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

[India (DoC)]

Challenges, on any level, are good for the game. To make your civ better, to write better stories whatever-everyone can and should find what enjoys in diplogames.
About why "should you stop me".. because i have challenged you-not you specifically but everyone who likes this kind of challenge. I didn't know who would actually "accept" it so i haven't build alliances , any close relations for a long time.. on the contrary.. I have collected enemies (this havent brought me too much diplopoint, but I play my story not for winning) ((When i saw that the alliance is finally forming I started to look for partners.. i cant make it too easy for you after all ) I have a good chance of losing, but untill then it's a great fun trying to survive.. hopefully when/if i lose we will find a new target

[OzzyKP]

Yea, generally when Toni or Deity run away with the game they do their best to make lots of friends and no enemies so no one has any justification to attack them. So I totally appreciate India for trying to create a challenge for himself.

[Persia (DoC)]

I gave heigh rates to India often for diplomacy because it achieved what it wanted through diplomacy. It scared us all by words, which is also a form of diplomacy.

And for the record, Persia has no friends either.
India and Persia have followed more or less the same path of religious hate attracting arrogant pigs. India was just better at it

[Persia (DoC)]

Go Russia!

[Byzantium (DoC)]

Korea I think you ask a good question.

The way I see it - and it is just my way of doing it - is that that Basil (i.e. me in character) always acts in the best interests of the Byzantine people, within a Byzantine sense of values and aims. This isn't quite the same as saying Basil is always looking to maximise score or achieve in-game victory conditions, since there is a sense of remaining true to the character, but it almost is. So basically I play the civ game like any other civ game.

I (as in OOC) on the other hand, do have an eye to the diploscore stuff and what you get votes for. I don't think about it all the time - I plaly to enjoy myself not to gain gongs - but OOC the diploscore voting mechanism is in view.

So for me there is a division. Stuff done within the Civ engine are focused in a sense on doing well 'in game' within the character I've built up. Stuff done on these forums, does have diplovote stuff in mind. Overall though I do play to enjoy myself, so I probably break these principles often enough.

There is then the big question of how in-game you react to the victory conditions. You could argue that Basil should do everything possible to stop another civ winning in game, since if they win he loses. I wouldn't go that far, since in the end someone does have to win and I think it would be a bit silly if there was just an endless cycle of every nation against the one most likely to win, until that one is done in, so everyone focuses on another. That is where the 'best interests of the Byzantine people' comes in. Basil wouldn't do things which in character are just silly merely because someone else is nearing winning. I guess its a balance.

[OzzyKP]

Yea, I think that is a wise way of doing it. Korea accused me of trying to improve the civ while neglecting the bigger picture of who was going to win. I think that is a somewhat fair assessment. When we let the in-game victory consume us I think we lose the diplo spirit. Which is the whole point of doing the diplo voting, to avoid it becoming a massive war at the end to stop people from winning.

Sadly, old habits die hard.

[India (DoC)]

Normally just because someone is about to win is not enough reason for everyone to jump on him, but if they do and it's well explained on the story level it makes the usually boring endgame more exciting.
So it may not sound too well for example: " those ***** Indians are building too many museums and temples.. let's go kill 'em.." - but in this game India is not about to win culturaly. As it was given away in the stories they are building 3 towers and they do belive that once those towers are finished they will be able to summon their God's avatar and bring destruction to the world... you may not belive in it, but undenyable that there are some unnatural things concerning the Sha'Tao and its high priests..so what if..?..

[Greece (DoC)]

imho as a newcomer

Personaly I think that we have to recognise that we are in a competetive game that has to have an end point.

This is consistent with diplo; and excellent story telling in this game has made it more so. Credit to all here.

As we approach the victory conditions a potential in-game winner will be determined thus ending the game when that point arrives. It does not serve any of the other civs interests or stories to ignore this. Their stories will end when a civ reaches a victory condition... traditionally this is when the game is called and all point systems tallied.

[Korea (DoC)]

As far as in character goes, only one nation should actualy be upset at Indians beign so culturaly strong and that is Korea as the home of True Taoism. So i guess i should continue my scheming and planning to get others to do my dirty work whilst korea maintains its true stance of protector of the TRUE FAITH

If only the other Taoists werent so easily led astray.

And despite Indias postings of not having any friends in this work,d Mali and Natives have done all they have been asked to all game so whilst not offiicaly allied they have continued to protect India by not turning on them. which is all good, but do not fool yourselves , if mali and natives had joined a TRUE TAOIST allaince ages ago as requested the current war would not be occuring , it would have been INDIA/Mali/Natives/Korea now invading the non Taoist countries.

[Persia (DoC)]

A game is always a game, if it's not about winning then there's no spirit to participate. There must be something to gain. But since we're all in a role it also must be believable.

Having said that, having fun is more important then winning.
And since there can only be one winner, it's only natural that smaller civs that will never win will ally with a possible winner.

And because diplo-win is more important then in-game win (though in-game win may satisfy more ) we should not only focus on India (or England or Persia). Russia is right, they also still have a chance.
Having said that, Russia may have more of a chance if this game continues longer. Time is their friend.

But I believe that fun and role playing should continue to be the main spirit behind a game like this. Maybe next game we should have a 'role playing' category instead of a 'diplomacy' category. Players will be rated based on how their in-game behavior and their diplomacy is in line with the role they play.
But that's for next game. This will advantage nations like Russia, Persia and India who play a role that may seem undiplomatic at certain levels. It'll also warrant that "being nice and friendly" is not the only way to go. (but still a very good way to go, since that's also a role that can be awarded points if followed closely)

So far most important to me is that everybody is still on board, nations lower on SCORE are still active in game (waging wars and diplomacy and stories). we have no fights or huge ooc arguments.
And I'm thinking way too much about how to influence others and civs and diplomacy and in-game strategies.....

I'm only worrying that I may die one day and enter the Pearly Gates, meeting Saint Peter, who then says: "I've read all your posts on Apolyton about this Hastogianistic faith you're a follower of! We have no place for you in heaven"
And I'm then telling him: "It's only role playing, it's not the truth! Really really!" but he then doesn't understand the concept of role playing

That's all I worry about

[England (DoC)]

Inca and former allies, not only you bare the fruits of the war against England. I think that you partially did achieved what you wanted. Overall England was much weakened economically and scientifically. To some extend I am thankful for this, there is a good chance that instead of now major civs targeting India, England could have been that target.

[Russia (DoC)]

mom! saladin isn't playing his turn!!!

edit: he has logged in, but not ended turn?
safe to play?

[Robert]

Sure son, play your turn.
Arabia didn't leave a note so I just take it that he forgot to end turn.

Keep in mind that it's not allowed (by the rule) to become a capitulated vassal of someone!

Rules:

7. No permanent vassalage (capitulation). The vassal must obey the terms made in a vassalage deal unless it's been freed (by a 3rd nation or by the master, or if the master doesn't live up to the terms). This rule is in place to find a way to get vassalages lasting longer then 10 turns without being forced to remain a vassal by game mechanics.

[Persia (DoC)]

I love the temper of the Russian king!

[Robert]

game paused for ottomans. pls pm me when ready