Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Robert]

Game has been paused

[Robert]

Some more information about the pause;

A civ asked for Cold Turkey Time.
Someone PM'ed me to inform me that not many rules are written about this. That is true.
I do not know if it is possible to write much rules about it. It's main purpose, let everybody calm down, may have to be achieved in a different manner every time.

It is good to note though that this time can't be used to get a diplomatical advantage.
Therefore I ask all parties to stop negotiating in the background.
This is an OOC thing that's needed to 'save' the game from ooc conflicts.

The reason that people asked for this CTT is that they got the idea that the actions of other players are not inspired by 'leading civs as real leaders' but by game technical purposes, abusing knowledge about the map that their IC leaders can't have yet. And alliances are a bit out of character that early in the game, where diplomacy yet has to be invented.
All my words, not theirs.

Do not respond to this yet!
I'll let the CTT involved parties be anonymous. (at least for now).
Just letting you all know what's going on.

Thanks for asking for CTT and accepting CTT.
It's now important that everybody has the spirit to get it solved.
More to follow. (I'll try to communicate a bit behind the scenes) (buwhahaha)

[Germany (DoE)]

edit

[DNK]

I'm no historian, but I am not sure the argument that diplomacy did not exist in the 3rd millennium BCE is valid. I am not sure why a hallmark of human interaction (alliance forming, cooperation, etc) would not exist in this period of human history, as I would assume it has existed (at smaller scales) at all times that humans have. There may not be much of a record of it in prehistory, but that's likely due to that lack of records in general. One would hope those ancients would have not been so lazy and made records of such important events regardless of their inability to develop a basic writing system, but alas they just had better things to do I guess.

[Robert]

The diplomacy part is my interpretation. Reading it again now, and it's not really there (in the PM I got).

[2metraninja]

At first, I also thought that alliances were common in the 3000 BC, but after short research I found this:

Hittites
(1650-1200 B.C.) contributions to Civilization
a. Iron manufacture
–
they kept this technology secret until their decline. b. Horses
–
they may have introduced the horse to Asia Minor c. System of law
–
based on payment for damages rather than harsh punishments
of Hammurabi’s code.
d. Treaties
–
creating alliances allowed for expanding and securing territories with less warfare.

Although the Summerians had a word for "Alliance" in the 3000 BC. KATARU (to make an alliance).

The map knowledge abusing is not good, but inevitable to some extent.

[Israel (DoE)]

Is this about Egypt? Did we do anything wrong?
Is anybody also angry at me?
Please don't be angry at Egypt, we are very nice people. I am sorry if I broke some rule.
It was not my purpose to start a conflict.
We will do anything to make up.

Please!?!

[America (DoE)]

I'm no historian, but I am not sure the argument that diplomacy did not exist in the 3rd millennium BCE is valid. I am not sure why a hallmark of human interaction (alliance forming, cooperation, etc) would not exist in this period of human history, as I would assume it has existed (at smaller scales) at all times that humans have. There may not be much of a record of it in prehistory, but that's likely due to that lack of records in general. One would hope those ancients would have not been so lazy and made records of such important events regardless of their inability to develop a basic writing system, but alas they just had better things to do I guess.

I agree, and I have to add that a diplo game is also about rewriting history, which is fun to do I don't think alliances are very far-fetched. Though if the civs involved live very far from each other, then there would have to be some kind of really awesome story in the story thread to explain such an alliance, otherwise it would seem a bit weak. To me, the last thing a diplo game is about, is trying to win, so such an alliance and an early war would have to be completely in line with what happened in the story thread before I would even consider declaring war. My point is that if something in the story line happened that would cause me to make myself lose a war even though I could win it purely by game mechanics, I would chose to lose; this game is about awesome writing and seeing those things played out in the game, which gives a real kick if everybody does it right. The kick of winning a war is peanuts compared to that.

But, I'm not completely familiar with the situation, these are just the thoughts that popped into my head after reading RP's post, which seems to hint at people playing for the win instead of for the fun. If that's true, that would be bad

EDIT: I am of course not in Europe, where I can imagine things are more tense. So an early war could very well be legitimate. Not judging anyone's actions here

[Robert]

For the record;
One party may claim that his opponent is playing with game-technical purposes in mind, and not role playing, the other party denies that. I just wanted to draw out the reason for the request for CTT. If these reasons are valid or not is not up to me.

[Germany (DoE)]

Since this delay is ongoing and Germany has just declared war* I need to ask that when the game resumes it needs to be on a 12 hour timer for the current turn to ensure turn order and that turns are taken.

* see story thread

[Robert]

I can't change the turn timer for the current turn but will extend the turn timer for the next turns to 12 hours.
I'll make sure that the turn won't proceed without all involved parties having moved. Right now that's Germany and France, I think.

[OzzyKP]

I'm certainly not an ultimate arbiter, so don't confuse my intention, but in my opinion I don't see anything wrong with the war. We all know the map, and knew we were going to know the map going into this. We knew also that Europe was going to be cramped and that there will be fighting for land. France made a land grab gamble which could, if unchallenged, result in a huge strategic advantage for them over time. They made the calculation that if they are the first to pop out a settler, then their position and cultural trait will be successful. They decided against building proper military to defend themselves. Germany made the calculation that they were going to build units (instead of settlers? who knows) and focus on the military side of things. Ottomans decided... I suppose... to get mad about things and go the diplo route of making stronger friends to fight their battles.

All good strategies. All interesting strategies. Now we just need to see how they work out when they come into conflict. Maybe it'll work out for Germany and Ottomans. Maybe it'll backfire. Maybe Russia will take this opportunity to gobble up a bunch of land to their east. Who knows, that is what makes the game interesting. In Dance of Civilization I was playing Russia and I started the game with France's strategy: pump out a settler quick, grab some land, and allow my culture to secure my spot. The vile Persians decided to capture, and then keep, the very first city I built. It sucked. It really sucked. It hurt Russia for the rest of the game, but I never thought it was against the rules of the game. I took a chance and I lost. It sucks, but that's life.

As for the allegation that Germany/Ottomans are playing to win OOC, not role playing... I dunno. I see the argument, and France may be right. But it is impossible to stamp that out completely. We need to have some flexibility there. Though, to put it in character, if I was an ancient civilization and I saw a rival civilization expand toward me, I would certainly get nervous. There was certainly war and conquest in 2375 BC in the real world. Was it because they wanted a better shot at building a space ship one day? No. They just wanted more power, more wealth, more land. Germany and Ottomans seem to just want more land, more power, more wealth, etc. Nothing strange or non-historical about that.

But that's just my opinion. France's complaint isn't without merit. He certainly has a point, though I think most of his complaint is based on sour grapes. I've been in your shoes France, and it really sucks, I understand your frustration.

[OzzyKP]

Then again, maybe I'm Germany and just saying this to support my war...

But just think, 3 days ago everyone was worried that Europe would be a love-fest where no one ever went to war.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

RP content to accept the CTT. Its always better to pause and sort things out, than let things go on and the problems grow, and you get into all the difficult stuff about reloading.

Ozzy's post (does he have some source of knowledge?) suggests someone is unhappy with my conduct. I won't get into explanations or defences here, because our rules are to avoid public posts in such circumstances. But very happy for someone to pm me and ask whatever questions they want. I've got nothing to hide.

[Exploit]

I agree with Ozzy that I do not see anything wrong with the war itself however the scenario he is describing in which Persia took Russia's first city would violate the rules of measured war as they have been described to us earlier in this thread by the game administrator.

If the German objective is to conquer and keep or raze a French city then that is the definition of expansion. If the French have 3 or less cities then this clearly falls under the hypothetical scenario that 2metraninja raised earlier in this thread to which the game administrator responded:

War is more then taking cities.
You can steal workers, destroy armies, pillage the lands, besiege cities for long times (effectively ending a civ's progression), etc.
Expansionistic wars: no, but wars about giving goods, money, converting to a religion, hand over a great person, etc: still possible.

I personally would have preferred to allow cities to be conquered earlier (and argued for such) however this doesn't appear to be a discussion about what we would like the rules to be but rather what the rules currently are. For the game administrator to tell us all that early expansionistic wars are not allowed and then to allow such a war would be patently unfair!

At this point, Germany should be limited to demanding resources, gold or maybe a right of passage so they can settle other lands as the game administrator indicated in the quote above.