Diplogame Rules and Victory Discussion

[deity]

Originally posted by Toni
Well Deity you were allied with (Lz/Kuno's friend then) all game long, and he was on the other side of the map. Maybe you should follow your own advices as well

The point i'm trying to make here is that no one is flawless,

You have to intelligently analyse this situation.

Firstly I avoid getting into your alliance because it is bad for any game. This might be tested if we start next to each other one day (not happened in diplo yet).

But if your alliance with ozzy or Kuno or Mike or Nolan or any other number of players in various combinations becomes so strong it's inevitable that I and others will be forced into long counter alliances. Otherwise it's all over.

Think about it and what actions trigger what consequences.

[deity]

Originally posted by Toni
Well Deity you were allied with (Lz/Kuno's friend then) all game long, and he was on the other side of the map. Maybe you should follow your own advices as well

Actually this is wrong Toni.

In that game, HOTW7, I was way ahead until ozzy attacked me.

Prior to his attack I'd even helped Bulgaria with free techs because you were so far behind. I had helped a few others too so as to keep things more in balance. I didn't expect any favours in return and certainly didn;t get them!

I wasn't "allied" with Lz's Vikings or Kuno or Cyber.

But when ozzy attacked me, which was mid game, and the whole world could see that ozzy and Toni as the top civs by then decided to form a counter alliance. It was not a game-long contrived alliance but story context sensitive.

BTW I am perfect in my approach

[Toni]

I agree Deity you should indeed focus intelligently on this matter and you will be able to figure it out what i ment.

There is no agreement with you - whatever i say you come back not agreeing but pointing fingures!

[deity]

So I guess a simplification of Cyber's Rules is what I think is needed. Ozzy's arguments don't cut the mustard really.

In fact ozzy seems to have gone soft on the whole issue revolving around the tech bloc/alliance/pacts problem that has occurred in ALL diplo games to date (except Civ2).

It's an over simplification to say we all just want to win. It's a matter of creating a game environment that promotes a realistic historical style.

Points system won't change this (but I'd like to use it). Rules might help a lot if we are careful about it.

[deity]

Originally posted by Toni
I agree Deity you should indeed focus intelligently on this matter and you will be able to figure it out what i ment.

There is no agreement with you - whatever i say you come back not agreeing but pointing fingures!

I have text somewhere where you and Nolan complain at length about me never allying with you. Major whining sessions!

Well, I'm just explaining why and my in game approach is consistent with a solution to the problem.

[Mr.Lincoln]

that woudl take some time..i will probably read tomorow. The reason i cannot come tomorow is i got something going on 1 and a half horus after the game starts. Assuimign wed get the regular 1 hour -30 mins delay id have no tiem at all to play with you guys

[deity]

Originally posted by Toni
Well the anonymity concept has a problem.

To use Deity's words:

It's a no brainer to figure out who is who. Even the so called Newbs (CS words) will be able to tell in no time.

Maybe we should implement some kind of a rule - that if people find out they shouldn't share with the rest of us.

I agree here Toni.

I think if we all want to make anonymity work we have to have a strict discipline.

Keeping it to 9 players is crucial I believe in making most things work.

And a reliable sub brigade that understands all of our concepts. Getting a sub in cold would seriously be an issue perhaps.

Also, I think with our diplo Apolyton logins for stories we should all write in an unidentifiable way as possible. For example get your partner or friend to write out the points you want to make. I can do that. Might have all sorts of marital harmony consequences!

[Mr.Lincoln]

speaking of HOTW 12... I am debating if A. you guys would allow me to own my own civ B. If you guys will make me be a sub or C. IF i should be a sub or not... i would enjoy some opinions about that...thanks

[Toni]

Deity yes i have a problem when u always say no working with me in Diplo (you say real world haha, think about it you are so biased from past games and ic that you automatically respond NO toni) - of course i will not wait for his lordship deity forever to change his mind - i go and find other friends and then when i win a game its whinning and whinning (how unfair i've played big block alliance blah blah same old song)

Of course now i await to see your traditional response - you are bad toni

That is why as CS said we need rules - fix this issues and then have a good game and with no fighting between players on poly

[Toni]

Rules can put the game back on track! This is the only way - we are all different and see the things differently - rules will give each and everyone of us a guideline what we can and can't do

On a different matter Ozzy said that he won't be here tomorrow to play - he will be out of town.

[deity]

Agreed.

Consensus is some rules and anonymity, yes?

Suggestions:

Assumption is no tech brokering.

* No trading of Alphabet
* Ally only with same religion (to be fair, includes pagan?)
* OR ally as per story-line construct
* Maximum tech bloc/alliances of 3 civs
* Alliance means:
1) you only have defensive pacts with 2 other civs maximum
2) you only tech trade with 2 other civs with a margin of x turns if moving to another alliance

Actually as I think about it I think it's looking unwieldy... getting a bit lost here!1

Help!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Alliances should rely on one of the following:

1. Shared Religion (including Pagan).

2. Shared Ideology (2-3 Civics identical, but at least a shared Government Civic).

3. Shared border (obviously this can easily go the other way).

4. Shared Corporate links.

5. Good Story-telling.

Obviously the more of these in common, the more an alliance makes sense. This doesn't mean players can't engage in short term co-operation (like mutual trade in techs & resources) but should exclude Defense Pacts, Vassal States & Permanent Alliances.

What do you reckon, does that sound fair?

Also, as far as tech trading goes. Techs can only be GIVEN to Civs who are clearly trailing on the leaderboard (last 3 places). Otherwise, techs must be exchanged for other techs or recieve a DECENT market rate in gold (obviously this comes down to TRUST people ). No Tech Brokering is a MUST & definitely no Alphabet trading.

What do you reckon, sound good?

Aussie_Lurker.

[deity]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Alliances should rely on one of the following:

1. Shared Religion (including Pagan).

2. Shared Ideology (2-3 Civics identical, but at least a shared Government Civic).

3. Shared border (obviously this can easily go the other way).

4. Shared Corporate links.

5. Good Story-telling.

Obviously the more of these in common, the more an alliance makes sense. This doesn't mean players can't engage in short term co-operation (like mutual trade in techs & resources) but should exclude Defense Pacts, Vassal States & Permanent Alliances.

What do you reckon, does that sound fair?

Also, as far as tech trading goes. Techs can only be GIVEN to Civs who are clearly trailing on the leaderboard (last 3 places). Otherwise, techs must be exchanged for other techs or recieve a DECENT market rate in gold (obviously this comes down to TRUST people ). No Tech Brokering is a MUST & definitely no Alphabet trading.

What do you reckon, sound good?

Aussie_Lurker.

OK, starting to make sense now.

Just not sure about being next to each other though as some will have more options than others?

Also, there is still room to fleece one alliance for techs then change to another alliance.

I want to encourage changing alliances though and not have neighbours allied all game.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, lets say "shared history" over "shared border"-though the two can sometimes be one in the same. Also, it probably isn't best to impose TOO many hard & fast rules-otherwise you lose some of the "organic nature" of the game! A good case in point is as follows: I met the Dutch around 3600BC, so we have shared a very common historical bond from almost the very start of the game-one which was cemented through the "gift" of Mysticism by me to him-which of course gave me a good storyline angle for our future bond. By contrast, I met the Russians not long after that, but our relationship almost went very sour because I founded Addis Adiba where the Russians had intended to place a city. Only some fast talking diplomacy got us around these initially sour relations, but even today I wouldn't call our nations "Bosom Buddies" !
As for the Americans & the Germans, well I didn't meet them until VERY late indeed, so we share absolutely no common bonds-further accentuated by our very different religious practices. Thus, my relations within the game are entirely dictated by the 'Rules' we set out above, even though the rules didn't even exist in a formal sense . Personally I don't see why we can't all play this way .

[deity]

let's see what Cyber comes up with...