Tweet
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.
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.
Yes... This seems acceptable.
So. These are the only rules supposed to be added for the next diplogame?
So in basis.
1. Alliances MUST have an ingame base (as suggested), and MUST be referenced in the story thread.
2. Tech trading is limited to Allies AND far behind civs. (bottom 3)
3. Top 3 on scoreboard may not Ally with eachother.
-I favor this because it creates a very interesting dynamic.
If one player is in the top 3, allied with for example player 4, then the top player will have an interest to NOT let nr.4 rise on the scorechart. Which is most certainly not in the interest of nr.4 who wants to do better. As such, stronger nations will immediately feel hostility towards rising powers, which is extremely realistic and highly dynamic gamewise.
Now there are problems such as the scoreboard not being a perfect analysis of power and that it may be manipulated, but in reality, players will try to do their best, that is the main point of the game, and as such keeping yourself down just to stay allied is highly counterproductive, it would then be more productive to break the alliance and seek new bedfellows. This is what the game needs.
I also strongly favor anonymity because even though it is imperfect, and we will try to guess who is who, we can never be certain unless the player in question confirms it and that would obviously not happen. In that respect I would suspect that Player A is deity, cause the style of play resembles him and his story seem deity-ish, but I can't be sure that it is, cause maybe, just maybe it is Aussie_Lurker adopting deity's successful strategy from previous games and writing stories in a way that is atypical for him but similar to someone else... and so on. And furthermore, I would not attempt consciously to discover who it is, I will relate to the Empire first and foremost, not the player. All communication will be IC, which can ONLY be good.
And as for my Ethiopian "friends"
I wanted to settle there but realized I could never pull it off, it was too far away and the English kept threatening me for expanding east (they were strong then and I was weak). But my posturing made it seem as I had given something in sacrifice and could request something in return. At the same time I knew the English wished to settle there and that they would be hostile towards you, so letting you settle there soured your relationship with them, I had hoped to the point of war, whereupon I would take sides (most likely with Ethiopia) and gain from that. I did not consider hostilities with Ethiopia, but you not knowing that was of great value to me. Devious? Me? 
Comment