The Dance of Civilizations [Pitboss Diplomacy Game] [Setup Thread]

[St Jon]

PS. Where's Capo?

[Rempedaalops]

Not sure about all these shifty Dutchmen though. Always ready with a knife to your back!

Shifty? Us? Noooo, on the contrary!

*pulls out knife*

Hey, look, is that a bird?



In response to St. Jon's post, I agree that tech trading should be turned off if the effect you describe is the result of having it turned on, people teaming up by trading all their techs would make them more or less invincible after a while.

[OzzyKP]

I like the Map, basically Islands, but I still think that early game cramping is a huge problem. Crammed in like this you will get ancient wars in abundance because nobody will have a choice. The really big problem is people getting marginalised very early and losing interest because they have nowhere to go and have too few cities to finance the research to get them anywhere. I admire the guys who played Celts and America though to the end as they must have been stuck from the start. Also with such close start points you have China talking to England before 1000BC, in epic mode, and that is not any kind of history of the world. There needs to be mystery and nations to be found rather than render half the world devoid of humanity.

Cramping is good. As long as the land is balanced, less land is better than more. Early war & early conflict is good for the game. Nations close to each other (and able to threaten and check each other's power) is good. Too much open space just gives a few civs the chance to peacefully create juggernauts in the early game that can't be touched later on.

I reckon a straight ban on Tech Trades is the best option. Choose a military path or a builder path, the choice is your's, but you live with the consequences of any misjudgment. Gifting of units I reckon is fine, even if secretly, as in the BtP examples of Priest's it must have been obvious that such a large Russian army in Persia must have had Roman collusion, if not troops, and the fact that Russia suddenly got richer by 3 nice Mayan cities did cause 'significant' IG diplomatic questions to be asked. Why was Russia getting those cities for doing nothing? Why didn't Rome object to a large Russian army crossing her soil? How did Russia get so many troops there so quickly when no railway existed? When those kinds of lease/lend agreements are made then I see no reason for public declaration. Greece giving Japan tanks was the same, more overtly, as it was a master to vassal to open a Western front It is for the world to judge and make its' own mind upon these events. Where I would draw the line is at a situation where 2 allies can simply decide to work as if this was a 'Team Game'. Maybe Priest's idea of America announcing a massive trade deal with India to completely equip them with Patriot Missiles to protect them against Russia's TU57's that could flatten Delhi is OK but where do you stop? I would ban it.

Banning tech trading altogether means the rich civs get richer and the poor civs stay poor. It heightens inequality.

I think banning unit gifting would do the same thing. Russia may have been a pawn of Rome in the instance you cite, but they had a role to play. They got their hands dirty and received advancement from it. If Rome & his enemy both had muskets and Russia had axes, then without tech or unit gifting Russia is entirely irrelevant and will simply be ignored. Which isn't much fun.

[bamf226]

Ok, I'm in. Hopefully the setup of the game will keep everyone happy. I like the anonymous aspect of the game, however, I ask that we not use the google mail accounts. Let's focus on PM which is much more convenient, especially when we should be in Apolyton posting and such. Let's keep anonymity until game end as well please. It's silly to have half of the players keeping themselves hidden while others broadcast their identity to everyone.

[The Priest]

Interesting from Ozzy. I think we are all agreed that the aim of any tech trade and unit trade rules are to lessen inequality and the ability to all keep taking part. But the question is what acheives the result. Unlimited tech trade allows the powerful to become more powerful, which is clearly bad. I can see the argument for none, though it does restrict diplomactic options. So I think the answer is the voucher system, but with the idea of 'old techs' to allow tech trade to be a force for the weaker catching up / not falling too far behind.

Regarding unit gifts, I am not suggesting it is banned, but I think reporting would be a far compromise - realistic and keeps diplomacy and story telling public and engaging for all.

Anonymity - a big yes.

[The Priest]

The big issue i want to raise is what in-game victory conditions do we want to be achievable?

As far as i can see the only possibility if we are not careful is space ship and I guess cultural though I find it hard to imagine that being pulled-off.

Diplomatic and religious are not achieveable, nor conquest.

But what about domination? The rules and ethos of not eliminating or crippling nations means that I think domination is not achievable. There is no way you can reach the sort of % necessary with these rules/ethos. In SP to get domination you do elimate nations.

Does it matter if domination is effectively outlawed? I think it does. Civ is at its best because of the variety of options, the variety of approaches. But we are going to create a version of it in which the only reaslitic option is space ship.

What can we do? I don't know. I'd be interested if others agree there is a problem first. But a possible option is for us to agree to lower % for a domination win than is build into the game, so that it does become a viable goal.

[Robert]

- diplomatic victory is possible, BtP showed it is possible.
- domination: it can be done by gathering enough vassals.
- space ship: obviously
- conquest: not
- cultural: is possible, though least satisfying imho.

[The Priest]

No, I disagree.

Domination isn't possible on the normal %. Vassals only count for half so the percentages just aren't achieveable without eliminating a good few nations, which we don't do in Diplo. And BtP proved diplo isn't possible. All you need to do when there is a vote is to give away a city or so to avoid the conditions of a religious victory and it fails.

Maybe I am missing some of the possibilities, but can folks quote an example of a diplo game that has reached in-game victory which hasn't been space?

[Black Knight 427]

[QUOTE=The Priest;5647548]. So I think the answer is the voucher system, but with the idea of 'old techs' to allow tech trade to be a force for the weaker catching up / not falling too far behind.
QUOTE]

I agree with this.

[bamf226]

And BtP proved diplo isn't possible. All you need to do when there is a vote is to give away a city or so to avoid the conditions of a religious victory and it fails.

I think you may be misunderstanding what happened in BtP. The diplo win didn't happen because some key people didn't vote (Khmer I believe, maybe Spain). Had they voted, a diplo win was possible.

The act you are speaking of prevented the religious victory, not the diplo victory, both of which centered around Ozzy. We were actually trying to get England the win in-game with Ozzy coordinating.

[OzzyKP]

I think you may be misunderstanding what happened in BtP. The diplo win didn't happen because some key people didn't vote (Khmer I believe, maybe Spain). Had they voted, a diplo win was possible.

The act you are speaking of prevented the religious victory, not the diplo victory, both of which centered around Ozzy. We were actually trying to get England the win in-game with Ozzy coordinating.

The victory we were going for was a diplomatic victory. Just a diplo victory through the Apostolic Palace, not the UN. The requirement for this victory is that every civ needs to have a city with the right religion. CS logged in as Portugal and captured the only Greek city with Hinduism after the vote was made (but before the result was announced), thus stopping the victory.

I don't think there actually is a true religious victory in the game. Maybe in some mods that require you to spread your religion to X% of the world.

[OzzyKP]

So I think the answer is the voucher system, but with the idea of 'old techs' to allow tech trade to be a force for the weaker catching up / not falling too far behind.

Yea, I really like the idea of making old techs freely tradeable.

[Robert]

True, the religious victory failed b/c not all civs on the world had hinduism anymore. The Portuguese captured Samos, which removed hinduism from Sparta.

It failed, but it also showed that it is possible. If hinduism would have been spread to more cities of Sparta it would have worked. (not to mention that the UN vote has no requirements regarding religions being spread to all civs)

We should perhaps add one more rule around this diplo victory though;
- no city gifting that prevents a diplomatic victory

Better sub organisation should avoid the other problems regarding the BtP diplomatic victory.
We've had a diplogame with a diplo-victory before though.

What was the % Rome had in BtP regarding domination?
I'll make a suggestion for a 2nd version of the concept rules later today.

[Toni]

Latest Player list:

1. Robert
2. Pinchak
3. Toni
4. Black Knight
5. St Jon
6. Jeroen
7. The Priest
8. Rempedaalops
9. Hendriks de Infiedielen Dooder
10. bamf226

[Jeroen Schweitzer]

The diplo victory was only feasible because a small group of nations had an unbalanced large vote in a religious election. The chances of getting enough civs on the same page with UN is minimal, so that is not really realistic.

The only other victory I can think of that is likely to happen, next to Space Ship is a time victory.