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

[Robert]

jon; the symbols I used show the difference. Please all try to find out if that what you think that I am doing wrong perhaps is correct after all

I am extremely evil and may do terrible things with animals and have an unnatural lust for fish, I am not stupid

[Robert]

rus/rome can I login again to accept spanish peace so that metals can accept spanish vasalage without declaring war to me and japan.

[Pitboss Rome]

@Japan,

Thanks for the tone of your post and the contents.

Lets be honest, we are in a war, and so probably neither of us are talking purely from altruistic motives here. Maya joining Sparta in its war against me, would of course have been in your interersts; them doing this deal with me has helped me protect against Spartan invasion and so it good for me.

I guess the difference between us is whether we are starting from where we are, or going back a good 50 turns or more, to a different Mayan player. You said "But when the new player came I think he would had deserve a fair peace offer." I agree completely - the deal I gave the Maya was much more generous than the circumstances actually necessitated, and indeed didn't involve the sort of permanent capitulation the Spartans offered. As you yourself said, I tried hard to get a suitable peace with the Maya originally, but they weren't interested, came back to play one turn only when I proposed a 'Mayan stabalization pact' which would have created a Maya well stronger than Japan and many other nations. The effect of this one turn return (who knows the intention) was to scupper that option and leave me and others just in an endless war wit the Maya which I have suffered from (war wariness) for 50 turns without eliminating the Maya as I could have done at any point. And then throughout the Spartan war (when technically I was at war with the Maya still too) I haven't captured Durango despite the fact it was protected only by a single Mayan machine gun. Strategically it has been detrimental, because my route to the front line is at least 10 tiles longer because of leavng Durango intact.

Then we get a new Mayan player. Great. But I am not interested in using the Mayan weakness to force them to capitulate, nor do I want to bring them in on my side in the war (useful though it would have been), nor even to consider them on the Spartan side (perfectly reasonably Sparta was trying to woo them) since if they were on the Spartan side, Durango would have been the key frontier post between Sparta and Rome, and so would inevitably have been destroyed and Maya effectively eliminated. The proof of this of course being that since the deal Sparta has every turn attacked Durango with some force. Maya sandwiched between Sparta and Rome would have been a Maya destined to be destroyed.

So a deal which doubles the number of Mayan cities, shifts from being three isolated scattered cities to, six with overlocking border in almost every case.

OK I agree that if you think what should have happened is that we look back 50 turns, ignore everything that happened then, and has happened since, and make the deal that the Mayan should have made back then, of course then this deal isn't great. But that isn't what has happened in any other situation.

For example, Spain was shafted recently because the Spanish player left. Even though Spain had been missing turns, the indians proposed a treaty more favourable to Spain than the one which was eventually agreed (because i offered to protect the Spanish and wasn't at war with sparta). But with the chaos/absence of the Spainish player that treaty wasn't signed, events move on, and by the time a new spanish player came (just a few turns later, not 50) the best treaty availabe was worse. Nobody thinks that Ozzy and others should have been obliged to offer to the new Spanish player the deal that could have been struck earlier by the previous player. Life moves on. So Ozzy offered the Spain a good, fair deal, given the situation at the time.

Similarly the Japanese take over of Piercia (not all peaceful in fact) and stealing of technologies etc. was of course bad news for nearby moderate/weak nations such as the Wynadot and Russians. But with a new player we just get on with it from where we are. Indeed Japan is a vassal of Sparta because the chaos of the previous Japan's players ending left Japan in such a weak position in the first turn when you started, that you accepted Sparta's deal. Previously the Inca were completely destroyed by their neighbours because they werent' active. We didn't find a new Inca player when there was one city left and then claim that their neighbours should give back all the cities.

What I have deduced from all of this, as a first-time player, is that most of the values like faieness we have relate in effect to the player not the nation - its about ensuring none of the other players has their fun ruined. A new player starts from where they are. I for one am always keen that new players get kind introductions, but they have taken it on from where it is. Similarly once a nation doesn't have a player, we accept different values being applied (e.g. no complaints about the Inca, PIercians or Koreans being eliminated).

I tihnk it is certainly debateable whether this is best for the game. But, what I was doing was following this pattern which seems to be the pattern established in this game. Indeed, my offer to the Maya was far more generous than they or others like them have been offered by others.

[Pitboss Rome]

rus/rome can I login again to accept spanish peace so that metals can accept spanish vasalage without declaring war to me and japan.

I don't know. My preference is that we do stick properly to the rule that once we end turn, the turn is ended. If there is some diplomacy you would like to do, do it next turn. But we have never phrased it precisely like this - normally we have talked about 'moves' though its an amiguity we would be good to remove since it can be crucial (e.g. you are attacked, do what you can in your move. End turn. A friend offers to give you money. You want to log in again and accept the money and use it to upgrade troop. Can you or not?).

However, to say that seems begruding in this case (though Sparta at war for an extra turn is always a good thing). And of course in neither Russia nor me have moved yet, it doesn't affect turn order.

So i guess I don't mind if you do, but there is probably an issue there to be tightened up to avoid problems when it does matter.

[Robert]

but there is probably an issue there to be tightened up to avoid problems when it does matter.

What counts here is that people have to be honourable.
But if people aren't honourable then there are much better ways to cheat anyway.

[Pitboss Japan]

I don't want to any longer, doesnt matter now. Maybe for future games we should talk about what anybody thinks about the "measured war" concept.

One thought about capitulation: It's actually not a bad thing to close a war-even if it includes vassalage. Being a vassal could give you protection, ensures the master that you wont backstab him during the duration and what is important: you have a chance to rebuild your nation.

BUT

This capitulation should not be in-game capitulation. I would forbid that action even if both player would agree on it. When i had capitualted it was a good move because my enemies declared war on each other and this was what allowed to make a fast peace which left my remained cities in my hand. However i was told that this vassalage is not permament and i would had never accepted if i knew otherwise.
So my point is: if your peace offer includes "capitulation" you should elaborate what do you mean and under no circumstances should it mean ingame capitulation.

[Pitboss Rome]

But here is an other matter (somewhat connected to that): sometimes i feel that we go too far with the propaganda
...
I think it's not the best for the stroy thread to have these totally different points of view
...
There is no truth here but versions of the story and i think it's unfortunate that they are this far from each other, but maybe I'm the only one who disturbed by this a bit

I think you are right here. I am not sure what can be done though, because the boundary between story and diplomacy is hard to draw, and I guess sometimes the problem comes from mistakes.

E.g. you recently posted saying that 5 Roman bombers have been destroyed in the war. This is untrue. Not a single one has been. The post was one which read like a documentary, not speaches from a leader, but the detail was false. It could be that this was deliberate (trying to make it seem like you are very successfully fighting as the underdog, whether to get votes or diplomatic support) but I guess it was a genuine mistake. Similarly you have just posted a screen shot (which therefore looks authoritarian - truth not propogranda) of Pierced Hill showing Roman forces in it claiming that this shows I lied when I said that the Russians recaptured it. In fact what I said was true. When I finished my previous turn, it was a heavily guarded Japanese city, when i logged in the next time, it was Russian with a badly wounded cossack in possession. I was gobsmacked! I had and still have no idea how it happened. Thus what I actually said was true. Of course Roman forces then moved in to help defend it, but it genuinely was captured by Russia with absolutely no knowledge or involvement of me whatsoever. Again, I guess your error was acidental since from your point of view when you logged out it was Japanese and when you then logged in again it was Russian with Roman forces there as well.

By giving those examples I am not trying to turn this into an attack on you. More just to explain (1) why I agree there is a problem and (2) to point out it might be hard to solve.

Well I do have one suggestion, and that it we shoudl get rid of the military category in voting (despite the fact Rome has done well on it). The fact is nobody knows the truth how your military has done so the voting can never be fair and I think it does encourage people to distort the truth about military situations (and leads people to think others are distorting it). If you like writing stories about war (and I do) - fine they influcence the story votes.

I think that this would help (for the next game) but I also think there is more to explore here. Although I am someone who posts a lot, i am also having more sympathy with the idea of restricting the number of posts. Very busy with work at the moment, connection problems, and meanwhile there is just a huge deluge of 'story' posts every day about me. I know that sounds like sour grapes and maybe it is, but i do now understand the problem.

[Pitboss Rome]

I don't want to [fight] any longer ...

capitulation should not be in-game capitulation.

I agree on both.

[Pitboss Japan]

E.g. you recently posted saying that 5 Roman bombers have been destroyed in the war. This is untrue.

I never said this, I think there is a misunderstanding. In that list i say that i had killed 14 troops never said anything what type they were, but in my most recent post anyone can see that in fact i did not killed any bombers. I could had lie ofc wouldnt be without precedent in war time -however i try to keep the propaganda minimal in my war reports -honestly -

. Similarly you have just posted a screen shot (which therefore looks authoritarian - truth not propogranda) of Pierced Hill showing Roman forces in it claiming that this shows I lied when I said that the Russians recaptured it.

Now this was a propaganda from me. Actually the many faces of truth. While you are right that the Russians captured it, i wouldnt had empty the city from the fear of a single cossack

About removing the military vote: i agree with you, i had suggested this in the new diplo game thread. For this game we shouldnt change the system.

[Robert]

The military strategy vote is a bit problematic indeed.
I think it's an important one though. But the 'winner' of the war should not automaticly be the 'winner' of the vote.

[Robert]

I disagree on not in-game capitulation.
Why not? It's an extremely good alternative for total annihilation. Perhaps Maya should have capitulated 40 turns ago to Rome.
A civ is still in the game, it can still write stories, gain votes, but is only tied to it's master.
It can still WIN the game! By gamescore, by in-game-victory AND by diplo-score!

Why not?
It's only pride that makes it not favourable for people to not capitulate. I do understand that.
But I think it can still be fun. I try to make things as fun as possible for Japan. Japan's opinion counts for the decisions I make. (recently I abandoned an idea b/c Japan was against it while I supported it). I give armies to Japan, I try to fund it's economy.
As a matter of fact, Japan counts in this world because it's tied to Sparta.
IMHO if Sparta wins then Japan also wins.

I've been a vassal of civs earlier as well. Nothing wrong with that.
It's way much more fun to be a vassal of a big power then be a small nations with no power at all (notice the word-trick )

If people would only accept the concept of capitulation in advance of the game, then it would be interesting.

BTW, I think there are two ways to end a capitulation-vassalage:
1. when the vassal loses 50% of it's land or population during a war.
2. If the master demands something and the vassal rejects.

But capitulation is the answer in wars that won't end.
I think that what Japan got is way better then what original (!) Maya got.

[Pitboss Japan]

It's way much more fun to be a vassal of a big power then be a small nations with no power at all .

While this might be true the permament binding is bad. I think no one should be left without power (crippled totally) nor as a permament vassal.
My reasoning: it really takes a lot from the vassalized civ's diplo options and that is what this game is mostly about.

There are two quite unrealistic way to end it:
1, losing 50% land
2, getting 50% land and pop of the master ( i tried this but your invasion of Korea screwed this up ) So if the master is big and strong then you cant do anything.

IMHO if Sparta wins then Japan also wins.

now we are both going to die anyway

[Pitboss Rome]

I never said this, I think there is a misunderstanding. In that list i say that i had killed 14 troops never said anything what type they were,

Well, ok, I can see how the table could be read like that, but if that is the meaning, then the lie is that you say your troops are riflemen and canons, while in fact you have about 12 tanks distributed between your 2 frontier cities! Now I agree with you that in-character all is fair in love and war, but you were the one saying you were disturbed by the untruths in the story thread! (and thanks for admitting the truth about Pierced Hill).

I disagree on not in-game capitulation. Why not? It's an extremely good alternative for total annihilation.

Ah but annihilation is banned! Remember 'measured war'? The only reason people would accept capitulation is because of a threat of 'non-measured war'. But since that is a threat that cannot be made (or shouldn't be), why would anyone capitulate. Don't get me wrong - it isn't banned, and you haven't done anything wrong in getting nations to capitulate, but I think we should ban it in future. My insistance over spain was no capitulation, accept peace-time vassalage but don't capitulate. Which is what has happened - peace then (non-permanent) vassalage (I am very happy to believe that this was always Ozzy's intention).

now we are both going to die anyway

I hope so. Though it doesn't look at all like that from where i sit! Probably just mutual war paranoia, though I hope you are right.

(And before anyone asks, yes Ozzy's entry did do nasty things to my computer! My problem completely - other comp. in for repair - Ozzy has to be able to log in when he wants not worry about my comp. I can't get back now, will play this evening).

[Pitboss Japan]

Well, ok, I can see how the table could be read like that, but if that is the meaning, then the lie is that you say your troops are riflemen and canons, while in fact you have about 12 tanks distributed between your 2 frontier cities!

There is no lie at all. Japanese soldiers: riflemen and cannons. Spartan forces: tanks and machineguns. maybe i should had write that by spartan troops i meant spartan troops under japanese command, but didnt think much of it.. ( and i got 8 tanks altogether, but that's just details)

[Pitboss Spain]

I have to agree with the line that vassalage as-is is not a bad thing, nor is being in a lost position. ALL of us, but one, will lose this game, so if it is all and alone about winning, I know I am pretty much screwed. (I admit that it is easier for me to say this, since I came into the game knowing that it won't be me) I do agree with the point that capitulation is too fixed. At no point in time has there been a vassalage an effect of war, that meant permanent unbreakable subjugation. This just is not realistic. At all.

Maya made a move to get away from this planet's hotzone, where it was sandwiched between two powers it was at war with, in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. I don't know if I would have taken this path, there being much potential gains in Sparta's offer (return of their lands...) but this was a well brokered deal, that offered a new player with an instant chance to settle down and start playing his own game. I can understand that (I did just do something similar)

As for the discussions about the rules and people jumping to conclusions. I might be sticking my hand into a hornet's nest, but it kind of sounds that everything has been said. Isn't it better to drop the subject and move on, bu now? All actual obstacles to the game (not counting the potential obstacles in the future) seem to have resolved and anything said will now only further polarize the situation. It's an imperfect world, I guess, but so far you all seem to have the best interest of the game pretty high in your standards and I believe that will be enough (optimist talking...)

I love civ, I love the diplo...

cheers,
Jeroen