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

[Black Knight 427]

So now the final question is there: Orb and Ottomans: would you really have been honest to your word and not have invaded me with the Byzantines and the Russians? (I suspected you would and did not build an extra defense against you guys) (though I did upgrade my armies in Sardis b/c I suspected the Russians to go there).

If given more time I would have invaded you even without Byzantines or Russians. I really wanted to attack you while you fought India but sadly my goals of stealing tech took too long.

[Persia (DoC)]

I have been monitoring your army all the time..... there was none!
How would you have invaded me?

[Byzantium (DoC)]

You guys are now vets too!

Maybe. Though since I have only played one full diplo game, 'vet' must be a pretty flexible category.

I prefer to think that it shows that all talk of 'vets' in a pretty dodgy attempt to try to pretend that a certain crowd 'own' the concept and are good (either in game or in votes) when the evidence doesn't really agree.

I think the real beauty of what some of you folks who have been playing a long time have created is that it is open to new people, not just open in theory but open in practice - both in-game and in votes old hands seem to have no real advantage over newcomers, which is really rare in games and a great acolade.

[Black Knight 427]

I had a small army hidden in my ships and was mass producing more. Had I had more time I could have given you a fight.

[St Jon]

you have lost me there .....

i dont hate anon but i do see no reason for it especialy when palyers meet for beer and inform each other of who they are.

secondly the anon allowed people to bulyl korea with no justification.

if htere was no anon then it would be harder t odo that.

I think you misunderstand me here.

I know how much you contribute to a game, remember how keen I was to get you involved in DoC from the SetUp Thread, and really enjoy how much you give to the atmosphere.

The problem with breaking ANON is that whilst I can say what I like to Korea I cannot say it to Raz. I can be as rude and insulting to Korea as I wish, I can demean her leader and, within Forum decency rules, impugn his reputation and character. I can bully and harass Korea both openly and via PM but I cannot do such things to Raz.

Even though, very early on, I knew who were a lot of the players it did not alter the manner in which I spoke to them IG. I would never accuse Toni of committing unnatural acts with animals or having the moral standards of a Tom Cat on heat! The leader of of England is totally different.

It comes down to a simple desire of not wishing to hurt a real person's feelings. That is the importance of ANON play.

[OzzyKP]

Maybe. Though since I have only played one full diplo game, 'vet' must be a pretty flexible category.

I prefer to think that it shows that all talk of 'vets' in a pretty dodgy attempt to try to pretend that a certain crowd 'own' the concept and are good (either in game or in votes) when the evidence doesn't really agree.

I think the real beauty of what some of you folks who have been playing a long time have created is that it is open to new people, not just open in theory but open in practice - both in-game and in votes old hands seem to have no real advantage over newcomers, which is really rare in games and a great acolade.

Hehe, that's the crux of the issue. The term vet was first used to describe certain experienced players who acted as some form of cabal to bend the rules for their own benefit and engineer victory every time. The person with this theory suggested that those who played by the rules in diplogames were suckers who were always crookedly out-maneuvered by cheating "vets".

I'm extremely grateful that your experience directly contradicts this person's theory.

[Toni]

it all turned out that long sworn competitors deity and Toni were teaming up together against an enemy the both of them could not even contain

Yes me and Deity go way back, before the Diplo games we used to play the Aussie games. We have always had did competition against each other. Love the guy (Close friend), It is true that the good player group is growing much, but I can only say on thing you better not piss Deity in a game. Knowing that he will play in next Diplo, wow that gives me something to worry about having him around again

I would still bet on Deity vs whoever if given the same land start

[WarningU2]

Thank you everyone for an excellent game. It was an honour to play in it. I very much enjoyed playing. I'm sorry I didn't post stories to everyone's satisfaction (as indicated by the scores in that category

As one of the bottom end civs I didn't understand the reaction when Greece and I went to war. Why England would side with Greece never made sense, when they weren't even in the alliance and we actually went to war against them much earlier. And then when Russia attacked me to make me see the error of my ways .. had it not been Byzantines and Greece (odd turnaround) helping me I would have been out.

How you have the time and imagination to post such incredible story lines is amazing. A few non gamers I work with were actually reading the stories eagerly to see what would happen.

I wonder if it would be easier to follow the stories if each civ had their own story board rather than be jumbled about? I also think that technology trading and the recording of it needs to be improved ... I grew hestitant to trade not knowing how many vouchers it would cost. Perhaps a no trade diplogame would even the playing field? If you would like me to work on panel to help keep trades all in a separate db I'd be happy to do so. Let me know. Again thanks for a great game.

[BranksDilly]

Well as my first Diplo game it was really a lot of fun and I hope to play many more!

Some things that were hard for me to understand were:

Trading: Like WarningU2 said, I never really understood the voucher system and wish there was a way to make it simpler.

Diplomacy/Measured War: When Russia razed my second largest city, I was done for. I never really understood why that was acceptable. In the beginning of the game we made a land agreement that split up our borders. I never lied to Russia but did not say all that I knew about the layout of the continent. The agreement meant it would be easier for me to settle more land, which I did. The razing of my city by Russia was basically the response to this treaty, which is why I don't see it as even. Russia had public sympathy from everyone from their bullying by Persia and somehow that spilled over to me?

@Russia

It was a great game to play and I'm not angry ooc at all! But ic yes! Just to clarify, I was never acting as a puppet to Persia, they did give me many techs and treats so as I stayed peaceful with them but no action I took against you was their idea or anything.

Secondly, you need to give me lessons on combat because you smoked me!!!

@Persia

I was not going to attack you at the end and neither Russia or Byzantines were even really trying to get me to. Russia at one point tried to recruit me but I said right away that I wouldn't. For one, ever since Russia razed my city I wanted SO bad to do the same to them. That meant I would never have a very strong alliance with them.

I was a little peeved when the Russians invaded me and you let them do it but only because I thought our alliance meant we would have some mutual defense.

@Rome

I really thought our relations were quite amicable. At one point after Russia razed my city and Anna Hatun was in power, she was quite blood thirsty. Your entire African colony would have been quite easy for me to take before you built any gunpowder units as I had a ton and you were only defending with macemen and such. But because of our little trades, especially the Galleons, I felt that in the rules of diplo this would not make sense or be fair.



I hope I can play another Diplo game with you all!

[OzzyKP]

Diplomacy/Measured War: When Russia razed my second largest city, I was done for. I never really understood why that was acceptable. In the beginning of the game we made a land agreement that split up our borders. I never lied to Russia but did not say all that I knew about the layout of the continent. The agreement meant it would be easier for me to settle more land, which I did. The razing of my city by Russia was basically the response to this treaty, which is why I don't see it as even. Russia had public sympathy from everyone from their bullying by Persia and somehow that spilled over to me?

As for the land agreement, I was running Russia at the time we signed that deal. From what I remember that river or those mountains were our dividing line and then you settled that city just on Russia's side of that boundary.

Russia was surrounded on three sides by other civs, so I decided to sign land deals with you and Britannia so I could expand in Persia's direction. Then of course Persia stole Russia's second city and you cheated on the land deal, so that kind of screwed Russia up. Especially when Persia, Britannia & Ottomans had plenty of other land to expand to, they all screwed over Russia.

I couldn't do anything about your cheat of the land deal at the time because I feared Persia was about to attack (and they did) and I was right about to hand control over to the next guy. But I told him (Lz) that you crossed the boundary of our agreement and I think he had razing that city and establishing a Russian city to replace it for much of the game.

[OzzyKP]

How you have the time and imagination to post such incredible story lines is amazing. A few non gamers I work with were actually reading the stories eagerly to see what would happen.

Awesome!

It is always great to have an audience for these games.

[Robert]

I couldn't do anything about your cheat of the land deal at the time because I feared Persia was about to attack (and they did) and I was right about to hand control over to the next guy. But I told him (Lz) that you crossed the boundary of our agreement and I think he had razing that city and establishing a Russian city to replace it for much of the game.

I offered Russia to take that Ottoman city and sent a stack of 5 axemen in that direction. It was a part of the peace deal between Russia and Persia. (Russia handed the city over, it was not taken by force.)

But just when I was about to take that Ottoman city, Russia prefered peace with the Ottomans. Maybe Russia should back then have accepted the Persian help against the Ottomans.

[OzzyKP]

Yea, they should have.

[Robert]

And then they would not have had to backstab me and destroy all my cottages and bring my economy back into the stone age

[Byzantium (DoC)]

But I thought that was fun!