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

[Orb (DoC)]

If you really want to help smaller civs how about handing out some more vouchers.

[OzzyKP]

Question - will this take effect immediately?

@Ozzy: I guess so.

With 11 'yes' vote the rule change has been accepted.
Contrary to what I said before, we will not apply this change immediately.

I dunno about everyone else, but I'm in favor of applying it immediately.

[Korea (DoC)]

It would not be fair to shut off a civ from free trades just because they are higher up in score. Everyone should get to have free trades regardless of their score.

i ws under the imporession that this rule on free trading w3as only put in to help the lower score civs, if i am wrong in the origina lintention then i apologise.

As noticed it makes no difrenvce to me. I research my own techs and just get on with it.

But if this rule is to help smalelr not larger civs then it isnt working...

[OzzyKP]

btw, Greece is still not consistently taking their turns.

[Persia (DoC)]

7 techs? During the last round or during the entire game? Wrong in both cases.
And maybe I just report my trades better then others.

Anyway, I don't research techs I don't need (literacy, aesthetics, drama) and trade them for free when there's an opportunity.
In exchange I gave important techs like philosophy.

Philosophy for Literacy..... that certainly helps the smaller civs.
It's not the number that matters but the content of the trade.

(And I have given 2 or 3 vouchers to other civs as well. I really dislike the way Korea talks about other players.)

[Korea (DoC)]

if you read my post , which you skipepd through,

you would read i said that is how many were posted, so i am 100% correct

i didnt claim you havent helped outher civs so getof youe FKn high horse,

what i have made clear is that this rule was suppsoedly put in palce to aid the lower scored civs to get techs, where as this is not shown to be true

2 of the top 3 civs have gained the most free ones,

so if you havent posted all ytour free trades it is even more than 7 fre techs you gained whislt somne have gained as few as none or one or two

so you cna caryone and pretend i am bad mouthing players , but the rule allows bigger civs to skip ahead on there tech research knowing they cna pikc up thje missing ones later.

if we simply playing to see woh is best palyer then this is ok,

but again i thoguht this rule was brought in for other reasons


i await RP and the others to acknoeledge wh this rule was made before they make it any differnet. some people have voted yet to this change i beleive without taking into account the why of the rule.

This type ofgame DIPLO is meant to be differnet , rules put in palce that are meant to be OOC conditions for techs and aid , rules there to simply make everyone have a chance to get the tecjs no mater there ability.

so please india and persia stop hiding behind the oh KOREA is crazy and picking on me, the facts are there. and till RP tells me this rule is not meant to be here for the lower civs but is just a way for free trade of techs i will not stop my campaign to prevent it changing.

[Robert]

Korea: don't make me moderate your posts as an Apolyton Admin.
Watch your language, don't make it personal, etc.

And as a game host I ask you to contribute in a constructive way to this debate. You certainly have a point, but you burry it under piles of harsh words which only results in people not listening to you, which is most probably not what you want.

Regarding your question, this rule was made to prevent civs from falling too far behind because of the voucher system.
The rule was made and agreed upon by all players before anybody of us knew what their position was going to be in the game.

I give you an opening to discuss your ideas. Eventhough I am a bit irritated by the fact that you were, on purpose, not a part of the rule discussion before the game started.
link: http://apolyton.net/forums/showpost....&postcount=215

Use your opening wise and discuss the topic, rather then insult the players.
Like other players should not insult you either.

[India (DoC)]

Those who got more free techs followed a different strategy than those who got less. What you fail to understand is that the last vote has nothing to do with who gets how many techs. As you see I always got what I wanted anyway-and what I've said is that I won't need free techs anymore, not that I didn't get in the past.

I suggested a system to help smaler civs by giving them vouchers based on ingame score/position in every month, I don't really like this sharp separation between the top5 and the rest.
Since I've said that I wont need free techs anyway I'd rather abstain on Korea's proposal

[Korea (DoC)]

i dont have aproposal to ask for votes for

i am not here to win freinds nor influence people with clever words and debate.

peopel who are swayed by such like talk are not likely to listen to the faxts as al lthey want is their ears tickled. and not to hear the truth.

so i have made it clear above that th elower civs have not benifited from the system of free trade and the leafing civs have,

i dont see how indias proposal will lead to less techs trade with the larger civs and more for the lower.

just remember that i have posted from start that this system is not good if top 5 civs are allowed to get free techs

the only way to make sure tht the lower civs get techs is they can get them for free from top civs , but the top civs not allowed to trade and get techs.. no gold nothing , it is free to be given to lower civs

no this is not fair it isnt meant to be.

it is menat to be a way for them tocatch up

[Robert]

I did a very careful double check of all free tech trades reported in the tech trade thread.
These are the results.

I get the idea that many free tech trades weren't reported.
Especially during the first free-tech-round, but also during the 2nd round.
Last round appears to be better.

I'll leave the interpretation to the players.

Persia		3	2	4	[9]*

Native		2	4	1	[7]

Mali		0	1	4	[5]*
Brit		2	2	1	[5]
India		1	3	1	[5]*
Egy		1	1	3	[5]*

Gree		1	1	2	[4]*
Byz		0	3	1	[4]*
Ottoman		0	1	3	[4]*
Rome		0	2	2	[4]
Rus		1	3	0	[4]*

Inca		1	0	1	[2]
Arabia		0	1	1	[2]

Eng		1	0	0	[1]

Korea		0	0	0	[0]

* means: number differs from Korea's tally.

[Arabia (DoC)]

I agree with HEB. New rule should be applied to all equally.

[Persia (DoC)]

Korea, I did read your post carefully.
Your claim is just not true. Neither did I report 7 free techs during the last round, nor did I during the entire game.

My remark about the free vouchers I gave away has nothing to do with copulating horses (eventhough I gave a few of these to the Britannians as well)
I made it b/c I want to show that the balancing goes through the way civs act with each other.
Not through rules.
This game is already balancing because of many factors players incorporate without being forced by rules.
Giving away ships, settling colonies for others.
And this is also not purely charity. It's also diplomacy.
More rules won't bring balance. It will only make things more difficult.
Civs will try to stay out of the top 5 if that will give them more benefits.

Further I tried to make the point that 1 free tech doesn't equal another free tech.
I got archery, literacy, music and drama (ie) through free trades.
I gave away philosophy (multiple times), currency and bronze working.

Without free tech trades, I would just not have had those techs.
Now I used this rule to trade some good techs to other civs.
And of course I got some game points. That's only important for my score battle with the top-5 and will not harm the other civs.

so if you havent posted all ytour free trades it is even more than 7 fre techs you gained whislt somne have gained as few as none or one or two

What you don't understand is that the rule won't make civs advance.
I have traded (and reported) 9 free techs.
Others could as well do that, but they just did not, for whatever reason.
I am one of the advanced civs. I have less room for free tech trading b/c I just can't advance without certain techs.
Civs that are behind can relax a lot more, skip more techs, and trade them later for free.
The fact that most civs don't do this is not because of a failure of the rule, it's because players don't use the rules in their advantage.
And any new rule or alternate rule will have the same result.

It will only help civs if they will adapt to the rule.

so you cna caryone and pretend i am bad mouthing players , but the rule allows bigger civs to skip ahead on there tech research knowing they cna pikc up thje missing ones later.

I have only skipped techs I don't need anyway.
I have never build a single archer, yet I got archery.
I traded it for sailing!!!

I do not skip ahead b/c of this rule.
It helped Britannia to skip ahead because I gave them a very important tech for a totally unimportant tech.
You are obsessed with numbers but fail to see the real impact to the game.



And looking at Robert's list, it's clear that the top civs did NOT benefit more from the rule then the bottom civs.
I benefitted most indeed (though I most probably also reported most trades)
But ie. England and Korea (2 other top civs) did not benefit at all.
India and byzantium benefitted somewhere in the middle.
So out of the 5 top civs 1 benefited most, 2 least and 2 avg. I'd say: the top civs benefited as much as the other civs on avg.
And if it's about the nature of the trade (important freebies or worthless freebies) then I think that the lesser civs got more.

For crying out loud, philosophy for literacy, sailing for archery!
So yes, in my opinion, you are wrong. And that's also why I will vote against your suggestion.
I don't believe that rules can balance a game. Only people can balance it.

that has everything to do with game attitude.
And if I look at India, then I see a player with an awesome attitude!
He's this powerful very advanced civ who could push his will on most probably 80% of the world (all but Persia :P) but still he does not. He even fights himself with impossible tasks, spilling secrets through stories, giving techs to allies.
And that's why I don't think that he deserves what you say about him.

I like it that you try to help the less advanced civs. Plus for you there. (eventhough I disagree with your ways to do this)
But I don't understand why you have to do it at the costs of the more advanced civs by blackmouthing them.

[Mali (DoC)]

I certainly see Korea's point. However, how much are the top 5 civs actually gaining from free techs from two eras ago. Added score is minimal and at most they are saving themselves 3-4 turns of research. The top 4 are the ones moving us forward technologically, so any techs they gain from 2 eras past are antiquated for the most part.

[Egypt (DoC)]

In reference to reporting the techs, it might be easier if the person accepting the trade reports it. Now I did not know who accepted what, therefore I did not know what to report. Sorry bout that

[Byzantium (DoC)]

I think that sadly this is starting to be a row that may poison the atmosphere in DOC.

BtP was destroyed, though it limped on for a while, by rows between people who all had their point, but kept on arguing thinking that them expressing their point was more important that the peace of the game. Very quickly we got to the point in BtP of people saying 'I'm not here for this kind of stress', 'I have to face arguments all day at work, if this is going to be the same I'm off' etc. These issues are important but they are NOT more important than retaining the great harmonious atmosphere we have managed so far in DOC.

So we need to move on.

We have had one vote, which was clearly won by a particular proposition that trades no longer needed to be 1 for 1. We all need to accept that, even if we dont agree. That's democracy.

We should have a second vote. The options I think should be (1) no further change, (2) Korea's suggestion that top 5 in score at moment trading is allowed aren't allowed to engage in free trade, (3) perhaps India's suggestion of some extra voucher allocations.

After that vote, we then leave the topic until after the next era-change.