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

[Egypt (DoC)]

Wow, I'm a bit surprised at all the reactions to what has happened between Inca and Egypt. I'd like to make a few points:

- 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. Who knows whether four nations are really helping me? Maybe I am bluffing? Maybe I just asked other nations to pretend they are helping me, whereas I received help from only one other nation? Maybe I had troops hidden away somewhere where the Inca did not see them? All possible. Don't be too quick to judge. All this ooc-banter about this also influences my diplo-efforts while the war is still going on, which is a bit unfair if you have no idea what is really happening.

- Second, just for the record, I don't condemn Inca's attack, fair play to them for trying. I don't think it was a very wise move considering other options for grabbing land, plus the build-up to war was done in two posts, with no PM's and no scheming, and no alliances that I know of. The diplo-element to the attack was thus not so big, therefore Inca's support from other nations was weak, decreasing their chances of success.

- I don't agree with what both Russia and Persia say. Egypt has been playing a neutral and peace-loving role, a very valid diplomatic strategy, found in a lot of places in the real world. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but I enjoy it because it forces me to focus on rhetoric, to talk, scheme, write, etc. This to me is what makes diplo-civ fun; you can use words to influence other nations, writing stories and sitting back and seeing what effect it has on the outcome of events. In this case, it worked really well, and the credits Egypt had built up due to its communication payed off. That is diplogaming if you ask me, and I'm surprised to see that the success of this strategy is frowned upon by others. Even if four nations would be helping me, shouldn't you then be telling me 'wow, nicely done' instead of 'it's bad for the game'?

- Some claim such alliances are bad for the game. I disagree; look at the Cold War. Huge alliances, lots of building and tech projects around the world, lots of tension, and: lots of rhetoric. Big alliances reflect real life and the tension this creates could be brilliant. Roll with it guys, who's to say where it will lead? For all we know, Egypt might turn completely rogue under a new ruler, or maybe Byzantium will be taken over by a warmongering king who rallies four other nations to attack Persia or India. Maybe India will rally all Tao nations and unleash a war against Hastogianists everywhere, World War!! It could happen, just because or in spite of these large alliances. But it won't happen if we whine in between about whether it might or might not be good, because people will not feel free to play the diplo-strategy they want.

- Russia, you make the point that there are no independent small states left. You also speak of continent-unity and a rule for military alliances. You also say that India and Byzantium's high score is not good for the game. I disagree. Why the focus on score and size and power and blocks? Like I said before, there are so many diplo-options, it is dazzling, the storylines that could unfold from the current situation could be brilliant, because of these blocks! The tension is rising because of it, military might is being built up, and at some point, **** will hit the fan and there will be world war. Great! The map will be redrawn, stories will be posted all the time, etc. And if that doesn't happen, there are so many other great possibilities: like I said above, any nation can change its role at any time! If you find it boring, then do something about it through diplo! Make an effort, plead with others, scheme, make it happen. I for one am easily swayed by cool plans and schemes that will create a new storyline, and I think others are too. One thing I absolutely don't do when asked to take part in something is think about what it will do to my score, or whether I will decrease in size, or whether it will make others bigger or smaller. All I do, is think about how much fun the storyline will be, and how much fun it will be to see a good storyline developing on the map.

- Russia, you say:

But there is no point in developing weapons, just sit back and play the builder game and let a bigger civ protect you. It's diplo, but its boring!

Well, that all depends on how you write about it, and what it leads to. What might be boring to you, could be lots of fun to someone else. And, if you build lots, eventually you get good military anyway. The strategy would have to be to protect yourself through alliances as long as you can, until you develop the punch to stand on your own. Great strategy, can be loads of fun, and scary too, because you leave your fate in the hands of others, so you have to really rely on your diplo-skills.

- Persia, you say:

Anyway, there's not much fun for the Inca if they face an opposition of all big nations in their neighbourhood that easily.

Don't respond. No need to reveal your plans and strategy.
But please keep in mind that a 4 biggies helping Egypt is imho not good for the game.

That's a bit unfair. First you make a judgment, and then you tell me not to respond. Thus you influence others while I cannot respond. If you feel like this, then tell us after the war, not while it is going on. You can't make a point against someone who, because it would reveal his game, is unable to respond. That's not nice.

And like I say above, I disagree with your point. If four nations had stepped up to help Inca in wiping me off the continent, only leaving me with the cities on the island above it, then I would have rolled with it, and would have had loads of fun with the story lines, and I would have given Inca points for getting such a diplomatic effort to succeed.

Sorry for the long response, the main point is:
Diplo gaming is fun no matter what happens in score, size, alliances, as long as you are creative. If you really put yourself in the shoes of the leader of your nation as if it was real, then size, score, alliances, all that stuff that you worry about in a singleplayer game, it's all possible story material, so it doesn't matter, I think. Putting rules and restrictions on that ruins the game Russia, because then huge world wars would not happen, and it would place huge restrictions on story lines. If you no longer have the freedom to scheme behind other people's backs because you have to announce military alliances, and even have a restriction on how many people you can ally with, then you ruin a good part of the game by taking away the similarity with RL, and taking away the unexpected.

[Russia (DoC)]

Also. Is it not common knowledge that to spread your corporation in another civs lands is the same as shooting them in the foot, due to the increased maintenance?

[Russia (DoC)]

There is a difference between a large powerful civ attacking a much smaller weaker civ, and a civ attacking another civ of similar size and development who has not built any defences. My gods, my pathetic little tundrafrozen Russians could have smashed that invading "army", and obviously also most other nations' armies. But there is no point in developing weapons, just sit back and play the builder game and let a bigger civ protect you. It's diplo, but its boring! Alliances are normal yes, but think about it. What we see here is not temporary military alliances, we are looking at near-permanent continent-spanning unity.

I honestly believe that a new rule must be imported into diplo games, and that is that military alliances must be publicly announced, can only exist between a total of 2 nations prior to Defence pact tech, (up to 3 in 1 alliance total after that) and must have a time limitation of 20 turns. Renewing an alliance should have a cost. So it could be done, but people would only do it if absolutely necessary.

As it is now, it completely stagnates the game, it takes away any paranoia regarding neighbours and it makes the smaller players insignificant.

Persia/Ottoman/Britannia are in an alliance. And with the location being what it is, what can Russia do except join or be destroyed?
India is so far ahead in tech that it is ridiculous, and with their religion spread all over they have a "legitimate" claim to interfere anywhere and everywhere.
Byzantium has formed a nice ring of satelite states, and so has England.
There are no independent smaller nations left.

Let me say that again There are NO independent smaller nations left!

[India (DoC)]

So.. what is the suggestion? Alliances are not unique to this game, we always have them in civ and it is a simulation how in RL works. Should we drop diplo, go completely ooc ?

[England (DoC)]

Also Persia, England has not joined either Egypt or Inca. So do not please say that we are helping the Egyptians.

Yes someone is helping the Egyptian but it is not us.

And the Inca plan was a ill one at best, why of all will you attack your oldest friend thus isolating yourself on the big continent from everyone.

There were so many other targets out there....

[England (DoC)]

serious flaw in this game that there have formed 3-4 large blocs which have existed all game.

Well England us definitely not one of those nations. We only recently allied ourselves (With Korea) for the very 1st time this game.

But i will agree with you Russia, that we have 2-3 blocks who will soon out leave even time itself.

Can some one summarize what the new rule is, too many posts so I am losing track of all thinks said.

[Persia (DoC)]

Byzantium: I raise a question; "if it's true that.... (...) then.."
I hope for Korea that it has a bigger fleet then I do. I doubt it though.

Anyway, there's not much fun for the Inca if they face an opposition of all big nations in their neighbourhood that easily.

Don't respond. No need to reveal your plans and strategy.
But please keep in mind that a 4 biggies helping Egypt is imho not good for the game.

[Korea (DoC)]

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...

[OzzyKP]

The reason is they want more land and had a neighbor that has neglected its military all game. Seems like a perfectly good reason for a war to me.

I do agree that they should have done more (any?) diplomacy to avoid the current situation. Russia's point is well made though.

[Korea (DoC)]

what th peruvians did wrong was attack a nation that has thee strong groups

India is reltated to Egypt throuh Taoism so will help

England and Korea are related to egpyt through long negotiations of freinsdshp

Byzantium too shares a border with gpyt so is close

So the kudos goto egyptfor protecting it self agisnt larger iv attacking.

but i do nto see the reason for this war except that perhaps the Incans are getting bored.

A war over tourists being attacked ???

[Russia (DoC)]

well, as a minor nation I have to say that it is serious flaw in this game that there have formed 3-4 large blocs which have existed all game. that the large powers have in effect put their flag on other nations and consider any attack upon them to be attack on themselves. It makes playing a minor nation absolutely pointless. minor nations can do nothing to change their position, as they can't challenge the big nations (shown in the 5 small vs england war, russia vs persia), and they can't fight amongst themselves for land. so we're just tagging along for the ride, but have no hope of making any changes.

[Byzantium (DoC)]

Yes. Its good - or at least the best we have come up with - let's do it.

[India (DoC)]

I guess it's similar to those voltans except this system could work continously from month to month. It might seem complicated but the calculation easily can be done in excel for example. What is good in it is that it's objective and helps those more who need it more, doesnt require a special strategy (like skipping techs to get them voucher-free later), doesnt change the relative order just lessen the difference a bit. But I agree that these kind of things better discussed in the begining.

[Byzantium (DoC)]

India - I think that something like the system you are suggesting regarding vouchers would be right.

I think we should learn from BtP where we brought in a one-off gift of voltans, and the current calls for vouchers, that there is need for them. But I would very much argue that this should be a clear system from the beginning not a sticking plaster brought in half way through as a fix. So I like your proposal for creating an actual system.

We would need to ensure it wasn't too complicated to follow (the need to compensate for current voucher spend is a pain since it is a complication. but I think you rae right that we need to do this, though its worth pondering whether we do).

Although I think that the best would be such a system agreed from the beginning I would go for implementing somethign now, but a system like yours rather than a one-off arbitrary fix, would be much preferable.

[Byzantium (DoC)]

Persia,

Really haven't you been playing long enough to treat with a huge shipload of salt the stories of the Koreans?

yes the Koreans have just said:

With english , Byzantium and Indian Soldiers rushing to aid the Egpytian on th eground The largest navy in the world is poised to set sail and break the Blockade.

drama comes easiliy to our Korean friends. But please, to make some statement about wanting pauses on the basis of this is foolish. People role-play stories - and some role-play rather creatively (are we to take as gospel that the Korean navy is the most powerful in the world?). I would be rather suprised if this statement of the Koreans turns out to be true.

And to be honest, surely if its true that "Byzantium, India, Korea and England are now helping the Egyptians" then what should happen is everyone gives 7's to Egypt for diplomacy next voting time for that would be a massive almost unbelievable diplomatic coup wouldn't it? Getting Byzantium and India (never mind the others) all wanting to support you?

I'm not sure where this ooc critique of in game events takes us. 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?