Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Setup Thread]

[OzzyKP]

Also... so 1c seems to be leading now, and it seems like it'll get rid of tiers altogether. Yet we already voted in favor of having tiers. Is the plan to just keep voting until we get a result certain people like?

[OzzyKP]

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.

Have you played the map with 18 civs? And did you play the scenario (cities already placed) or just a bare map? England is the easiest pick in Europe. The civs to be truly worried about are Germany and the Ottomans who find themselves surrounded on all sides.

[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

[Rempedaalops]

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.

Ah, you make a good point. I think I mean unbalanced in who starts where, and what the civ map offers. The balance is restored because some players are really good and others aren't, but it will never be a completely balanced game, and we shouldn't strive towards one. I believe Ozzy's 'balance' is the properly 'unbalanced' game, if you catch my drift My point was that if any unbalanced situation does arise, then it will simply be an opportunity to show off your diplo skills. And therefore we shouldn't worry too much now about everyone's ideas on the subject.

I think it is a great and fun experiment to play with this mod and the tiers, as it hasn't been done before. Like RP says: "Let's all be willing to accept some less preferred options, to play this game". I agree, hence the reason I gave away my vote; I'm really curious to try new ideas, they're bound to be interesting, even if they turn out radically different from what we expected. We can always try something different in the next diplo game. It would also be cool if other people would put up new ideas for diplogames, with cool ideas for mods; since there are people here able to make mods, why not make the most of it and try out weird stuff? By accepting the ideas of a few people (different ones every game) you can try out radically different things every time, instead of always having to play a game that is the result of a consensus. That's the reason I think it is better to vote on complete concepts for diplogames, instead of voting about all the details.

[Rempedaalops]

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 (if Ozzy can figure out how to do it)
e. Just plain good old civ4 without mods: NO

[OzzyKP]

Ah, you make a good point. I think I mean unbalanced in who starts where, and what the civ map offers. The balance is restored because some players are really good and others aren't, but it will never be a completely balanced game, and we shouldn't strive towards one. I believe Ozzy's 'balance' is the properly 'unbalanced' game, if you catch my drift My point was that if any unbalanced situation does arise, then it will simply be an opportunity to show off your diplo skills. And therefore we shouldn't worry too much now about everyone's ideas on the subject.

I think it is a great and fun experiment to play with this mod and the tiers, as it hasn't been done before. Like RP says: "Let's all be willing to accept some less preferred options, to play this game". I agree, hence the reason I gave away my vote; I'm really curious to try new ideas, they're bound to be interesting, even if they turn out radically different from what we expected. We can always try something different in the next diplo game. It would also be cool if other people would put up new ideas for diplogames, with cool ideas for mods; since there are people here able to make mods, why not make the most of it and try out weird stuff? By accepting the ideas of a few people (different ones every game) you can try out radically different things every time, instead of always having to play a game that is the result of a consensus. That's the reason I think it is better to vote on complete concepts for diplogames, instead of voting about all the details.

Very good points. Back in the day people were more adventurous with different types of games and options when it came to diplogames. People seem to be scared of any change at all lately, which is too bad. Also, I 100% agree with voting for concepts and not details, since there are too many opportunities for various details to not mesh together well. That is what I'm worried about with this current vote.

Actually, your suggestion about various games with various ideas, is totally right, and what I was trying to do with that New Horizons game where people switched civs every month.

One challenge we have as a community, is that while years ago we used to have 3-4 different games going on at all times with 6-7 players, now we do only one giant game at a time. I tried to do a smaller game with New Horizons, just so we can try out some new things and have it as a side game, but it didn't work. There are a few choke points when it comes to organizing games. First we need a host, and it seems very few of us are able to actually host games. Second we need an organizer. I used to be the one who took the lead with that, and either it has become more challenging to organize these games or I've just lost patience with doing a good job, but I was unable to hold things together with NH. So it seems like Robert is not only one of very few hosts we have, but also the only truly dedicated and competent organizer. Organizing a game isn't easy. Robert does a tremendous job with it. But until we get more people willing to put in the time and effort, we are only going to get 1-2 games going at a time. And people will probably argue about settings until we end up back with the same standard settings we always use.

[Exploit]

Changing the game rules via a mod is definitely concept changing and not detail changing! Using an earth map is a concept. Using a tier system for civ selection is a concept. The agreed upon concept that was originally voted for was an earth map with tiered civ selection. A vote for an Earth map + tier selection concept does not equal a vote for a modified rules concept!

From looking over the poll results so far, it seems to me that the players as a whole are willing to accept a tier selection earth map (civ selection is probably already finished using the civ selector web page anyway) however there is significant opposition to the mod concept.

[The Priest]

Ozzy, its good to have the interaction on here, thank you.

I am sorry that raising questions feels to you like distrusting you or accusing you of fiddling things for your benefit. Neither of these were ever true in my case. But a few things emerged over the last weeks since the votes which surprised or raised questions for me, and I didn't think it unreasonable to want some clarification on them. I realise that for you it is obvious that a vote for an earth map implies a number of things about mods, the way the map is set up etc., but those things aren't obvious to some of us, and weren't clearly in our minds when the votes were made a few weeks back, hence the need for communicaiton and clarification. The options don't have to be either a vote on every detail, or one person working on their own and coming up with a final product and everyone else having to accept it. There is a middle path.

As you mentioned the New Horizons game didn't work. As you know I was really on for that, had avocated the original concept, and was really frustrated when it didn't work. But for me that is the point - some brilliant ideas don't seem to work, hence the desireability of chewing over the plan for a game for a bit, not to remove all creativity, but to try to ensure it has a good chance of working. After all, its not like we just try a few each week and enjoy the ones which work, its a 9 month commitment.

I can see I have offended you, and I am sorry for that. I hope in time you might see that it wasn't personal or about not trusting you.

[The Priest]

1. What kinda games do you like to play?
a. tier-system with multiple civ picking (more choice, map needs tweaking after picking): No
b. tier-system with only 18 choices (less choice, no map tweaking after picking) NEUTRAL
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): NEUTRAL

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.)? Neutral
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! Neutral
e. Just plain good old civ4 without mods: YES

[Pinchak]

So when is first turn?

[St Jon]

I agree totally with Exploit.

Tiers are one thing, if you genuinely know the ability of all the players, but then castrating the 'lesser' players with dead tiles is quite another.

The fact that this is a Diplo-Game also seems to have been ignored. Just being the best player is far less important than in a kill or be killed game. Robert won DoC despite being a distance away from the in-game winner in terms of either Civ points or ultimate power. Toni is a fine player of Civ indeed but he never was any kind of challenge in DoC when it came to winning the actual Diplo itself. Ozzy and Deity, both fine players, were also-rans in BtP with Capo far the most inventive and creative in his story telling despite being a very much weaker player.

The real advantage the 'big boys' in Europe get is early interaction which means great early stories as opposed to 'I cut down my first forest today'. Give the little guys a chance if you want a tough fight for supremacy.

[deity]

Damn, too much to read! But I quickly read ozzy's posts.

The game I would very much like to play is the one ozzy is crafting.

Will check back later...

[deity]

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.)? NEUTRAL
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! YES
e. Just plain good old civ4 without mods: NO

---

My only caveat is that we don't get tech issues from using mods.

[OzzyKP]

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.

Umm, lets put some things in perspective here. If Magellan left Seville on this Earth map it'd take him about 43 turns to circumnavigate the globe. For a knight to take the silk road from Barcelona to Beijing it takes about 13 turns. Remember that the whole point of the historic age of sail and the world wide discoveries and colonization that came of it was because the land route was terribly slow and ships were far quicker and more efficient. In standard civ it is exactly the opposite, ships are dreadfully slow and basically irrelevant while land travel is incredibly easy. Hell, with railroads built, a knight (or cavalry or tank) can get from Barcelona to Beijing in FIVE TURNS. A destroyer (the quickest ship in the game) would take 12 turns to reach there, and even with the Suez Canal built, it'd take 9 turns.

Ship movement is horribly unhistorical and unrealistic in civ. It doesn't scale with map size. You'd think a huge map like the one we are using would have ship movement that'd match it. This becomes especially bizarre when we factor in how long turns last in years. Magellan (well, his crew) circumnavigated the globe in three years, from 1519 to 1522. If a galleon left Spain in 1520 in an epic speed game of civ, it wouldn't arrive back in Spain until 1684.* His tea would be quite cold by then.

In game terms, lets say England wanted to attack India (obviously it has been done before). Lets say they load some troops on galleons and send them over. Well by the time they get there India has had 20 turns of additional unit building and 20 turns of additional tech advancement. Naval invasions or interaction is difficult enough in a game, but such long distances make it much worse.

St. Jon, you complain that there is some problem with all the European players being next to each other and able to interact easily. Yet you oppose a mod that would make it far easier for civs around the globe to interact with each other. So which is it?


*On epic speed each turn represents 5 years between 1000 AD and 1650 AD, and 2 years for each turn between 1650 AD and 1850 AD. So 43 turns starting in 1520 would take 164 years!

[OzzyKP]

And, I ask again, why are we revoting on tiers?

Why will a new vote on tiers override the old vote on tiers?