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

[OzzyKP]

We were all perfectly happy calling you CS till you mucked it up.

[Orb (DoC)]

I'm trying to be a fair host by giving everyone's opinion a chance
I know that Korea is thinking about others, not about himself. So he deserves it.

And all please just call me "Robert" RP is so..... unrelated. Not to mention that it should in that case be RMP (Robert Martin Plomp, after my father, about which I'm proud, which is why I called my son Martin as well )

But RP is so much faster to type the Robert.

[Robert]

I'm trying to be a fair host by giving everyone's opinion a chance
I know that Korea is thinking about others, not about himself. So he deserves it.

And all please just call me "Robert" RP is so..... unrelated. Not to mention that it should in that case be RMP (Robert Martin Plomp, after my father, about which I'm proud, which is why I called my son Martin as well )

[Native America (DoC)]

I don't think it is really workable.

I vote No.

[OzzyKP]

Well put RP. I had agreed in sentiment with Korea, though as many pointed out it would be difficult to pull off since people would try to push themselves down in score to 6th place to open up trading opportunities. So I was hestant to support or oppose it until something workable was suggested. I think the way you wrote it is workable:


"All players that were a top-5 civ based on the game score at some point during the month in which the new tech era has been reached are excluded from receiving technologies freely without spending vouchers."

Also key that those top 5 players can give techs, just not receive them. That was another concern of mine. So thank you for giving it the best possible wording.

Assuming I get a vote, I vote YES.

[Orb (DoC)]

I vote NO.


I fully support more vouchers being handed out.

[Robert]

Byzantium is right.
We have now all shared our thoughts.

I can bring Korea's idea in a vote, but to be honest, nobody showed support to Korea yet. I think it's not a good idea to bring the suggestion of one person into a vote without any backup but for the sake of being fair to Korea I'll bring it into a vote anyway.

The possibility of sharing extra vouchers can be brought into a 3rd vote. (if it receives more support)

2nd Rule Change Vote:

current rule:

4b. When 4 civs have advanced to the next age (ancient, classical, medieval, renaissance, industrial, modern) all techs of the age before the past age can be traded freely without the need to spend vouchers. (If 4 players are in the medieval age, all techs of the ancient age can be traded freely, etc.)

The question is:

Do you want to add the following exclusion (may be phrased better later):
"All players that were a top-5 civ based on the game score at some point during the month in which the new tech era has been reached are excluded from receiving technologies freely without spending vouchers."

* Yes
* No
* Abstain

Vote closes in 48 hours.
According to rule 11 the change can only apply if 66% agrees.
So if within the 48 hours 10 players agree with this change it will be applied. After the 48 hours it will be applied if 66% agrees.
The 66% of measured based on the players who do not abstain. Not voting = abstaining.

Happy voting!

I have tried to make the exclusion a bit more specific and a bit less easy to exploit. There may be 5 different ways to do this, but maybe it's better not to debate that now in dept. We can do that for a next game.
If many people think I made a bad suggestion, just vote 'yes' and we can talk about it later if the suggestion has been accepted.

[Byzantium (DoC)]

I think that sadly this is starting to be a row that may poison the atmosphere in DOC.

BtP was destroyed, though it limped on for a while, by rows between people who all had their point, but kept on arguing thinking that them expressing their point was more important that the peace of the game. Very quickly we got to the point in BtP of people saying 'I'm not here for this kind of stress', 'I have to face arguments all day at work, if this is going to be the same I'm off' etc. These issues are important but they are NOT more important than retaining the great harmonious atmosphere we have managed so far in DOC.

So we need to move on.

We have had one vote, which was clearly won by a particular proposition that trades no longer needed to be 1 for 1. We all need to accept that, even if we dont agree. That's democracy.

We should have a second vote. The options I think should be (1) no further change, (2) Korea's suggestion that top 5 in score at moment trading is allowed aren't allowed to engage in free trade, (3) perhaps India's suggestion of some extra voucher allocations.

After that vote, we then leave the topic until after the next era-change.

[Egypt (DoC)]

In reference to reporting the techs, it might be easier if the person accepting the trade reports it. Now I did not know who accepted what, therefore I did not know what to report. Sorry bout that

[Mali (DoC)]

I certainly see Korea's point. However, how much are the top 5 civs actually gaining from free techs from two eras ago. Added score is minimal and at most they are saving themselves 3-4 turns of research. The top 4 are the ones moving us forward technologically, so any techs they gain from 2 eras past are antiquated for the most part.

[Persia (DoC)]

Korea, I did read your post carefully.
Your claim is just not true. Neither did I report 7 free techs during the last round, nor did I during the entire game.

My remark about the free vouchers I gave away has nothing to do with copulating horses (eventhough I gave a few of these to the Britannians as well)
I made it b/c I want to show that the balancing goes through the way civs act with each other.
Not through rules.
This game is already balancing because of many factors players incorporate without being forced by rules.
Giving away ships, settling colonies for others.
And this is also not purely charity. It's also diplomacy.
More rules won't bring balance. It will only make things more difficult.
Civs will try to stay out of the top 5 if that will give them more benefits.

Further I tried to make the point that 1 free tech doesn't equal another free tech.
I got archery, literacy, music and drama (ie) through free trades.
I gave away philosophy (multiple times), currency and bronze working.

Without free tech trades, I would just not have had those techs.
Now I used this rule to trade some good techs to other civs.
And of course I got some game points. That's only important for my score battle with the top-5 and will not harm the other civs.

so if you havent posted all ytour free trades it is even more than 7 fre techs you gained whislt somne have gained as few as none or one or two

What you don't understand is that the rule won't make civs advance.
I have traded (and reported) 9 free techs.
Others could as well do that, but they just did not, for whatever reason.
I am one of the advanced civs. I have less room for free tech trading b/c I just can't advance without certain techs.
Civs that are behind can relax a lot more, skip more techs, and trade them later for free.
The fact that most civs don't do this is not because of a failure of the rule, it's because players don't use the rules in their advantage.
And any new rule or alternate rule will have the same result.

It will only help civs if they will adapt to the rule.

so you cna caryone and pretend i am bad mouthing players , but the rule allows bigger civs to skip ahead on there tech research knowing they cna pikc up thje missing ones later.

I have only skipped techs I don't need anyway.
I have never build a single archer, yet I got archery.
I traded it for sailing!!!

I do not skip ahead b/c of this rule.
It helped Britannia to skip ahead because I gave them a very important tech for a totally unimportant tech.
You are obsessed with numbers but fail to see the real impact to the game.



And looking at Robert's list, it's clear that the top civs did NOT benefit more from the rule then the bottom civs.
I benefitted most indeed (though I most probably also reported most trades)
But ie. England and Korea (2 other top civs) did not benefit at all.
India and byzantium benefitted somewhere in the middle.
So out of the 5 top civs 1 benefited most, 2 least and 2 avg. I'd say: the top civs benefited as much as the other civs on avg.
And if it's about the nature of the trade (important freebies or worthless freebies) then I think that the lesser civs got more.

For crying out loud, philosophy for literacy, sailing for archery!
So yes, in my opinion, you are wrong. And that's also why I will vote against your suggestion.
I don't believe that rules can balance a game. Only people can balance it.

that has everything to do with game attitude.
And if I look at India, then I see a player with an awesome attitude!
He's this powerful very advanced civ who could push his will on most probably 80% of the world (all but Persia :P) but still he does not. He even fights himself with impossible tasks, spilling secrets through stories, giving techs to allies.
And that's why I don't think that he deserves what you say about him.

I like it that you try to help the less advanced civs. Plus for you there. (eventhough I disagree with your ways to do this)
But I don't understand why you have to do it at the costs of the more advanced civs by blackmouthing them.

[Arabia (DoC)]

I agree with HEB. New rule should be applied to all equally.

[Robert]

I did a very careful double check of all free tech trades reported in the tech trade thread.
These are the results.

I get the idea that many free tech trades weren't reported.
Especially during the first free-tech-round, but also during the 2nd round.
Last round appears to be better.

I'll leave the interpretation to the players.

Persia		3	2	4	[9]*

Native		2	4	1	[7]

Mali		0	1	4	[5]*
Brit		2	2	1	[5]
India		1	3	1	[5]*
Egy		1	1	3	[5]*

Gree		1	1	2	[4]*
Byz		0	3	1	[4]*
Ottoman		0	1	3	[4]*
Rome		0	2	2	[4]
Rus		1	3	0	[4]*

Inca		1	0	1	[2]
Arabia		0	1	1	[2]

Eng		1	0	0	[1]

Korea		0	0	0	[0]

* means: number differs from Korea's tally.

[Korea (DoC)]

i dont have aproposal to ask for votes for

i am not here to win freinds nor influence people with clever words and debate.

peopel who are swayed by such like talk are not likely to listen to the faxts as al lthey want is their ears tickled. and not to hear the truth.

so i have made it clear above that th elower civs have not benifited from the system of free trade and the leafing civs have,

i dont see how indias proposal will lead to less techs trade with the larger civs and more for the lower.

just remember that i have posted from start that this system is not good if top 5 civs are allowed to get free techs

the only way to make sure tht the lower civs get techs is they can get them for free from top civs , but the top civs not allowed to trade and get techs.. no gold nothing , it is free to be given to lower civs

no this is not fair it isnt meant to be.

it is menat to be a way for them tocatch up

[India (DoC)]

Those who got more free techs followed a different strategy than those who got less. What you fail to understand is that the last vote has nothing to do with who gets how many techs. As you see I always got what I wanted anyway-and what I've said is that I won't need free techs anymore, not that I didn't get in the past.

I suggested a system to help smaler civs by giving them vouchers based on ingame score/position in every month, I don't really like this sharp separation between the top5 and the rest.
Since I've said that I wont need free techs anyway I'd rather abstain on Korea's proposal