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

[Robert]

This is the last autosave.

[Beta]

I respectfully request that we go back one turn to start next week. No disrespect intended Robert, but I did not want to declare peace with you. Not sure what happened. I intended to simply exit the screen - as per my dialogue which politely refused your request. A neighbour showed up knowking at the the door at the same time, and my dog started barking - so there was chaos here.

Rome does not declare peace that easily.

[Robert]

Beta, it's hard for me to respond to your request, because it concerns me, thus I can't be qualified as 'objective' or 'neutral'.

Having said that, I think that we should never reload or load a few turns earlier because someone made a mistake. I would love to reload 8 turns earlier, because I dropped and the AI gave me a civic switch.
Deity would love to reload 15 turns earlier because something simular happened to me.
Not to mention the many wrong trades I have made, wrong moves I made with armies, etc.

If we start to reload for every error someone makes.... it'll have no end.

Not to mention that 2 war turns have passed since your mistake. If we load earlier, those war turns have to be redone, and the outcome can be different. That would be not fair.

I think that you should find an in-game story reason for your peace. That sucks, but I think that making mistakes is a part of diplogaming.

I understand that it sucks for you, I really do! You had the intention to make a landfall on my continent. (in a cruel hitler-style, btw. telling me that you consider peace, while you factually are sending an army!!! that's cruel! but also awesome for that reason but don't call the great prophet a tyrant anymore :P) and now you can't attack me because a just created peace treaty.

And now you even made it worse by telling me that you want war anyway, so you give me 8 turns to setup enough defense. (which is not so difficult).

Once again, I'm not neutral in this issue, but I nevertheless think that we should never reload a couple of turns earlier because of a personal in-game mistake.

But you're free to go to war with me in 8 turns 8)
I hope you have a good in-game story for that though, and I hope that you'll choke up on Education I gave you for nothing

[Toni]

Well reading this i i'm a bit worried that CS doesn't want to load the last save - Beta made peace the turn we saved i think. Even if its two turns should be ok with ppl. After all CS is using Beta's mistake (Which was an accident) to save his civ which is for me not fair to the game and using game mechanics to help his civ out. As we all read Beta shared with us why he did what he did in that moment. Now the mistakes which CS and Deity did are very different i had the same thing happen to me couple of sessions ago but they are minor thinks compare to this.

Beta's very different he has been planning his invasion for a couple of sessions now only to learn that due to confusion while having a neighbour stop by he pressed cease fire.

If i remember correctly we have been loading games for very little things in the pass Diplos - like people dropping and having Ai change civs. CS, Deity (2x) and me never requested an reload when change of govs happened.

I see Beta making an official request even before the start of the next session.

I fear this is a game breaker issue if we do not load that save.

Maybe i'm missing something but i believe strongly that a load should be done - after all wasn't Frank telling us that we got warriors and axes as sentries. Now that it turns that it wasn't only us (me) why seek the defence of a none save load to cover our a...ss

Well this was my input

[condor223]

It would be good to have the chance to fix something, but remember, it is the islamics with the three huge stacks beating the heck out of ill prepared smaller civs.(one at a time)

Im wishing for a balance. Jihading everyone one at a time, three against one with an army at the door is THE game breaker. Even with ten on the other group, it is still possible to play this like a ladder game and take out every civ before we get to modern era.

Guess we are doing ladder style these days.
Nolz.

[Robert]

@Toni: you do what I try to refrain from, argument from in-game reasons to load or not load the game. My argument is from non-in-game reasons: just never reload because of mistakes. Making a mistake is a part of the game.

@Condor: No, it's not ladder-style. In no ladder game any civ could ever avoid war by just only switching religion, like Russia did. So far the Jihadists didn't take any city. Not to matter that I don't see how there's an inballance if on our continent 3 Islam civs are fighting 5 non-islam civs, all at the same time.

So far I'm the only one who's facing 7 opponents! (SEVEN!!!)

[deity]

Look, several players accidentally revolted and a few other things.

My revolt was a disaster and occurred for similar reasons to Beta's - household/family issues etc. I lost much from this at a critical time bur we payed on and I don't ask to go back. Nor did Frank or Toni when they had accidental revolts.

I totally agree with Cyber (for totally out of ghame reasons)

[deity]

Originally posted by Toni

If i remember correctly we have been loading games for very little things in the pass Diplos - like people dropping and having Ai change civs.

CS, Deity (2x) and me never requested an reload when change of govs happened.

We have NEVER gone back in time. Not sure I follow you here Toni? You seem to be supporting my sentiments here.

[deity]

So Beta, you accidentally traded peace for Education?

Not bad.

How about you guys get a decent story happening instead of freaking out about game mechanic/human errors...

[deity]

Actually I think I can trade a few techs for you.

My god, you guys have got 7 civs against three. How about an explanation. We tried to make a good jihad story.

I can't understand why Beta and Arvcran plus perhaps Asmo didn't form a bit of a pact and instead decided to "team up", to use Arvcran's words, with Nolan, Toni, Marcus AND RUSSIA!

Wake up to yourselves!

[condor223]

Who is to say that there were NOT casual alliances and partnerships, which became ::required:: to a formal alliance in order to stay alive and not have lost the game. If I'm reading the story properly, three very experienced civs joined and planned for several weeks on the course of action.

Those you mentioned are either new or not quite equal in strength to the Jihadic three. Justinian will take a missionary, but now never ever will change religion. You can attack and take every city, for I feel steamrolled by a massive force, which is not quite in the diplo style.

I will remain neutral as long as possible, but show up in Byzantium.. take it all, for I will be done with this game. It seems more an issue of gang up and get toni. Even he is not allowed to change religion for peace, but has to give his best city, since he started in the desert. We all considered our option to change religion, but the ultimatum to the leader of the time required him to give up the lead with a points drop due to the triad's demand. If he does not get a talented player to sub for him, I guess you all will eat his civ in a month's time.. remember the nuking that was started in one game when he was away? I agree with his decision to not continue playing since so much was destroyed. I even gave up my chance for a diplo win that time, since I'd built the UN.

After this game I think I need a diplo game break. Its far too intense these days and also seems to be a get toni issue since hes a strong player. It is truly difficult to play this particular game because of the variance in players skill. When three very talented players gang up on the others, you cant expect them to stand still and be eaten one at a time. at least not without a fight.

Nolz

[Robert]

I will remain neutral as long as possible, but show up in Byzantium..

Neutral as in: "being a vassal of the dutch"?

[condor223]

My anguish is not being able to help my VERY distant allies... who are definetly on the Islamic hit list. It is only a matter of time before I have no allies. This game is broken... distance of the original 4 allies is against the small civs. The small civs are also small for a reason, they were able to take as much land as skill allowed. I know it is so in my case. I might have a military production with a larger land mass/ With decent warring skills, and such as the Russian Army, have no chance when ganged up by three strong military players. So now there will be 4 armies to wipe the rest of us off the map.

Count the cities of the triad vs the one at a time smashing of the less adept players! It is unfair. We can't even help them, so everything is ultimately frustrating and one sided. It is the unfairness of the situation that makes me hurt.

It doesnt matter if its 20 vs the triad, mostly cause there is no way one can assist them if they are attacked by three massively militaristic civs. It takes me 14 turns to get a unit to Russia.. by then three other civs will have fallen. I am very much frustrated with the way lesser players are handicapped in this diplo game. Its less a diplo than a steamroller.

[condor223]

Neutrality means there is NO way to help my distant neighbors. It means I'd better keep my units cause Im going to be the next on the list.

The agreement with Cyber was just that.. ONE person, so the other two have none. I can be attacked by the other two civs in the triad, tricked into not keeping my own civ growing, tricked into not helping neighbors..

Yes I'm neutral, I cant do anything but sit and watch everyone go down. / Getting three strong players allied dooms the small guys.. and soon the 3v6 peaceful alliance turns into a 6 v 3 military take over of the whole world.

[Robert]

Just for the record, I'm not a strong civ. I may be one of the weakest civs, actually.

And it's not hard to avoid your doom, just adopt Islam, and we'll let you live in peace