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

[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)]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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)]

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?

[Korea (DoC)]

because there was no subsittution simpyl someon able to utilise the software under compelte control.

very different to usal but as it became an issie it has been addressed

[Persia (DoC)]

Byzantium says exactly what I had in mind but worded very poorly.
But I guess this is an opinion shared by Byzantium, Ozzy and me, while others have a different opinion. I'll accept that.

But I'd like to ask India and Korea one question: What's left to do for a civ like Arabia in a game like this if we follow your opinion?

[Greece (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?

correct me if i'm wrong but only in game players with vested interests need to be declared.

[Greece (DoC)]

Byzantium says exactly what I had in mind but worded very poorly.
But I guess this is an opinion shared by Byzantium, Ozzy and me, while others have a different opinion. I'll accept that.

But I'd like to ask India and Korea one question: What's left to do for a civ like Arabia in a game like this if we follow your opinion?

and greece and inca and...

for goodness sake get devious, be into behind the scenes diplomacy.... get proactive all us small civs!!!

why did inca not get its diplomacy in place before attacking egypt? why did they not coordinate with a western power to cause diversion for byzantium?

think strategic!

don't cower into little civ and say nothing i can do!

the game isn't in the game turn... it's in between that counts... PM's!

[India (DoC)]

What's left to do for a civ like Arabia in a game like this if we follow your opinion?

I can ask similar things..What is left for diplo if we follow your opinion?. Anyway I belive I made it clear that I don't have a good answer to any of these questions we are talking about.
but to try to answer:
-be part of an alliance.. I know some says it's a less fun than to be a big dog and do what you want without allies, but are we rp-ing real-like situations or try to make the game even more artificial?
-This is mostly an rp game, some could have fun without any war, or with many wars and losing all of them (I had fun in previous game and i was not near the top-(btw we could drop the anonimity already.. we all know who plays which civ )
-The current situation is more complicated than the Inca-Egypt war. Egypt had lots of friends and even if your opinion is shared with Byzantium they intervened there (as claimed by some ).. In the current conflict Arab rightfully expected that Greece is an abandoned nation anyway so no one would care.. I don't know if anyone truly had a defensive pact with them.

I've said either we make a rule (probably impossible) or just leave the game going as it goes. Arabs probably could have get away if they take only one city and make peace, but they took 3 and demanded 2 permamently which is too much for the greek player and asked for help.

[Greece (DoC)]

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.

if america suddenly had no source of uranium and new zealand offerred a deal to supply it... a new relationship commences...

[Persia (DoC)]

I knew it was the coal resource 8)

[Persia (DoC)]

I've said either we make a rule (probably impossible) or just leave the game going as it goes.

Not a rule, we must just all restrain ourselves a bit now and then. And explore the more subtle forms of help. (which expands diplomacy a lot).
Leave the barking to Greece and Arabia, and support with upgrades or money or some army gifting....

Not for every conflict of course. sometimes intervene, sometimes don't. Depends on the situation. Some nations have an intervention character (America like), others don't (China like), others have 'help sneakily' (Russia-like). Others help by barking (France-like).

There's so much between not helping and full-scale war.

All those possibilities, like India paying Greece a lot of money and some upgrades to seize a city of Arabia, that contains coal. In return Greece gives to coal to India. Nobody knows India is behind it. Well, that kinda stuff.

We have a much richer diplo and story world if we are all more diverse and subtle. (And sometimes brutal in your face, of course.)

To me every war is like:
- do I have a story reason to intervene
- can I help a bit behind the curtain
- what will happen if I help

And for the record, I'm not saying that you do wrong and we do right. I have done this as well myself (intervention), and I'm not better. I'm more evil though 8)