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

[Korea (DoC)]

oh for flip skae guys,,, ameirca seeling weopnms without trainign no ti doesnth happenm.

they go there and teach them how to use them that the same as ahign the tefh to make one ,,


so dont twistthis to suit your belief

if i upgrade your cross bow to machine gunner then i need to teach you how to use one

[Korea (DoC)]

too many loopholes if that what the game about, wow

[Persia (DoC)]

too uch micro managing to check graphs


and it not realistic to upgrade a unit that someone doesnt ahv ethe tech for,

I bleive the rul shoudl be if you upgrafe tehn you hav eto gift the tech freely too.

too uch micro managing to check graphs


and it not realistic to upgrade a unit that someone doesnt ahv ethe tech for,

I bleive the rul shoudl be if you upgrafe tehn you hav eto gift the tech freely too.

Why is that not realistic? It happens all the time!
America is giving weapons to the enemies of the Taliban, Russia gives rockets to Iran, to name just two examples.

And since weapons you give away can be used against you (Al Qai'da vs America) all big nations won't be keen to give too much away.

Upgrading costs money, someone has to pay for it. It comes with natural balance
The strength of a nation can only be expanded. A small nation can't become a superpower suddenly.

[Robert]

Unless you know how to cover it up

[Korea (DoC)]

too uch micro managing to check graphs


and it not realistic to upgrade a unit that someone doesnt ahv ethe tech for,

I bleive the rul shoudl be if you upgrafe tehn you hav eto gift the tech freely too.

[India (DoC)]

(and just a tip in case someone doesnt know: on the powergraph it can be seen when and who gifts units to who )

[India (DoC)]

i perosnal dont liek the UPGRADINg of units by antoher it is so easy to do and means you can skip tech reaserch all together.

It's not unrealistic, happens in RL quite similary
while it's true that at a point a backward civ could skip researching, upgrading is very costly, and this may be the only way for them to be able "effecting" the game at a particular level.
I've always said that small (backward) civs are too can participate and be important in the alliance vs alliance wars-wouldnt be so if that war is fought by tanks and the best unit of that small civ is musketmen.
So (especially at end game) I think it's perfectly normal if the small civ slows its research to be able upgrading their units and have a more modern military that count (must be realistic: they wont launch a spacehip anyway, just like 99% of the real world countries won't)
As for the "silent" interventions: it's up to the civs how they react on it. Gifting units to one's enemies is quite the same declaring war on them, upgrading units also could be a casus belli.

[Robert]

I know of some bloody galley thatnever got returned

I know of an army of riflemen that got returned AS A WAR MOVE!

[Korea (DoC)]

that not very nice OZZY is USA a real country yet.. ????

How long has USA been allied to the same westrern powers of Grea Britian

[OzzyKP]

Real world is actualy well rperesented by long alliances. Australia allied with New Zeland since day one so well over 200 years now.

how many of those years were they real countries?

[Korea (DoC)]

Don't take away selling units. It is an integral part of power politics, in game and in history. What I do dislike is when whole armies are gifted away for practically nothing.

should only be lalowed to gift or sell units if the appropiate tech is also given..

There has to be a balance to things. And it is a dog eat dog world. Diplomacy lessens this somewhat, but still, we should be able to make war. There has in fact been extremely little war in this game. Some civs have never seen war at all...

Persia-Russia
Greece Byzantium
5-England
Russia-Byzantium
Russia-Persia2
Persia-Natives (colonial)
Egypt-Inca
Byzantium-India
Russia-Ottoman

9 wars, if I forgotten some, let's say 10. For how many civs and how many years?
10 wars for 15 civs during 5500 years? It's a major game mechanic flaw that wars have:
1. No attrition or desertion of troops
2. No morale value for troops
3. Defence is too easy (cultural landscape is beyond any reasonability)
4. Possibility for limited skirmishes are practically non-existant (it's usually all in with every conflict).

been other nations involved in wars but not directly, agaun gifitng of units etc... I know of some bloody galley thatnever got returned

A major problem is exactly that big nations, or just any other civs intervene too much.

I would like to see a rule in future diplogames.
1. Alliances must be publicly announced
2. Alliances last maximum 20 turns.
3. Renewing alliance after that time incurs an attitude/prestige loss.
4. Interfering in a war without an alliance should have a big prestige loss.

Loosening up interventions by making alliances short-lived (find me an example of any alliance in world history that has lasted more than 100 years) should be a definitive spur to make people both more active in diplomacy, but make diplomacy more interesting.

Real world is actualy well rperesented by long alliances. Australia allied with New Zeland since day one so well over 200 years now. Breakinng of allaicne by somme rule is silly, they should be borken by in game and diplo manipulations. Indian Korean alliance was broken due to IC stuff, English Korean allaince was formed due to this breaksdown. Maybe the allaince of the Mali/indians and Natives would have broken apart if soome could offer them someting to do so.

As for the role of small civs and big hinderances. Yeah, it really sucks to be small. Plotting and planning is one thing, and it is fun, but if you are very small you have very little leverage.

People do have to realise that civ 4 game mechanics severley limit a war till you totally out number someone else either in numbers or tech level, there is little actual strategy for miltiary use, it is all about lieing till you trick some one to not defneidng and then attack them
.. would lvoe to see a online game l;ike the old Avalon Hil lboard games...

[Byzantium (DoC)]

What Russia says makes sense to me.

[Russia (DoC)]

Don't take away selling units. It is an integral part of power politics, in game and in history. What I do dislike is when whole armies are gifted away for practically nothing.

There has to be a balance to things. And it is a dog eat dog world. Diplomacy lessens this somewhat, but still, we should be able to make war. There has in fact been extremely little war in this game. Some civs have never seen war at all...

Persia-Russia
Greece Byzantium
5-England
Russia-Byzantium
Russia-Persia2
Persia-Natives (colonial)
Egypt-Inca
Byzantium-India
Russia-Ottoman

9 wars, if I forgotten some, let's say 10. For how many civs and how many years?
10 wars for 15 civs during 5500 years? It's a major game mechanic flaw that wars have:
1. No attrition or desertion of troops
2. No morale value for troops
3. Defence is too easy (cultural landscape is beyond any reasonability)
4. Possibility for limited skirmishes are practically non-existant (it's usually all in with every conflict).

A major problem is exactly that big nations, or just any other civs intervene too much.

I would like to see a rule in future diplogames.
1. Alliances must be publicly announced
2. Alliances last maximum 20 turns.
3. Renewing alliance after that time incurs an attitude/prestige loss.
4. Interfering in a war without an alliance should have a big prestige loss.

Loosening up interventions by making alliances short-lived (find me an example of any alliance in world history that has lasted more than 100 years) should be a definitive spur to make people both more active in diplomacy, but make diplomacy more interesting.

As for the role of small civs and big hinderances. Yeah, it really sucks to be small. Plotting and planning is one thing, and it is fun, but if you are very small you have very little leverage.

[Byzantium (DoC)]

I agree with Korea in fact. I said so a while ago in this thread that we should in future ban gifting of units, or at least require the public declaration of them (as we do for tech trades). Would need to be explored e.g. does this include settlers etc. Gifting units is unrealistic, and because its secret raises all sorts of suspicions whether founded or not. It happened all over in BtP and seemed silly - fighting units of a nation which everyone knows they can't built, and gifting units to a smaller nations who then invades someone avoiding the diplomatic outcry which would have come if you had invaded them youself. I'd be happy to see the rules changed now, but I guess its probably the sort of thing which needs discussing and deciding when there isn't a game on.

[Persia (DoC)]

0 Persian troops were gifted to Russia.
And like I said, there's a huge space between upgrading 1 or upgrading all troops.

There are just many possibilities. Diplomacy offers a lot more then only full-scale war.