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

[OzzyKP]

The reasoning by asking Korea/Greece to be splitted (b/c the alliance between Korea and England) was to keep Greece an independant nation.

I kinda agree that a sub for only 10-15 turns should not, without a story, go rampant on the English just only because it's possible.
I suggest that we go back to the autosave I used last night to recover and then we ask Greece to restrain itself.

Anybody has a problem with that?

I do!

There was no conspiracy about putting me in Greece. The former player had a choice whether he would take Greece or Korea. I think CS knew that something was going to happen and it would be a conflict of interest to have the same person play Greece and Korea in this situation. So I got called in.

I learned of the Byzantine war only through his post in the forum. I had no prior contact with him or... anyone since I wasn't playing a civ the last few turns. I came in and immediately assessed the strategic situation I found myself in. I was in last place (in a civ I knew had been in last place for a very long time). Next to me was a first place civ (who had been in the top three for a very long time) who was now on the losing end of a war with another power.

I noticed also that England had recently taken a city from me (Greece) via culture. I noticed that that same stolen city had no defense in it. I noticed further that I had several curssairs within striking distance of a pretty nice city that was causing pretty serious culture problems for my cities that was defended by only one infantry. Finally, I noticed that I wouldn't be double moving if I attacked, so I should take my opportunity.

Was it opportunistic? Sure. But it was smart and it was legal. There is zero reason for OOC whining about it. The former Greece didn't complain when the #1 power took a city from the last place power. Why are there complaints if Greece takes it back?

So, to sum up:

1. I had no OOC advantage or knowledge that informed my decision.
2. There were no OOC grudges or personality reasons for my decision.
3. Greece was in last place and attacked a first place civ.
4. That first place civ had recently taken a city from that last place civ.
5. England had seriously let their defenses down and presented an opportunity.
6. I posted in the story thread right as I was playing the turn, so don't say there was no story reason. I presented one.
7. The game is almost over, why not give a tiny civ the chance to better itself?
8. The alliance we had was hardly a long term arrangement. Persia and Byzantium had themselves already broken the alliance, why not Greece too?
9. Times change, leaders change, situations change. Greece & England were once at war with each other. Then they were allies. Now it is war again. Nothing wrong with that.
10. It was a very wise strategic decision. Greece had a chance to ride on the coat tails of a larger civ to avenge past wrongs and claim some spoils. Nothing wrong with that. No doubt Greece will gain a new friend out of it.

Reloading the turn would turn out rather bad for Greece. But whatever. Another civ has asked me to sub, maybe we should just let Greece go AI, I could sub for that other civ. If Greece isn't allowed to improve itself, then why am I wasting my time playing it? Just let it go AI.

[Robert]

Ok, things get out of hand if we get a new parallel argument about what Greece did do or did not do.

With all respect to the Greek sub (no pun intended, I'm serious here!), I will be pragmatic here and chose the value of having original England continue to play more important then to find a satisfying way to answer to Greece. That's a bit harsh to Ozzy, eventhough that is not intended.

For the greater good of the game I can only decide that I will reload the game from the moment when Greek joined (and declared war on England).

We can have a lengthy debate about the question if what Greece did was right or wrong, but it serves no purpose here. So I'd say: Maybe Ozzy is right, but we won't listen to him for the greater good of the game.

I hope that Ozzy wants to sub nonetheless, otherwise we'll ask Pinchak to sub, or maybe make it an AI.

I'll also soft-delete new responses to prevent the argument from exploding.

[Robert]

Some posts moved to this newly debate thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?t=190784

[Orb (DoC)]

So is the game going to be up soon or not?

[Robert]

yes, I wait for England to wake up and confirm, then I'll load it up.

[Robert]

Ok, game is up again.
14 hours on the clock.

Loaded before login of Greece, so no Greek war on England.
Few points I want to make:

1. With the knowledge of today it would have been better if Byzantium would not have moved for England, but under those circumstances AND because Byz had no ooc-malicious intend, we cannot blame Byz in an ooc way. It's good that Byz in public (soft deleted by me) already said that he should indeed not have moved for England.
I want to insist that I do believe that Byzantium has acted honest ooc (and backstabbing ic, which is obviously allowed).

2. It would have been better if England would have raised his concerns regarding Byzantium only in an PM to me. Posting accusations in public is against the rules. But under those circumstances it's understandable that we all sometimes say things we regret later. I am not holding it against England and I think none of us should. It would be good though if England would admit that (the ooc accusations were false) in public though.

3. Under normal circumstances without a forced player switch for Greece, a Greek invasion of England would have been acceptable. (though poorly backed up story wise) (poorly = not). But since Greece just had a FORCED player switch (where the original Greek player would NEVER have attacked England), it is not acceptable for the game. This is nothing we can hold against OzzyKP for he did only what's best for Greece. But this is not only about Greece but also about the Good for the entire Game and about letting England not being the victim of a forced player switch.

I am going to let the game continue now anyway.
We've all had a 24h time out.

This is the deal. I know that it won't be perfectly what all involved party want it to be. So be it. We can't have it all 100% our way.

It's only 10 turns till the end. I will be very disappointed if any player would not be able to play those last pesky 10 turns.
There'll be another 400 turns in another game where we can backstab eachother again (after we figured out the right identities ) (some people might be backstabbed for something they did not do themselves in a past game because someone else (most probably an aussie) did the wrong match )

Guys, it's been an awesome game, I love you all, thanks for everybodies cooperation and game fun!
It's only 10 T-E-N tiny turns (or 12? Will you hurry India?).

Let's all wrap up our stories, rate twice and then let the right player win! (apart from India)



edit: I have edited the statement above. I've added the underlined statemens because I believe that some things were there implicit but not explicit, while they should be explicit.

[Robert]

I have edited the statement above. I've added the underlined statemens because I believe that some things were there implicit but not explicit, while they should be explicit.

[Persia (DoC)]

If anybody needs a cold turkey break after reading my last story pots, don't hesitate to ask it
I'll try to roleplay an honest civ next game!

and I do realise that many of you will claim that the claims are over the top, well, I have of course spiced it up a bit, but in the end this is how it worked (and failed).
If you disagree I suggest you to launch an IC truth commission yourself and release the findings of that commission in character

Now I'm going to take a hot bath.
That story post was the post that needed the most preparations for any post I made ever.

[England (DoC)]

Yes it was a bit over the top

Of course I will let you have your day, you wanted it so much it seems.

***** Persia lost the attack against all odds. Must have been divine intervention.

Karma is a bit.ch isn't it

[England (DoC)]

Hey one thing is sure you are getting max story points (Sadly we have no points for efford, you would have gotten max there too.)

[India (DoC)]

I might add something to the story IC, I just want to tell now that metagaming had an unavoidable effect on these plottings. (For example while signing a defensive pact with Persia normaly could calm me down, I fully expected it's just a trick..as a matter of fact for the sake of the game I hoped it is - so in the end I continued to send my forces to New India and continued slaving the cities there (it was before the first Indian-Persian war)

The second war was such a bad luck for Persia though.. I've started to evacuate New India, even asked for some transports, but the allied attack came too early I couldnt move out most of my troops, even those on route turned back. Those that stayed have waited the destructions by the huge Perisan army.. but ..not only they failed to take my city in a turn they suffered huge losses.. next turn I reinforced the city with fresh troops arriving back, moved the bombers, would had started to airlift my tanks..the whole Persian army was about to be destroyed with minimal or no Indian losses.. there could had been retreat for them..
and all this after we almost signed a peace by me giving up 4 smaller cities to Persia.. I already put 3 of the 4 into the open diplo tab next to the peace offer, but while i was sure I would lose the best cities, including the capital over there, I just did not want to "lose" a big enemy.. it's a prestige after all

[Byzantium (DoC)]

As I am sure the professor of history in contantinople will soon point out - the summary of Persia/Iran is "tried to be very clever but failed!"

[Byzantium (DoC)]

Guys - I am at war with England, as we all know. England stll hasn't played this turn, and there is just two hours on the clock. England said on here a while back that he accepted my peace terms, but in game he hasn't played a turn after my invasion so nothing has happened about peace. I think this means we really have to consider we are at war, and therefore unless Engalnd logs in in the next two hours we have to pause?

Maybe we don't - maybe RP knows what is going on - really raising the question so we don't not notice that England hasn't played yet.

[Robert]

I'll pause (bring down) the game

[Persia (DoC)]

As I am sure the professor of history in contantinople will soon point out - the summary of Persia/Iran is "tried to be very clever but failed!"

Better to fail as a King then to fail as a pawn