The Dance of Civilizations [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread Pt1]

[Persia (DoC)]

[Persia (DoC)]

Nice one, India

[Persia (DoC)]

We're living in the year 1000 but we talk with each other as if it's a 2058 AD United Nations meeting, when some try to 'divide' new worlds

[India (DoC)]

[Native America (DoC)]

Just for information, The Native American's are within one turn of settling on a new land to the east of the Indian sub-continent. We don't know if this is on the same continent as this new Russia, but it could well be.

There may be ample space for whoever colonises this new land, to prosper and I hope that is the case. The point is that this new land is still up for grabs and may not totally be at Persia's disposal.

Btw, I too, enjoy the Persia - Russia stories.

Oh and Happy Winter festival everyone

[Robert]

- Measured war
A Civ Diplo Game has to balance two factors in war.
1. This is Civ - Warmongering, conquest and domination is a perfectly acceptable and honourable way to play. There is no intention that Diplo games need to be 'builder orientated' (though that is just as acceptable a strategy too).

2. This is Diplo - No civilisation should be crippled with the result that the game stops being fun for the player involved. This means that there is a balance to be struck. War is costly for the aggressor, building up forces while other nations race ahead, so the victor should be able to make real gains from the war. But if they gain too much, the loser may be crippled. Its impossible to make a hard and fast rule out of this, because that can just be exploited (e.g. a loser refusing to make a reasonable peace because 'the rule' will then kick in and save them). But as a guide, a 25% loss is an appropriate threshhold (loss being an overall measure, not just a city count - losing 3 tiny fringe cities may be much less of a loss than 1 major city). More than this may well be crippling the loser. But a loss/gain up to this probably is appropriate benefit for the victor. Again this can't be a rule - taking a small bite out of a neighbour every ten turns will cripple them, but having won a war against a neighour a millenium ago doesn't mean you can't fight with them again.

This concept of measured war is enforced in rule 7.

7. No permanent vassalage (capitulation). The vassal must obey the terms made in a vassalage deal unless it's been freed (by a 3rd nation or by the master, or if the master doesn't live up to the terms). This rule is in place to find a way to get vassalages lasting longer then 10 turns without being forced to remain a vassal by game mechanics.

8. When 51% of the players for ooc-reasons think that a war should end then it must end. This to avoid that civs will be cripled too much by a war. The terms of the end of war are in such a case: immediate peace for 50 turns. It is advised for both parties to agree on the best possible terms for peace before this happens.
Such an end of war must be organized in the org thread. (ie. players must announce their opinion regarding the end of a war in the org thread).

Reasons for such an end-of-war vote are only OOC! Not IG (like: my allie is losing this important city)
(check dictionary of terms for the meaning of 'measured war')

[Robert]

End of debate (for now). Persia and Russia appear to have a great war together, let's see if they can find a solution together.

Russia should indeed know that there are limits on what Persia can do to it. The measured war rules can be found in the opening post of this thread. I'll post them below again.

All enjoy a merry christmas!
Don't forget to read the Gospel of the birth of Jesus Christ tonight

[Persia (DoC)]

Persia (ooc) also wishes you all a very good Christmas!!

in character we of course spit on Christmas

[Persia (DoC)]

No need for a cold turkey time for me.
I already told Russia in private that I won't deport him if he (ooc) disagrees. (about 1 week ago)

And that's what I said here as well. If many players disagree with such an action I will abstain from it as well.

I do honestly believe though that it may be better for Russia to be deported then to stay where they are, under Persian domination. I think it's better for me to keep the colony for myself. (my original plan before Russia invaded me)

But let's cease this debate now, we all agree that it should not continue if many players disagree or if Russia disagrees, so let's just see if Russia agrees or not.

Byzantium, I'm very ok that you pointed out the rules. I do regret though that it didn't happen earlier, but I can see your reasons. Better do it late then do it never

[Byzantium (DoC)]

Oh come on, turning this into a personal matter between nations isn't going to help. I could just as well point out that you and Britannia, who have disagreed with me, stand to gain greatly from Persia's plans. (and I'm really not sure where this friend of russia stuff comes from).

I haven't cried foul to anything, because nothing has happened contrary to any rules. All I have done is pointed out that Russia has every right to appeal to our rules (and yes of course the timing isn't a coincidence - its only now when they are starting to lose that they might need to avail themselves of the rule!).

Measured war
A Civ Diplo Game has to balance two factors in war.
1. This is Civ - Warmongering, conquest and domination is a perfectly acceptable and honourable way to play. There is no intention that Diplo games need to be 'builder orientated' (though that is just as acceptable a strategy too).

2. This is Diplo - No civilisation should be crippled with the result that the game stops being fun for the player involved. This means that there is a balance to be struck. War is costly for the aggressor, building up forces while other nations race ahead, so the victor should be able to make real gains from the war. But if they gain too much, the loser may be crippled. Its impossible to make a hard and fast rule out of this, because that can just be exploited (e.g. a loser refusing to make a reasonable peace because 'the rule' will then kick in and save them). But as a guide, a 25% loss is an appropriate threshhold (loss being an overall measure, not just a city count - losing 3 tiny fringe cities may be much less of a loss than 1 major city). More than this may well be crippling the loser. But a loss/gain up to this probably is appropriate benefit for the victor. Again this can't be a rule - taking a small bite out of a neighbour every ten turns will cripple them, but having won a war against a neighour a millenium ago doesn't mean you can't fight with them again.

I am no arbitrator to decide what is or isn't a measured response to this or that. If Russian knows what he is doing - and he probably does and is happy - fine. But for all i know he is a first time player who didn't realise he had a choice.

Whats the big problem in pointing out to someone the rules?

[Ottoman Empire (DoC)]

Byzantium, I agree it sounds a little funny, you as a friend of Russia, now, after this many turns, coincidentally RIGHT after Russia loses the city they captured, begins crying foul.

Please answer: What is a measured response to the destruction of an entire army and the capture of a city?

1 city back? 2? 1 city and the disarmement of Russia?

[Byzantium (DoC)]

And, please, I am not doubting that you have tried to think of an imaginative solution for your Russian problem. We can all see that you are trying to be fair to them. I'm not questioning your good intentions; its just that they are not necessarily the most important thing.

[Byzantium (DoC)]

Persia - sorry if you feel I should have raised this 3 weeks ago. But, I assumed that you knew the rules and, like Ozzy said, it was just bluster. Which is of course exactly why Theodosius has been steadily accusing you of arrogance, bluster, believing you are like a god able to move peoples across the world etc.

The whole 'measured war' concept was to allow a victor to gain from a war, and a loser to suffer, without one mistaken war, one 'trecherous backstab' being the end of that civ as we know it. Otherwise the game becomes too 'safe', nobody can risk war if the consequence is the threat of complete annihiliation.

Its a great story line, and if Russia is happy its hard for anyone else to raise a question. But Russia has every right to lose a bit in this war, as in the measure war rule, and then have a peace. Nobody is saying that nothing can be done to a small nation, just that the rules put boundaries on it.

I'm really sorry about the confusion that nobody objecting OOC to Fed'az proclamations seemed to imply to you that everyone thought that the threat against Russia was 'measured'. I understand what you mean when you say "I have tried to be very public about it so that I could abandon it early if all players would disagree" but you didn't actually ask the question. And its not for me or anyone else to object - all my post on here was doing was reminding RUSSIA that he could insist on a 'measure war' - i.e. given his size, losing a city or two or his colonies and having peace. The 'meaured war' thing is a protection for a losing country in a war, and as far as I can see Russia still has every right to claim that protection. Whether she wants to or not is up to her.

Perhaps time for some cold turkey - a seasonal thought - and maybe it will all seem easier or at least less heated.

[OzzyKP]

ooc post about this on December 12th

And like I said, the alternative is worse for Russia.
They decided to attack me, not visa versa.
Small nations should be protected a bit by the rules, but not that much that nothing can be done to them.

But for myself it'll be better to colonize New Russia myself and keep Russia as my slave. I doubt that would be much fun for them.

They did attack you, and have to suffer the consequences. But don't forget that city was built by Russia and you attacked him first. And Persia benefited quite nicely from that war.

[England (DoC)]

England would like to say Merry Christmas to his friends and enemies