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

[Robert]

It still says "Russia (sub)" at civstats.
As far as I know Russia's 1st sub will return October 19th. Right now Ozzy is subbing.
Original may or may not return at the end of the month. That's not sure.

If subs can or cannot do major stuff depends on their agreements with the original owner. If the sub is going his own way then we should consider that as if suddenly someone else took charge in the country.

[Ottoman Empire (DoC)]

Ok, some clarification please.

Is original Russia back?

I know at one point there was a replacement (who's character was VERY different from oiriginal Russia) and the replacement was proposing deals and actions which I don't know if I should act on or not in fairness to the original Russia.

Is there a way we can differentiate between the two?

Is there also no rule that says a sub can't make any major strategy shifts for the civ?

Very confusing...

[Robert]

fortuanlty i not playing to win in any category, but seems that a lot of civs changed the way they vote for korea compared to how they vote for all other civs. you may not like my stiyle of voting but it is the same for all the civs, i dont change it agaisnt another civ.

so voiting me low doesnt make me change but it does show how petty some of you are in voting korea much lower than others.

people should vote using whatver sysmte they want provided it is consistent for all civs.

And thus for the record again, This chart doesn't show that Korea received low ratings, it shows that Korea gave away low ratings.

Please no misundestanding about my charts

[Robert]

Well, following the logic of The Priest, if we vote on role playing/story telling, we all vote on the same knowledge.
If it's about attitude/military/diplomacy, none of us know the entire picture.

The fact that different players rate on different criteria is not the problem, according to The Priest (and others). Their problem is that we vote while we all lack information.

Anyway, here are the vote statistics. (the avg rates every civ gave to others)



NB: the ratings from Russia and England have not been included yet in any of the rating statistics! I'll wait for them (WarningU2 has to send them to me) before I'll publish anything new.

i see persia compalining about a low Attitude vote but he has one of the higher ones, so what is the problem ?

Just for the record, the chart you included shows the ratings civs have give to others. Not the ratings civs received from others.
In this graph Persia gave away a heigh attitude rating.

Please no misunderstanding about my charts

[Russia (DoC)]

Bleating is what Raz enjoys most.

[St Jon]

BtP scoring was imperfect - to say the least - but it is intriguing how different people value different things. Lots of pretty pictures and nothing to say or an essay. We have even had some sonnets and eulogies, not to mention the blank verse, chucked in as well!

Raz, you are wrong about Diplomacy. By its' very nature the best diplomacy is done behind closed doors or what would it be worth? Story is so subjective that it just comes down to what people like. Game attitude can mean anything from being a bellicose git ready to start an Org Thread argument to just playing every Turn. Priest is right about Military, mainly, but again it becomes very subjective in a Diplo type setting whereas in a straight game it is nothing more than who won or lost. Which is better?

I had thought all this nonsense had been dealt with before we started anyway, so why are people bleating now?

[Rasputin]

fortuanlty i not playing to win in any category, but seems that a lot of civs changed the way they vote for korea compared to how they vote for all other civs. you may not like my stiyle of voting but it is the same for all the civs, i dont change it agaisnt another civ.

so voiting me low doesnt make me change but it does show how petty some of you are in voting korea much lower than others.

people should vote using whatver sysmte they want provided it is consistent for all civs.

[Rasputin]

Well, following the logic of The Priest, if we vote on role playing/story telling, we all vote on the same knowledge.
If it's about attitude/military/diplomacy, none of us know the entire picture.

The fact that different players rate on different criteria is not the problem, according to The Priest (and others). Their problem is that we vote while we all lack information.

Anyway, here are the vote statistics. (the avg rates every civ gave to others)



NB: the ratings from Russia and England have not been included yet in any of the rating statistics! I'll wait for them (WarningU2 has to send them to me) before I'll publish anything new.

i see persia compalining about a low Attitude vote but he has one of the higher ones, so what is the problem ?

[Rasputin]

always one more than you!



(I do agree that Mr. Plomp is not on the right track, by the way... just boredom here)

perhpas jsut drop the voting all together and go with only in game score ?

[Rome (DoC)]

always one more than you!



(I do agree that Mr. Plomp is not on the right track, by the way... just boredom here)

[Mali (DoC)]

But maybe there are in the end only two categories in games like this, role playing and gamescore. And we could give role playing a weight of 60% and gamescore a weight of 40%.

[Persia (DoC)]

Thanks Britannia.
I've removed the whining from my own post, maybe you can remove it from your quote of me

It was a moment of weakness. I'm sorry.

[Orb (DoC)]

I also use attitude for penalty or reward. It's a 4 for civs where nothing special happened. If a civ loses a war but stays cool and won't start an ooc fight, they can expect a good attitude rating from me. And if they do start a fight, I'll give them a bad attitude rating.
Same with the victor civs, if they push too far and crumble smaller civs, I'll hit them with the attitude stick. But if they're offering acceptable peace turns, I'll reward them.

To me it's a way to compensate in-game wrongs.
That's also why I was a but disappointed for getting a low attitude myself.
I tried to be very reasonable and fair towards both Russia and Britannia, but I fear that I got a low attitude rating from many civs only because I was stronger.
The truth is that Russia got a settler and military help to compensate their loss, and Britannia got 2 workers and military help to compensate their bad luck. My civ would be more advanced now if I would have just been bold to them. I would most probably have received the same low attitude score anyway.

But now I gave away 2 workers and 1 settler to smaller civs to help them to compensate their bad luck! (which is quite a huge gift at this stage of the game!!!) And I sent many armies to help them. But I got one of the lowest attitude scores
If anybody can explain that to me, please do.

But I won't complain, this is the system. Perhaps next month I'll be lucky.
I don't think we should judge the system based on 1 month. I should grow over time.
I'm happy that I go a very very good story rating! That's in the end more important to me! Thanks all!

If it makes you feel any better I gave you a high attitude score

[Rome (DoC)]

Yeah,

I earned more votes too. I should be first by now

[Persia (DoC)]

I just realized that the score-vote we did last week was really really bad for me!
I am 4th on average rating and 10th (!!) on score-points!

That stupid rule change made me drop 6 places! I'm glad that I abstained