and his allies were done with us. After that we were cast into the darkness as two large alliances formed without us, and we kept playing. This happens in Diplogames all the time, and the fact of the matter is you guys are much better off than the Adriatic League was in HOTW2, and you have much more time to recover from it. Your tech deficit may be 3-5 techs, but think about it; if Deity claims he gave Spain 6+ (and the exaggerating fool did claim to have given me at least 7 techs, which is wholly incorrect) that means through diplomacy you could catch up and even surpass India, Russia, or China. Spain did it, you think we researched all of those techs? Ask our allies, our contributions have been slight, so we do what we can when we can. You guys can do the same, diplomacy takes time.

Just because Russia told you they'd be neutral, doesn't mean the next day or even an hour later they were convinced otherwise. The security of RUSSIA is supreme to Russia, as it should be. Not a promise to Germany.

The point of a diplogame is not to act like a fake UN, it is to use diplomacy as part of your game, not the other way around. Posts are propoganda, so of course people are going to post what they want others to know, and keep the diplomacy for private. You can't rely on what people say, that's part of the game, and its part of diplomacy.

I'm sorry you put so much faith in Russia claiming they would be neutral, they were probably trying to get away with looking neutral too. Many countries have done this, claim neutrality while supporting one army behind the scenes. Is it right? Probably not. Is it against the spirit of diplogaming? ABSOLUTELY.

Just because the diplogame FAQ says the international community will look down on you for doing something wrong, doesn't mean it has to be the case. Especially when half of the international community backs you. Don't look to the FAQ as a rulebook, there is no diplogaming rulebook and honestly there never should be. That FAQ is just there to explain what diplogames are all about, there are wars of conquest in diplogames, there are wars of aggression in diplogames, there are wars of greed in diplogames; just as there are in real life.

I am sorry for my negative statements in the past, but you have to understand that the integrity of diplogaming, my favorite way to play Civ, was in question. I didn't want to see it turn into a game where there are simply countries that are copies of eachother, doing exactly the same thing, never fighting and keeping the same borders for all of time. That is no fun to me. To me that is boring.

The point of a diplogame is that you can be down, but you are never out. I'm sorry this was lost on you LzPrst, but you have to be patient and understand that nobody is going to let Germany become vassalized. A diplogame is no fun if there are Vassal states.

I hope this helped.

[LzPrst]

it wasnt as much that you were determined to take it back, we expected that it might happen. though I considered the response slightly more aggressive than what I had expected, especially since india at the time was a pacifist civ.

it was that your rp statements that your wishes to conquer more american lands and cripple germany got such seemingly unconditional and overwhelming support that led me to conclude, wrongly, I admit that now, that people were cooperating for ooc reasons not ic reasons, which imo is not the point of the game.

I also suspected from your statements that you say were based partly in anger, (ooc and ic, and therefore may have sounded more destructive than your actual intention may have been) that your invasion would result in the destruction of the southern civs. once again, that this would receive such massive support really riled me up. since I considered it awful diplo that the four largest civ would support eachother in wiping out, or practically wiping out the smallest civs.

as I mentioned before, my experience with diplogames is limited to this one (and hot1, but thats almost like a mini-diplo) and I therefore had expectations that may not have corresponded to the actual situation. one of these expectations were that smaller civs would have greater tolerance for attempting to strenghten themselves, especially on behalf of bigger civs. also, that the large and powerful civs would compete against eachother, not cooperate. perhaps this was a rare result of particularly peculiar circumstances, but it seemed more like a conspiracy in the heat of the moment. my apologies for my paranoia, but its a necessity of government for civ survival and I guess it was contagious and spread from ic thinking to ooc thinking.

I have no problem with large civs using their strengths to dominate smaller ones, that is expected. but small civs should at least have a chance at getting back in the game and/or be able to ask another large civ for help.

as long as I can expect some results from diploing as well as a little leniency/mercy from conquering\dominating powers I will not protest (ooc) against it. it is the opposite scenario, that seemed to be the case, that I consider unacceptable.

when I spoke to kuno ooc I got the impression that there was no conspiracy, but when he completely 180'd ic I suspected that I was either being lied to ooc or that you were letting yourself be pushed around by ozzy. I'm sorry that I didnt give you more credit kuno.

once again, I'm sorry for reacting so rashly on erroneous conclusions. I'm willing to just get on with the game now.

[LzPrst]

The security of RUSSIA is supreme to Russia, as it should be. Not a promise to Germany.

my point exactly, just replace germany with india
I considered that russia's interests would be to limit the powers of his neighbours (including india) by not letting them grow too large at the expense of their southern counterweights. I simply assumed that russia would think in similar paths since I considered this the best course of action. in fact I believed this so much that I considered anything else close to gross negligence of responsibility or in other words, manipulation by india.

no matter though. lets get on with it shall we. what we need to decide is if we wish to continue at 1255 or 1290. to me it really doesnt matter as long as I'm assured an actual part in the game.

[Robert]

1. I have no problems that India takes Boston back. If they're bigger, they deserve it.
2. I have a problem though that India first gives Boston in exchange for peace, though not very much later it appears that this peace had no value, though it was an EQUAL peace.
3. I have indeed cancelled my deal with India after the World War as well. Though all should know that this was NOT an EQUAL peace. India had additional conditions, like being allowed to convert my cities, to march with missionaries through my empire, while I wasn't allowed to do so. AND India occupied one of my cities.

Of course everything is debatable what I just said, but the facts are that the peace between India and America never was an EQUAL peace. India putted it's conditions on America and America just had to listen.

It's VERY NORMAL that that doesn't last for long. It never lasted for long in real history either. Germany started WWII after the UN EQUAL peace after WWI.
All soviet occupied nations broke free after a while. East and West Germany in the end united after WWII as well. Only if peace is equal, it may last.

So, The Capo: did I break an earlier created peace agreement? Yes and no. Yes, I technically broke it. NO, because it was not a treathy between me and India, but a treaty that I was forced to take by THE REST OF THE WORLD and it was an UNEQUAL peace treaty. It's not comparable.

India took an American city.
America took an American city back.

So, diplogame-wise I say that all allies of India should accept that, unless they chose to have a maniac-role (like India has at the moment). Though both Spain and Russia pretent to have a wise-man role. Not to mention the fact that Both Russia and Spain don't share the same faith anymore, Sita is long gone. There's no reason for Russia or Spain to support India in this war.

That's why I asked Ozzy about his ooc-feeling of the american re-capturing of Boston. And apparantly the Maniac that is ruling India right now is the same Maniac behind the keys () and I feel like his ooc feelings about this situation has pressed Ozzy to press India and China to join him against Boston. And I even think that Russia, with his wise-man role, really didn't got the intention anymore to support India. But was pushed to it by Ozzy, who wasn't able to look to this situation with diplo-game eyes.

The situation is not that different then to the end of the World War. I HATED it to give up Boston. I didn't do it immediately (Remember) but all my allies said "There's nothing else you can do, and we won't support you if you continue this"
I hated this, but i understood that there was no diplogame reason for me to continue fighting. So I gave in.

But Russia and China/Spain do not talk in to Ozzy, and explain to him that he's wrong. They just follow the madman. I was a madman as well, but my allies talked me out of that. I don't blame Ozzy for being a madman. I blame the allies to follow him without conditions. And I blame them even more because this results into a 4 large empires vs 3 small nations.

It's not true to the diplo-game spirit.
The peace that lasted for 15 turns after I re-took Boston isn't (I waited TWO LONG SESSIONS) and the gang-up on Boston isn't.

And that Ozzy really thought that an un-equal peace would last is really amazing! Even if you count-out the Boston as being unequal, even then it was an unequal peace.

They don't last, Ozzy, they don't last.

[Frank Johnson]

I can't really be bothered to read the entire list here, but I've done some of it, and want to offer some of my knowledge and experience as well.

Alot of these guys like Ozzy, Capo, and Deity have been playing diplo games for a long time like myself. I have always enjoyed them, but at the same time have seen them as "flawed" in the ways some of the players view the "rules" or "purpose" of playing.

Some people try to treat them solely as a peaceful/builder game. This is not the case and most people have learned this.

Some people try to use "equality" in game power as an excuse to take up any action or quit if such equality seems impossible to get to. This is also not the point.

Some people treat the game like they would a ladder game or something where "there can be only one winner" and persue any strategy that most benefits them. This also is not the point of diplo.

I think think most of your disagreements are because of these 3 misunderstandings as well as the map dynamics that occur because of a terra map.

Although many here profess their love for the Terra map due to its potental for discovery and comebacks, it also places unremovable and undenable landlocked forces into place that more or less forces players into certain alliances for their own interests.

The terra map generator goes out of its way to produce some civs in closely positioned seafaring nations to simulate a European real world bloc as it were. To me it is not strange for Inca/England to ally, as the same way America/France/Germany have allied, because to do otherwise would basicly be the doom of a civ because of the close quarters.

Russia, China, Spain are obviously simulate the land abundant Asia powers, and are ment to represent the power base of the old world, and gain wider spacing in the old world in exchange for more difficult colonization prospects in the future. I'm not certain, but in the games I've played where I was this type of civilization I did not have easy access to a port, and when I did get to one it definately was not one of my core cities, really it was usually a marginal city founded late in the game to give the civ a "window on the world" like St. Petersburg in real life. Also, they are ment to be some what disinterested in the new world due to the fact that their home empires are probably stretching their maintance abilities to the max already. IE, Russia, China, and Spain may get the new world techs long before the other players, but would be unwilling or unable to use that advantage in a timely manner without risking that economic superiority.

So there are 3 inbalancing factors in this game currently.

1. Awarness. It has taken some of the players longer than others to realize the situation of their civ and to adjust their game plan accordingly. In fact some players were so disheartened about their situation due to their lack of knowledge about the game that they have put in half hearted efforts and only made their problems Worse.

2. Interaction. Its clear some of the civs have traded techs and interacted in benefitial ways with each other on a larger scale than other civs, leading to a tech dispairity. This is also where the tech trading question comes into play.

3. Personal Factors. I think some of the players just have better knowledge of the game mechanics and are able to exploit their experience over some of the lesser experienced players, just in terms of the game itself.


I have always been in favor of a more clear ending to diplo games, and to give players a "reason" to interact with other civilizations rather than just persueing a ladder style extermination campaign of lesser players, and while I'd love to discuss them with you, now that I think about it, its probably a little late for your game, but you could view this as a learning process in the evolution of diplo gaming, in what I see as its first large scale deployment in civ4....

[NicodaMax]

First things first. What a timely and profoundly insightfull post from Frank. I'm not surprised after seeing what he did with the Inca when he subbed for me. The best for last?

[NicodaMax]

I'm gonna go out of my way to rationalize this whole thing, so bear with me please

The Diplogame dynamics (i.e. the way the game behaves as a system or a model in response to the internal and external forces acting on it) basically consist of the following elements:

1. Geography
2. Game Mechanics
3. Diplomacy
4. Role-playing
5. Psychodynamics

1. Geography

To paraphrase Frank: the terra map generator goes out of its way to produce some closely positioned and nearly isolated or landlocked civs to simulate a European type block or force the existence of seafaring nations. This puts permanent and undeniable landlocked forces into place that more or less forces players into certain alliances for their own interests (e.g. Inca/England, Southern Block).

So this means that choosing a terra map pretty much guarantees that there will be civs in a serious disadvantage (which may have been aggravated by other unbalancing factors) from the start, or screwed over shall we say? I’d say yes, and that it’s pretty obvious.

I don’t think Pangea is ‘the’ better option (I find it kind of dull personally) but there’s a lot to look at out there. I like Fractal myself, anyone else try that one? A good option is to have someone who is not taking part of the game (someone you trust) go over a generated map before the game starts and check to see that all starting locations are balanced (not necessarily equal) and that no two civs are two close to each other, etc. This is done in the Democracy games with good results.

The map is like the initial conditions in a model, or a mathematical problem. The resulting game will always depend on the initial conditions. But, it also affects the dynamics of the game, the way it develops through time. In retrospective, I don’t think we gave it the importance it deserved.

To be continued…

[Frank Johnson]

I have to disagree with you a little bit Nico. I'm not saying "terra is rigged we shouldn't play it" I'm saying "you have to know how to play terra" in order to play well.

Going into a terra map with the "there can be only one" addititude you might bring into a game against AIs would be discouraging, but its not that bad in a game with multiple avenues to victory.

So what we need is more paths to victory, including cooperative victories. I made a detailed most in another thread about changing the way victory is determined so we dont have these fatalistic attitudes in the game.

[The Capo]

I think the best way to describe exactly what a Diplogame is, is this statement;

The JOURNEY is the THING.