Beyond the Pit [Pitboss Diplomacy Game] [Organization Thread IV]

[Pitboss Khmer]

I think Sparta, Portugal (plus Spain) and Rome (plus Russia) are effectively loosely allied by this and other arrangements/allegiances.

That's 2nd, 3rd, & 4th. This is not responsible to the game IMHO.

You way over-estimate Khmer, especially when Rome's and Portugal's military are both higher than Khmer's! Let alone adding Sparta.

BTW Defensive Pacts ARE alliances. I seem to remember reading about a farcical situation in another game because of this.

Also, note that the Khmer has a Defensive Pact with the HRE!! And strong friendships with non-top powers.

Khmer refuses to trade or open borders with the top three powers to keep game balance.

The Khmer has way helped America, Celts, Funglish and even Metals; and even negotiated responsibly with Spain without attacking them when they were vulnerable. And as a result Spain made Incan gains with no pains.

Half the world signs an anti-emancipation pact just as the Mayan strategic route to Democracy is made.

Go figure guys.

AND Khmer and Maya ONLY trade techs and we are just friends.

So at least in the tech co-operating stakes Khmer works with a non-top power. We could easily switch to Portugal but we don't. BTW, credit to Portugal for working with Spain though - that was good and keeps Khmer on her toes. Oh yes, I better add that it's good that Sparta helps Japan and Rome helps Russia

[Pitboss Greece]

Uh, yeah, I meant Khmer when I said Maya.

Oh well, like I said, I think you guys make this pact too big.
It's not as if Sparta and Portugal can defence each other anyway. We're almost at opposite positions of the world.

I'm fine with cancelling the defence pact if you guys want that.

The anti-emancipation alliance has nothing to do with this.

[Pitboss Spain]

Well considering that Greece is not in the top 3, we did not even discuss that. think the issue at play is the anti emancipation treaty that many nations have signed, but if it get bigger, , then it could be called a loose alliance of alliances, and I don't really see anything wrong with that. Each game is different, so it woul be good to see what happens with such a proposal.

[Pitboss Rome]

Well I disagree strongly

Well I disagree with most of what has been said here about alliances and pacts. As far as I can see its misguided and self-serving (in character).

Let’s look at the facts. When I came onboard in about 400 the top five nations were: Khmer, Portugal, Rome, Sparta and Maya. They have remained the top five for the whole of the time since, with if I remember right some jockeying between Rome and Sparta for three, and the Piericians if I remember right being above the Maya while they were Lords of the Rus. But basically the top five at that early stage have remained top five ever since. THIS IS BAD.

During that time there has only been one serious attempt to change these positions and that was an alliance between Sparta, Maya, Piercia and Russia to attack Rome. That is nations 4, 5, 6 and 10 attacking number 3. Good for them. OK they failed, but that only proves the point more strongly – there is no way we are going to chance the positions on the score chart without major aggressive alliances between major powers.

The question is: do people want a game in which the leaders at 400 AD remain leaders throughout? I say NO. I want change. I want the rise and fall of empires. Otherwise what’s the point? We all log on each day and do a bit of building, and watch the Portuguese and Khmer pull further ahead? Currently there is the same gap between nation 1 and 3 as there is between 7 and 17! Voltans help the tail but don’t challenge the leaders. Only war does that, and war against leaders needs alliances.

Put it this way. If we carry on as we are, particularly if we ban leading countries forming alliances, does anyone think there is the slightest possibility that the Portuguese, Khmer (and Rome – this isn’t personal) will NOT end up in the top positions in score? Why should we be making rules or putting moral pressure on nations to ensure the leading countries carry on leading? That doesn’t help the game, it just helps those countries who have climbed to the top of the pile make sure they stay there forever.

How is it going to be possible for the Khmer to lose their top spot? Not saying they ought to – the Khmer seem nice (ooc) and clearly are a good player. But there should be the real possibility, else why play. So what will it take? Its not going to be an alliance of nations 7 to 14 is it? It would take something like an aggressive alliance of nations 2 and 4. They might – just might – do it, though like then nations 4,5,6 and 10 tied to attack me (3) it isn’t at all certain.

So good for you Portugal and Sparta – but I have one criticism. You said it was defensive only. Which starts to sound like just a way of you solidifying positions 2 and 4. Step up as the only nations (alongside me) with the power to challenge the Khmer and go for it. If you win, top spot changes which is good for the game. If you lose, spots 2 and 4 might change, which would be good for the game. Either way – the game wins. It only loses if we discourage alliances and so spots 1 to 5 continue for ever as they were in 400.

Of course we can all think of things which wouldn’t be good. Nations 1 and 2 clubbing together to extend their lead, or pick off smaller nations. And praise to the Portuguese and Khmer for not doing this (though they seemed to find a happy accommodation in New Portugal).

So I say - we want more alliances between nations in spots 1 to 5 – against each other. We want the fall of empires currently in spots 1 to 5, and we want the rise of others. The Powerful always want stability, change is the hope of the underdogs.

(and before people try to argue it – the only defensive pact I have is with the Russians – and yes I have an accommodation with the Wynadot and the Portuguese. Should I be attacking the Portuguese? Perhaps, but currently if I do, it just means that Khmer extend their lead even more, so it wouldn’t help game balance. And yes I know you can look at things other than score – one person looks at armies, and the other looks at tech. On armies Rome is doing well, in tech we are crap compared to the leaders. And of course that is linked – its because we have had to fight wars we are behind in tech. If leading countries pursue tech and neglect their army they should be attacked – that’s civ – not allowed to argue ooc that nobody with the strength to challenge them should be allowed to).

[Pitboss H Roman]

January votes from HRE are in CS.

As to this alliance matter - I am Ok with the alliances so far. Besides - the last time I looked at CS's spreadsheet, neither the Khmer nor the Portuguese were in first place. Ending up first in score in this game only gets you 25% of the points.

I also have faith in the top players that that they will not abuse an overly powerful alliance - I think all understand the 'principles' of the diplo game.

And I agree with a lot of what Rome says (great post, btw) - that change is good, etc etc. It may just not happen in the way we all expect.

And my last point - this game still has a loooooong way to go. What may look like an unassailable alliance today may be gone in a millennium. I think change will happen.

And for the record, I am enjoying my building and jockeying for position and land, AND reading the drama unfolding across the sea.

[Pitboss Khmer]

ic what a load of cr@p Rome

ooc Excellent post Rome. And takes HRE to knock sense into Khmer

Seriously though, the main thing is trusting players to be responsible to the game and in the end it is a judgement call so fair enough - no point arguing. Plus Spain has a point too. The ic nature of Sparta's anti-emancipation is excellent and thank god not a rule being discussed in this thread.

[Pitboss Rome]

Seriously though, the main thing is trusting players to be responsible to the game

Quite agree, and its good for us all to be reminded of this occasionally.

[Pitboss Khmer]

Uh, yeah, I meant Khmer when I said Maya.

Oh well, like I said, I think you guys make this pact too big.
It's not as if Sparta and Portugal can defence each other anyway. We're almost at opposite positions of the world.

I'm fine with cancelling the defence pact if you guys want that.

The anti-emancipation alliance has nothing to do with this.

No, don't cancel it.

We risk interferring with the organic development of the game.

[The Capo]

I tend to take a stand-offish approach in these matters.

I like to limit the amount of "rules" in diplogames, as I think it interferes with the natural progression of things. I would have been AGAINST putting limits on alliances based on the positions of players in the score-list.

So my outlook on this, obviously, will not be agreed with by many of you.

But, if I were to render an opinion based on the premise that we SHOULD inhibit top-tiered countries from allying with eachother I would say that a defensive pact certainly constitutes an alliance. I would disagree, however, with the fact that the anti-emancipation treaty constitutes an alliance. Having said that, I don't think there is a way to control either Greece's or Portugal's actions if a war were to arise. Say one of them gets attacked. Would this preclude the other from attacking the assailant? Probably not. In fact we are lucky this is public and not a secret! If it were a secret that is much worse; because the unwitting invaders would now have to deal with an enemy they didn't expect. I guess my point is this; even if they were disallowed from formally signing a defensive pact what is to stop either of them from coming to the other's aid?

And if it were the case that Portugal would be disallowed to help an invaded Greece (and vice-versa), in any circumstance, doesn't that kind of ruin the diplomatic aspect?

I do agree with the Maya though, there is too much generality, accepted practices and preferences involved in this game anyway that it probably doesn't matter in the end. I hate to beat a dead horse here, but this is yet another example of how the game isn't organized appropriately to handle these situations. Particularly when you have 18 players, and thus 18 different perspectives on an issue, it is important to have a clear-cut rule.

After all of that; I don't think there should be limits on who can or can not be allied in the first place.

[Pitboss Maya]

No, don't cancel it.

I agree.

The point of my argument was not that the pact should be cancled, but that it flew in the face of suggestions made by players who are now doing the opposite.

[Pitboss Greece]

Maya, I think that´s an unfair observation, but I will consider it anyway.
Portugal can confirm that I have (in PM) hammered on keeping things ballanced and fair.
I don´t believe that a Spartan-Portuguese defence alliance is unballancing the game.

It doesn´t prevent anything from happening. Ie. the Maya can allie with Khmer, and have an equal alliance. It´s not as if there are no possibilities for other nations to counter the Spartan-Portuguese alliance.
Not to mention that it all stands or falls in the execution of this pact.
If it´s used to wage war on the Wyandots, in example, it´s clearly disbalancing the game. But if it´s only to counter a possible Roman-Mayan invasion of either Sparta or Portugal, then it´s fair and balanced.

[Pitboss Rome]

But if it´s only to counter a possible Roman-Mayan invasion of either Sparta or Portugal, then it´s fair and balanced.

The sailors from the North won't save you once me and the jungle men get going

[Pitboss Japan]

The sailors from the North won't save you once me and the jungle men get going

My sailors would beat you and the jungle men with one hand tied behind their backs.

[Pitboss Khmer]

My sailors would beat you and the jungle men with one hand tied behind their backs.

LMAO This is hilarious and very cleverly worded.

[Pitboss Greece]

Japan, I fear that an alliance between Sparta and Japan vs Rome and Maya would not be balanced and is not acceptable by the informal game rules.
We together are simply too strong. I doubt that you can allie with any nation without growing too large. Perhaps the Inca is a possibility.

It's lonely at he top, I'm sorry for you.