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

[OzzyKP]

Yeah!

[Robert]

Yes, that's true. (@India).

For the record:
Greek sub = Greek sub
Other civ Greek sub is playing for = Civ X
Org player of other civ Greek sub is playing for = Org Civ X

here we go:

I knew that Greek sub was playing the turns of Civ X.
Org Civ X had not left though, he made the decisions on Civ X.
So then Greek sub stepped forward to take over Greece, and I thought it was a good solution.

I only found out last evening that Greek sub was still playing turns for Civ X. (while Org Civ X still made the calls). Greek sub then explained that Org Civ X' computer is broken and he right now can't play civ. So Org Civ X tells stories and makes decisions, Greek sub only (techncially) plays.

I thought this was not a good situation, at least without you guys knowning, so that's why I asked Greek sub to put this in the thread, which he did.

Personally I do believe that Greek sub is a very trustworthy person who is very well able to seperate both civs. Org Civ X is also a very trustable and honest person, though I fear that he may want to help greek sub IG b/c Greek sub is helping him ooc.
I know that Greek sub and Org Civ X disagree about things here
For the record: it thus doesn't matter if Greek sub will or will not also sub for Civ X, b/c he's not the one that makes the calls.

This is quite a complicated explanation, but I won't reveal civ X (yet). (spooky )

I'd advise everyone to just continue it this way.
Greek sub also technically plays for Civ X.
but he's not the one who makes the decisions/stories/diplomacy for Civ X.

An alternative could be that Ozzy takes over Greece. But that would be permanently. (or at least till the war is over or Org Civ X got his computer repaired)
edit: just reading Ozzies response, so: no, Ozzy is most probably not a good idea right now

So, everybody who understood this says: "Yeah!"

[OzzyKP]

Hehe, well that'd be awkward. I'd just take the peace treaty. That I wrote.

[India (DoC)]

Also, it doesn't seem like a terribly good idea for the new Greece player to be playing two civs. We said that wasn't fair when Ottomans were at war with Russia and subbing for Arabs.

Unless people feel I am tainted, I could sub for the other civ Greece is playing.

I belive the Greece player has suggeested that He would pick the other civ, so you may end up playing with Greece :P

[OzzyKP]

Also, it doesn't seem like a terribly good idea for the new Greece player to be playing two civs. We said that wasn't fair when Ottomans were at war with Russia and subbing for Arabs.

Unless people feel I am tainted, I could sub for the other civ Greece is playing.

[OzzyKP]

* Do you call a measured war taking half the cities of the smallest nation?

Sorry in advance but i need some clearification here:

So from what i understand from the Original Arabs they said that "Ozzy (as he set me on this course of war)" When did we had a sub come in and just for his own fun decides to go for war, even if the org player isn't aware of this?

* To Ozzy and Robert, is this all just happening because Ozzy suggested that we split the Greeks. And when he saw that this would not happen went for the war?

* Persia you do forget that Byzantium helped Egypt by gifting them units, so at least point your fingures to all bigger civs.

Also I would like to know which other civ the Greek player is playing as well. We agreed that we will have a sub with the name, to know if its a sub or the org player.

The Sequence of Events:

When I took over Arabia my only instructions, passed down from the Ottomans, were to build military. I did so, but I assessed the situation of the Arabs when I first logged in. They were pretty much at the bottom in score and prospects. They didn't have astronomy and didn't have any land left to expand to anyhow. I had just played as Rome and done a good job of expanding to Africa, but even with that work, Rome was still (as well as Egypt) hopelessly far behind.

I noticed that Greece, another hopelessly far behind civ, had given up on the game. Because no one cared about Greece (including the Greece player) and because they had assets (cities and great people) that could help three other small civs maintain an interest and competitive edge in the game, it seemed, ooc, like the right idea for the good of the game.

Apparently no one liked that idea. It seemed like the most logical and beneficial idea, and it was annoying for me to have a civ totally check out . To stockpile great people for pretty much the entire game demonstrates that the player probably never really cared all that much (despite CS' three good reasons to hold on to 6-7 great people). So since people didn't go for the carving him up solution, I invoked the rule that called for the player to be ejected due to being absent too many turns.

It seemed the matter was settled. Not my optimal solution, but at least something to fix the situation. I set myself on building forges & troops.

Then, because of the hornets nest I stirred up in the org thread, another player in the game contacted me to inform me that attacking Greece was the original Arabia player's plan all along. Ugh, now I felt like an idiot because I just made a big ooc stink about it before realizing his plans.

My only official instructions were to build military, but after looking over Greece it seemed my current troops were more than enough to snag a city or two. I assumed the original Arab player would want to do the war himself since he had been planning it for a while. I assumed also that it would look bad if I did it after my ooc dust-up.

Then I noticed a different civ start collecting troops near Greece. I was afraid that my ooc scheme had put the idea in people's heads that Greece was weak and ripe for the taking. I didn't want to start the war myself, but I figured if I did nothing and Arabia lost their chance for expansion because another civ beat them to it, that'd be even worse.

So I went for it.


My Take on War:

I still think splitting Greece up would be the most equitable solution, and the best for the game. But I do agree (as someone with only one foot in this game) that it can be suffocating for the big powers to involve themselves in every war. It seemed ridiculous for everyone to dogpile the Inca. They had planned that war for a while, and it seemed to reengage them in the game. When you are stick in the middle between England & India, what else do you have to keep you interested in the game?

But no, pretty much every big power in the game told him no. Sure, that is partly credited to Egypt's good diplomacy, but I'm sure there was a great deal of ooc reason for everyone to support Inca as well.

Everyone seems to be ok when a small civ takes on a larger foe. (Russia v. Persia, Russia v. Ottomans, Arabia, Rome, Greece, Inca v. England) but it is very, very rare that a civ has the balls or the remotest chance of success with such a war. There exists such a great gulf between large and small civs in this game. That gulf only continues to get larger. Two out of those three wars failed utterly.

Wars are fun. They are a big part of this game. For small civs that have no hope of ever launching a space ship, they may be all they have left to keep the game interesting. Since attacking a big power is virtually impossible, small civs have no choice but to go after civs their own size. But with the major powers putting a stop to that, small civs don't really have anything to play for.


My Take on the Current Situation

It looked like we were heading to a resolution. Britannia made a deal to stay out of it. Korea decided to stay out of it. It was down to just Arabia/Byzantium v. Greece/England. Things finally seemed balanced again so it seemed an opportune moment to discuss peace. While no longer playing Arabia, I decided to go rogue and shop out a peace treaty to everyone involved.

Unfortunately Greece rejected it. They didn't have anything constructive to add either. Just "England go beat them up so I can get everything back". It seems to me that Greece lost the war. I was trying to keep it limited in scope, as per the rules of the game. At the point I drafted the treaty, Greece would lose two cities, but gain two more overseas cities. It would still be a loss, yes, but they lost the war. That has consequences.

Under normal circumstances, Greece would recognize the military situation and want to make a deal. But Greece is negotiating from a position of strength due to the artificial involvement of other powers. So, if they can risk England & India's troops, they have no interest in calling an end to the war or admitting defeat.

I thought my peace offer was pretty fair, all things considered. But it doesn't seem like there is a way to negotiate in good faith under these circumstances.

[Egypt (DoC)]

Maybe it's time for an all-world peace party in Friendship City with the Hippehs



I'll stock up on sacred blue lily

I agree in that this is getting a bit out of hand. However, so far, the actual fighting has been between just the small nations, right? So all the big words from big nations could still just be diplomatic muscles, with no actual intent of bringing in huge armies and unleashing world war...

[Robert]

Ok, Persia: you made your point. Let England/India respond, and then let's end this discussion. It's up to everybody to do with it whatever they want to do with it.

England:
- I can confirm that Arabia already had invasion plans. It actually wanted to start the war when he returned. Ozzy thought that he should push it a bit forward b/c it was a better moment. Arabia apparently doesn't disagree with that. (eventhough he might have thought it would be more fun to do it himself)

- So Ozzy might have made the decision to go to war earlier by himself, he did this in the line of thinking of Arabia, with the best interest of Arabia in mind. Which is what he should do as a sub.

- Considering measured war, Greece should indeed not be hurted too much. 3 cities sounds like way too much indeed. Arabia should keep that in mind and offer a peace offer that's acceptable and within the concept of measured war.

How many cities does Greece have at the moment? How many 'big' cities of Greece were captured?

[Persia (DoC)]

Exactly and you just forgot to say the smallest civ as well.

But maybe it would have signed peace already if it was not getting false hope from big friends all the time.
Maybe this war could have been resolved already with a '1 city to Arabia, rest returned to greece' solution, where Arabia pays some costs.

But now it's getting bigger and bigger.

[Persia (DoC)]

1. I think that I posted in the story thread already that Arabia should keep measured war in mind indeed. I agree that 3 cities is too much, considering Greece's small size.

2. India: I do believe that you have a reason, but are you sure that it's not an ooc reason? (ooc might be: it helps me to gain better results in this game)

3. I agree, India, that it was already too much before you entered. But that just pushed it over the edge for me.

4. The dates.... of course 1980 doesn't have to be 1980 in the game, but please keep in mind that ancient leaders are not like post-modern civilized leaders. (but that's bothering me throughout the entire game)

5. Russia razed the only Fat-Hastogian city of the Ottomans. My leader is (was) a fundamentalistic Fat Hastogianist. It's a perfect storyline.
But yes, I'm pulling some strings now and then. And like I said, England and Byzantium can be involved as well. They are neighbours. (of course everybody can, it's not to me to decide who can or who cannot, but imho england and byzantium 'can')

I hope that big civs will restrain themselves and only pull some strings now and then.

@England:
1. no, it's not measured anymore. And as soon as we're past this 'everyone jumping on board' thing, I'll be the first to start a "Arab, keep measured war in mind" petition.

2. Yes, Byzantium also got involved. (and as a matter of fact, so did I when I tried to scare the Koreans out of it. which was an ooc reason. I made it b/c I did not dig Korea's ooc reason. But now I think that was wrong, and I'd better do it this way)

And again, I have no problems with allies being involved, especially not if it makes sense. I think you helping Greece makes sense and Byz helping Arabia also makes sense.

[England (DoC)]

one player lost half of its country already.

Exactly and you just forgot to say the smallest civ as well.

[England (DoC)]

and let Greece and Arabia have their fun. And if Arabia goes too far we will use the measured war rule to contain him

* Do you call a measured war taking half the cities of the smallest nation?

Sorry in advance but i need some clearification here:

So from what i understand from the Original Arabs they said that "Ozzy (as he set me on this course of war)" When did we had a sub come in and just for his own fun decides to go for war, even if the org player isn't aware of this?

* To Ozzy and Robert, is this all just happening because Ozzy suggested that we split the Greeks. And when he saw that this would not happen went for the war?

* Persia you do forget that Byzantium helped Egypt by gifting them units, so at least point your fingures to all bigger civs.

Also I would like to know which other civ the Greek player is playing as well. We agreed that we will have a sub with the name, to know if its a sub or the org player.

[India (DoC)]

oh and btw what about Persia's forcing the peace between Ottoman and Russia... I don't care about that, but that war is much more balanced than this current one when one player lost half of its country already.

[India (DoC)]

a few bits:

IC i don't really care what happens with greece.. but I had a very good reason to do what I did and I'm sure you will know it eventually.

OOC: I don't like what happens there.. I'm sorry for Arabia that the situation has changed and we got an active player instead of the old one-I would had support the let's split up greece between the other weak civs-but it was not up to me/us, and now this war is already over to be measured.. hardly fun for Greece. But again it is not the reason I joined and other players intervention to this conflict is inevitable anyway, we may have a fun war.

I don't really understand your reasoning about the dates...sure it's not the 20. century earth, but an alternate history. Information streaming more slowly but it is balanced with the longer turns, transportation still slow so unlikely my troops can get there before it ends.. unless there wil lbe a bigger war from it.

[Persia (DoC)]

@Persia

1, get out of the story thread already with the ooc things

2, what is your problem with world wars?

3, and most important: do you think India intervenes for Greece's nice eyes? If you'd know what is the true reason then.. well you should not let me anyway.. but KEEP IT IN CHARACTER


Grrrrrr

It's the story thread that went ooc with all those big nations jumping into a tiny Greece-Arabian war.
I can't see the difference between Korea's ooc and Korea's IC.
And your reasons for intervening in the war are not story-backed up either, thus also ooc, as far as I can see.


2. I have no problems with world wars. I do have a problem with ooc world wars. This is a story/role playing game. We should stick to that.

It's either story/roleplaying or normal multiplaying.


3. Sure you have your reasons, and they may be good in your own mind, but part of diplogaming is to keep it fun for all players.
There's no fun for small civs if they can't even start a small scale war without getting all the major powers of the world getting involved.

That turns all small nations into pawns on the board.

You guys are keen to jump into every war. First Egypt/Inca, now Arabia/Greece. It all ends up in one boring stale math.

I continue to insist that our continent is the most interesting continent because we just don't do that. And look, Hascon consists of 3 nations (apart from Persia) that are strong, independant and able to determine their own gamepath.

Like I said: it makes no sence roleplaying-wise to get involved in every war. It's not 1980 yet. You guys all run your civ as if they are all post-modern civilized leaders. It takes the fun from the game. As if a big power in the 15th century would come to the aid of some small nation only because they pitty them.

That is my problem. Not a world war. I actually love world wars. But only for good role/story reasons, not for just showing muscles.

So get over your big (well deserved!!) ego and pull yourself out of this war and let Greece and Arabia have their fun. And if Arabia goes too far we will use the measured war rule to contain him.
Imagine yourself, being Arabia (or Inca). You have a small civ, but are dedicated playing the game. Then you decide to try something, prepare a war for a long time, and start it. A small scale war, far away in a corner of the world.

But within 3 turns it's not your war anymore!
Everybody tries to get itself involved.
Put yourself into the shoes of Arabia or Inca.
If every war from now on will involved the big powers, then there will be no war anymore but only a boring stalemath game.