History of the World XI [Diplomacy Game] [Organization II]

[Toni]

setup civs against each other

Well I have done this which was in last game. I had Dacole and CS on my eastern border, so in order not to have to worry having two civs become strong right next to me I set it up for them to get in a war – while in that war I was able to help both sides in order to get them both weak. Gave CS copper in order to help him fend off the invasion of Dacole, meanwhile advising Dacole which cities to attack and where to move. The end result was that I had a backward Inca-CS and Dacole-America the whole game after that.

Also why do you think Beta attacked you CS and later Dacole

All and something else

We should be glad that we ended the game with a diplo win - because me and Mike were planning to conqure everyone that game - even backstab our two own allies Nolan and Kuno.

So YES i try when i can to spice things up as you adviced

[Toni]

Oh the whole conqure world thing was Mike's idea And i agreed.

I can't wait for him to join us next diplo in the winter- great diplo player!

[Robert]

I think that 90% of our difference of opinion regarding religion-game alliances is summarized in your following quote:

I don't see how limitting peoples' choices by game mechanics is going to resolve those aforementioned issues, unless you can explain to me how.

A good game is all about the right limitations.
Games have limits (rules).

Since the goal of a diplogame is to have a game where you act / roleplay as if you're the leader of a real nation.
Rules that come from that are like: anticipate wars or have a good in-game reason for a war.

It's impossible to reflect the real-world perfectly in a game. It's just a game. Though I think that everyone agrees that a fundamentalistic Islamitic regime could never be allied with a regime of any other religion. One could argue that a more liberal islamitic regime could be allied with a moderate buddhistic regime, obviously.

The idea behind my suggestion is that we can't have a rule that has many 'buts'. In real world it would certainly be possible that in some situations civs of different religions get along. Gamewise I think you get a much richer story environment if you make religions more important for the alliance forming and the diplomacy.

It certainly won't fix all problems, which would never be possible in complex games like these, but it'll certainly better then the current: "I'll allie everyone as long as it helps my civ" since that's more a normal-civ-game attitude. It makes roleplaying more important. Which is, imho, more in the spirit of diplogames.

The disagreement I have with that is that I consider religion more of a writing tool. As it is Confucianism in our game isn't really Confucianism. Aussie has done a phenomenal job of rewriting a game-mechanic as what he wants it to be.

One could still do that.
I've had Krishnianity in the past, a merger between Hinduism and Christianity. Ozzy has merged Judaism with Islam.
The religions don't have to reflect the real religions as they are in the real world.
The founder decides what happens with a religion. Other civs could adapt to that religion / philosophy / whatever.

Shinto and Neo-Pagan certainly are, and Buddhism could be argued either way.

Vanilla Buddhism is a philosophy
A very good one if there indeed would be no God.
The day I stop believing in the existence of God, I'll become a buddhist.

I think that would be really hard to track. :/

That's why I think that the veterans should try their best to take care of the game in a broader context. It's not good to make hard rules. (as HOTW 8 showed us).

As for the distant civs, well, that makes perfect sense.

It's as much as a limitation as the religion-alliance rule is.

More than I let on. The majority of the issue, as is evident in the amount of Muslims who live happily in Judeo-Christian governments, is far more cultural than religious, and most cultural issues evolve from different cultures not understanding (hence: misunderstandings) the opposing cultures. From a governmental standpoint, the majority of it is about getting power and keeping it, it's dirty business.

There's a difference between the religious disagreement between muslims and christians and the cultural disagreements between muslims and the western civilizations, indeed. I'm talking about the first issue.

I know a far amount more than you seem to think.

Then write up to it :P

i'm not sure what you're trying to say here, you contradicted yourself, I suspect that's a language barrier more than anything. :/ Could you clarify?

Yup, while typing out such a long sence I lost track halfway myself of how I started it. I'll post the correct version of the quote below, and explain it as well.

Someone has said (forgot who) that if someone, who follows a certain religion, says that their religion is totally different from another religion, then why do people who do not follow either his or the other religion keep insisting that both religions are (more or less) equal? Even if the followers of both religions deny that?

If a muslim and a christian both state that their religions are (totally) different, then why would someone else tell them that their religion is equal?
A believer himself knows most probably best what he beliefs and why it's not the same as what someone else beliefs.

Similar, but different, I'll get to that in a second.

The fact that there are similarities don't make them similar.

They would be similar if the core would be more or less the same. I think that christianity and islam differ at their core. I think that Judaism and Islam are much more equal in their core. (live up to the rules of the one and only God to get to paradise).

The thing about this is that these same differences you see here are differences between Judaism and Christianity, as well

I think that in it's core judaism and islam are indeed pretty close to each other. Their rites and their laws are different, and obviously the entire part of Muhammed, etc. But their 'task' to 'earn' paradise / heaven is more or less the same concept.

The thing with Judaism and Christianity is obviously that Christianity is an extention of Judaism.
Christianity accepts the books of Judaism (while Islam denies that the Bible is the uncorrupted word of God (eventhough it accepts the 'lost original version').

But imho the Quran could very well be the Old Testament of the muslims. That doesn't make the religions similar. I don't believe that judaism is similar to christianity either. If it would be similar, then there wouldn't be a need for the New Testament.

However, unlike Christians and Muslims (specifically those in the hot-bed sections like the middle-east), Jews and Christians get along, even though relations are cool, at best.

That's because christians don't deny the teachings of Judaism, but just add to them. Also do christians see Jews as important people for God.
This has been different btw before 1948, when the church oftenly thought that the church had replaced Israel, but that's a matter of interpretation. In both cases, judaism isn't similar to christianity, eventhough we share a lot.

That doesn't disagree with what I said. In the enclosure of the Diplogame, religion, imho, should be a tool to write stories with, not a mechanic you use to force people to "choose sides" so to speak.

I was talking off topic (or on topic)
Regarding the game, like I said in earlier posts, you can chose which religion you want to adopt. It's not a fix.

Ok, there's some fixed limitation, like you can't chose who you start next to, you can't always chose to get that religion you want to. But that's not different from the 'no huge distance' limitation (which you accept)

and with 3 of 6 1st world powers combining together

Deity is defenitely a 1st world power.
Frank and me aren't. I've been at the 7-10th spot for most of the 8th and 9th session. Frank is slightly above me.

We have a ballanced alliance, based on religion and distance to each other.
Not to mention that we clung together when we weren't that strong as we are right now. And from the beginning on it's been clear that Islam was going Jihad. It's not that the strong civs grouped together, it's more that the other civs ignored the clear threat and never build up their armies. We can't be blamed for that.

3 weeks of warnings are clear enough, imho.

[arvcran]

The last game was fun until out of role playing comments were being made as a result of a probable recognition that the game was unwinnable by some good competitive players if this were going to continue.

The former in itself is not a problem but the length and manner in which it was convayed - could have been done more .... *diplomatically* :-) to use an appropriate word.

I can't say I fully understand Frank's argument that the '3' have won - is this a serious posture? Or is this just to juice up and spice the game a little? Or perhaps a symptom of somone's stage in life and attitude towards the game?

If it is a serious posture then I say - play it out - role play the aggressor faction that decides to kill, plunder and pillage to win *shrug*. Then see the effects in a diplomatic game of humans.

An example of my tech giving/trading: I had feared the Native Americans would lose land to the Dutch or Portugues so I gifted Feudalism to them in order to prevent that outcome because it was in my interest to do so! (And I role played it as the Incas look down upon the bully nations :-).)

I am new to the Diplo gaming so I have been rather dormant in issuing opinion. There was blatant reference to cheating on more than one occasion by more than one player. I think appologies from the others, who made these kind of references would be in order! I think CS made his appology even though it was subtle.

The fact of the matter is each player in the game will use in game measures to further the cause of winning the game - perhaps here I am missing the point of diplo gaming. Someone has made a point of writing rules for diploing - but I have not the time to read all of it - omg it was wordy! Somepeeps summed it up by saying you can anialate a player from the game nor can you take out his 'core' cities. This was designed to kkep everyone interested in the game I presume.

I had tried with every player to make trades - in fact I think I have open borders with the entire world. Again part of my role playing the Incas (my Inca style mind you).

I see the Dutch and Rome having the most cities of all CIVS having 12 each. These two CIVS have the better chance of winning based on the land and resource capacity (yes also relies on quality!)

I was not aware that the 3 CIVS have been closely working together. But it does explain how Portugal was able to tech with virtually no gnp that I could see.

I do wonder what effect it will have to open the floodgates of war upon the world in the dipo game.
Surely it will become more interesting/exciting for a while. Does it make sense *shrug* - if 3 human lead faction wanna fight 8 other human lead factions in this game it is an example of it being *plausible* in reality.
Will it be *within diplo gaming rules/guidelines*?

Now my biggest question:
What is the Organization thread for anyway? :-D

Ok was not biggest question ...
What UST time will we schedule the next session for?
So that we can figure out what time it will be for all of us?

worldtimeserver.com

[Robert]

Originally posted by Toni


Well I have done this which was in last game. I had Dacole and CS on my eastern border, so in order not to have to worry having two civs become strong right next to me I set it up for them to get in a war – while in that war I was able to help both sides in order to get them both weak. Gave CS copper in order to help him fend off the invasion of Dacole, meanwhile advising Dacole which cities to attack and where to move. The end result was that I had a backward Inca-CS and Dacole-America the whole game after that.

Also why do you think Beta attacked you CS and later Dacole

All and something else

We should be glad that we ended the game with a diplo win - because me and Mike were planning to conqure everyone that game - even backstab our two own allies Nolan and Kuno.

So YES i try when i can to spice things up as you adviced

+1000 kudos for Toni (seriously!)

I wonder how you do when there are no newbies around you can tell to invade me

[dacole]

Originally posted by Frank Johnson
Guys, I have intel on your Civs.

Until I started actively complaining about you guys keeping warriors, archers, and spearmen as your only garrison troops throughout the Industrial era, that's all you had. After I reminded you that this is not a "No War Builder Game" but a diplomacy game, you guys setup a few grenadiers and cannons along side your archers. No offense, but all we have to is march right now. Really we didn't have to give you any warning. You already lost the game by allowing a military alliance to form that had virtually all the trained and massed troops on the planet. If I have to post the screenshots of your military neglect to make my point I will.

Simply put you've already lost, even with a warning and a headstart you didn't deserve. You guys played builder, not diplo. If you had completed even 1 game of Civ4 against the AI you know you would not get away with what you are doing right now, so what makes you think human players should have to put up with it and not try to win with force?

As to if we want to decide who "wins" the game, we can do that after your 6 civs are burned, occupied, and made into vassal states. If we choose to agree to a team domination victory and you're in no position to argue, then you don't get a vote.

I've seen this pattern too many times in too many diplo games.

DIPLO != BUILDER
MAKE AN ARMY

Wow I missed a lot of drama...amazing. Well I wanted to let you know I am definitly not coming back to this game and I am likely going to have to seriously consider not coming back again. This IS NOT because this was not fun or has any relation to the way this game or any other game I have been involved in has gone. I have just decided to change the way I live my life. I am 29 (my grandmother's funeral was on my birthday) and I want to have a family in my life. To do that I am going to need to get out and start seeing people more. I also want to be able to exercise and be able to go see my parents on the weekends if I decide I want to. All of this of course while doing my job well (which since I teach takes a good bit of time). So I am going to have to cut back on my video game playing and this type of playing takes an amazing amount of time. I still love civ and I'm going to still play it probably though in a more casual and relaxed manner. (I also want to have time for other things like anime.) I am also considering wether I want to go back to school at some point.

On the game itself, I have no problem with ethiopia declaring war on me. I had been getting on them for their effect with russia. I think it might have been more in their interest (especially if I had been there still playing) to simply cut relations off with russia, but they can play their civ the way they want to. I also have no problem with several civs deciding to win by warfare. Alliances that have been done storywise that then try to win are fine. I have not been keeping up with the story thread so I have no idea if the alliance had been explained, but spreading religon by the sword is a common practice.

I do have to disagree historically though with the example that was given for WWII. The American and British governments were secular during that time. You do not have to have an atheistic government to be secular.

Take everything I say with as many grains of salt as you like since I am likely not to be involved anymore. Maybe during the summer when I have basically a three day weekend every time I can come back I don't know.

[dacole]

Originally posted by CyberShy


Keep in mind that the table only shows the last posts.
Not the posts of all players in all sessions.
Thus the activity table only shows when a certain player posted a story or organizational post. And yes, some players are really behind in story telling.

The organizational thread isn't important game-wise, it's good though to drop by in there once a week. Though since all players, except Dacole and MrLincoln, are very dedicated to this game, this becomes less important indeed.

Ok now after reading this I am a little insulted I was dedicated to this game, just not to the extent where it became more important than my job or my family. I am sorry my grandmother died but come on, this game should not be your life.

[dacole]

Originally posted by Toni


Well I have done this which was in last game. I had Dacole and CS on my eastern border, so in order not to have to worry having two civs become strong right next to me I set it up for them to get in a war – while in that war I was able to help both sides in order to get them both weak. Gave CS copper in order to help him fend off the invasion of Dacole, meanwhile advising Dacole which cities to attack and where to move. The end result was that I had a backward Inca-CS and Dacole-America the whole game after that.

Also why do you think Beta attacked you CS and later Dacole

All and something else

We should be glad that we ended the game with a diplo win - because me and Mike were planning to conqure everyone that game - even backstab our two own allies Nolan and Kuno.

So YES i try when i can to spice things up as you adviced

Of course when I found out you did it I almost cut off all relations with you, and I did actually join the other alliance and give them information about you later. I hoped to play both sides off each other and end up with a culture win of some type didn't work out that way though.

[deity]

Originally posted by Toni


Sorry to spoil the plan - but this is one civ victory game not a team game guys! Its called a diplo game not Team battleground

I think if you look at the diplo FAQ, and certainly the points system that ozzy crafted, an alliance victory is a winning possibility; in fact more likely than a single civ domination victory.

It IS diplo and backed up by logical stories for creation of alliances like our Islamic Empire.

Sadly the story construct behind the 6/7 civ defensive pact in HOTW11 is severely lacking.

[deity]

Originally posted by Frank Johnson
Trading with the AI for tech is a long standing no-no in diplomacy games.

Agreed.

I think as the only 2 players to have played 15 diplo games we should know.

And many of the other seasoned players know this as well and I'm pretty sure I said it in King Chat several times in several sessions or the lobby when it looked like AI would be taking over some civs. I did no trading at all with the English AI and if they contacted me I had to accept cancelled deals and immediately farewelled them. I didn't even look for resource deals.

Even if you hadn't been told it is obvious to me that it is BAD FORM to deal with AI's.

I'm saddenned to see that several of you think that it could not be bad form and need an explicit rule.

---

As for sportsmanship I knew Marcus Ethiopian predicament leading up to attacking AI England. I agreed because he and lz as Russia had been planning this for eons and therefore Portugal would not stand in Ethiopia's way; although we did agree on limits.

So, again, making a judgement on good form and how it relates to black and white rules is very difficult.

[ BTW So I'm surprised that Nolan thought that Marcus was negligently raiding the AI; given they are in the same pact. ]

With the English AI I don't think Daniel would expect us to keep everything in tact forever for him and him going AI stuffed me up com pletely along with the German betrayal. But I held off on any possible takeover of my former best English ally as a matter of good form. I also refused their vassal state offer.

[Asmodeous]

I hate my browser. :/

Dacole: I don't think he meant it as an insult, he was clear as to why you weren't there and that it was a-ok.

Originally posted by CyberShy
I think that 90% of our difference of opinion regarding religion-game alliances is summarized in your following quote:

I don't see how limitting peoples' choices by game mechanics is going to resolve those aforementioned issues, unless you can explain to me how.

A good game is all about the right limitations.
Games have limits (rules).

I think 90% of our difference of opinion is that I don't feel that the cross-religion alliance was the problem and the people missing regularly and people not having time to post stories was the real problem. I don't feel that tying mechanics up is going to solve that.

As for the distant civs, well, that makes perfect sense.

It's as much as a limitation as the religion-alliance rule is.

No, it's vastly different. The religion-alliance rule assumes that religions are going to disagree by default. This rule assumes that if you haven't made contact with someone you haven't... er... made contact with them. How can you be friend with someone you've never spoken to in any way, shape, or form? It's unrealistic.

There's a difference between the religious disagreement between muslims and christians and the cultural disagreements between muslims and the western civilizations, indeed. I'm talking about the first issue.

Judging by the nature of the two religions I would say the vast majority of the disagreements are cultural as compared to religious, tbh. And the religious disagreements, as directed by Judaism vs. Christianity, should show that it's plausible for two similar, but different religions to get along on the fundamental levels, and that the difference in cultures is what tends to spark the level of conflict we see in the world today.

Yup, while typing out such a long sence I lost track halfway myself of how I started it. I'll post the correct version of the quote below, and explain it as well.

Someone has said (forgot who) that if someone, who follows a certain religion, says that their religion is totally different from another religion, then why do people who do not follow either his or the other religion keep insisting that both religions are (more or less) equal? Even if the followers of both religions deny that?

If a muslim and a christian both state that their religions are (totally) different, then why would someone else tell them that their religion is equal?
A believer himself knows most probably best what he beliefs and why it's not the same as what someone else beliefs.

Perspective and bias. A believer is going to be biased that his religion is correct and the others are wrong regardless of the actual books and without reading the others' book. It's part of the religion, in fact, to view it that way in most cases. A third-party who is more secular has a more objective view of the two sets of teachings and the ability to look at both objectively, as compared to having the pre-set bias that theirs is "right".

They would be similar if the core would be more or less the same. I think that christianity and islam differ at their core. I think that Judaism and Islam are much more equal in their core. (live up to the rules of the one and only God to get to paradise).

Judaism and Islam are incredibly equal. Depending upon interpretation of the Quran, when they speak of "People of the Book" it seems fairly evident, judging by the fact that the Quran was not put into written form for a great deal of time, that the Quran is referring to the Jews, as they both revered the God of Abaraham, as they referred to him, and had similar teachings with only very subtle differences that spoke more to the cultures of the people following them than with any difference in "beliefs", per se. Again, that's dependant upon which translation of the Quran you're looking at.

I think that in it's core judaism and islam are indeed pretty close to each other. Their rites and their laws are different, and obviously the entire part of Muhammed, etc. But their 'task' to 'earn' paradise / heaven is more or less the same concept.

The thing with Judaism and Christianity is obviously that Christianity is an extention of Judaism.
Christianity accepts the books of Judaism (while Islam denies that the Bible is the uncorrupted word of God (eventhough it accepts the 'lost original version').

But imho the Quran could very well be the Old Testament of the muslims. That doesn't make the religions similar. I don't believe that judaism is similar to christianity either. If it would be similar, then there wouldn't be a need for the New Testament.

But therein lies the rub. If you look at Judaism and Islam and say that at their core they are mostly equal, besides cultural differentiation between the two, then you go on and say that "Christianity is an extension of Judaism" you can't then say that Christianity is similar to Judaism and shares cores with it and turn around and say that it is totally dissimilar to Islam. That's what I'm referring to. Obviously Christianity took a different turn, it went with the "Love thy Neighbor" concept that Jesus returned from the Far East with (wonder where he got that idea from... Buddha would be proud!) after a decade or so of absence, but at its core Christianity and Judaism are following the same god, just with a different implication. That being that when Jesus sacrificed himself, he paid the debt that all who hold him in their heart would normally have had to pay through the OT teachings.

That's because christians don't deny the teachings of Judaism, but just add to them. Also do christians see Jews as important people for God.
This has been different btw before 1948, when the church oftenly thought that the church had replaced Israel, but that's a matter of interpretation. In both cases, judaism isn't similar to christianity, eventhough we share a lot.

To be literally, Christians don't deny the teachings of Islam, either. Their one gripe is that whole "Accept Christ as lord and savior", which even the Jews don't get off easy on, but they "judge not lest they be judged" when it comes to the Jews, because the cultures of the two groups are fairly similar, whereas they tend to "judge" when it comes to muslims, mostly due to the vast cultural divide between Judeo-Christian cultural values and Islamic cultural values. The Church still feels it replaced Israel.

Deity is defenitely a 1st world power.
Frank and me aren't. I've been at the 7-10th spot for most of the 8th and 9th session. Frank is slightly above me.

You guys sure as heck aren't third world.

We have a ballanced alliance, based on religion and distance to each other.
Not to mention that we clung together when we weren't that strong as we are right now. And from the beginning on it's been clear that Islam was going Jihad. It's not that the strong civs grouped together, it's more that the other civs ignored the clear threat and never build up their armies. We can't be blamed for that.

3 weeks of warnings are clear enough, imho.

Right, and that's not a problem, where the problem came from is that the rest of the world saw the growing Jihad as a threat and banded together. Prior to that point it was a tight group of two or three, with pleasant relations with the rest. Then the Islamic Bloc made it clear their intentions and the little nations turned to the big nations and went "Dude, we're going to get crushed. We need your help!" and the big nations said "Sure... but in order for that to happen, you're going to need to help us, here's what we need.."

...and for the value of our own sovereignty, we did.

Me.

[deity]

Originally posted by Toni
Just to help out here:

Trading: Trade is the voluntary exchange of goods, services, or both. Trade is also called commerce. A mechanism that allows trade is called a market. The original form of trade was barter, the direct exchange of goods and services.

Gifting: A gift or present is the transfer of something, without the need for compensation that is involved in trade. A gift is a voluntary act which does not require anything in return. Even though it involves possibly a social expectation of reciprocity, or a return in the form of prestige or power, a gift is meant to be free.

Very disappointed here Toni that you resorted to semantics. I woke up today and after our chat yesterday I was hoping to read something more along the lines of an apology.

I even mentioned that the 'tech trading' rule obviously includes gifting.

Your strategy in this game, if you like, IS smart diplo.

At a time when Portugal reigned supreme you isolated her very effectively (along with AI English).

Even the Germans were encouraged by you to halt Portugal and gifting them Civil Service was a master stroke. Then it was brilliant diplo by Frank to fool me/Portugal into thinking that he was still researching CS for both of us (I didn't noticed it on the FA). That's when I lost the lead.

Portugal, the big leader, was now cut down to size AND with NO ally at all until America stepped in later.

In the mean time Toni's Dutch are building up a tech pact with Ethiopia, Byzantine ans Native Americans. This made full sense and tech trading with this pac t was very tightly restricted; often totally refused. Fair enough.

This pact extends to include the Inca and the Romans - 6 civs.

This is a very nice safe situation for the Dutch, who are geographically in the centre of this circle of civs, to defend minimally, run Pacifism and tech out. With the Inca teching just as well they became the two top civs.

Good diplo. But Frank brought down his Portuguese neigbour and risked all to change world history (the game dynamics) - a brave move. It was a good diplo story. It also made sense at the game mechanics level. He continued to make plans with Russia to further bring down Portugal and allow a land grab.

However the rest of the Dutch pact continue to cooperate, serving the common purpose.

I'm not being sarcastic here. All of this is legitimate clever diplo, particularly on the part of Toni's Dutch.

All along the Dutch were also bolstering up a 7th civ, Russia, who under lz's leadership built the world's biggest army. The Portuguese had no choice but to match it, costing us greatly in expenses in having to carry a huge army for centuries now.

Possibly Russia also received favourable tech exchanges under lz and Mr L's leadership.

The Dutch even traded Guilds to the Portuguese for two happy resources as a 'favour' in Portugal's hour of need.

The Inca were so gravely concerned for Portugal's safety that Feudalism was on offer, but refused.

All clever stuff from the Dutch bloc.

Then Russia runs as AI with the world's biggest army.

Russia becomes more threatening to Germany and the Islamic Empire is born - America, Germany and Portugal.

The Russian AI receive tech gifts and maybe other assistance from the Dutch - depends what was said in the diplo screen between Toni and the AI.

Russia gets cheap upgrades to tech units that the Islamics do not even have.

Now, putting aside the 'tech trading with AI' confusion, let's say that Toni (who I believe should have known better) did this with a human led Russia and let's carry on.

With a human leader Russia may even become the 7th civ in the Dutch defensive pact.

Wow. What a coup!

Up to SEVEN CIVS in effectively ONE PACT in an ELEVEN PLAYER DIPLO GAME where another civ, the English is also AI.

This leaves THREE Islamic nations isolated and burdoned with the costs of running the world's biggest armys (after Russia).

---

Now, let's get back to Frank's points.

With solid intelligence about Toni's support of our enemy, Russia.

AND solid intelligence about the wealth and lack of preparedness for war in the Dutch bloc.

AND a massive Islamic army....

How smart does Dutch diploing look now?

---


Please read the above as honest comment and I'm sorry if I upset anyone. I do still believe however that rules or coverntions about good form have been broken. But that asaide I think we can continue and I hope all can accept that whatever follows is a part of the story resulting from diplomatic efforts and blunders.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, for the record. I have "Gifted" a single tech to Russia as an AI & I did NOT seek him out to do this-he came to me. Now some of you 'Crazy Brave' types might have been in a position to refuse his 'request/demand', but I didn't think I could risk a rapid cooling in our relations at that point. Also for the record, the only thing I gave him was Divine Right-AFTER one of the key Wonders for that tech had already been built. As it gives no other advantage, I saw it as being a very small price to pay to keep an erratic AI placated. If I have broken the rules, then I do apologise. Rest assured that I would never have gifted the AI a tech like Chem or Feudalism-not because of RULES, but because it would have been the start of the longest act of suicide ever committed .

Aussie_Lurker.

[deity]

Originally posted by Toni
So whats you ladder name Frank

Sorry nothing personal at least on my end just had to ask - its fun

Toni, you keep trying to dismiss Frank as a ladder player but he has played 15 diplo games. In the first one I was in he was straight in to characterisation and story telling.

And as I've posted I think his diplo style, much to my in-game disadvantage, is possibly more appropriate and realistic than many other styles...

---

In Sid's earlier civ manuals it even says you can say in-game insulting things and some of Franks bluster is along these lines. But I agree that OOC personal attacks are not on but in the context of King Chat it is hard to differentiate some times so let's leave King Chat in KC.

[deity]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
OK, for the record. I have "Gifted" a single tech to Russia as an AI & I did NOT seek him out to do this-he came to me. Now some of you 'Crazy Brave' types might have been in a position to refuse his 'request/demand', but I didn't think I could risk a rapid cooling in our relations at that point. Also for the record, the only thing I gave him was Divine Right-AFTER one of the key Wonders for that tech had already been built. As it gives no other advantage, I saw it as being a very small price to pay to keep an erratic AI placated. If I have broken the rules, then I do apologise. Rest assured that I would never have gifted the AI a tech like Chem or Feudalism-not because of RULES, but because it would have been the start of the longest act of suicide ever committed .

Aussie_Lurker.

Glad to see this post Aussie.

Your gifting to Russia to alleviate your concerns is understandable and it also gives you a strategic advantage that allowed you to more easily attack England and less likely that Russia would attack Ethiopia/Dutch.

Did anyone doing this 'talk' to the AI to attack Germany or Portugal?

Toni's gifting of a serious Military Tech to Russia AI is clearly giving grief to the Germans/Portuguse/Islamics that isolates any Islamic threat - another strategic advantage to the Dutch bloc.