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

[Persia (DoC)]

I don't consider myself as one of the big boys either.
I think it's too early to tell.

India and me apparently share the worker-start.
I went: worker - scout - scout - settler - axeman - axeman - axeman - axeman - axemen () - spearman - oracle - settler - settler - in my capital

the Oracle gave me a lot of points (both wonder and philosophy) which makes a difference to the score!
I think that the wonder-builders have the highest scores right now. That doesn't mean that they'll in the end be the best civs.
My oracle has had it's purpose. It won't give me anything anymore from now on

huts only gave me maps and gold (280 something)

[Orb (DoC)]

Having two religions doesn't hurt either I guess.

[Byzantium (DoC)]

Conversations about scores really don't help anyone. Can't we just play? And don't be fooled St Jon is using this talk of big-boys as part of his IG diplomatic efforts.

[Orb (DoC)]

I really don't see how talk about big boys will help st jon or any one for that matter ingame. But I agree lets get back to the game and writing stories.

[St Jon]

You misunderstand me. I do not mean 'Big Boys' in terms of the very experienced/very good players but simply the 'Big Boys' as in 'Big Powers' within this game as it currently stands. A 100pt gulf is a lot so early in SP, if it's you then you're playing too low difficulty and if it's the AI you're either doing something profoundly wrong or have been incredibly unlucky, even taking wonders into account. In MP there aren't the distortions of quicker AI production/research and dire AI planning and warfare to account for it so I do just hope the high-flyers are nice to the little guys rather than just carve them up.

[Arabia (DoC)]

I'm getting a little concerned about all this talk about big boys.

[Korea (DoC)]

I guess the start is not the same as the end. Or so we are continualy told.

[Korea (DoC)]

i just voted please confirm

[Orb (DoC)]

It is true the start is not the same as the end but at the same time if one civ has a great start then goes unchallenged they should come out on top unless smallers civs band together to take the bigger ones down or the bigger ones roylly mess up.

[Rasputin]

It is true the start is not the same as the end but at the same time if one civ has a great start then goes unchallenged they should come out on top unless smallers civs band together to take the bigger ones down or the bigger ones roylly mess up.

hmm if this had been posted under my name it would have got a million responses claiming i whinging etc etc

but i do agree .. the top civs need to be kept in check by the civs immedialty below them, what usualy hapepns is they ally with the civs bleow them..

[mzprox]

but i do agree .. the top civs need to be kept in check by the civs immedialty below them, what usualy hapepns is they ally with the civs bleow them..

I have other opinion. Attacking a civ with stronger economy could just result that the weaker civ falls even more behind-they can win ofc but even that not always pays off.
I think the ballance should be in the level of alliances. In an alliance even a weaker civ can be very significant. What we should avoid is that the strongest civs forge a permament alliance- It's the responsibility of "the big boys" to keep the game interesting and avoid such a safe play.
But do whatever you want just have fun and don't quit (had I said how I hated that in BtP? I'm sure I had.. )

[deity]

I think the balance should be in the level of alliances. In an alliance even a weaker civ can be very significant. What we should avoid is that the strongest civs forge a permament alliance- It's the responsibility of "the big boys" to keep the game interesting and avoid such a safe play.

slightly edited...

Totally agree.

I feel that as the Khmer in BtP I tried absolutely everything to fulfill this ideal.

[Robert]

Let's keep game politics in-character.
ooc discussions about what should happen in-game aren't fair. Who knows what secret agenda someone has he tries to achieve by ooc remarks.

And yes, top civs should keep the game interesting for all, but that's also what we have the attitude vote for.
It's both for small civs that continue to play despite their bad situation and for big civs, who despite their powers still give the smaller civs a chance.
Use it at your own insight.

And use in-game politics to fight the big ones or the strong ones or the ugly ones or the blue wants if you want! (or even to fight civs because their leader has a bald head, there are many reasons for a war! Just don't discuss it OOC, that's what we have in-game diplo for )

[deity]

IMHO discussion is valid for healthy diplo in the future:

I think Rome and Portugal's game-long co-operation (after their ancient mini-war and regardless of tensions) as two of the top 3 powers in BtP assured that one of these two civs would win...

and they did.

[Rasputin]

IMHO discussion is valid for healthy diplo in the future:

I think Rome and Portugal's game-long co-operation (after their ancient mini-war and regardless of tensions) as two of the top 3 powers in BtP assured that one of these two civs would win...

and they did.

it all good the lower civs are here to play regardless of what is going on in game , they never quit...