New diplo game: big discussion needed

[Rasputin]

Jon.

BtP was dominated by 3 nations from very early on . Khmer and Portugul were always going to be the pwoerhouses because of the gret players behind them. rome was surrounded by people who could have done sometihng but left it too late.

I think sometimes people think DIplo is about avoiding wars. It has never been that to me. it is a chance for the weaker palyers to have fun , because the other nations should be waging war with the top guys and posting brillaint stories of deception.

One of the big problems with civ is everyone wants to grow their nation, this means they feel they are never ready to take action against another. or hoping osmeone else wil ldo it and in meantime they can slip up the ranks.

I would love to see a DIPLO game with no INGAME victory. let the rankings be decided by a voting system with no in game score.

But alas i feel that wont happen.



--------------------------

Also Jon. as i said, i posted my honest answer for leaving inthe BtP game, it was just antoher Civ game not feeling like a DIPLO. The big nations were getting bigger and by that stage the evnetual winner of INGAME and the runenrs up were all inthe top positions., Never to be challenged.

While people wont try and do sometihng it ruins the game for me. I tried to geet a groupd of people to attack the romans and faild to do so. Once this plan was thwarted i had notihng else to do.

So if that is not a good enough reason then so be it.

I dont join games to win, but to play. But it is not playing when there is little to do in each turn.

[Black Knight 427]

This is just my observation from the short time I played with you but I think your problem is that you try to set things up to go your way and when it back fires you flip out and dont want to play anymore. Ok I get noone did anything to the top players but at the same time there was not much that could be done due to how long it took to get anywhere. Maybe if the map was smaller you would have had a chance to pull off what u wanted but the map was too big and it was not in anyones real interest to get involved in a war that early on. Just look what happened to greece maya and persia when they tried to invade. Maya and greece took forever to get to rome and by the time they did rome was already far more advanced and where able to take them out and without any help persia was crippled. I think that if we play with 16-18 players a smaller map then BTP would make for a much more interesting game.

[Rasputin]

not true at all . whilst it would take a long time to get from greece and korea and even japajn to rome. it is the mere act of sending people that would have made the game interesting.

but as i said , i am happy to not play if my idea for diplo is not same as evertyone else.

I dontwant to play a game where for example. Portugul decide that it is better to not invade rome because they are looking to expand into another continent.

this decision caused the eventual winner to continue uninhibited. And i know Portugul want the only one who could have done something.

So as i said, if we planning on playing the smae sort of game again where every individual is so focused on his own future and not that of the big picture i would simply prefer to play SP.

But if we going to get a game where the larger nations are willing to take risks and perhaps be crushed themselves or lose oppurtunitys then i am in.

I am aware 99% of you do not play the way i do.

[Robert]

Then be daring and provide an answer to the rest of us.

Robert may be master of Poly but he does not control the World.

Exactly, not to mention of course that it won't be that difficult to convince me. I'm just trying to make it clear that to me it's important that people finnish the game.

[Robert]

Rasputin: once again, you left the game when I was about to invade Rome with my fleet. You also knew it, b/c I had been pm'ing with the Oldonians about it.

[Toni]

You had a ridiculously good start in the last game, you must be confusing things.

Ozzy i think you are the confused one, if you are talking about the game i played Holland please pause for a sec and think. Yes my capital had good land - i was talking about the land around it.

I was even told by some one that your purposefully did that. I have no idea why you are trying to argue with me - i am not trying to push or cry about it. Just stating the facts - you can at least be honest about it...

[Toni]

@ Raz

I dont want to play a game where for example. Portugul decide that it is better to not invade rome because they are looking to expand into another continent.

I am not sure what you are trying to imply here Raz. But what is wrong about looking after your civ interest? We are playing Diplo which is suppose from what i understand to mimic real world politics. So you have civ A with two choices:

1. Work to build a realible relation with your immediate neighbor and thus secure your borders and focus on growing and expanding your civ.

Or

2. Attack your only realible friend, because someone on the other side of the continent wants you to do so. Doing this you risk your civ's future and security.

Raz which leader in his right mind will do such a thing? Yes it is boring amd safe- but i have a civilization to look after. And do not forget Rome (Priest) has some darm good diplomatic skills.

[Heraclitus]

It is also bizarre that when I joined BtP Rome was way behind Portugal and Khmer and fighting it out with Greece for 3rd place with Maya coming up close behind. Was Rome ever really top dog?

Being 3rd place in a game of 18 is top dog. I meant top dog as in great power or superpower.


PS Later a much better player than I am managed to make Rome the top power.

[Heraclitus]

@ Raz



I am not sure what you are trying to imply here Raz. But what is wrong about looking after your civ interest? We are playing Diplo which is suppose from what i understand to mimic real world politics. So you have civ A with two choices:

1. Work to build a realible relation with your immediate neighbor and thus secure your borders and focus on growing and expanding your civ.

Or

2. Attack your only realible friend, because someone on the other side of the continent wants you to do so. Doing this you risk your civ's future and security.

Raz which leader in his right mind will do such a thing? Yes it is boring amd safe- but i have a civilization to look after. And do not forget Rome (Priest) has some darm good diplomatic skills.

+1

[St Jon]

@ Raz. I don't see how you can have a game without a winner or you end up with something like that 'Never Ending Stories' on CFC. You have to play to win in any game or there is no point in even trying. If you really want a boring game then abolish in-game victory and nobody will do anything.

Also a big point which is missed in all this 'what is Diplo' about debate is that the results are often much the same in pbem. You grow and do a little early game skirmishing and then things tend to settle down. You tend more to form 'power-blocks' which effectively rule out open warfare as the costs become so immense and the risks far too great. Every block will have nukes so even that option disappears and diplomacy becomes the only option. You have 3 power-blocks and only 2v1 will work but everyone is terrified of betrayal! Even the weak players survive because they are somebody's friend. Sooner or later though somebody has to have the courage to go for broke and attack or you end up with a situation where a clock alone determines victory.

In-game skill must be rewarded or the whole thing becomes pointless.

[Rasputin]

I dont have the abiltiy to beat you all in MP so i never play normal MP.

But based on what you describe i see no difference between any MP game of civ and your idea of Diplo. As you say even the PBEM games are played same way.

Early on in DIPLO development it had been stated that DIPLO was for all to play regardless of ability. IT was a big selling point of DIPLO. No ladder games, no one cared who was the greatest etc. Even Ozzys original DIPLO FAQ claimed Diplo was good for newbies etc.

If DIPLO is still about winning then you need to ensure you have an equal amount of good players in the game. I gues sthat why so many moan about htere starting location as they know a good start is hard to beat. Once you fall behind takes a great player to come back

Every civ game i ever played in has been won by one of the top 3 from early in game, never seems to be anyone else. So DIPLO was made to make people who couldnt get into the top positions be able to play.

I am sorry to have wasted your time by saying i wanted to play, thegame you are goinf t ohave is not the game i want to be in

I gues this is why i left the first one. and so would easily leave another if it was played the same.


When game playing is only limed to those who bleeive they can win then the fun is remvoed from the game. That is how i feel. I dont compete well so i dont fight battles or arguments i will lose.



But it is all ok. I will move over and accept my dream of a game is just that a dream and not every ones cup of tea.

You guys win i remvoe my name from list.

[Toni]

Raz:

I have no idea what you are trying to say – you even do not counter my posting from above. We have the voting system which takes care of what you fear the most I guess. Here is the best example that I can give you and you got nothing to throw at it.

Portugal/Toni

Yes I am an above average skilled player. Me and you have something in common I hope you are following me here:

You are a much better Story/ Role player then me; I am a better civ player then you. But what is the difference? Well the difference is that I can never win a diplo game in the current format due to the lack of my skills of writing great stories like you, CS, Rome, Capo, Ozzy etc. Our game is decided from the score table that we have after each voting round, which focuses much more on rewarding players will skills to write and tell their civs stories and military achievements.

I am good at only two things game and diplomacy…

Knowing that I can not win the game I still play it, because at least I enjoy the pure game and always try sticking it in the top middle pact of the rankings.

I THINK your greatest problem is that you are too biased to the score table and who wins (this is funny because you always say that you do not care who wins). I still remember the countess times that you have said in the past that you love writing stories and role playing, well no one is stopping you from it. You will earn good scores for those categories. I will get some points for diplomacy and score I guess.

I just can’t understand your problem here Raz!!

You make us believe that you love the format – our game allows you to enjoy what you love most stories, characters and diplomacy. Now all the sadden you dislike that some of us have different straights and you hate us from benefiting from them.

AGAIN this is Diplo a mirror to the REAL WORLD – we try to play real civs and the way they will behave…..

[St Jon]

@Raz. I really do not understand you at all here. If you are to reward story-telling then where do your stories come from? You cannot write endless tales of the glories of your newest Aquaduct. If you are to reward Diplomacy then you have to have plots and plans against somebody. Why do you have a Military category at all if you are never going to go to War?

I am sorry Raz, but you cannot have a pacifist game of civ. You can put limits on the impacts of War, you can, hopefully, avoid people being wiped out and hideously one-sided conflicts but that is about all. BtP failed on the last count as No.3 and No.4 ganging up on a distant No.5 should have been stopped in its' tracks. A good trick to pull in 'Kill or Be Killed' but outrageous in a supposedly 'different' type of Game.

[Toni]

Jon i fully agree with you, seems we all can't understand what Raz wants.

Early on in DIPLO development it had been stated that DIPLO was for all to play regardless of ability. IT was a big selling point of DIPLO. No ladder games, no one cared who was the greatest etc. Even Ozzys original DIPLO FAQ claimed Diplo was good for newbies etc.

And that is what we had we had players with different abilities start the last Diplo. Some were stronger playing the game, some better writers, some better at diplomacy. What more do you want i just don't get you Raz!

and

When game playing is only limed to those who bleeive they can win then the fun is remvoed from the game. That is how i feel. I dont compete well so i dont fight battles or arguments i will lose.

A ridiculous statement Raz, 18 players started the game. All with their different straigths and weaknesses. That is why we have the scoring system to reward each one fairly. You come forward saying that you can't fight battles, well big deal try focusing where you are strong. I just can't understand why you constantly stress the negatives, yes the game is not perfect, BUT so is the world, your life, my life and everyone's else!!!

[Pitboss Greece]

St.Jon: BtP failed on the last count as No.3 and No.4 ganging up on a distant No.5 should have been stopped in its' tracks.

Which war was that?

Rasputin has a very puristic role-playing idea of diplogaming.
personally I am more a game-and-role-playing person. Game playing is defenitely different from normal games. I mean, why would my army march all the way to portugal without first seizing the Oldonians and the Wyandots? I could have easily done that, but I didn't.

Rome could have grabbed Russia and the Wyandots, but it didn't happen.
It's a combination of everything. But gameplaying is also a part of it. The game is important and it's not bad to be willing to be good at the game. Every nation in history wanted to be glorious and awesome. Not all nations succeeded though.