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

[Byzantium (DoC)]

Hmm a big Taoist alliance.. it may had worked actually.. half of the nations are Taoist now and I could have had good relations with them

Until you turned into a blood sucking murderous vampire queen, and then saw your evil for what it is ... damn forgot this was meant to be ooc...

But India is right, the Tao block is not really a block ... and its not really very Tao! And block or not its been great for the game.

[Persia (DoC)]

As far as I can see we're in a pretty balanced game.

But for the record, Persia is not, and has never been, in any game-long alliance.
I've been allied with Russia till they... well....you know
And since then I'm more or less allied with the Ottomans and to a lesser degree with the Byzantine. But even these two alliances are not set in stone.

[India (DoC)]

Hmm a big Taoist alliance.. it may had worked actually.. half of the nations are Taoist now and I could have had good relations with them...but I never really wanted that, not the type of game most of us like.
To answer Russia, what is winning the game anyway? in diplo scores, ingame victory or both? If it would be just ingame, then yes I think I could say that probably I had the best chance to win by space race if I just sit home, be nice to everyone and not sending my slaved army to fight a war with no possible gain far away. That war is a good example btw that technology is not everything.
I may win the game (talking about ingame victory) or not.. , but what really interest me is to see if my evil high priests will be stopped or not.
Just one more ooc thing to the "small" nations: you don't really have to fear from India (ooc-Ic you should ofc )-I won't really hurt anyone-too much. When I made my demand to Egypt I wrote them ooc that even if we will be at war I will try to avoid to damge their economy and I definately wont take land/cities from them. Ofc if I'm winning I expect them to surrender, but then I wouldnt care if they attack me behind, help my enemies, rebell, whatever.

[Byzantium (DoC)]

More significantly, for the future, I would re-echo the suggestion I made when we were setting rules for DOC that we should ban all unit gifts. Its lending armies which makes this 'alliances' thing so potent, and unrealistic. (Nobody does 'lend' armies in this world).

It would need to be chewed round a bit. Does this mean all units or just military ones? Does it have to be a complete ban, or can it be more subtle like our rule on cities isn't a ban on gifting them, but a ban on receiving them back etc. And i am sure it needs to be discussed for the future not for this game.

Of course, that wouldn't stop large blocks having a major impact on the shape of the game, but it would remove the possibility of rather insiduous, hidden, and completely unrealistic activity. For example, no criticism of the people involved at all since it is within our rules but the whole 'is Persia shipping troops to Russia or not' bit of my war with Russia was unrealistic and I believe unhelpful long-term. Better for the game (and the story-telling since it can then be more honest) if in that situation Persia had had to declare war, with all the diplo fall out, if it wanted to supply troops.

[Byzantium (DoC)]

So much untruth being spoken.

The wisest thing said is Egypt's: "First of all, I think it's not right that parties who have no real knowledge of what is going on are judging this situation while it is actually still going on. "

I tear my hair out at reading things like:

There have formed 3-4 large blocs which have existed all game ...

What we see here is not temporary military alliances, we are looking at near-permanent continent-spanning unity...

Byzantium has formed a nice ring of satelite states, and so has England.

What block have I been in all game? Who came to my aid when I fought Greece, Russia/Persia/Ottomans and India? Nobody. Not a problem, I've been strong enough (just! in respect of India's first invasion) to look after myself.

What continent spanning unity existed when India invaded Byzantium?

What satelite states do I have? The Greeks, the weakest nation on earth supposedly are launching an ongoing massive cultural war against me.

I recognise that there are one or two blocks that seem to have lasted throughout the game. I can understand why Russia feels it has suffered much from one of them. But universalising that to the whole game simply isn't true.

Now I have satalite states which are damaging the game. Last voting time I was given a low vote because I was "quite an isolated nation; 3" apparently. Damned if you do, damned if you don't - or more to the point damned for both when you are doing neither!

[OzzyKP]

Btw, if any of you want to try something new (not abandon this game of course) I'm looking into starting a new diplogame:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?t=190009

[OzzyKP]

I agree, which is why I'm not protesting ooc that Inca is attacking me, bold move And, for my part; you can defend with military, but you can also defend with diplomacy and rhetoric. I like the second method, and it seems to have worked, at least, until you guys started complaining Which is fine as well, apparently we are not all on the same line regarding this issue, so it's good to talk about it now, at least we then know in the future where we all stand. Better have this happening now in a relatively small conflict as compared to a bigger war.

Oh yea, I don't blame you for anything. You played it very well.

I wish Inca had made some attempt to get some allies of his own to join his side.

[Egypt (DoC)]

Egypt & Inca are both mid to small civs. Their power and development is equivalent.

I agree, which is why I'm not protesting ooc that Inca is attacking me, bold move And, for my part; you can defend with military, but you can also defend with diplomacy and rhetoric. I like the second method, and it seems to have worked, at least, until you guys started complaining Which is fine as well, apparently we are not all on the same line regarding this issue, so it's good to talk about it now, at least we then know in the future where we all stand. Better have this happening now in a relatively small conflict as compared to a bigger war.

[Egypt (DoC)]

I see your points, and understand your position. I really have to hand it to you that you are making excellent story posts and I really enjoy reading them. You make the most out of your isolated situation, which I think is really cool.

Regarding the cold war thing; I often noticed that the year we are in does not always correspond to the tech-matters. But disregarding that, I do not believe we are in a 'cold war'-situation now, I mean more that if the block forming continues, we will end up in that situation in the future. Which I think would be awesome. Picture that on the one hand we could have Persia and it's allies, on the other India and it's Taoist nations, and our continent would turn out to be Europe, where the battle is fought out through diplomacy, and perhaps an all-out war. But, it can go any way. Our role as smaller nations could be to feed ideas to the bigger ones, get them to clash, or to form an alliance with all the small states, and attack a big nation from all sides, many possibilities. I don't think the game will become deadlocked, and if it does, then I will do my best to spice things up. If we all do, then this game won't become boring I think, regardless of size and alliances. Alliances can be broken, scores can be brought down

EDIT: forgot to reply to the Egypt-Inca situation; you mention the entire Eastern world, well, suppose that were true, I think that's a very cool diplo-event. Much more interesting than plain war between two nations I think, and such an event has the potential to spawn many new stories, alliances, bad blood, etc.

[Russia (DoC)]

I must admit I have not followed Egypt's writings too closely, and certainly not your internal diplomacy. As such, what I saw was a war between 2 nations and the defender being supported by everyone for no "apparent" reason. Sending troops to fight for another nation is a incredibly huge thing, and I thus found it strange and unrealistic that the entire eastern world jumped into the fray to stop what I considered a minor border dispute...

As for the blocs, there are no "diplo choices", the only possible choice to make is which bloc to be a part of. And for some nations (like geographically isolated Russia) there is no alternative, I am simply too far away for anyone else to be remotely interested in me.

You mentioned the cold war, but when was that? During the modern age, when communication and transportation was easily done across continents. Never before in history had the world been divided into 2 blocs like that. Before that, only brief temporary military alliances existed. As in the Napoleonic wars, which after the war quickly broke apart. We're playing a cold war game in the 1300's... Things should not be deadlocked, they should be frantic and messy and chaotic.

As for the power of the top civs, it is a problem when a civ becomes so powerful that any need for diplo disappears. Then the game is over. We are very close to that situation now, where one civ is so far ahead that it may already have won. That a civ with a lead like that still has allies surprises me immensely. Those allies should really consider their own self interests which is to not let another civ win just because they are temporary allies.

Oh well, I'm trying my very best to use diplomacy to move heaven and earth, but I just don't have anything that interests anyone. I am too small and too far away to be even noticed by most nations.

[OzzyKP]

ozzy if that god reason for war.. then i gues rome beter wathc out for indian ivasion


dont be silly, in DIPLO attacking eweak foes is bad...

Egypt & Inca are both mid to small civs. Their power and development is equivalent.

[Egypt (DoC)]

No problem man, it's a game, and I'm having fun!

[Persia (DoC)]

I'm sorry, I should indeed have contacted the 5 of you in private.

[Egypt (DoC)]

I understand Persia, it's ok, but still, in my opinion you shouldn't even raise the 'if'. Because that will already influence the game, you are casting suspicion on what is going on, and I can't respond to that because it would reveal strategy. Raise the questions afterwards, not during the event. Now you've started a discussion about a nation that cannot respond properly due to the game. Even if I respond with "no worries Persia, it's not", then Inca knows I am bluffing. Plus you influence others who might have been sympathetic to Egypt, but now might think that they will not help. I might actually not be receiving help from anyone and because of your post, other nations might refrain from helping. See what I mean? No biggie, but just so you know..

EDIT: It would have been fine if you would have done this IC though, that would have been just the thing Persia could have said, obliterate Egypt, do not protect it, petty alliances, standing in the way of bloodshed, etc.

[Persia (DoC)]

@England / @Egypt: All I said was an "if"....
If England/India.... are helping Egypt against Inca.... then....

If not, then not.
I don't know what's going on, so all I can raise is an "if".
I hope that I can raise an "if" at least

I have not judged anybody or said negative things about anybody.
All I'm saying that an all biggies vs inca situation is unfair.
I'm sorry if anybody felt like I judged someone. That was not my intention.

@Egypt: hat's a bit unfair. First you make a judgment, and then you tell me not to respond.

I'm sorry, there's some miscommunication there.
I responded to Byzantium who had just said:

"How can any of the nations 'accused' respond without revealing much they don't want to reveal, or at least without undermining all their storying and diplomacy?"

That's why I said "don't respond".
I worded that very poorly, I'm sorry.
I just intended to say: "feel free to not respond to my message"

@All
Next time that I raise an "if" that's not the case, just respond with: "No worries Persia, it's not"