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

[Byzantium (DoC)]

You misunderstand Ozzy - I have a problem with gifting units being secret. Gifting cities never is. And yes I have gifted both in this game, but that doesn't mean that I don't think we would be better with a rule set which changed/limited these.

[OzzyKP]

Just two quick thoughts (sorry CS): first, Byzantium, you have a problem with gifting units, but no problem with gifting entire cities? (especially cities that are gifted so gifting units can be done easier)

And I think India has done pretty well with trying to handicap themselves and not create some juggernaut alliance like many previous game winners have done (myself included). Their war against Byzantium, deliberately done to piss people off for minimal gain, I thought was great for balance. Also, as a personal plug, I also tried to stir up fights and enemies when I was doing really well in previous games. I think more people should be as enlightened as India and I!

That's all.

[Egypt (DoC)]

Completely OOC discussion here. I was asked (not saying by who) why I am not turning against India to prolong the game and give someone else a chance to win. I was actually taken aback by this question. We are playing a game here right, which means there has to be a winner. In what game do people in the lead slack off to allow the people losing to catch up and possibly win? Games don't work like that.

I was also accused of not doing the game justice by having such a longstanding alliance with India. Personally I was a little offended by this statement. How am I not doing the game justice. I have diplomatically played the game, provided stories as much as I can and played within the rules of the game. In my opinion I have upheld the spirit of the game in my actions.

Maybe I'm blind here, but I don't see what I'm doing wrong and certainly don't see why I should be working for someone else to win. Perhaps someone has a personal vendetta against India?

Completely agree with you Mali, you've done nothing wrong

[Robert]

ok, let's leave it there. all sides have spoken their opinion.
game rule changes are for next game. let's now focus on this game.

[India (DoC)]

I think India-Mail-Natives (though I am not sure how close this really has been throughout much of the game).

It was not, but I will explain it later.
I just want to tell that It was very difficult trying not to become too strong (by being part of an unbreakable alliance) so for a long time I did not look for allies and even refused these kind of propositions, but after a point I also had to watch not to become an easy prey. While the Natives may had decided on my side for a long time I did not trust them (nothing personal, I just become paranoid in this game.. always expecting backstabs ) and did not ask any help untill England joined the war and I saw the Byzantine troops gathering in Egypt.

Really wanted to avoid the situation that in the end one of the party could feel that they haven't had too much chance.. not that easy as it looks, really

on an other hand a very important ooc note: we can talk about what will happen with the game after we decided the fate of the galax.. ehm.. earth.
I have an idea what would I do if we lose, that actually would be very interesting but just for that I wont disband my troops
on the other way around, if we win I don't necessarily rush to finish the game. we could turn it to something fun, we have a nice setup, active players, we could change roles and now we would go after your capitals etc.. if you would like to..

I don't know how much troops you brought, about the chances.. I can finish my turn in 3 hours, good luck everyone

[Byzantium (DoC)]

Mali - although in game I am attacking India because they attacked me, and therefore sadly in the way the world has worked out, your troops (wearing Indian uniforms) and mine are about to kill each other - despite that I complete agree with what you say.

I think it would be ridiculous if we all just got into a endless cycle of nation 'A' is about to win, so lets all get them; now nation 'B' is about to win, so lets all get them; now nation 'c' etc.

I have good in game grounds for attacking India (they attacked me first!) and yes of course the fact that they are steaming towards a cultural victory does give an added impetus particlarly on timing. But there is no reason that anyone else should feel they 'ought' to attack them.

I haven't been one in this game for forming long-term alliances. Others have - particularly England-Korea and I think India-Mail-Natives (though I am not sure how close this really has been throughout much of the game). There was also a sort of alliance of the Hastog nations though that fell apart long ago; and of course the original MAD attack on England. They certainly become very important building blocks in the game, and I am certainly have been frustrated sometimes by the power of them, but on the other hand they are a natural and important part of the game - the fun of diplo is all about diplomacy and agreements.

The game has to finish somehow. Shorter games are just as good as longer. For me what is important is that people are making decisions and playing the game for its own fun - its only when I feel that people are making decisions for historical ooc reasons that I get annoyed (e.g. the fact that x who is playing nation A won a diplo game three years ago by double-crossig me means I am now going to try to get him in this game).

I have already said that I think that India has done brilliantly in this game. Part of that brilliance is in constructing alliances - and why shouldn't that brilliance be celebrated - part in constructing a great story line which has engulfed the planet.

Its a game. I really hope that I and some other nations can bring him down. I doubt it- but its great fun trying. Of course in game I would prefer if you weren't shipping troops to him, but hey, why should my side have it easy.

I think that it will be good to discuss further tweaks to rules after the game. I dislike all the troop reuniforming (thuogh I take advantage of it myself while it is legal) - its unhistorical and I think it makes decisions over balance very difficult. I believe if a great power is helping a smaller nation in its war against another small nation, everyone should know what is happening. But they are discussions for another moment.

I think the discussion about the city gifting is inappropriate. Sometimes it seems as if people assume that just because they weren't involved in real diplo roleplaying conversations, and because they weren't posted on here, they didn't happen! There is a certain awkwardness about the game mechanics. People want to gift ships to Byzantium, but the only way in the game mechanics that this can happen is for there to be a byzantine city. Of course in r.l. it would just have been a matter of renting a naval base, but in game you have to have a city, so it has to be done by a rather clumsy device of city gifting (similarly if you want to exploit the resources). It is clumsy and makes the map look foolish, but thats the limitations of Civ IV for us.

So, as far as I am concerned, if you want to continue to sleep with the Vampire Queen (is she good? I'd be worried about the teeth ) be my guest - just buy some life insurance!

[Mali (DoC)]

Completely OOC discussion here. I was asked (not saying by who) why I am not turning against India to prolong the game and give someone else a chance to win. I was actually taken aback by this question. We are playing a game here right, which means there has to be a winner. In what game do people in the lead slack off to allow the people losing to catch up and possibly win? Games don't work like that.

I was also accused of not doing the game justice by having such a longstanding alliance with India. Personally I was a little offended by this statement. How am I not doing the game justice. I have diplomatically played the game, provided stories as much as I can and played within the rules of the game. In my opinion I have upheld the spirit of the game in my actions.

Maybe I'm blind here, but I don't see what I'm doing wrong and certainly don't see why I should be working for someone else to win. Perhaps someone has a personal vendetta against India?

[Persia (DoC)]

It's about the bigger picture, not about well explainable details.

[England (DoC)]

Well said Italy

[Rome (DoC)]

Is this still about Italy giving up a city? Jumping to conclusions, guys... There was a bunch of PM's - completely in character I might add - leading up to this discussion. This is a deal brokered between Italy, Greece, England and Korea, which took considerable discussion and weighing of alternatives and Italy is obviously compensated to satisfaction for the completely legal sacrifice of it's city. Diplo is not and cannot ever be the same as all-out-in-the-open

Yea, this war seems to be drifting well beyond an explainable, in character war.

Or, it seems Raz has forgotten about DIPLO.

[OzzyKP]

Yea, this war seems to be drifting well beyond an explainable, in character war.

Or, it seems Raz has forgotten about DIPLO.

[Persia (DoC)]

No, I earlier rejected the idea of getting the Roman oil city myself. (in PM).
But yes, I knew all about the Incan city. Maybe I did not object to it in my pm's indeed.

I'm also a bit selfish, it definitely served my goal. I'm sorry for that.
This is not to blame anybody.

[Greece (DoC)]

If India is fine, then so am I.

I understand the reasons, Greece, it just doesn't feel good to me. (Roman city more then Incan city)

Anyway, like I said, if India is ok, then so am I.
For next game I'll propose additional rules though.
(I doubt that right now Rome and Inca are aware that they can't get the city back for 50 turns)

We maybe should have pointed that out, I can't remember if we did.

Don't forget Persia was a factor in all of this...

[Greece (DoC)]

We can talk about this and the "thruth behind everything" after the game (and i'd like to), now it would just led to an ic/ooc mix propaganda

agreed

[India (DoC)]

India (hugely tech advanced) is defending a continent with 3 of the top 6 civs against 4 from the Top 7.

We can talk about this and the "thruth behind everything" after the game (and i'd like to), now it would just led to an ic/ooc mix propaganda