Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

There is a reason we were voting. The three alliances is the most popular option.

Yes of course you are right, but I was pointing out that this was only because everyone thought it was necessary to get Axis +Arabia +India to stay. Now we know its not, plus Inca doesn't want alliances so much anyway.

So let's vote on this simple question:

Does ANYONE disapprove of just starting the game back up as is?

[OzzyKP]

Yes you are right my mistake. Sorry for assuming without reading. So only 3 out of the 15 teams truly WANT forced alliances. Also for the record I was willing to even be broken up from beloved Matushka Rus if it was needed to make the game fun again for those 3. I long suspected that what Axis truly feared was the Russo-Turk alliance, and that was truly what they wanted broken up in order to continue. I was even willing to respect a strict no trade rule between alliances... Which would mean I would have to give up Petrolla, and half my Cannons and all the Rifles and other units I just gave to Russia, no return of forces no nothing, if it would help Axis feel safe and let the game continue, I was willing.

EDIT: xposted with Arabia, so that means NO ONE wants forced alliances. So let's just start the game. No new rules.

There is a reason we were voting. The three alliances is the most popular option.

[Arabia2 (doe)]

nvm

but this is bad habit:

Sorry for assuming without reading.

Also Arabia did not have gamebreaking or fun problem with the game as it was, but you really don't help with your comments to get France or Vikings back to the game. (though I'm not sure what would help)

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Can you read? I (Lzprst) voted for NO ENFORCED ALLIANCES.

Yes you are right my mistake. Sorry for assuming without reading. So only 3 out of the 15 teams truly WANT forced alliances. Also for the record I was willing to even be broken up from beloved Matushka Rus if it was needed to make the game fun again for those 3. I long suspected that what Axis truly feared was the Russo-Turk alliance, and that was truly what they wanted broken up in order to continue. I was even willing to respect a strict no trade rule between alliances... Which would mean I would have to give up Petrolla, and half my Cannons and all the Rifles and other units I just gave to Russia, no return of forces no nothing, if it would help Axis feel safe and let the game continue, I was willing.

EDIT: xposted with Arabia, so that means NO ONE wants forced alliances. So let's just start the game. No new rules.

[Arabia2 (doe)]

Please, lets just go with this and move on. People wanted to make sure the Axis had oil, they have Arabia. People wanted to keep Arabia-India together, they are. All the natural allies are together. Again, nothing is perfect, but please, let's just agree to this for the sake of the game and move on.

Alright, I'm ready

[Inca (DoE)]

I'm slowly starting to lose interest in continuing this game also now. Can we please come to a decision of some sort or start planning a new one? I'm fine with either, really. I've considered this game effectively over for about a week now, although I hope it can be salvaged.

Look, I've played this entire game as a fairly pacifistic, merchant "island" nation, that although heavily involved in an alliance in the end, was otherwise interested in "old world" neutrality (until events forced me into another direction). I don't particularly want to become a major military pillar in a heavily combative and aggressive structured game format. I'm agreeing with America now, and adding that it's not really a "diplo" game if we're setting up some calamitous world conflict against everyone on some side (2, 3, 4, or however many) where the focus is all on score/power rather than story telling and role playing. This is turning into diplo light in that sense, and I really don't like to have 2 of those ongoing. 1 is quite enough for my tastes. This solves none of the issues that we've been contending with since the "great pause" began: people have been overly focused on power relations/etc ("score") rather than the actual diplo format of story-telling and role-playing (at times at the expense of "score"), and people have therefore been creating large, static alliances that kill enjoyability and dynamism (well, I disagree with both of those, but others agree. At the very least, it killed the game for those on the "losing" side).

If you guys want to do that, fine, but I didn't spend the last year creating a peaceful, "builder" nation to toss it in the end in a 'global war to end all civ global wars' thing. If everyone wants that, I'll certainly play along, but I'd prefer it if we either dropped this approach or excluded me from it at least. I will say that I'd still be marginally attached to England in regards to its Incaco territories (death to any who tried such an invasion), but I don't really want to take a part in this after I spent the last few months trying to forge some sort of an independent path.

Sorry to wreck your attempt at getting things rolling, Calanthian, but upon reflection it just isn't going to work for me like that.

[OzzyKP]

what truth? I just read this..
I said that this forced alliance thing is a bad idea and regarded it as such from the beginning. India also said that and the Vikings and Germans haven't posted here at all..

The Germans are Calanthian, and they support the proposal above.

Please, lets just go with this and move on. People wanted to make sure the Axis had oil, they have Arabia. People wanted to keep Arabia-India together, they are. All the natural allies are together. Again, nothing is perfect, but please, let's just agree to this for the sake of the game and move on.

[OzzyKP]

Guys, enough with the back and forth bickering here. We are just going to keep going around and around in circles. People are already getting frustrated and seem ready to call the whole thing off. Nothing is going to be perfect, but Calanthian has the best proposal we've seen. Please, for the sake of the game, can we just agree to this and move on?

Discussion with Ozzy and Inca has led to the following proposal:

Fascist Alliance:
Neandor-Arabia-Vikings-India-Egypt

Communist Alliance:
Russia-Native America-Ottomans-Mongolia-Mali

Democrat Alliance:
England-Inca-America-Japan-France

(the only item being that France must be available and playing)

And please, no finger pointing, no saying "oh the whiny Axis won't accept that" or any other nonsense. Calanthian, Inca and I all agree to this. Let's just go with it and get back to the game!

[Russia (DoE)]

Yes, overconfidence and show, to scare and confuse our enemies, was big part of our success.

[Arabia2 (doe)]

The only players who REALLY want forced realignment are Arabia, India, Vikings and Germany. All the realignment talk by others is an accommodation for these 4. That is the truth.

what truth? I just read this..
I said that this forced alliance thing is a bad idea and regarded it as such from the beginning. India also said that and the Vikings and Germans haven't posted here at all..

[Russia (DoE)]

so, wait, Russia, you are saying that you are not as weak as you have been claiming all game and that you in fact would have won a crushing victory against the axis?

I was weak at many times. Do you read? I was scared - I was shivering from fear. But I never showed this and no one never knew. So to all my enemies and allies, I looked as a rock-solid and predetermined winner.

Now I remember something funny - it was when we was negotiating the GP deal and our NAP - after we signed everything, you said something like: India wants Russia to promise to be gracious victor when she win the war. I said to myself "WTF? how this guy is so sure I will win the war? It seems everyone is sure of something I myself have so much doubts." In fact, these your words gave me confidence, that at least from the side I was looking strong and sure in my victory. This was at the time when I was about to get Rifles for first time.

Later on, with the advance of the war, with few tens of rifles and cossacks under my command, I felt better about my chances.

And right now, I feel a bit more secure than in 10 turns ago. I can assure you - if just now, I log in as Neandor and you log in as Russia, I will take Moscow from you. Do you believe me? How this compares to Axis claims to be weak and Russia to be monstrous?

[Russia (DoE)]

Now I will be completely honest - if the war was continued, I just dont know what would happen. We might crush the Axis, and we might be crushed ourselves. We were at the end of our power and reserves. We put everything we had on the table.

War is risky endeavor. If I have a way to avoid it and still got what I want - why would I fight?

[India (DoE)]

so, wait, Russia, you are saying that you are not as weak as you have been claiming all game and that you in fact would have won a crushing victory against the axis?

This alliance arguing is pointless, I say we end it and go with no enforced alliances.

Or, Why don't we just start a new game...?

[India (DoE)]

The only players who REALLY want forced realignment are Arabia, India, Vikings and Germany. All the realignment talk by others is an accommodation for these 4. That is the truth.

Can you read? I (Lzprst) voted for NO ENFORCED ALLIANCES.

[Russia (DoE)]

While waiting for a decision to be made (half the players are not voted yet in the survey), I am back-reading to adress some things which was said these last few days.

Yes, we were afraid of what you, the Russian alliance could do. We were afraid that if we attacked someone that we would get stabbed in the back because you guys had us surrounded (England, Russia, Turks, and Mali, plus whatever could come up from the Incas). We were intent on defending ourselves and getting machine guns, etc. for that purpose, and attacking someone else was never discussed until after the great war when France and I were pondering attacking the Inca.

You might be surprised, but I was afraid too. I was deadly scared trough the most of the game of your advanced and outnumbering armies. We were scared of your might at the sea, we were cursing that we are separated and we cant make a united front to combat your united forces. We were afraid that if we lose the war, we will follow the English fate - our capitols taken, our oldest cities taken and we expelled from Europe to live in the tundras and rocky mountains in Asia. We were afraid by your merciless warring approach. We suspected everyone after the Israeli betrayal. We were 2 times THIS close to giving up and asking for mercy. And yet we fought. We kept the faith. And as the war continued, I studied your way of warring and strategic decision making. I wondered myself "Why?" and one afternoon - I remember it - it came to me that you were scared of us! And I said this to Turkey - I said him: "You know what? Those guys are afraid of us. They are already lost the war in their hearts and minds"

You were afraid to attack and you were preparing for defense - while you were building frigates to defend your shores, we built transports ships to attack your shores. When you were building grenadiers and cannons to defense in your territory, we were building rifles and cossacks to attack your territories and chase your cannons. You were producing Ironclads to defend your shores, while we were building SOTLs to outmaneuver your powerful, but slow ships and attack you in your back yard. When you were going for MGs to make your border cities unassailable and kept your population and GNP high, we slaved/drafted all our cities and threw everything to attack you at your territory.

You were preparing to defend, and we were preparing to attack. You lost, and we won. The bluff was a bluff - England gave me explicit orders to NOT RAZE your Holy City. But this was not only empty ships counting only you to take the bluff. Contrary to England's memories, those were not 3 galleons, but 30 of the best land units England could muster - triple CityAttack promoted grenadiers and cannons, double hill promoted units, all the Rifles Russia managed to send England... It was formidable army, able not only to capture, but hold the 3 Viking cities. Not to mention that the Russian Cossacks were going to capture Arctica the very next turn and from there, ALL the Viking cities were laying open for attack, as the Viking rifles were locked against 40 Russian soldiers in Nordica. With the breach in the North, Russia and England was about to join forces and with the 10 galleons we were able to capture any French north city we desire, as they were guarded by a single warrior or archer each - everything the Axis had, was sent to Neandor City and Nordica to hold the Russian storm. In the Med the things were grim for the Axis too - Grunzen City was captured by the Turks, Venetii was about to fall - the Turkish army with cannons and 20 rifles was to land on the hills near Venetii and the Russian garrison from Greece was in position to join them in the assault.

In the same time, the main French army and a lot of Viking units too, was on the British Isles, protecting their war spoil, because I made some fierce attacks there with England to draw the attention of the Axis away from North Africa, so we can neutralize the Israeli. Then I retreated Dublin and France sent their army to capture it. Well done - When you gather your army together to defend Britannia, the England fleet just sailed beside them at full sails with the wind and was in position to threaten the empty 3 Viking north-west cities. Check (and as it turned one turn later - check-mat )

It was not just bluff, guys - sorry. This bluff ended the war and brought us the win, but it was not our only weapon It was just nice tool to save us some 50-100 units, while keeping the Axis competitive, so a major showdown to be guaranteed in 50 turns.

And now, one good move, 15 destroyers on on the bottom of Berlin port to serve as a playground of the fishes combined with the old fear from the seemingly invincible arch-enemy had spoiled this showdown, for which we both - Axis and Allies were preparing so long and so dedicated.

Pity, yes, but ...