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

[Byzantium (DoC)]

And I thought we had a rule about IG subs had to be declared. Why don't we follow it? Why are we always only being told afterwards?

[Byzantium (DoC)]

And India - I understand what you are saying - but I think you need to think through the details here.

A. You suggest that losing 2 cities from 6 is too much. You are probably right - there is a % in the measured war rule which that does exceed if I remember. But that is not what is gong on here. The reason why I am getting involved, completely against Byzantium's interest, is that major powers are insisting that Arabian can't gain ANYTHING from its war. That isn't fair in my opinion. So major power pressure to ensure that Arabs only have limited gains (or at least Greece only has limited losses) seems reasonable, but pressure so that they gain NOTHING from a long planned and invested in and carefully executed war seems unfair. Others see it differnetly - fine, thats life - but that's how i see it.

B. Your three ways of gaining land fall apart when you look at someone like arabian.
1. Peacefully - there is no land to be obtained peacefully. Southern continent is taken. and look what happens when Inca tries to expand a bit of cultural expansion - threatened with invasion by Korea and England.
2. Attacking a bigger nation. Arbas have two similar sized neighbours - Rome and Greece, and one superpower England. They are hardly going to win against England, so they attack one of the others, but apparently that is problematic. Even teh Russia-Turkish war has only worked because Persia and Byznatium both agreed to stay out of it, despite our own best interests and alliances, precisely because to involve ourselves would strip nations like Russia of the ability to make choices for themselves.
3. Perhaps but this puts nations such as arab always into supporting role, always waiting on someone else to decide what to do, and the amount of support they would really be able to give to an English attack on India is pretty minimal. And Indian land would be no good for them anyway.

A while back India you posted saying networks of firm alliances were bad for the game. I wouldn't go quite that far, but there certianly needs to be sense in how they function.

[Byzantium (DoC)]

Rules are never going to keep a game like this working well. We have a good rule set, but its all about how WE play it. It about all of us exercising some responsibility in what we do - accepting its a war game, growth through war is allowed - but following the 'measured war' criteria, accepting changes in our fortunes, and general appropriateness in choosing fights. BtP had a terrible time when there was a war of two nations (without any co-ordination between them) against one, when no other nation was willing to come to the support of the one. All sorts of reasons involved, some saw intransigence on the part of the one, but it does come down to what WE all do to respond to the dynamic changes in the game. Imbalances can be dealt with if we all want them to be in a dynamic IG way. By, for my part, we have to keep a spirit of dynamism and change, which does mean war being possible - that is unless we want it to stultify to 'end of turn' clicking.

So for me, ooc arguments get us no-where. What matters is what choices people make IG when they decide how to respond to events around them. Do they just pursue what is best for their nation in a narrow sense, or think about the game. Like India - clearly could have sat in isolation and won its cultural vicotry very easiliy, but they didn't, and created a great game in the process (togther with some of us deciding not to take the easy option in response to them). Game - fun - dynamism - change.

[India (DoC)]

We cannot separate the civs like that.. we could as well play in a different game then

@Perisa: true, it is much harder to expand your civ by war in diplogame. A bigger civ taking cities permamently from a smaller one is not a good thing imho. (And btw losing 2 cities from 6 is much bigger than losing 10 from 30 ). In BtP we have defined measured war that we don't really take core cities, but smaller periferial cities or colonies so we don't cripple anyone.

Also all these cases you mention only the attacked civ had allies-again the question: what are alliances for if they are not to intervene.

So the best chance to get more land:
-peacefully
-attack a bigger nation (I'm always referring to size, not score/power) so for example Russia should be able to gain cities from Ottoman if they win
-Be in a victorious alliance and gain cities from a bigger one by a help from an ally.

[Persia (DoC)]

Korea, this is not about even-sized armies.
It's about superpowers blocking any possible expansion.

I would not even have a problem with India invading Greece.

[Korea (DoC)]

stil lwating for a list of similar sized nations...

[India (DoC)]

I did find the post from India a bit unusual, especially since it seems to preference the discussion of worrying about Greece with a statement that would indicate total lack of interest in the situation.

That was just a sarcastic statement from me, similar when my high priests say that all they want is peace and order in the world I never expected anyone would belive I go help Greece because I feel sorry for them.

(Though ooc I do )

[Korea (DoC)]

I hear your decision is now that it is ok to intervene, but is it the decision of all.

And if not i need that lsit of evenly matched civs os iknow where i stand next time i want to get involved or be aware of who i can attack witohut risk of getitng gnaged up on.

and unlike perhaps your self or others , i knew from my little spys around the world the size of the armeis involved so knew that greece could not protect it self.

[Persia (DoC)]

Korea: the clarification is: give small civs like Arabia a chance to fight a war without getting 3 superpowers on it's back immediately.

Like I agree that Greece should get a chance to get some help to avoid being destroyed by Arabia. And you have not read very carefully since I have said several times already that help for Greece is not a problem at all. And I already think that Arabia went too far grabbing 3 cities from Greece.

But when Arabia invaded Britannia, England, Korea and India demanded Arabia to give everything back to Greece. As with the Inca. They start a war and can't move an inch and have to give it all back.

Are we getting at this point where gaining stuff through war is unacceptable?

[Dubhghlas]

From the outside, for what it is worth (from someone who has been following along the story line for a couple months):

I did find the post from India a bit unusual, especially since it seems to preference the discussion of worrying about Greece with a statement that would indicate total lack of interest in the situation. I also found very unusual the lack of any indication that the things which have occupied India's thoughts for generations now were at play. The post itself almost read more OOC than in character.

But given the effort that the India player has made in pursuit of role-playing, I assumed that there would be follow-up to make the matter more in-character clear. Perhaps the issue for Persia is that it wasn't any more clear to that player than it was to me.

[Korea (DoC)]

Korea: if you don't read my posts carefully, then don't comment on them.
I never said that Greece could not be helped. You clearly don't understand my point.

Once again, I'm sorry for trying to make a comment that's way too nuanced.
I should have known that people would make a caricature out of it.

I've dropped it already. Continue this war the way you planned it. I will not give anybody a bad rate. I'm ok with it. It's my fault. I'm to blame b/c I caused this confusion. It does bother me though that some people apparently can discuss these issues only in black/white schemes.

sorry but i couldnt see anytihng that said it allowed and you not the only one suggesting this.

already india have pulled...

i jsut want clarification

[Korea (DoC)]

Now what i need is a list of civs that peoiple regard as being equal size so i know when i can and cant get involved in a war

Byz = India = England = Persia so leave them to it.

Korea = Mail = Natives = Ottomans = Russia= Britania no one to interfer

Greeks = Arabs = Romans = Egypt = Inca

Is that about right...

[Persia (DoC)]

Korea: if you don't read my posts carefully, then don't comment on them.
I never said that Greece could not be helped. You clearly don't understand my point.

Once again, I'm sorry for trying to make a comment that's way too nuanced.
I should have known that people would make a caricature out of it.

I've dropped it already. Continue this war the way you planned it. I will not give anybody a bad rate. I'm ok with it. It's my fault. I'm to blame b/c I caused this confusion. It does bother me though that some people apparently can discuss these issues only in black/white schemes.

[Korea (DoC)]

for all knowledge i am the civ that cannot access a comouter with Civ 4 on it at moment so found a sub to paly theturns in game.

I make al lthe decision on what is happening who we negotiate with etc etc.

prior to that person taking over Greece i did quite openly warn ozzy that any attack on korea would mean help for greece would arrive.

it was after this that my sub offered t o sub for greece too. (he is so damn honest he doenst tell me of any discussiopns h ehaving depsite it maybe of itnerst to me )

so beign my turn player hasnt changed my diplomacy apart from listneing to some calming advice occasioanly.

[Korea (DoC)]

Seems that people are confusing size of civs to strength of civs.

obviosuly arabs are far stronger than greece and will totaly crush them

That for me signals the end of diplomoacy in this game.

What point is there if greece cannot be helped.

Rember WW1 started because one little arch duke was murdered in an obscure euopean country that no one cared about.

As for the timing of the game , the indians ahve mdoern detroyers patroilling the oceans so we are well beyonf the middle ages her eguys. It is the tech level of the leading nation that should control the type of real time behvious you looking for not the year in game or the techs of the backward civs.

Jsut because Rwanda civil war ws fought by tribes doesnt mean the UN didnt exist and didnt jump into try to stop it eventually.

If a nation like my own, shich is only high on point s due to Population not military strenght cant aid antoher country then this game is screwed,

This war is out of character for arabia woh qare the same religion as the greeks and yet everyone fogets that.

This war is not about expansion of hte arabs they had colniies already, it was a sheer grab by them for an easy target.

I am not enjoying this game right now, so i guess that will make me a target for attack too. i dont care, but you guys have allowed this war of detroyign a nation and yet prevent ed others you didnt like.

The IC reason for Korea supporting greece is we have been cut off from the Other TAOIST nations, fear India invsding us , hav epissed iff incas numerous times and need another friend ion the world.

so the neitghbour of our sole ally England is attacked it becomes very IC for Korea to try and use diplomacy to stop the war and gain a friend.

But no you guys have prevent ed that leaving korea isolated by your OOC decisions.