Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Russia (DoE)]

I guess we cant stop for so long every time some civ loses a city. Yes, it is France second city (or third?) but as tight packed area with the best supposed players in the game all crowded there they should not settle so aggressively or be prepared to defend it and take the just anger and logical harsh reaction of their neighbors.

I personally lost my third settler, which is the same as losing the third city. Should I've raised an issue and wanted the game to be reloaded or something? And I did not lost it because I wanted to settle too greedy and did not built escort - I lost it because of bad luck, the turn switched when I was at work and my escort just watched the animal killing it 1 tile before it reaches safety. I'll live with that, learn a lesson and move on. I advice France do the same.
Someone asked what we do if a barbarian axemans have been headed towards Venetia? Very good question.

And for this message to be somewhat constructive, I propose one possible solution:
- if the city falls to Germany, they raze it and together with Turkey make a 20 turns peace with France.

I have sent this message to RP and Ozzy, but when I saw that Germany is about to leave the game, I just dont feel right, and I want to appeal to Germany not to do so. In fact, a player is going to be punished for playing the game strong and strategically wise and correct. This is against any common sense to me. And against the spirit of any game.

France assuming that they are not going to be attacked because they have only 2 or 3 cities and denying land from the other players by boxing them is more rule breaking and exploitative than the supposedly unmeasured war started by Germany.

Just my thoughts.

[Robert]

Right now neither Ozzy nor me get a reply from France.
We need to have a French player to continue anyway. That's now delaying things.

I'll open the org thread and move these posts there.
I'm sorry for not opening it yet, I kinda forgot.

[Germany (DoE)]

Best not discuss it but I assure you this is the only way

(Germany does not accept a vote btw)

Oh, don't do that. Lets put this war thing to a vote; it's clearly not getting resolved.

[DNK]

Oh, don't do that. Lets put this war thing to a vote; it's clearly not getting resolved.

[Germany (DoE)]

I have just sent a PM to ozzy and RP. I've decided I may withdraw from the game and/or line up a sub.

My instructions to myself or whoever plays Germans is this.

For the sake of the game and the other players, here is what I'll do:

* I or my sub will withdraw and play a builder game with 3 cities if I'm lucky
* I won't do any deal with France nor will I ask for anything
* I'll maintain a state of war if it suits me but will not attack or pillage
* I won't start a war until it's clear in the threads that I'm allowed to

Now get this thing started.

[DNK]

Yeah, I can't help but notice the game has been down for a bit longer than CTT is supposed to take. It's been over 3 days, and the rules state it's: "For some this time is short, for others 1 or 2 days." That leads me to believe we're not supposed to put this game on permanent hold due to one player's issues. I don't want to clutter the Story Thread with this chatter, but our outlet in the Org Thread has been closed, something I'm not terribly happy with either.

France has had its time to cool down. I was not under the impression that CTT was a pause for settling game issues but rather one for settling personal issues, ie, a mild mental breakdown or something. In fact, I thought we specifically weren't supposed to be settling game issues during CTT, something that appears to be taking place here.

So if you guys can't settle this war issue before CTT is over (and it should be), then put it to a vote and lets move on with it.

France isn't the only civ playing this game... I've tundras to cross... or was it jungles to chop... or maybe I've an eastern seabord to settle? Think it was deserts to conquer... oh hell, I've forgotten now.

[Pinchak]

Enough of this tomfoolery! The game has been down too long. If someone builds an undefended city then let flow the spoils of war! Yes it is bad form to take cities this early but a barb could have done it just as easily. Would we pause for that? I grow weary of this game pause.

[Robert]

I'm currently waiting for an answer from France.

[OzzyKP]

I'm doing my best, but please feel free to step in yourself if you have any good ideas and suggestions!

[Robert]

Hi guys, just want to let you know that I'm back.
I see that Ozzy has talked a lot with the involved guys behind the scenes. I'll leave it to him to finish it.
Just a heads up so that you'll all know that things are being worked on.

[Robert]

@France: for the record, what I am writing in PM's to you has the intention to help you to see things from different perspectives. I do not say it in private for no reason.

I have no sight on the situation. I don't know the location of the involved cities. I do not know the resources, the space that's left to settle, etc. etc. So I can never give a fair judgment.
In general I can say that the early game is about 'land grabbing' and placing cities on strategical positions. It would be boring if people can place their 2nd city without defense and without having to fear that someone would take it.
Losing the 2nd city may be about losing 25% of ones empire. (The capital has 12 times as much commerce, 5 times as much production, 2 times as much culture, etc.)

It's not by default that losing the 2nd city (out of 2 cities) equals unmeasured war.
It also depends on the compensation, the peace deal that can be made.

I cannot make that judgement. Maybe this 2nd city of you has a gold mine already and is size 2. Maybe it's on a better spot then your capital. Maybe a religion has been found in it. It's for you and Germany to judge.
Please have a fair look at the situation.

I am not saying that you are wrong or that you should accept.
I am just trying to say that it's not as simple as "I lose 50% of my cities thus it is unmeasured war".
I think that the paragraph, posted by Germany, is clear on that as well.

I like the early land grab phase.
It's a mix of expansion and defending.
Last game I focused on power and strength. I had 5 axes and appeared in front of Russia's 2nd city. He gave it to me in exchange for 1 settler and my help against his other enemies. We signed peace and after that my 5 axe army marched towards the other border of the Russian empire to help him there.

THe city stayed disputed, btw. Russia conquered it, I liberated it again. (or the other way around, he liberated and I conquered it again). It became my holy city. Russia though never fully recovered.
Taking a city that early is pretty harsh. I don't know if I would do it again. But yet again, it's also the risk to put a 2nd city on ground that could be disputed. One can also chose to first build a save 2nd city or an axeman to defend it.

Anyway, consider everything and try to make a deal with Germany that's fair and fun for both sides.
If you two can't agree ooc (!) then we may have to make it a vote. In that case both of you have to make you case in a clear post with screenshots. But let's first cool down and consider everything.

[Robert]

I'm at the moment away for the weekend. My Internet connection here sucks.
It's hard for me to follow the debate, let alone to guide the debate. And guidance is pretty much needed here.

Therefore I am going to close this thread for now. If OzzyKP wants to take lead now then he can unlock the thread and act as the game leader in my absence. He can then, if think it's needed, organize a vote.

But I think we need some time to cool down anyway.
All consider:
1. Can I continue to have a fun game while I lose a city now, and how do I need to be compensated to have fun. What's the least I need to continue to have fun.
2. Can I understand that I take the fun of others away by my actions, and is this action such an action that does. What am I willing to do to make sure that my enemy continues to have fun in this game.

Thanks all!

[Germany (DoE)]

Measured war dictionary and rule

Just posting a neutral copy/paste of the war rules.

DICTIONARY - Measured war

A Civ Diplo Game has to balance two factors in war.

1. This is Civ - Warmongering, conquest and domination is a perfectly acceptable and honourable way to play. There is no intention that Diplo games need to be 'builder orientated' (though that is just as acceptable a strategy too).

2. This is Diplo - No civilisation should be crippled with the result that the game stops being fun for the player involved. This means that there is a balance to be struck. War is costly for the aggressor, building up forces while other nations race ahead, so the victor should be able to make real gains from the war. But if they gain too much, the loser may be crippled. Its impossible to make a hard and fast rule out of this, because that can just be exploited (e.g. a loser refusing to make a reasonable peace because 'the rule' will then kick in and save them). But as a guide, a 25% loss is an appropriate threshhold (loss being an overall measure, not just a city count - losing 3 tiny fringe cities may be much less of a loss than 1 major city). More than this may well be crippling the loser. But a loss/gain up to this probably is appropriate benefit for the victor. Again this can't be a rule - taking a small bite out of a neighbour every ten turns will cripple them, but having won a war against a neighour a millenium ago doesn't mean you can't fight with them again.

This concept of measured war is enforced in rule 7.

---

RULE 07. Measured War Rule

a. When 51% of the players for ooc-reasons think that a war should*end then it must end. This to avoid that civs will be cripled too much by a war. The terms of the end of war are in such a case: immediate peace for 50 turns. It is advised for both parties to agree on the best possible terms for peace before this happens.
*
b. Such an end of war must be organized in the org thread. (ie. players must announce their opinion regarding the end of a war in the org thread).

Reasons for such an end-of-war vote are only OOC! Not IG (like: my allie is losing this important city)

Debates/votes about this will always happen with the normal apolyton id's, not the anonymous id's!

[BranksDilly]

As an active participant in this game, but purely objective as I am far away from Europe, this is my 2 cents:

If there is a dispute, it should be put to a vote for all members of the game. We should hear the facts and then decide on a future action. RP is good at being a mediator so he can present the facts to us.

Based on what I understand, a city has been taken, or is about to. Although we did agree upon measured war, I don't see why the aggressor should be punished. If he's not allowed to take a poorly defended city, then he should be entitled to a comparable reward. Maybe France should be ordered to pay him a settler?

I don't feel as if we're being true to the game if we allow everyone to build 3 cities and no military, this is not realistic. I play diplo games to have a realistic political experience so would be disappointed with a silly rule such as this.

[mzprox]

Paying tribute is quite a big thing. If they won't pay you take a city, pillage the gold from it and give back.. A pretty good reason to have your city garrisoned.. much cheaper than paying the tribute, and paying the tribute is usually cheaper than losing buildings and production from attacks-still, the best is to protect your cities. I'd say: it's ok to take a city if the other player has at least two more than you or he is in much better position, (tech-wise for example). Since I don't know the situation, can't see the map and I don't even know how big is this earth map I'm just saying these as general rules (as my rules not the game's). If all Europeans can only have 3 cites then they are unlikely to change owners without getting conflict with the measured war rule.