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

[deity]

Subbing and things

Subbing

It was very interesting subbing in this game. As you know I was on travels until October 09 and couldn't start with my own civ but I hope my contribution as a sub has added something to the game. I certainly enjoyed it and am thrilled that we have such a fantastic group of diplo players.

Let's stick together for many more years of fun and arguments! We do get over arguments so we shouldn't be frightened of them but I strongly believe in the DoC rule that says all disputes get settled via PM.

Player code

However I must say that Byzantium's double cross of England is outside the player code that I've always come to play by. In 5 years of civing I've never comer across this, even with players like Frank! And for a diplo game it is incredibly bad imho.

I'll probably get howled down for saying this but it is clear to me that three civs allied to bring down the likely winner as per the diplo faq and historical diplo culture. For one of the alliance to then backstab when all efforts were being made to bring down the likely winner is the WORST thing that could have occurred in a diplo game. From now on all players will double their defensive efforts, reducing their attack capability; and the likelihood of alliances ever working again is seriously diminished. Games will become more introverted if you can't trust allies. Such a cheap trick really.

It is crucial in diplo games that a tear away leader can be brought down.

Too much praise is being heaped on India with silly phrases like "India deserved to win" etc. Whatever happened to competition? I don't think they deserved to win.

The game deserved a contest but this was sabotaged:

* Firstly by a multitude of passive civs around India that allowed them to rocket away with floodplains and an island continent. In addition GP's were freely traded to India and the Natives picking on Korea about their limited expansion is seriously flawed thinking when they are on a landmass and Korea is a small island!

* Secondly by a weak alliance that failed miserably because of Byzantium's approach and strategy - nothing to do with Persia. Byzantium's simplistic approach was to match the alliance troops in a showdown with Indian troops. Now England warned about this and any observer would realise that it was bound to fail. There was no deception, no strategy, nothing. Just land troops like the Australians at Gallipoli and let them get shot. "Oh, and I'll run away and while you protect my withdrawal and you can lose more ships doing so while I stab you in the back."

* Thirdly by England and Korea timidly tip toeing towards a change situation, relying on strong Byzantium leadership, and without really asserting their own tactics.

A korean blockade East and West much earlier on with support from Byzantium and England would have changed much as admitted by India, BUT England and Byzantium played too much "Chamberlain" and kept building. Korea could not do anything unless it had strong alliance support.

Sure India played well in this situation and is laughing all the way to the tower but Raz is right: What changed during the course of the game? Nothing! Who seriously tried to beat India? No one really.

But it was still a great game and by posting this I hope people will consider the future health of diplo games so that we maintain an excitement and a competitive approach that really determines a genuine game.

[Robert]

However I must say that Byzantium's double cross of England is outside the player code that I've always come to play by. In 5 years of civing I've never comer across this, even with players like Frank! And for a diplo game it is incredibly bad imho.

I seriously start to wonder if your memory starts to fail
We've had far worse backstabbings and double crosses.
Byzantium and England weren't even friends or allies.

now back to read the rest of your post

* Secondly by a weak alliance that failed miserably because of Byzantium's approach and strategy - nothing to do with Persia. Byzantium's simplistic approach was to match the alliance troops in a showdown with Indian troops. Now England warned about this and any observer would realise that it was bound to fail. There was no deception, no strategy, nothing. Just land troops like the Australians at Gallipoli and let them get shot. "Oh, and I'll run away and while you protect my withdrawal and you can lose more ships doing so while I stab you in the back."

Nah, that's simply not true.
Byzantium has given everything, as far as I can see.
There are 2 reasons why it failed:

1. because Persia warned India
2. because it all lasted way too long

The entire idea that Byzantium plotted it all is only a conspiracy.
Byzantium first tried to bring down India, then it failed and brought down England.
And it would have tried to bring down Persia as well. (he was already working on it, he only did not know that Persia's allies informed Persia about every move, while Byzantium thought they were plotting together)

I think that the Byzantine ships even carried the English armies home.

And the Cold War shows that these kinds of mutual hate after a joined alliance against a mutual enemy is very possible. If we would have had nukes, Byzantium may not have attacked England.

I think that you approach this situation too much from one side. I defenitely has multiple sides. Not to mention that you give Byzantium way too much double cross/backstabbing credits. Persia deserve those backstabbings / double cross credits much more. We were evil and did plot it all, but nobody hates us It's not fair

Most important of course: none of the not-involved civs blames Byzantium for what it did, only the 2 civs that were affected.
But once again, we've had worse backstabbings. Sparta once gave it's entire defense army to Korea to help Korea against the Mayans, then the Korea allied with the Maya and used the Spartan army to invade Sparta with the Spartan defense army!!!!

There's no double cross/backstabbing ever going to be even close to that backstabbing, and that one was back then totally acceptable by you, so why is this one not
And the 2nd Russian/Persian war in this game is in fact a perfect copy of the English/Byzantium situation now. Persia moved against the powerfull English to bring it down, then the Russians moved agains the poorly defended Persians (whoms army was away) and invaded it.

It's hard, but India won because:
1. India is a good player who prepared itself very well for the invasion
2. India got plenty of time to prepare itself
3. India got way too much information to defend itself

And I think that India 'deserved' to win, because it was the best player.
We challenged him, and he survived. Then he deserves it

What changed during the course of the game? Nothing! Who seriously tried to beat India? No one really.

Ah, c'mon, you guys had this huge invasion! It was a serious attempt.
I think you make the mistake to think that an attempt is only serious if it succeeds.
Well, my attempt to bring down New India was very serious, it failed nonetheless.

[Robert]

Can we please break anon now and can you post a full list of players (over time inc subs) and the civs they played? I think it better that we de-brief knowing who the players are. And I'm sure that voting will not be effected by it.

We've made a decision, let's now stick to it.

[Robert]

Sorry for delay ... I've been very busy at work these last few days and my wife has had a health scare.

The initial send for this was forwarded to Robert earlier this week but it was an odd format. I knew the game was coming to an end so haven't been really focussed on this with all the RL concerns.

I've resent the file to Robert now. Very sorry for the delay. Congratulations to the winner

Thanks a lot! I got it, I'll try to post the results today.
I hope your wife will be / is ok!

[deity]

I think Persia's actions proves my point that no real effort was made to bring India down because Persia sabotaged it too!

I'll give you that credit And it's consistent with my fundamental point that no one really allied properly to make an effort to stop India winning.

Persia and Byzantium both sabotaged it if you like. There was no serious sustained effort to change the game long status quo.

[Toni]

I am not going to get involved in this, just wanted to say onething.

Byzantium has given everything, as far as I can see.

I agree that Byz put a great efford into building up.

But what maybe many of you do not know, is that not only England did that too, but we had to build a great navy as well, going 0 science in order to rush buy and upgrade units.

That 15 something turns of not researching costed us not having tanks and what not.. Many ships were needed in order to make safe the invasion plans we three had.

So yes Byz did go full max on buildup for the invasion but stood on the science path. KOREA and England had to go full cash plus full military buildup, thus falling behind in science. Still that sacrifice was done to boost our odds vs Indian, and we knew that.

[Toni]

India had all of us on the hook, very early on. What ever the reason skills, location, friendly civ around.

The above doesn't matter, what i like about India is that he actually did work hard to hurt himself down (slaving and other tools) There was a period where he could have taken out half of the civs in the world if he wished.

Come on 20+ riflemen army, while the others have knights LOL Talk about leaving us all in the dust!!!

Well done India, you have won my respect as a player skillwise and attitude as well!!!

I am curious to see who is playing India by the way, any help please??

[India (DoC)]

@Deity
Again, it's easy to say it was an easy victory for me, but I know better

Persia might not had cared about my shrine, but I still had to fight him because I did not want to lose New India. Persia likes to think that those pms helpe me in the defense.. well maybe a little.. but truth is that thanks to the holy shrine I could see a big part of the world, (whole Egypt, Inca, and Korea. So I had an Idea what to expect and when)

I wrote before about some key moments what helped me. There are no wonders.. I used whatever I could.. or else I would had just dissapoint you and what is the fun in that?


I don't know what do you mean by "my floodplains" and GPs freely traded to me.. I had few floodplains and an owerall low food land, and I did not get GPs for free.
About building up in peace, thats true ofc, checked the powergraph every turn to see if my neighbours up to something.

[Toni]

I will remember this game, not because of my OOC problems with Byz, as we all know they will be forgotten.

But what I will remember is that I have never seen in all the diplo games I have played a civ with such a huge lead.

It felt good seeing such a well played strategy and game India, cheers to you for this

Yes yes, if we worked better together maybe we could have taken them down. But it didn't happen.

[Toni]

From now on all players will double their defensive efforts, reducing their attack capability; and the likelihood of alliances ever working again is seriously diminished. Games will become more introverted if you can't trust allies

Well deity about the trust issue, in my case I would be more careful and i guess if i figure OOC the player in charge of a civ knowing him from before I would then have/have not good reasons to trust him.

If i have no idea who is playing a civ i would like to conduct bus with, oh well as you said i will double my defences.

[deity]

There's no double cross/backstabbing ever going to be even close to that backstabbing, and that one was back then totally acceptable by you, so why is this one not

I don't think I did condone it but I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong and will go on record now and say that it was outside the player code

I think the Byz/Eng thing is far worse btw.

[Robert]

I think Persia's actions proves my point that no real effort was made to bring India down because Persia sabotaged it too!

A real effort was made by England and Byzantium and Korea.
I don't understand what gives you the idea that Byzantium sabotaged it.

Persia might not had cared about my shrine, but I still had to fight him because I did not want to lose New India. Persia likes to think that those pms helpe me in the defense.. well maybe a little..

A little was enough.
Sometimes you suspect something, but can't be sure.
To Persia it was only important that you KNEW that something was coming from the other side.

The first leak of info (by Darius) was more important then the last one.
The last one was only there to avoid that you might take the gamble to bring all bombers to New India at least for 1 turn.

It was a little, but a little was all I needed.
Ok, I needed more, I also needed a better god to improve my odds, that stupid Hastog is worth for nothing

[deity]

@Deity
Again, it's easy to say it was an easy victory for me, but I know better

It was easy, trust me

The only time you felt the heat was when you ooc posted and promptly got Mali and Native support on board...

imho

[Robert]

I don't think I did condone it but I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong and will go on record now and say that it was outside the player code

I think the Byz/Eng thing is far worse btw.

The Byz/Eng thing would have been equally worse if England had given it's army to Byzantium to invade India and then Byzantium would have used that English army to invade England, helped by India.

Now it doesn't even come close.
Now it's only A+B attack C, then when peace is signed A attacks B when B is weak.

[Robert]

Well deity about the trust issue, in my case I would be more careful and i guess if i figure OOC the player in charge of a civ knowing him from before I would then have/have not good reasons to trust him.

If i have no idea who is playing a civ i would like to conduct bus with, oh well as you said i will double my defences.

It's not a 'trust' thing, as if the Byz player can't be trusted ooc.
It's a 'know the style' thing.

When I'm next to you I know that I should try to make good diplomatic deals with you and become friends with you and that you will then not invade me.

When I'm next to the Byzantine player I know that I have to keep my borders secured. (as when I'm next to the Russian player).

I also know that you are less eager to come to my aid in a huge war then the Byzantine player.

If you're next to me you have first to figure out the role I'm playing in the game, and then you have to decide on how to approach me. As Sparta you could trust my word, in this game you could not. Now I need to find something completely new for the next game

It's a difference of playing style.
And that's why anonimity is that cool, you don't know what player is next to you.