Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Robert]

Game's up. I used Egypt's auto-save, so nothing is lost except the things that Egypt did before the crash.

[Robert]

Server crashed, apparently while Pharao Tiu was in. I'm not at home so there's nothing I can do right now.
@Egypt: did anything special happen?

[France (DoE)]

He is online and his firewall blocks you. Once he leaves the game you will be able to join.

Actually, I think the game crashed while Pharao Tiu was logged in. The Play You Turn uploader has not connected in over 30 minutes either and Pharao has been logged in for over an hour at this point which seems unlikely this early in the game.

[2metraninja]

He is online and his firewall blocks you. Once he leaves the game you will be able to join.

[Aztecs (DoE)]

I'm unable to log in because I "can't connect to the player 'Pharao Tiu'". What causes this sort of thing?

[2metraninja]

Well, this is a diplo- game, but I think we all here are men enough and can handle losing from time to time. I think this was some of the reason behind the tier system - the strongs to tackle strong players, and the weak to be relatively safe and spared being neighbor with players his skill alike and we all to have stories to tell - the uber-conqueror to tell how he crushed his enemies, the builders to tell stories how they built glorious achievements spreading their culture, and the peaceful agricultural settled tribes to tell stories how they are being raided by warlike neighbors and how they repel them or scatter under the pressure.

Anyway, I think everything with the war will come smooth and natural when it comes to it.



By the way, if someone is interested, there is an old- fashioned "free for all" Earth18 pitboss waiting to be launched in CFC. We still need 6 more players to start the game.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=374061

[mzprox]

I agree that it's to long untill astronomy (Africa and Asia is still there though ). What I'm sayin' is it depends how strong the 'natives' would become compared to the Europeans. If somehow an euro power manages to get technological advantage He may be succesfull alone, and even other europeans should act against him in a form of colonial wars. If however the Natives have the advantage (same or better tech, but definately more cities so production) then the europeans should ally. Try to make the wars balanced even if you could just join the stronger side for an easy ride.

[The Priest]

Ah but its many many years until your can meaningfully attack the natives, and if you are chocked down to two cities when your neighbours have four you will never get there. So the only option as you said is allying against Europeans who are stealing land. And the only point of such an alliance is to get the land which means cities.

[mzprox]

The "new world" was occupied.. by the natives.. yet it did not stop the Europeans to go and colonize there.
Choking your rival has its benefits: '1 They can't choke you, 2, after a point they are no longer your rival because you grew much stronger. But in your place (I mean being an european power) I would make and keep peace with the others and concentrate on attacking the "natives" - Or allying with them -for the price-against an other European who wants to steal land.

[The Priest]

I think Ozzy's point about colonial wars is important. I'm fairly new to diplo but I remember reading in some guides or whatever that underneath the philosophy for some was the idea of colonial wars.

I think it went somethign like this. "Everyone builds their core cities in the old world. Its not on to capture or destroy these in any significant number. But there is a new world. There everyone races to build and expand. That territory is expendable. If you are losing a war (whether in the old world or the new) what you do is give up land in the new world. Thus old core cities are immune, but there are gains in war in the new world.

Its an interesting approach and I can see how it could work. But only if there is a new world! But there isn't - it is occupied. And it also makes everything about a rush for astronomy. So I can't see how this approach would work in this game.

[The Priest]

No.

I'm definitely with exploit and 2metra here.

RP and others, yes I can understand exactly what you say, but it doesn't work. Yes you can harm someone in other ways (pillage etc.) but that doesn't do you any significant benefit. It will in no way repay the cost of the war to you. Therefore why would you do it, unless you are in a situation where you only have one nation near you (then harming them = benefitting you). Otherwise if you can't benefit from war, you won't launch any, so we have a builder game.

And city placement is exacly the point. 2metra is right that this approach makes 'choking' the main tactic. Ignore military, build settlers, chock your opponents. They can't seize or destroy the cities. You win.

In real CIV this is prevented by the fact that if you just go for food sources (some starts allow this better than others) and build settlers, your newly spread out chocking cities will be invaded and captured.

So I agree RP the key thing needs to be not spoiling people's fun. But, if land is very sparse, you have to have the ability to challenge and remove chocking cities.

[Robert]

The defender has an advantage because the attacker aims for cities.
If the attacker aims for pillaging and economical destruction, then such an attacker suddenly gets an advantage. He just moves to hill, forrest hills if possible, and starts to build up fortification there. From there the attacker can terrorize the lands, steal workers, pillage, etc.

It's only when attackers want to take cities that they get into problems.

[2metraninja]

In civ4 the defender have a lot of advantages, so the attacker have to wage war for a good reason, more often strategic than tactic. Also this is diplo- game against humans, so if you steal workers or pillage 2-3 of your neighbors you will find yourself in a very bad situation really soon. Cities (and the resources and territory that come with them), further empowering your empire, are the best possible reward for the war efforts in general.

Its just the settings of the game - crowded map, few good city spots and epic speed that call for a profitable early warfare.

[Robert]

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.

It's also possible to take a city to destroy it culturally, then give it back as a peace compromise. That way a civ has eliminated a cultural threat by war without pushing a civ over the fun-limit.

Capturing a capital early in the game is devastating, but later is often not a problem, especially not if civilizations are well developed.
Key question remains: am I taking someone's fun out of the game.
But a question someone who's under siege should ask himself is: am I stubborn? If my people would have been real I might already have surrendered to spare their lives.

I have seen that in diplo games people become stubborn when under siege.
They get into some kind of a "If I go down then I take you with me" attitude.
That makes sense in a game, but not in reality. In reality people will overthrow such a maniac and assign a new government that surrenders.

[Exploit]

This is what I meant - Europeans are virtually immune to wars between them or someone other attacking them. Japan too.

There is a difference between someone only having 3 cities in 1500 AD and 1500 BC. This early in the game, I believe capturing someone's second city (or their capital) and keeping it (even if they only have 2) would be legitimate based upon my understanding of the rules and the intentions behind those rules. The only exception that I can think of is if the civ only has 1 city then they are effectively immune to serious threat.

If you want to warmonger early then I think you should feel free to do so. The only thing that early warmongering can get you is workers and cities as the rival civ has no means to offer anything else so by the rules you should be able to claim those in compensation for your war efforts. Once Currency is researched then it is more likely that gold will be the internationally accepted tribute to end wars instead of cities. (Resources and military units obviously become tribute options with Writing as well.)