Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Setup Thread]

[Black Knight 427]

1. What kinda games do you like to play?
a. tier-system with multiple civ picking (more choice, map needs tweaking after picking): YES
b. tier-system with only 18 choices (less choice, no map tweaking after picking) YES
c. guided civ picking system, 'best' players pick last: YES
d. free civ picking system (random pick-order, every civ is available from a pre-created list of 18 civs): NO

2. Do you like it to play:
a. With the place cities 2 tiles from each other mod? NEUTRAL
b. With the terrain mods (marsh, tundra tweak, etc.)? NO
c. Shipsmod, all ships can sail twice as fast! YES
d. Coastline mod: ships sail twice as fast in oceans only. Not in coastlines/seas! NO
e. Just plain good old civ4 without mods: NEUTRAL

[OzzyKP]

Wow, looks like I missed a lot.

I am extremely disappointed to see all the accusations being sent my way. I'm disappointed too to see yet another vote with little information on the situation.

I am glad however to see that most people who have spoken up do, in fact, trust me and believe that I am doing everything I can to make this the best game possible, not to give myself an unfair advantage. Suggestions that I am secretly taking over the game, or rigging things for my own benefit, or leading some cabal with RP to mess up everyone's game is insulting and ludicrous. The loudest voices say "I trust Ozzy, but... I think he's secretly rigging the game." is just double-talk and doesn't change the personal nature of the indictment against me. As many have said in my defense, I have been at this for quite a while and have always been an impartial map maker who looks out for the good of the game and the balance of the game.

For most games in recent years I have created the map and not played in the game. Obviously there is less drama that way, and I'm content to help the game as a universal sub, but I like playing too. I certainly am dedicated to keeping these games running as smoothly as possible and have cut my own playing time just to make that happen. I wish certain people weren't so upset that I finally be given a chance to play in a game too instead of always sitting on the sidelines.

Some may wonder whether a mapmaker is needed at all, or whether I should be fiddling around with my sinister "tweaking". The answer is yes. Sorry.

We decided (democratically) to play a world map (looong over due in my opinion). Ok, how do we do that? There is no such thing as a "random" world map that we can just pick in the game settings. A map has to be selected and set up. At the time, several people suggested we use the map from the 1000 AD scenario. It is a map that is included in every copy of the game so it is something available to everyone (no secret cabal here), and is a pretty darn good map (designed by Rhye). We can't just load it up and play it. Sorry, doesn't work that way. The map included in the game is a scenario with cities already built on it. Those cities need to be deleted. The civs in that game are different than the civs we are using, so that needs to be changed. The map was created for a very specific purpose intended to create a specific result. No offense, but the game would be a disaster if I did nothing to the map.

I'm certainly doing my best to leave most of the map as I found it, but there are some definite balance issues that need to be fixed. I'm sure, thanks to this hearty dose of pre-game paranoia, that there will be many accusations later in the game about something unfair or unbalanced about the map. I promise you that in most cases it'll be a situation where I *didn't* change the existing map. I'm certainly trying to do my best. It is a very hard thing to do. We can't vote on every location of every resource on the map. Should that wine be north of that mountain, or east of it? Should we vote? This game would never start. The map is far too complex.

As it has been said, I don't know who is which civ (though yes, I had hoped to place everyone individually) but I am very much bothered by the suggestion that I would try to **** up someone's start because I didn't like them. That is insulting. For as much as I've done for this game and all the ones before it, for some (a minority, thankfully, but a vocal one) to think that I'd try to rig the game is very upsetting. My goal is balance. You can argue that balance isn't worth going after, that it is ok to scatter everything to the wind and let superior players get superior starts and crush the weaker players in every possible way. But to argue that I am trying to deliberately cheat... that's something else altogether.

As I've said, 90% of the map will be the same as the 1000 AD scenario. Will I possess some all important advantage in the game by knowing that extra 10%? No. Those of you who already don't trust me won't believe this, but I honestly have a poor memory and don't remember every change I make to the map. Plus once the game starts I never open the map up in world builder to go check. So anyone who opened up the 1000 AD scenario in world builder halfway through the game would have far more of an advantage than I would. I urge everyone not to do it though. The joy of discovery is, I think, an important and fun aspect of any game of civ. I like to be surprised and will refuse to open up the map to double check things. I think that is poor sportsmanship. But again, every one of you has that choice. It is your decision.

This is a very long post, but as for the mod, this is, again, a part of making this map playable. Our planet was not created with the rules of a random game of civ. If we want to play on our planet, we need to have rules that better reflect the reality of this map. In the real world, do we have megalopolises in the Amazon and Congo equal to the greatest cities in Europe, America and Asia? Are there cities with tens of millions of people in Siberia or northern Canada? No? Well if we play this game without a mod that is how the world will look. The rules for random civ games are suited for random civ maps. Not an Earth map. To play this type of game on the Earth map, certain small changes need to be made to make it work. People accuse me of being a secret puppet master, but I've disclosed these changes every step of the way, and only at the final moment do people start freaking out.

People wanted the 1000 AD scenario map, well... the reason that worked was because those cities in Europe were placed 1 tile away from each other (or two depending on how you count). To recreate that map and make it playable, this is how we do it.

Putting everything to a vote is going to create a game similar to how initiatives have created the state of California. Voters pass various changes to the Constitution that conflict with each other, or that slash taxes while mandating increases in spending. I'm all for democracy, but sometimes people just don't know what they are voting for and can make a mess of things. In this case I think we need a Republic not a direct democracy. I just people would assume good faith on my part.

[trev]

1a Neutral
1b Neutral
1c Yes
1d Neutral
2a No
2b No
2c No
2d Neutral
2e Yes

[Rempedaalops]

Yeah, exactly what Ozzy says I believe voting is not the right thing to do here for exactly the reasons you state. And I don't believe Ozzy would rig the game, come on man, it's a diplo game and this is about having lots of fun, not winning. I'm actually more concerned with people who mistrust people at this stage; those could very well turn out to be the people who are in it for the win, and who will get demoralized when they're in a bad position in-game and start complaining about things being unbalanced, instead of just rolling with it and incorporating your ****ty game position into a brilliant diplo story. Because that's the beauty of diplo; it doesn't matter one bit whether you are doing well or not, if you play it right. In the last game, my civ completely sucked game-wise, but it was probably one of the most fun civ-games I have ever played. Me being in a ****ty position actually contributed to that fun. My point is; I don't understand why people are getting hung up about things being balanced. In the real world, nothing is balanced, and balance is completely unnecessary for a good diplo game. Actually, having everything unbalanced and having lots of players who think that that is cool: that is probably the best starting situation for a good diplo game. Because an unbalanced world creates problems, and problems create diplomacy and war, which will be played out through high drama and ingenious plots if everybody rolls with it instead of complain! And that's fun

Ozzy, if this vote continues, I will follow your vote. So basically your vote will count double.

[Robert]

It would have been best to continue the way we were heading. Especially because we are that far.
But it's not good to force-start a game where many people have questions, hence the poll.

I don't think that anybody mistrusted Ozzy. There were just questions, many of those have been answered.
For some these questions were raised to avoid possible future arguments in the game. So not so much against Ozzy, but more with the purpose that not later on questions would be raised against Ozzy.

Looking at the current results, only 1 person votes a 'no' towards the current tier system. All the others vote 'neutral' or 'yes'. More opposition is against the mods, it seems like people don't like it to head that way. Let's see how this vote continues.

[Robert]

Current standings:
1a. current tier system: 7
1b. 18 civ choices tier system: 8 (needs re-picking)
1c. guided civ picking: 12 (needs re-picking)
1d. free civ picking: 4

2a. cities 2 tiles mod: 6
2b. marsh, tundra tweaks: 2
2c. ships sail twice as fast: 5
2d. ships sail twice as fast on oceans: 4
2e. no mods: 12

[St Jon]

Ozzy, I do trust you and have never suggested otherwise.

I will go with the flow but I will restate my worries.

I have played, albeit solo, Earth Maps and have always found them deeply unsatisfactory due to the one consistent factor which is Europe. Civ, if played logically, will follow all natural logic and one of the early superpowers, probably China, will win. European nations are too small, possess too few natural resources and are so closely huddled that they have no realistic chance.

If top rated players are prepared to take on that burden then fine but I am against 1 radius Cities, Dead Tiles and go-faster Galleons to even the score. Following that logic Magellan would have arrived home in time for tea and Mumbai would likely be the size of Hastings.

[DNK]

T4 is getting shafted fairly badly despite being for the "weak" players... with the exception of the eastern US and difficult-to-access Amazon, the land is poor and small, we have few trading partners, and few resources (in density and diversity) compared to all other tiers. We also have far more difficult borders to work out than T3. I'm not sure why the weak players are getting thrown the scraps and left to play by themselves for a few months.

I'm happy to play anyway, since the reason I came here wasn't to win (I know I won't come close with any start in this field), but if I get stuck as the Incas and have to crawl my way up a really poor coast just to run into a bunch of Aztecs and spend the entire time communicating with the blue whales in the Pacific I'm not going to be terribly content. I'd much rather start in Central Russia, Australia, New Guinea, Indochina, or even the Congo, because even though I'd have a miserable time cutting my way out at least I'd be in the middle of things and not in a sideshow, plus the pressure on my borders would be much less than in the Americas. And that's how T4 feels right now: a sideshow, the kiddie table, the proverbial isolated start.

Our planet was not created with the rules of a random game of civ. If we want to play on our planet, we need to have rules that better reflect the reality of this map. In the real world, do we have megalopolises in the Amazon and Congo equal to the greatest cities in Europe, America and Asia? Are there cities with tens of millions of people in Siberia or northern Canada? No? Well if we play this game without a mod that is how the world will look. The rules for random civ games are suited for random civ maps. Not an Earth map. To play this type of game on the Earth map, certain small changes need to be made to make it work.

(Kinshasa is the 9th largest city on Earth ) First, thank you for responding, even if I wasn't someone with a problem (with your editing in principle), it's still good for the discussion. I missed all the early conversations here, so I'll jump in some more.

I don't think I've seen an Earth map yet that would come close to creating historical population densities, or that even really properly reflect Earth's terrain. For instance, despite its heavy rainfall, rainforest soil is pretty poor, and can't be cultivated for more than a couple years before running out of nutrients, and giving it grassland tiles is dubious, as those really should be kept for soil productive enough to permit perpetual farming, which in turn permits the buildup of farm investment, making the land even more productive. In fact, most tropical soil is poor to mediocre, and a map of global population densities shows it. The Mekong also has no rice, Iowa has no corn, etc, etc, I could go on, but I'll leave it at that.

I realize I'm probably shooting myself in the foot as a T4 player by mentioning all that, but it's how it is.

[Exploit]

1. What kinda games do you like to play?
a. tier-system with multiple civ picking (more choice, map needs tweaking after picking): NEUTRAL
b. tier-system with only 18 choices (less choice, no map tweaking after picking) NEUTRAL
c. guided civ picking system, 'best' players pick last: NEUTRAL
d. free civ picking system (random pick-order, every civ is available from a pre-created list of 18 civs): YES

2. Do you like it to play:
a. With the place cities 2 tiles from each other mod? NO
b. With the terrain mods (marsh, tundra tweak, etc.)? NO
c. Shipsmod, all ships can sail twice as fast! NO
d. Coastline mod: ships sail twice as fast in oceans only. Not in coastlines/seas! NO
e. Just plain good old civ4 without mods: YES

Since there is at least going to be a vote on whether to use the European-aid mod (my main objection), I will play.

[OzzyKP]

1. What kinda games do you like to play?
a. tier-system with multiple civ picking (more choice, map needs tweaking after picking): YES
b. tier-system with only 18 choices (less choice, no map tweaking after picking) YES
c. guided civ picking system, 'best' players pick last: NO
d. free civ picking system (random pick-order, every civ is available from a pre-created list of 18 civs NO

2. Do you like it to play:
a. With the place cities 2 tiles from each other mod? YES
b. With the terrain mods (marsh, tundra tweak, etc.)? YES
c. Shipsmod, all ships can sail twice as fast! YES
d. Coastline mod: ships sail twice as fast in oceans only. Not in coastlines/seas! YES (assuming I can figure out how to do it)
e. Just plain good old civ4 without mods: NO

edited to include answers to first question.

[OzzyKP]

Speaking of my comparison of this vote to the messy California initiative process... we have a vote for all the particulars of this mod, and then another question asking if we want to use a mod at all. Some people have voted yes on particulars of the mod, and then also voted yes on using no mods. Many people have conflicting votes...

This game is going to be a mess.

[Exploit]

@Ozzy, I believe you think you are being balanced and as far as the map is concerned I could not care less where resources are based since I prefer a game where resources are unbalanced and some civs get an early lead based upon starting with better resources. I question your objectivity however when it comes to the mod since you have a preconceived notion that the European civs are screwed and therefore the rules need to be changed to give Europeans an edge while hindering the rest of the civs. I do not accept your starting premise or the mod that resulted from it.

I have played the standard Earth18civ scenario map several times with friends in multiplayer mode, including as a European civ, and the Europeans are normally some of the stronger civs. England (which someone mentioned earlier was a particularly screwed civ) has in my experience normally ended up the tech leader, despite having only 4 cities. In the Earth18civ scenario map there are no special rules for allowing cities to be placed closer together and all the multiplayer games I have played in on that map have been reasonably balanced. The outliers are China/Russia which expand really fast and it takes a good early Mongol player or a co-ordinated later effort to beat them back down to a reasonable size while the Incas are a really tough civ to grow to a reasonable size but everyone else normally can stay comparable to one another assuming equal play.

If you let people choose whatever civ they want then those who think European civs are screwed can pick someone else. I assure you there will be enough players willing to play European civs as is that no mod is necessary. I will personally take either England or France on the standard map and consider myself to have an excellent starting position.

I also disagree with your argument that if we let everyone pick whereever they want, that it will lead to a poor game because strong players will dominate their weaker neighbors. The major problem in multiplayer games in my experience is that the strong players all know who the other strong players are and they tend to form alliances together, which leaves the weaker players to fend for themselves. Placing all the strong players together is not going to solve this problem. In fact I would argue placing the strongest players in separate continents, where they can each become the local hegemon and compete against each other on a global scale makes for a more balanced game.

[Robert]

This is a poll to see how people feel about the game.
It's in a different format to get a better idea of what people want, also the people who do not speak up.

To me it's not important that we pick the options with the most votes, but the options that is acceptable to most people. (thus I'd rather pick an option with 18 neutral votes then pick the option with 10 YES and 8 NO votes)

That's why there are a lot of options. And some of them an be answered in a conflicting manner.
My purpose here is to keep everybody satisfied and interested in the game.

I am therefore abstaining from voting myself so far, I am looking at where things are going to, and to be honest, my own opinion doesn't matter that much to me. I just want to have fun.

Ozzy, you have a double vote (see rempedaalops). I'd say: cast it!

option 1 is: continue the current path
option 2 is: one step back, make a list of 18 civs, everybody pick one of those (based on their tier), no map tweaking after picknig.
option 3 is: one step back, make a list of 18 civs, everybody pick one of those civs, the 'worst player' first, the 'best' player last. (no tiers)

I guess that you want either option 2 (b/c that's your original position) or option 1 (continue where we are b/c that's close to the start of the game)

[Exploit]

Yeah, exactly what Ozzy says I believe voting is not the right thing to do here for exactly the reasons you state. And I don't believe Ozzy would rig the game, come on man, it's a diplo game and this is about having lots of fun, not winning. I'm actually more concerned with people who mistrust people at this stage; those could very well turn out to be the people who are in it for the win, and who will get demoralized when they're in a bad position in-game and start complaining about things being unbalanced, instead of just rolling with it and incorporating your ****ty game position into a brilliant diplo story. Because that's the beauty of diplo; it doesn't matter one bit whether you are doing well or not, if you play it right. In the last game, my civ completely sucked game-wise, but it was probably one of the most fun civ-games I have ever played. Me being in a ****ty position actually contributed to that fun. My point is; I don't understand why people are getting hung up about things being balanced. In the real world, nothing is balanced, and balance is completely unnecessary for a good diplo game. Actually, having everything unbalanced and having lots of players who think that that is cool: that is probably the best starting situation for a good diplo game. Because an unbalanced world creates problems, and problems create diplomacy and war, which will be played out through high drama and ingenious plots if everybody rolls with it instead of complain! And that's fun

Ozzy, if this vote continues, I will follow your vote. So basically your vote will count double.

Rempedaalops, your whole argument is that an unbalanced game is totally fine by you therefore you support Ozzy's position however Ozzy is the strongest voice demanding a "balanced" (as he perceives it) game. My position is to use the Earth18civ map as is and just use Plomp's secret civ picker (preferably allowing any civ not just 18 pre-selected civs, assuming you can see which civs have already been picked players will scatter their civs appropriately and if someone picks a civ right beside you then deal with it in game) to allow players in random order to select their civ. No unnecessary "balancing" is required.

[Robert]

18 players, 18 opinions. Diplogamers are with only a few. It's not as if there are 20 games to choose from.
Let's all be willing to accept some less preferred options, to play this game.

Debating the issues will not solve. Different people have different wishes, no debate will solve that.
Some think that the mods will increase balance, others will believe that it will decrease the balance.
Yet we have to play this game together.

All just please vote in the poll, and then we make a game that's acceptable by most.
And I am sure that even if some options are not our first choice, we will all enjoy it if we go for it!!

Robert