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

[Egypt (DoC)]

Maybe it's time for an all-world peace party in Friendship City with the Hippehs



I'll stock up on sacred blue lily

I agree in that this is getting a bit out of hand. However, so far, the actual fighting has been between just the small nations, right? So all the big words from big nations could still just be diplomatic muscles, with no actual intent of bringing in huge armies and unleashing world war...

[OzzyKP]

* Do you call a measured war taking half the cities of the smallest nation?

Sorry in advance but i need some clearification here:

So from what i understand from the Original Arabs they said that "Ozzy (as he set me on this course of war)" When did we had a sub come in and just for his own fun decides to go for war, even if the org player isn't aware of this?

* To Ozzy and Robert, is this all just happening because Ozzy suggested that we split the Greeks. And when he saw that this would not happen went for the war?

* Persia you do forget that Byzantium helped Egypt by gifting them units, so at least point your fingures to all bigger civs.

Also I would like to know which other civ the Greek player is playing as well. We agreed that we will have a sub with the name, to know if its a sub or the org player.

The Sequence of Events:

When I took over Arabia my only instructions, passed down from the Ottomans, were to build military. I did so, but I assessed the situation of the Arabs when I first logged in. They were pretty much at the bottom in score and prospects. They didn't have astronomy and didn't have any land left to expand to anyhow. I had just played as Rome and done a good job of expanding to Africa, but even with that work, Rome was still (as well as Egypt) hopelessly far behind.

I noticed that Greece, another hopelessly far behind civ, had given up on the game. Because no one cared about Greece (including the Greece player) and because they had assets (cities and great people) that could help three other small civs maintain an interest and competitive edge in the game, it seemed, ooc, like the right idea for the good of the game.

Apparently no one liked that idea. It seemed like the most logical and beneficial idea, and it was annoying for me to have a civ totally check out . To stockpile great people for pretty much the entire game demonstrates that the player probably never really cared all that much (despite CS' three good reasons to hold on to 6-7 great people). So since people didn't go for the carving him up solution, I invoked the rule that called for the player to be ejected due to being absent too many turns.

It seemed the matter was settled. Not my optimal solution, but at least something to fix the situation. I set myself on building forges & troops.

Then, because of the hornets nest I stirred up in the org thread, another player in the game contacted me to inform me that attacking Greece was the original Arabia player's plan all along. Ugh, now I felt like an idiot because I just made a big ooc stink about it before realizing his plans.

My only official instructions were to build military, but after looking over Greece it seemed my current troops were more than enough to snag a city or two. I assumed the original Arab player would want to do the war himself since he had been planning it for a while. I assumed also that it would look bad if I did it after my ooc dust-up.

Then I noticed a different civ start collecting troops near Greece. I was afraid that my ooc scheme had put the idea in people's heads that Greece was weak and ripe for the taking. I didn't want to start the war myself, but I figured if I did nothing and Arabia lost their chance for expansion because another civ beat them to it, that'd be even worse.

So I went for it.


My Take on War:

I still think splitting Greece up would be the most equitable solution, and the best for the game. But I do agree (as someone with only one foot in this game) that it can be suffocating for the big powers to involve themselves in every war. It seemed ridiculous for everyone to dogpile the Inca. They had planned that war for a while, and it seemed to reengage them in the game. When you are stick in the middle between England & India, what else do you have to keep you interested in the game?

But no, pretty much every big power in the game told him no. Sure, that is partly credited to Egypt's good diplomacy, but I'm sure there was a great deal of ooc reason for everyone to support Inca as well.

Everyone seems to be ok when a small civ takes on a larger foe. (Russia v. Persia, Russia v. Ottomans, Arabia, Rome, Greece, Inca v. England) but it is very, very rare that a civ has the balls or the remotest chance of success with such a war. There exists such a great gulf between large and small civs in this game. That gulf only continues to get larger. Two out of those three wars failed utterly.

Wars are fun. They are a big part of this game. For small civs that have no hope of ever launching a space ship, they may be all they have left to keep the game interesting. Since attacking a big power is virtually impossible, small civs have no choice but to go after civs their own size. But with the major powers putting a stop to that, small civs don't really have anything to play for.


My Take on the Current Situation

It looked like we were heading to a resolution. Britannia made a deal to stay out of it. Korea decided to stay out of it. It was down to just Arabia/Byzantium v. Greece/England. Things finally seemed balanced again so it seemed an opportune moment to discuss peace. While no longer playing Arabia, I decided to go rogue and shop out a peace treaty to everyone involved.

Unfortunately Greece rejected it. They didn't have anything constructive to add either. Just "England go beat them up so I can get everything back". It seems to me that Greece lost the war. I was trying to keep it limited in scope, as per the rules of the game. At the point I drafted the treaty, Greece would lose two cities, but gain two more overseas cities. It would still be a loss, yes, but they lost the war. That has consequences.

Under normal circumstances, Greece would recognize the military situation and want to make a deal. But Greece is negotiating from a position of strength due to the artificial involvement of other powers. So, if they can risk England & India's troops, they have no interest in calling an end to the war or admitting defeat.

I thought my peace offer was pretty fair, all things considered. But it doesn't seem like there is a way to negotiate in good faith under these circumstances.

[OzzyKP]

Also, it doesn't seem like a terribly good idea for the new Greece player to be playing two civs. We said that wasn't fair when Ottomans were at war with Russia and subbing for Arabs.

Unless people feel I am tainted, I could sub for the other civ Greece is playing.

[India (DoC)]

Also, it doesn't seem like a terribly good idea for the new Greece player to be playing two civs. We said that wasn't fair when Ottomans were at war with Russia and subbing for Arabs.

Unless people feel I am tainted, I could sub for the other civ Greece is playing.

I belive the Greece player has suggeested that He would pick the other civ, so you may end up playing with Greece :P

[OzzyKP]

Hehe, well that'd be awkward. I'd just take the peace treaty. That I wrote.

[Robert]

Yes, that's true. (@India).

For the record:
Greek sub = Greek sub
Other civ Greek sub is playing for = Civ X
Org player of other civ Greek sub is playing for = Org Civ X

here we go:

I knew that Greek sub was playing the turns of Civ X.
Org Civ X had not left though, he made the decisions on Civ X.
So then Greek sub stepped forward to take over Greece, and I thought it was a good solution.

I only found out last evening that Greek sub was still playing turns for Civ X. (while Org Civ X still made the calls). Greek sub then explained that Org Civ X' computer is broken and he right now can't play civ. So Org Civ X tells stories and makes decisions, Greek sub only (techncially) plays.

I thought this was not a good situation, at least without you guys knowning, so that's why I asked Greek sub to put this in the thread, which he did.

Personally I do believe that Greek sub is a very trustworthy person who is very well able to seperate both civs. Org Civ X is also a very trustable and honest person, though I fear that he may want to help greek sub IG b/c Greek sub is helping him ooc.
I know that Greek sub and Org Civ X disagree about things here
For the record: it thus doesn't matter if Greek sub will or will not also sub for Civ X, b/c he's not the one that makes the calls.

This is quite a complicated explanation, but I won't reveal civ X (yet). (spooky )

I'd advise everyone to just continue it this way.
Greek sub also technically plays for Civ X.
but he's not the one who makes the decisions/stories/diplomacy for Civ X.

An alternative could be that Ozzy takes over Greece. But that would be permanently. (or at least till the war is over or Org Civ X got his computer repaired)
edit: just reading Ozzies response, so: no, Ozzy is most probably not a good idea right now

So, everybody who understood this says: "Yeah!"

[OzzyKP]

Yeah!

[Robert]

I moved some of the ooc posts from the story thread to this thread.
(The usual Persia ranting and some Korea one liners that also might have been in-character....)

[Russia (DoC)]

hardly anyone got involved in the Russo-persian war. or the Russo-byzantine war (which ozzy forgot to mention) and persia only mumbled in their beards about making peace or else... else nothing... wow. how come Russia gets to move about freely like that all the time...? oh yeah, we KICK ASS

[India (DoC)]

We are getting too much argument lately about should a bigger civ intervene or not.. for whatever reason:
-alliance
-friendship
-bribe

We could make a vote, but it's not an easy question.

Sure, unbalanced wars are less fun, but
-they still can be fun
-it doesnt depend on size, the original Arabian/Greek war was already unbalanced


To answer Persia: Yes, I'm sure I'm doing it for IC reasons, to achieve my IC goal.

But if we are to make a consensus about this question I won't mind pulling myself out of this conflict-but then it should be the way we play from now on, and I strongly belive it would hurt the diplo more than it'd help it.

[Persia (DoC)]

Will it help you, India? Of course it will.
Coal, great people, oil, use greece to launch an attack on England, etc. etc. There are many possibilities.

But does that mean it's in character?
Greece is an Islam nation, you're a strong taoist. In fact so far your story has only been about Taoism. (a very good one, you got a 7 from me!)
I don't see how India helping Greece fits within your character.

But anyway, I have said my thing. I don't need a consensus. We've had this small debate, now everybody makes his own decision, which is fine.
I'm going to stay out of it. I hope this does not end up in Arabia having to fight all the big powers alone (b/c Byzantium also must pull out b/c of too much power against him)

[India (DoC)]

Coal, great people, oil, use greece to launch an attack on England, etc. etc. There are many possibilities.

But does that mean it's in character?

If I really wanted that coal I'd do whatever it takes to get it. Why is it not in character? I don't want to overexplain it.. India has been bribed into this conflict with something which she needs really badly. (and I can assure you that it's a fair trade b4 someone thinks I want to rip poor Greece off)

[Rome (DoC)]

At what point did needing oil and going to war for it not become an in character motive? Religion is a strong theme in this game, but let's not force everyone to have everything spin around it. India is building a case for intervention as we speak anyway: they have not declared war on anybody yet and are now building a case to do so in the future.

OOC would be declaring war without any prior communication on the subject, not complaining about what is happening and stating that if a situation continues intervention will be needed. All the big boys do that, just with a different agendas. We either force the big boys NOT to open their mouths at all in situations like this, or allow room for all points of view, pro and con intervention.

IMHO, if India says they have an IC reason which Persia cannot see then 1) Persia should give India the benefit of the doubt and allow them to actually build their case, and 2) India should consider being a little more overt in future situations to prevent risk of doubt around motives

Will it help you, India? Of course it will.
Coal, great people, oil, use greece to launch an attack on England, etc. etc. There are many possibilities.

But does that mean it's in character?
Greece is an Islam nation, you're a strong taoist. In fact so far your story has only been about Taoism. (a very good one, you got a 7 from me!)
I don't see how India helping Greece fits within your character.

But anyway, I have said my thing. I don't need a consensus. We've had this small debate, now everybody makes his own decision, which is fine.
I'm going to stay out of it. I hope this does not end up in Arabia having to fight all the big powers alone (b/c Byzantium also must pull out b/c of too much power against him)

[Rome (DoC)]

IMHO, if India says they have an IC reason which Persia cannot see then 1) Persia should give India the benefit of the doubt and allow them to actually build their case, and 2) India should consider being a little more overt in future situations to prevent risk of doubt around motives

Or, of course, go kick the crap out of each other and give the rest of us a spectacle to watch

[India (DoC)]

At what point did needing oil and going to war for it not become an in character motive?

Thankfully it never happens RL