Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Ottoman: you have a good point, but in my opinion it is detrimental to the game that playing as an independent is the same as playing as fodder. I have always felt that there is a certain "gentleman's agreement" to play fairly and treat weaker civs if not with kindness

But see, that is the problem, because there is no such gentlemans agreement. This is a War game, and we are MEN (Iat least I assume we are all men). So this is competition, we are all trying to beat each other. If you have goals, you have to fight to accomplish them.

Trying to be an "independent" is exactly the same as planning to be fodder... So, unless you WANT to be Fodder, (ie, you think being Fodder is fun), you should not plan to be Fodder, or you will end up feeling that the game is not fun. The game is not fun because you are Fodder and being Fodder is not fun for you. Get it?

This is why "independent" and Fodder are the same... As I explained before, Superpowers always emerge. The REASON they become Superpowers, is because they skillfully develop to the point where they have sattellites that support them and depend on them for trade, defense, upgrades etc. If you are big and strong, these relationships develop naturally, and almost unavoidably.

As I said before Superpowers always begin vying against each other for dominance via proxy. The way they do this is by slowly taking control (either directly or indirectly) of the spaces that are not "claimed" by other Superpowers.

This is where the Fodder comes in. When you are Fodder (Independent), YOU are the OPEN spaces that the Superpowers are competing to take control of in their quest for dominance. That is why it impossible to be a peaceful builder when you are Fodder. EVERYONE will always be kicking you around. The Superpowers are the Coaches, Pawns are the Players and Fodder is the BALL. That's why nobody would speak up for India or help India. You were like the Ball asking Liverpool to stop Manchester-United from kicking you, only to then be kicked by Liverpool. It's ironic that you joked/complained about this without actually realizing how wise and insightful your words were... I remember you saying exactly "It has become near World Sport to screw over India"... and how spot-on right you were

That's the game. If you dont want to be the Ball, then dont be independent. Even the Natives had enough sense to just declare they were with Russia, and then go back to being a peaceful builder. Sometimes that all it takes. Just pick a side and you get left alone. Sometimes it takes a little more, but you have to pick a Superpower (or become one, like Inca) or you are Fodder. That's it.

There is no "gentleman's agreement" to just leave anyone alone to let you accomplish your goals. If my goal to have fun is to be a dominant Superpower and yours is to peacefully build, then we are going to butt heads, and if you want to have fun continuing to peacefully build then you have to fight to keep from being dominated so you can go back to peacefully building.

Let me give an example: I sometimes play Age of Empires, an RTS game, with my relatives. They are not as good as me, but I play with them anyway because its good to do things with relatives. So what I generally do is I go make myself a sandwich or something when the game starts while they start building up their towns. They can't deal with rushes, so I just let them build their cities up and I wait for them to start attacking me before I do much of anything. Then I just settle in and play a normal game.

So basically, I tank the game because they are poor players and otherwise I will elimminate them too fast and they wont have any fun. But I only do this because they are family, and we talk on the phone and such while we play. The point is to spend time doing something together as family.

So is that what you are wanting everyone to do? You want everyone else to tank the game so that you get to do what you want? Is that what you mean by "gentleman's agreement?" Maybe not, but that's what it seems like to me. Maybe you never thought of it like that, Who knows.

Ok so i will install the game tomorrow and will be ready to get back to it if you guys wish to end the game. I prefer to take back only the frozen vikings. Can the current vikings get Germany?

What about if Germany just goes to AI if no one wants it? Along with any other civs that no one wants.

[Russia (DoE)]

That's the game. If you dont want to be the Ball, then dont be independent. Even the Natives had enough sense to just declare they were with Russia, and then go back to being a peaceful builder. Sometimes that all it takes. Just pick a side and you get left alone. Sometimes it takes a little more, but you have to pick a Superpower (or become one, like Inca) or you are Fodder. That's it.

Exactly. Beside the greetings and common assurances of friendship Russia DID NOT asked anything from the Natives - no unit, no single coin. And yet, they were left to do whatever they desired.

What about if Germany just goes to AI if no one wants it? Along with any other civs that no one wants.

I think it would have be a mistake. Neandor is a key factor in the Axis, so he cant be a mindless AI

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

This thread is so on fire , it will be a miracle if I can make two back to back posts...EDIT: Too late Russia beat me

in my opinion it is detrimental to the game that playing as an independent is the same as playing as fodder

You know, thinking again about all your complaints throughout this game (all of which I read closely BTW, every single word ), I think it can simply be bolied down to this...

When you play SP against the AI, the AI almost NEVER forms alliances. AI rarely makes big demands of you (like surrender all your units or pay 300 gpt to end a war). Ai basically justs lets you play your game your way. In a SP game, its every civ for himself. The AIs all play as individual civs, everybody plays FTW and peacefully builds, for the most part even with the settings on "Aggressive AI" (which I always use). I think that is truly what you want... A game where civs dont form all these "unbalancing alliances", but instead just play their own game. You want a game where more players play like the AI.

Of course most human players wont do that, because they know that is an inferior way to play. So maybe what we need, to give you and those who feels as you do what they want, is some AI civs. Some civs that will never form alliances, and just let their neighbors peacefully build (for the most part).

[The Priest]

Ottoman, I think you are wrong, actually. This is a very particular form of game, not MP Civ, but a diplo game, and that precisely does have a gentleman's agreement to preserve fun for people. In all the diplo games I've played, there have been weaker nations left untouched because it seemed right. Yes their powerful neighbours would have gained by absorbing them and yes that would have been the wise thing to do, to gain strength before a final show down with their rivals, but they didn't.

That's not naive, its true. That is how the games have worked because the players wanted it to. You are right that there is a dynamic towards the sort of domination of small nations you describe, but its not a dynamic we have to give in to.

Why? Because we all know that if games proceed as you describe, they fail. Like this one has. The last months its been a mess, precisely because of the raw competitiveness you describe which means people can't be bothered, get angry about reloads etc.

Where I do agree with you is that we need to increase the reasons for 'superpowers' to fight each other. The civ dynamic makes peaceful building very powerful, particularly when coupled with a diplo game where the benfits you can take from war are limited, and you get lots of permanent bad rep.

We also need to play with unit gifts banned and a few similar moves to limit the strength of alliances.

[England (DoE)]

Switching civs would solve everything.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

I think playing with a "No score" mod in place would help with the MP style competitiveness...

@ The Priest, (who I believe was the original Ottoman player) - The fact that you used to be the Ottomans in this game means that I got to read all your old PMs when you were playing as the Ottomans . Very lucky for me as it gives me great insight into your thinking and makes me particularly well equipped to respond to your comments.

With respect, based on your PMs, I can tell you... You are simultaneously just as dog-eat-dog aggressive as I say everyone should be, as well as just as naive as the Indian player was. In your PMs I saw great opportunistic self interested, dominance seeking aggression, when you saw opportunities to benefit yourself. But then as soon as someone was aggressive towards you, then it was all about the "gentleman's code."

To me its a simple case of our high ideals not matching our behavior in practice. You might THINK you believe in or follow the "gentleman code" but based on your PMs, you dont. Youignore it when it doesn't suit your goals.

[LzPrst]

I agree in part with what Ottoman said, but when a game has its alliances established at 500 bc, then there is no dynamic in the game.

Imagine the following: Russia, England and Ottoman and Mali in one alliance.
Neandor, France, Vikings, Zulu and Israel in one alliance.
China, Japan, India and Mongolia in one alliance.
The American civs all in one alliance.

What the hell is the game about at that stage? Seriously, what diplomacy is there to be done in such a situation?? I feel that a diplogame should be about independent and ambitious civs, not a game of superpowers, puppets and proxies. If there were no independent civs, then the game would be dead in the water. There might as well be 4 players instead of 18.

[LzPrst]

also, the no score mod should be essential in every future diplogame.

[Inca (DoE)]

Be nice if we could shift positions instead of civs, say a dramatic tectonic shift that puts Germany in the Caribbean and India in the middle of Europe...

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

also, the no score mod should be essential in every future diplogame.

I agree. The scores help to antagonize, demoralize,and just generally serve no good purpose in a diplomacy style game.

Imagine the following: Russia, England and Ottoman and Mali in one alliance.
Neandor, France, Vikings, Zulu and Israel in one alliance.
China, Japan, India and Mongolia in one alliance.
The American civs all in one alliance.

What the hell is the game about at that stage? Seriously, what diplomacy is there to be done in such a situation?? I feel that a diplogame should be about independent and ambitious civs, not a game of superpowers, puppets and proxies. If there were no independent civs, then the game would be dead in the water.

Yes! Thank you Now you get it! You are exactly, exactly, exactly right.

First of all, the situation you describe would probably NEVER happen, because before it did, the game would be over. But why? That is the real key... Here is why...

Because never, Never, NEVER, would ALL the players in the game become Pawns or Superpowers. There will always be a few suckers who think they're going to thrive as an "independent", you can always count on that. And these poor saps are always around to become the Fodder. Plus, there are always a bunch of civs that don't want to be Fodder, but they also can't bear to be Pawns, because their ego is too big. They think they are Superpower material, but they lack the skills, or the luck, and they fall short... so they end up as more Fodder.

And that really is the best source of Fodder. Civs who think they can play as an independent and become a Superpower, like when you play the AI. Civs with dreams of grandeur, with oversized egos, too proud to bend a knee to the Superpowers because they fear it will hurt their chance of becoming one. Inca knew better, picked a side, and eventually became a Superpower. India did not, and became Fodder.

Finally, most players lack the skill to become a Superpower, plus its almost impossible if you come in as a sub. And even if you start out in the game from the beginning, AND you have the skills, you still need to be lucky with resources, land, mistakes/choices of others, friends neighbours etc.

So the situation where everybody joins an alliance never happens, and even if it did, the whole process would just repeat itself on a Macro scale, as in the alliances would then start forming super-alliances to gang up on the weaker alliances. Alliances that remain "independent" become the new Fodder, and get ganked.

I'm just telling you how it is. But I realize very well that there will ALWAYS be suckers who refuse to accept this. And they will always end up being the Fodder that everyone else has fun kicking around. It is inevitable there will always be Fodder in the game.

[The Priest]

Well Ottoman you are wrong. Your response to my post was a clever attempt to claim some 'special knowledge' and attack the person not the argument. Shame you didn't respond to what I actually said, rather than just keep repeating the same interesting, but slightly flawed stuff.

How many diplo games have you played in?

Because what I described as the way other games have been played is the truth. Were you in them? I guess not. Anyone who was part of Doom of Diplomats, Dance of Civilisations or Beyond the Pit knows well that there were indeed 'independents' not used as fodder by others.

Your example about your playing with your family is spot on. People haven't seen these diplo games as pure competitiveness because they do feel an ongoing relationship with those they are playing with. As RP often says 'there are no rules just gentlemen' and in most games that has worked well. This game failed on that basis with its endless rule arguments, reloads etc. In the other diplo games I've played in you had half a dozen reloads in a game, in this one you seemed to have been having that number each week recently. So yes there has been a different spirit at work in this game - and it would be very interesting to analyse why - but you are wrong in saying that all games would proceed like that. Its a simple fact that they haven't.

[Russia (DoE)]

I think Ahmed said it quite clear, logical and irrefutable. You should include this in the treatise

I always knew this, but just never been able to formulate this so clear to myself. Now when I see it formulated, I can agree that this is the way it works.

Allying, having superpowers, pawns and fodders is so natural, the fact that nations will join as the game advances to seek security and better chances of survival and/or becoming stronger themselves is so natural, that it mimicries the real life. Why would a families seek another families to form a tribe? Why dont they stay all alone on themselves? Why tribes will seek other tribes to form a nation? Why dont they just graze their sheep and horses and be happy? Because in this time the other tribes join in a nation, and when those nations join in empires - then those tribes who wanted just to graze their cattle will either be erased from the face of the Earth, or they will migrate, or they will be willing to become part of and to serve the empire.


Also, the whole "puppet", "pawn" "Master" and "alliances" thing was very wrongly presented and perceived by many players in this game. I am being accused the most of being a Master suggesting this is something bad and disgracing. But why would this be bad for me? And why would it be bad for my "pawns"? Lets see what so bad I did to those who chose to side with me.

- England got half his empire back from the invaders and were set up to be a world Superpower again.

- Turkey got North Africa back and advanced strong army during the Great War (here I will use the opportunity to answer those who accused me of using proxy to wage wars to the Americas - no, I DID NOT GAVE ANY ARMY TO TURKEY after the end of the Great War, nor I pushed them in to attacking the North-Americans. Whoever whats to believe, whoever dont want - this is his decision.).

- Inca got tons of upgrades for his soldiers to protect his vulnerable continent and got a ton of Russian money with % interest. He got Oil too to become a Naval superpower and be able to protect their shores - something they always longed to.

- Mali got land from Zulu and Israel

- Zulu were saved from the Mali attack and got land from Israel

- Japan doubled his land

- Arabia got a ton of upgraded weapons and security

Lets see what the Axis gave to those, who pledged loyalty to them - to see is it some flawed mechanism, random preference or I having friends and supporters is the most logical thing?

- Israel was maimed and then deserted to be attacked and defeated

- India was maimed and deserted when they needed their friends most

- Azteca was maimed and deserted

- America was maimed and deserted

Russia never deserted a friend. Is it so surprising I will have friends? Once Turkey said something which impressed me much, although I knew it by heart. He said that the word of Russia is the most valuable treasure and most powerful weapon our alliance have.

And now, after I have as you say unrealistically big alliance - have you ever wondered why never ever in the world's history one empire never conquered the whole world? Because it is not natural and it is illogical. Stability is never going to happen. Once all the threats to the Empire are gone, the empire (alliance in game) will fall apart - new nations (civs in-game) will look to challenge each-other, new rearrange of the powers and the alliances will happen - this is natural.

[America (DoE)]

- America was maimed and deserted

I wasn't actually; the Ottomans attack did not put me back much, nor did I desert America. I was traveling for a month and a half, but I did manage to play nearly every turn, apart from ten days, where someone subbed for me. I was very much into the game, still would be now that I am back. Reading all this, I have to add that I see no objection to anything that has happened. Sure, reducing a civ to just a few cities, that is a bit much, and it should be followed by some great storyline in which that civ is gifted land elsewhere, a colony or something, etc. But I believe that a simple behind the scenes PM to the aggressor saying, yo man, great attack, but eh, I feel a bit tiny now, would you perhaps have some cities somewhere else, and then we can start a fun storyline about a people in exile, etc etc? I would immediately do it if I had enough cities. Hell, I would even do it as America if someone asked me.

Many of your disputes seem to be about trying to equalize everything, trying to even out the playing field. But it doesn't matter if there are alliances, superpowers, etc; as long as these powers remain flexible and do crazy sh%t in order to make great stories.

To me, score in a diplogame is just a reflection of how well my economy and military and so on are doing. But whether you win the game depends on the storyline and the fun you create for yourself and others. Especially that last bit is what I keep in mind when playing this game: what can I do to make this fun for the rest? A funny story, a dramatic story, a crazy twist in game, an unlikely alliance, etc. All this talk about score, fights, alliances, unfair, unbalanced, it really doesn't make much sense to me. A diplogame in which you constantly have to take care not to have anyone grow to powerful and everybody should remain equal, well, that sounds a bit boring I think. As long as the ones who grow powerful think of ways to make the game fun for the rest, then it doesn't matter that they grow powerful.

Think of all the story twists a superpower could create, simply because he is a superpower. If I were a superpower - and I suck at civ compared to you guys so that will likely never happen - I would do craaaazy stuff; come up with some crazy ass cause that makes no sense strategically and have everybody wondering wtf is going on, or have a dictator take over and put your country on crazy civics, or start 'development aid' and beefing up the civ with the lowest score, give away territory to an unlikely civ, who will be completely surprised, spawning crazy stories, man, the possibilities are endless. If you try to create some kind of unnatural balance, you take away all that.

All these discussions - though of course necessary because you guys obviously needed to talk - to me seem to forget the most important point: your core task in a diplogame is to think of ways to make it fun for everyone. If you stick to that, the rest doesn't matter. To me the discussions about realism, balance, score, alliances...I think it all kinda misses the point. If anybody had a feeling that there was a stalemate, or that it was futile to try anything due to the Russian alliance, then in my opinion all this could have probably been solved by writing one friendly and joking PM to Russia saying, hey man, you wanna hatch a crazy plan together to turn the whole world upside down and create some awesome stories? From what I've seen so far, I think Russia would be just the kind of player who would go, 'awesome, let's do it'. And that is what I consider perfect diplogaming.

[Russia (DoE)]

- America was maimed and deserted....


I wasn't actually; the Ottomans attack did not put me back much, nor did I desert America. I was traveling for a month and a half

I meant the Axis gave you false hope, so you and Azteca to continue fight Turkey, while the Axis was not able to actually save you from harm. When the Axis fleet was gone, they actually stopped supporting you and left you on the mercy of the Turks.

This is what I meant - that they gave you hope, but it was false hope, as they deserted you later.

[Russia (DoE)]

A diplogame in which you constantly have to take care not to have anyone grow to powerful and everybody should remain equal, well, that sounds a bit boring I think. As long as the ones who grow powerful think of ways to make the game fun for the rest, then it doesn't matter that they grow powerful.

Very well said. But the problem is that many of the players dont think so. They are either want to be independent or they want to be powerful or they dont have fun.