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

[Persia (DoC)]

Byzantium: I raise a question; "if it's true that.... (...) then.."
I hope for Korea that it has a bigger fleet then I do. I doubt it though.

Anyway, there's not much fun for the Inca if they face an opposition of all big nations in their neighbourhood that easily.

Don't respond. No need to reveal your plans and strategy.
But please keep in mind that a 4 biggies helping Egypt is imho not good for the game.

[England (DoC)]

serious flaw in this game that there have formed 3-4 large blocs which have existed all game.

Well England us definitely not one of those nations. We only recently allied ourselves (With Korea) for the very 1st time this game.

But i will agree with you Russia, that we have 2-3 blocks who will soon out leave even time itself.

Can some one summarize what the new rule is, too many posts so I am losing track of all thinks said.

[England (DoC)]

Also Persia, England has not joined either Egypt or Inca. So do not please say that we are helping the Egyptians.

Yes someone is helping the Egyptian but it is not us.

And the Inca plan was a ill one at best, why of all will you attack your oldest friend thus isolating yourself on the big continent from everyone.

There were so many other targets out there....

[India (DoC)]

So.. what is the suggestion? Alliances are not unique to this game, we always have them in civ and it is a simulation how in RL works. Should we drop diplo, go completely ooc ?

[Russia (DoC)]

There is a difference between a large powerful civ attacking a much smaller weaker civ, and a civ attacking another civ of similar size and development who has not built any defences. My gods, my pathetic little tundrafrozen Russians could have smashed that invading "army", and obviously also most other nations' armies. But there is no point in developing weapons, just sit back and play the builder game and let a bigger civ protect you. It's diplo, but its boring! Alliances are normal yes, but think about it. What we see here is not temporary military alliances, we are looking at near-permanent continent-spanning unity.

I honestly believe that a new rule must be imported into diplo games, and that is that military alliances must be publicly announced, can only exist between a total of 2 nations prior to Defence pact tech, (up to 3 in 1 alliance total after that) and must have a time limitation of 20 turns. Renewing an alliance should have a cost. So it could be done, but people would only do it if absolutely necessary.

As it is now, it completely stagnates the game, it takes away any paranoia regarding neighbours and it makes the smaller players insignificant.

Persia/Ottoman/Britannia are in an alliance. And with the location being what it is, what can Russia do except join or be destroyed?
India is so far ahead in tech that it is ridiculous, and with their religion spread all over they have a "legitimate" claim to interfere anywhere and everywhere.
Byzantium has formed a nice ring of satelite states, and so has England.
There are no independent smaller nations left.

Let me say that again There are NO independent smaller nations left!

[Russia (DoC)]

Also. Is it not common knowledge that to spread your corporation in another civs lands is the same as shooting them in the foot, due to the increased maintenance?

[Egypt (DoC)]

Wow, I'm a bit surprised at all the reactions to what has happened between Inca and Egypt. I'd like to make a few points:

- First of all, I think it's not right that parties who have no real knowledge of what is going on are judging this situation while it is actually still going on. Who knows whether four nations are really helping me? Maybe I am bluffing? Maybe I just asked other nations to pretend they are helping me, whereas I received help from only one other nation? Maybe I had troops hidden away somewhere where the Inca did not see them? All possible. Don't be too quick to judge. All this ooc-banter about this also influences my diplo-efforts while the war is still going on, which is a bit unfair if you have no idea what is really happening.

- Second, just for the record, I don't condemn Inca's attack, fair play to them for trying. I don't think it was a very wise move considering other options for grabbing land, plus the build-up to war was done in two posts, with no PM's and no scheming, and no alliances that I know of. The diplo-element to the attack was thus not so big, therefore Inca's support from other nations was weak, decreasing their chances of success.

- I don't agree with what both Russia and Persia say. Egypt has been playing a neutral and peace-loving role, a very valid diplomatic strategy, found in a lot of places in the real world. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but I enjoy it because it forces me to focus on rhetoric, to talk, scheme, write, etc. This to me is what makes diplo-civ fun; you can use words to influence other nations, writing stories and sitting back and seeing what effect it has on the outcome of events. In this case, it worked really well, and the credits Egypt had built up due to its communication payed off. That is diplogaming if you ask me, and I'm surprised to see that the success of this strategy is frowned upon by others. Even if four nations would be helping me, shouldn't you then be telling me 'wow, nicely done' instead of 'it's bad for the game'?

- Some claim such alliances are bad for the game. I disagree; look at the Cold War. Huge alliances, lots of building and tech projects around the world, lots of tension, and: lots of rhetoric. Big alliances reflect real life and the tension this creates could be brilliant. Roll with it guys, who's to say where it will lead? For all we know, Egypt might turn completely rogue under a new ruler, or maybe Byzantium will be taken over by a warmongering king who rallies four other nations to attack Persia or India. Maybe India will rally all Tao nations and unleash a war against Hastogianists everywhere, World War!! It could happen, just because or in spite of these large alliances. But it won't happen if we whine in between about whether it might or might not be good, because people will not feel free to play the diplo-strategy they want.

- Russia, you make the point that there are no independent small states left. You also speak of continent-unity and a rule for military alliances. You also say that India and Byzantium's high score is not good for the game. I disagree. Why the focus on score and size and power and blocks? Like I said before, there are so many diplo-options, it is dazzling, the storylines that could unfold from the current situation could be brilliant, because of these blocks! The tension is rising because of it, military might is being built up, and at some point, **** will hit the fan and there will be world war. Great! The map will be redrawn, stories will be posted all the time, etc. And if that doesn't happen, there are so many other great possibilities: like I said above, any nation can change its role at any time! If you find it boring, then do something about it through diplo! Make an effort, plead with others, scheme, make it happen. I for one am easily swayed by cool plans and schemes that will create a new storyline, and I think others are too. One thing I absolutely don't do when asked to take part in something is think about what it will do to my score, or whether I will decrease in size, or whether it will make others bigger or smaller. All I do, is think about how much fun the storyline will be, and how much fun it will be to see a good storyline developing on the map.

- Russia, you say:

But there is no point in developing weapons, just sit back and play the builder game and let a bigger civ protect you. It's diplo, but its boring!

Well, that all depends on how you write about it, and what it leads to. What might be boring to you, could be lots of fun to someone else. And, if you build lots, eventually you get good military anyway. The strategy would have to be to protect yourself through alliances as long as you can, until you develop the punch to stand on your own. Great strategy, can be loads of fun, and scary too, because you leave your fate in the hands of others, so you have to really rely on your diplo-skills.

- Persia, you say:

Anyway, there's not much fun for the Inca if they face an opposition of all big nations in their neighbourhood that easily.

Don't respond. No need to reveal your plans and strategy.
But please keep in mind that a 4 biggies helping Egypt is imho not good for the game.

That's a bit unfair. First you make a judgment, and then you tell me not to respond. Thus you influence others while I cannot respond. If you feel like this, then tell us after the war, not while it is going on. You can't make a point against someone who, because it would reveal his game, is unable to respond. That's not nice.

And like I say above, I disagree with your point. If four nations had stepped up to help Inca in wiping me off the continent, only leaving me with the cities on the island above it, then I would have rolled with it, and would have had loads of fun with the story lines, and I would have given Inca points for getting such a diplomatic effort to succeed.

Sorry for the long response, the main point is:
Diplo gaming is fun no matter what happens in score, size, alliances, as long as you are creative. If you really put yourself in the shoes of the leader of your nation as if it was real, then size, score, alliances, all that stuff that you worry about in a singleplayer game, it's all possible story material, so it doesn't matter, I think. Putting rules and restrictions on that ruins the game Russia, because then huge world wars would not happen, and it would place huge restrictions on story lines. If you no longer have the freedom to scheme behind other people's backs because you have to announce military alliances, and even have a restriction on how many people you can ally with, then you ruin a good part of the game by taking away the similarity with RL, and taking away the unexpected.

[Persia (DoC)]

@England / @Egypt: All I said was an "if"....
If England/India.... are helping Egypt against Inca.... then....

If not, then not.
I don't know what's going on, so all I can raise is an "if".
I hope that I can raise an "if" at least

I have not judged anybody or said negative things about anybody.
All I'm saying that an all biggies vs inca situation is unfair.
I'm sorry if anybody felt like I judged someone. That was not my intention.

@Egypt: hat's a bit unfair. First you make a judgment, and then you tell me not to respond.

I'm sorry, there's some miscommunication there.
I responded to Byzantium who had just said:

"How can any of the nations 'accused' respond without revealing much they don't want to reveal, or at least without undermining all their storying and diplomacy?"

That's why I said "don't respond".
I worded that very poorly, I'm sorry.
I just intended to say: "feel free to not respond to my message"

@All
Next time that I raise an "if" that's not the case, just respond with: "No worries Persia, it's not"

[Egypt (DoC)]

I understand Persia, it's ok, but still, in my opinion you shouldn't even raise the 'if'. Because that will already influence the game, you are casting suspicion on what is going on, and I can't respond to that because it would reveal strategy. Raise the questions afterwards, not during the event. Now you've started a discussion about a nation that cannot respond properly due to the game. Even if I respond with "no worries Persia, it's not", then Inca knows I am bluffing. Plus you influence others who might have been sympathetic to Egypt, but now might think that they will not help. I might actually not be receiving help from anyone and because of your post, other nations might refrain from helping. See what I mean? No biggie, but just so you know..

EDIT: It would have been fine if you would have done this IC though, that would have been just the thing Persia could have said, obliterate Egypt, do not protect it, petty alliances, standing in the way of bloodshed, etc.

[Persia (DoC)]

I'm sorry, I should indeed have contacted the 5 of you in private.

[Egypt (DoC)]

No problem man, it's a game, and I'm having fun!

[OzzyKP]

ozzy if that god reason for war.. then i gues rome beter wathc out for indian ivasion


dont be silly, in DIPLO attacking eweak foes is bad...

Egypt & Inca are both mid to small civs. Their power and development is equivalent.

[Russia (DoC)]

I must admit I have not followed Egypt's writings too closely, and certainly not your internal diplomacy. As such, what I saw was a war between 2 nations and the defender being supported by everyone for no "apparent" reason. Sending troops to fight for another nation is a incredibly huge thing, and I thus found it strange and unrealistic that the entire eastern world jumped into the fray to stop what I considered a minor border dispute...

As for the blocs, there are no "diplo choices", the only possible choice to make is which bloc to be a part of. And for some nations (like geographically isolated Russia) there is no alternative, I am simply too far away for anyone else to be remotely interested in me.

You mentioned the cold war, but when was that? During the modern age, when communication and transportation was easily done across continents. Never before in history had the world been divided into 2 blocs like that. Before that, only brief temporary military alliances existed. As in the Napoleonic wars, which after the war quickly broke apart. We're playing a cold war game in the 1300's... Things should not be deadlocked, they should be frantic and messy and chaotic.

As for the power of the top civs, it is a problem when a civ becomes so powerful that any need for diplo disappears. Then the game is over. We are very close to that situation now, where one civ is so far ahead that it may already have won. That a civ with a lead like that still has allies surprises me immensely. Those allies should really consider their own self interests which is to not let another civ win just because they are temporary allies.

Oh well, I'm trying my very best to use diplomacy to move heaven and earth, but I just don't have anything that interests anyone. I am too small and too far away to be even noticed by most nations.

[Egypt (DoC)]

I see your points, and understand your position. I really have to hand it to you that you are making excellent story posts and I really enjoy reading them. You make the most out of your isolated situation, which I think is really cool.

Regarding the cold war thing; I often noticed that the year we are in does not always correspond to the tech-matters. But disregarding that, I do not believe we are in a 'cold war'-situation now, I mean more that if the block forming continues, we will end up in that situation in the future. Which I think would be awesome. Picture that on the one hand we could have Persia and it's allies, on the other India and it's Taoist nations, and our continent would turn out to be Europe, where the battle is fought out through diplomacy, and perhaps an all-out war. But, it can go any way. Our role as smaller nations could be to feed ideas to the bigger ones, get them to clash, or to form an alliance with all the small states, and attack a big nation from all sides, many possibilities. I don't think the game will become deadlocked, and if it does, then I will do my best to spice things up. If we all do, then this game won't become boring I think, regardless of size and alliances. Alliances can be broken, scores can be brought down

EDIT: forgot to reply to the Egypt-Inca situation; you mention the entire Eastern world, well, suppose that were true, I think that's a very cool diplo-event. Much more interesting than plain war between two nations I think, and such an event has the potential to spawn many new stories, alliances, bad blood, etc.

[Egypt (DoC)]

Egypt & Inca are both mid to small civs. Their power and development is equivalent.

I agree, which is why I'm not protesting ooc that Inca is attacking me, bold move And, for my part; you can defend with military, but you can also defend with diplomacy and rhetoric. I like the second method, and it seems to have worked, at least, until you guys started complaining Which is fine as well, apparently we are not all on the same line regarding this issue, so it's good to talk about it now, at least we then know in the future where we all stand. Better have this happening now in a relatively small conflict as compared to a bigger war.