Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[OzzyKP]

Okay, understood. My apologies for taking offense.

I had good reason to leave myself relatively undefended in order to try to save Neandor's cities. It just didn't work out like I'd hoped because of the raze threat. If it had just been a capture I would have continued with it because I still would have had the opportunity to retake my city.

Looking back at it now, that one bluff probably changed the entire game. Who knows what might have happened if the ACE had continued to fight the war, now with machine guns for defense, and a rail network, even if I had to retake my cities.

Yea, I'm glad you didn't call my bluff! This is why it is frustrating to hear people say that the outcome of this whole game is or was decided. Like in the history of the real world, there are so many turning points that can go one way or another and change the entire course of events. So many what ifs that changed this game. What if Japan took all my Pacific colonies? What if Neandor invaded Russia or Ottomans when they had the upper hand? What if you guys called my bluff? What if the Aztecs invaded Africa? What if the Inca formed a third bloc with China & Japan? What if the Ottomans accepted my offer to give me settlers in exchange for galleons and I aggressively colonized South America and made an eternal enemy out of the Inca? What if the Turks didn't destroy the Axis fleet twice? What if...

I assure you, there are plenty of what ifs to go!

[Vikings (DoE)]

In theory these fancy new forums save drafts of posts. See if there is a copy somewhere.

Edit: oh, I guess you found it (or rewrote it) afterall.

Ah, didn't know about that draft thing. And yes I rewrote it.

[Vikings (DoE)]

Sorry! No offense! I was just responding to Toni saying that his cities were all very well defended, and contrasting it with you leaving me an opening. As you said, it was just a very brief window that we took advantage of, so don't take too much offense, that was just what I was referring to. Had those cities been well defended the whole plan wouldn't have worked (and who knows how the war would have ended).

Okay, understood. My apologies for taking offense.

I had good reason to leave myself relatively undefended in order to try to save Neandor's cities. It just didn't work out like I'd hoped because of the raze threat. If it had just been a capture I would have continued with it because I still would have had the opportunity to retake my city.

Looking back at it now, that one bluff probably changed the entire game. Who knows what might have happened if the ACE had continued to fight the war, now with machine guns for defense, and a rail network, even if I had to retake my cities.

[OzzyKP]

Thanks Joy to play with you too.

Sorry! No offense! I was just responding to Toni saying that his cities were all very well defended, and contrasting it with you leaving me an opening. As you said, it was just a very brief window that we took advantage of, so don't take too much offense, that was just what I was referring to. Had those cities been well defended the whole plan wouldn't have worked (and who knows how the war would have ended).

[OzzyKP]

In theory these fancy new forums save drafts of posts. See if there is a copy somewhere.

Edit: oh, I guess you found it (or rewrote it) afterall.

[Vikings (DoE)]

As for how the Axis lost.. credit goes to your less talented sub,

Thanks Joy to play with you too.

They told the Axis that I was going to raze the Viking holy city unless peace was agreed to. In truth I had just returned to the game and absolutely wouldn't have razed your holy city. That'd be too much imho. I was planning to raze Jelling & Bjorgvin and then put all my troops in your holy city and see how long I could hold it. I hoped that it would hurt you temporarily (for as long as I could hold it), open up a second front (to help the Russians) and then destroy the infrastructure in Haithaliu enough to hurt your economy once you retook it. Russia insisted that even if I had no plans to raze the city, that he would TELL you guys that I would.

And it worked!

That's probably the biggest secret in the game. Your replacement and the Axis probably thought I was a monster for planning to raze a well developed holy city. But it was all a bluff! I was planning to discuss it and dramatize it when I finished my series of maps on the Great War, but I haven't gotten to it yet.

Since I lost my big post suffice to say that yes we believed the bluff. Why shouldn't we have believed it when we had no information that would have discounted the bluff? Razing my cities would have crippled me beyond belief as a decent portion of my economy was wrapped up in my holy city. If it had just been captured then I could have recaptured it, or any of the other cities once I got some of my army back from Neandor and France. But razing means gone forever.

As to why my cities were so lightly defended, I sent most of my army to save Neandor's cities from the Russian attack and France already had a lot of my army too. I hoped that if England attacked they would attack their old cities where I still had a decent defense force, or I could get machine guns in there first. it didn't happen and the war ended.

I talked about this with Russia after the end of the war. We suffered from some bad timing (or you guys had good timing, however you want to put it). If you had attacked us 10 or even 5 turns later than you did we would have been far more ready for it. I would have finished up railroad and had some machine guns upgraded and ready for Russia's attack, plus a fledgling rail network to connect the ACE. If England had threatened me one turn later I would have machine guns in my coastal cities, with three more machine guns the next turn. That would have made me nearly unassailable when your best units were grenadiers.

Perceptions and belief in your bluffs shaped a lot of what we did. I for one had no espionage at all. None. Toni was correct when he said that the Viking territory was lacking in production capability. When I took over, many cities lacked basic buildings like forges or marketplaces, etc. I understand why now, since he put all his cards into attacking England. I was trying to get railroad as fast as possible which put all of my economy into research, and then upgrades. All of my production went to trying to build some basic buildings, and units, because it was all slow to produce. I had no spies and very few espionage producing buildings. So basically the only info I had on anyone was what France and Neandor could tell me. I had no first hand look at what was going on anywhere.

Our perceptions were apparently awry. We believed that you were a monolithic alliance of 5 of the largest and most powerful nations. When I first came into the game, France was gone for nearly a month and Neandor was too busy in RL to really do much (at one point I played all three nations turns for a few turns). I attempted to negotiate for allies and to try to break up some of your alliance. I was met with silence from most and rejection from the rest (except the Inca who just offered us a poor deal since they were in bed with the Russians). I kept trying, but nothing happened. Some of you said we should have kept trying, but after several attempts nothing happened and it seemed like your monolithic alliance was too big and powerful. Keep in mind that, from our perception it appeared that your alliance consisted of the Russians and England (the top two nations in score), the Turks, the Mali, the Zulus, the Native Americans and the Inca (two more of the top 6 in score) and the Arabians (when they were controlled by the Inca player), and you were also allied to the Chinese (another top 6) and the Japanese. That is 10 of the 18, including 5 of the top 6 by score. Neandor was our only top 6. I knew my own meager production capability, and our only allies consisted of America and the Aztecs who couldn't provide us much help beyond the failed Tlaxcala-Oil gambit (and eventually some gpt they sent to me after losing much of their nation). We provided help to them and it ended up being bad for them because of the oil gambit. Nor could we help them anymore because we were still under treaty with the Russians and Turks. We couldn't attack them directly, but they could attack Azteca.

The Arabians got a new player who was friendly to us, but it still seemed like a monolithic alliance that was now down to only 9 of the 18 players, and the ACE was completely surrounded by its enemies. Nor could we get back the help we had sent to Azteca because of the Turks destroying the fleet in Tlaxcala (A game mechanic that none of us anticipated could happen). Perceptions and assumptions fueled this latest loss of fleet too. We assumed that the defensive pact we signed would make it so that anyone who attacked Freedom Port would have to face Neandor's defensive forces. Plus I also was under the apparently mistaken assumption that the Turks would not attack me directly because of their in-character statement that they would not attack any nations that were smaller than they (which included me).

So the upshot is: the ACE's belief in what was apparently a bluff, perception of the world politics (i.e. the monolithic Russian alliance), and a few instances of poor understanding of some obscure game mechanics, brought us to where we are today. I maintain you guys played a great game both in diplomatic relations and overall play. We assumed that if we did an attack on Russia that we would be gang-banged by the rest of the Russian alliance that surrounded us, with no help from anyone else except possibly the Arabians after the new player took over.

Oh, and regarding thinking of England as a monster for threatening to raze my cities. Yeah, I did. If I ever had a shot at any your cities I was seriously considering razing them.

[Vikings (DoE)]

Crap! I had a lengthy post I was writing and my computer auto-restarted to install some stuff.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

First off, I am willing to continue playing under any conditions, including playing against a few AIs.

That being said, in my years playing Pitboss and MP, I have noticed an unavoidable Catch-22 that always develops... People complain that the game is not fun for them when the game is peaceful, but they are not in a good position... so they need to either make war to improve it or just accept their sucky position (India, Vikings). On the one hand, everyone who is losing the War always complains about how the enemy alliance is unfair and too powerful and how it makes the game not fun for them. But then on the other hand, when the game is a peaceful Cold War, everyone complains that this is boring and deadlocked and the game is not fun for them. So in other words the game is only fun, when, (A.) I am winning, or; (B.)There is War going on AND I am on the winning side (or at least NOT on the losing side). That's lame.


About these "unballancing alliances" everyone seems to be complaining about... Alliances are unavoidable, and it is just pointless to complain about them or try to limit them. They develop out of necessity and human nature.

Civs start out by making friends so that they can do trades, expand peacefully and explore. As a civ becomes powerful, they try to stay in power by gathering smaller civs as allies. Other civs respond by doing the same. Superpowers with sattelites begin to emerge. Some of the sattelites are more independent from the superpowers, and some are close allies. But there are superpowers and there are sattelites nonetheless. This is all unavoidable.

What happens next is the Superpowers quickly realize that they cant fight each other directly. This would be suicide for them. The smaller civs, regardless of who they are a sattelite of all long for the cataclysmic showdown between the two Superpowers, hoping that they will kill each other off so that they can step in and plant their flag on top of the ruins of the shattered Superpower. But of course this almost NEVER happens. Why would it? Why do we expect the Superpowers to commit sepuku against each other just so some sattellite can take over as the new Superpower?

What happens instead, is the Superpowers always use their sattelites to engage in brinksmanship against each other. So as a sattelite, you are either a close ally of the Superpower who is used a a pawn in this game of brinksmanship (ala French, Ottomans, Vikings, Japan, Israel, Azteca, America etc.), or you are one of the more independant sattelites, who is used as fodder in the game of brinksmanship (India, Azteca, Israel, etc.).

The point is there are always Superpowers. You either become one, join one, or get steamrolled by one. If you become one, you are happy, but everybody hates you and blames you for steamrolling them. If you join one, you are happy, but everybody hates you and calls you a puppet. If you get steamrolled by one, well... you are unhappy. So you either fight to the bitter end like a man, or you whine and quit like a you-know-what. OR you GOTO Line 1, ie., become a superpower yourself, or join one or... you get the idea

The bottom, line is the people who dont have the skill (or the subs who joined in a situation where it was nigh impossible) to become a Superpower, who also then foolishly refuse to join a Superpower, get steamrolled, and then they are unhappy. But this is INSANITY! Why are you unhappy? You CHOSE not to join the Superpower! Why would you choose this if the inevitable result (you getting steamrolled) was not what you regarded as the most fun?

If you think it might be fun to fight an impossible War against insurmountable odds and get anihilated in the end, then you should refuse to join a Superpower (or fail to become one). If you want to be a peaceful builder, then when the Superpower comes knocking, just give them what they want and send them on their way, so you can go back to being a peaceful builder. What so many of you seem to be saying, is "Im unhappy because my plans to become a Superpower didn't work, and so then I wanted to be a peaceful builder, but I didn't want to join a Superpower, so I got steamrolled." Well Duh! That's what happens!

Remember this phrase for future reference "Superpower, Pawn, Fodder." Always ask yourself, "Which one am I?" because you are ALWAYS one of the three. If anyone wants me to break down what their role was at any time since I joined the game I will be happy to. If you have the skill and the luck be a Superpower, if you can't, but still want to either have a big impact on the game, or you want to be a peaceful builder, be a Pawn. If you want to go out in a blaze of glory then be Fodder. If going out in a blaze of glory doesn't sound like fun, to you but you are doing all the things that make a civ Fodder... well then tha't why you are unhappy with the game.

So I still think that the problem in this game is the problem in every Pitboss. Plain, simple, flat-out sore-loserama. People quit because things arent going their way. You rarely see a player who is winning announce that he has to leave the game because of RL stuff. Usually when people quit there is some negative thing going on for them in-game that compounds with the RL problem to make them lose heart.

So if we are continuing, I suggest:

1. An X turn (maybe 10-30) turn Global NAP where everyone has to stay at peace with everyone. (Including AIs maybe) Anyone who is at war MUST make peace immediately.

2. Maybe during this period, no one is allowed to tech anything, just maintain status quo except build gold, or pump culture or espy or upgrade military etc. Who knows? The point would be to give time for some different dynamics to develop in the game without it actually advancing techwise. I don't know how the alliance cancelling thing is going to work, but maybe its not necessary if we just get a nice long NAP with no teching.

3. Aztec and Zulu should be put to AI. And from now on, any civs that don't have players to play them should go to AI. NO MORE SUBBING, at all. When you go out of town or have a RL thing come up, just retire to AI until you get back. That way we can press on to the end without anymore subbing issues. Also, that way those who want to drop out can just do so with no muss and no fuss. Finally this way, the game will play to a natural MP style conclusion. Those in despair can quit freely, and those still playing have an honest view of who is still in and who is out, so eventually the game will be finished, or the remaining players will tire of playing a game full of AI.

4. And yea I think the votes should just count triple, as most people are not going to go back and read what was said for each month seperately.

[LzPrst]

your alliance counted 3 of the top 5 civs, and several others, in total it was more a third of players... how is that not a huge alliance?

I am certain that you feel the axis were an evil aggressor juggernaut, but I suspect they felt that you guys were builders going for victory through expansion and had to be stopped. dominating through development or conquest is in the end the same, it is a win that must be halted or the game will be ended early.

[Arabia2 (doe)]

I say we all should take a break to cool down a bit and then why don't we try something different, for example starting a game in the industrial era? Just once for a change there wouldn1t be big difference in tech level between players once we get to the modern era, no tanks vs longbowmen etc.

[England (DoE)]

Oh and Toni, as for land quality, the British Isles were also very, very poor for production. Probably equal to Scandinavia. I made up for it with the Maori Statues and trying to find more productive spots elsewhere. I definitely envied France, Neandor & Russia for having lots of land tiles. I squeezed five cities into my home islands. They were all packed in very tight and were mostly sea based.

I always hated that the damn French built their capitol right next to London. I was hoping for another seafood resource for London. Their culture really choked me.

[England (DoE)]

And I had a lot of fun playing up my colonial super power story line. "invading" America and turning them into a protectorate, "wars" with the Inca, John Smith, Columbus, Cabot, etc. That was all lots of fun! I did want more land in South America though. I had an awesome city spot scouted out surrounded by jungle which would have been an awesome natural park city. But a strong friendship with the Inca was more important.

I tried to offer them all of Australia in exchange for more South American land. They didn't go for it. Then I offered Australia to... Ottomans? I don't remember. Oh yea, it was them. I wanted them to build me lots of settlers so I could grab up all of South America quickly before the Inca could stop me. Then I'd help them get Australia. But they didn't go for it either. So... I took Australia myself.

I loved rebuilding the British Empire.

[Inca (DoE)]

I know my stance with England is a bit odd, but we struck (well, I struck mostly) a very solid alliance early on back when I was #17 and they were #2 or whatever. I think I did everything other than offer myself sexually to get that built. Anyway, England coming to my continent was the best thing that happened to me. It finally killed the barbs! I had really busted the fog busting thing (which worked well in my SP playtests but then I forgot it all after months of "enter"), and they were running wild, sacking Talcho once even and costing me just a gd ton of wasted hammers. England sorted that out, took the marginal terrain I had little interest in (and had slated for the Aztecs to take if they ever felt like it, seeing how bottled up they were, but they were MIA and England grabbed it first. Another reason I hate it when I'm blamed for "ganging up" given how much I was willing the weaker civ next door to keep territory fair, not to mention I never took advantage of his really crap situation).

Anyway, I lost maybe 1 site I really cared about and got a solid alliance with someone that easily could have walked over me if he wanted to. Once struck, it was basically a game-long necessity for both of us.

I would have gained very little taking on England, especially if you took all their core cities (many would need to be returned). I think the two of us have very similar tendencies in this building respect (I am a natural fit for Inca, although I have enjoyed a more Turkish position in past MP). It made little sense for me to attack them when I had secured a lasting ally with them. Plus, what do I need more gd coastal cities for? Take a look at my land if you can and tell me you'd want an even larger, more spread out and vulnerable civ to defend, plus keep in mind that you've made a game-long enemy in the process with a huge naval outlook...

Remember, that I had no allies until England showed up. No interest, nothing. I was alone, weak, getting overrun by (double-moving) barbs, lost in jungles. That was basically the one thing I had going for me at that time.

[OzzyKP]

Great report Toni!

And while I certainly complained about it till I was blue in the face IC, kudos to you for attacking me. Don't forget though that of those 20 cities or so you said I had, most of them were small, undeveloped colonies. Obviously they all had potential, and certainly are developed now, but at the time you took out all the substantive parts of my civ. Plus London... jeeze, that was brutal. My whole strategy & economy was based around that city. Nearly all my colonies were built on the coast to take advantage of the Great Lighthouse. When I lost that, I lost most of my economy. Especially with the brutal maintenance costs, I was really hurting. I also had a lot of GPP in that city which worked with my Philo trait. I was absolutely crippled without it.

But good job for shaking things up and not letting me run away with things. I always complain about people not doing this in other games (i.e. when you are running away with things), but when it finally happens I'm the one who gets taken out, haha, oh well. There were certainly several times during the war I started wishing I had gone your route and made friends with everyone. But it was for the best. What an incredible war!! Despite missing a lot of time in this game I think it is probably the best game I've been a part of. So much drama! So much fun! And I LOVE the world map & tiers! They worked out PERFECTLY. The only thing that messed it up were so many people dropping out.

I had no idea who anyone was. I knew Robert/Israel, and Inca, but honestly that was it. It wasn't until this moment that I realized that Toni was the Vikings. I thought you were the Neandor! Russia did such an amazing job in this game I really can't wait to find out who he is, and why wasn't he placed in tier 1! My hat is off to him, he is a true diplogamer. I'm in awe of his diplomacy skills.

As for how the Axis lost.. credit goes to your less talented sub, Russia's amazing skill, and a very big bluff. Russia was still subbing for me when it was all set up, but I was just about to return. Russia FINALLY invaded Neandor (which I had hoped for throughout the war) and captured a few Neandor cities with considerable losses on both sides. Both sides were fairly evenly matched, so I don't know how that would have turned out. But your replacement emptied out the Viking west coast, leaving all three of those cities, including his holy city, very lightly defended. Russia moved my fleet within range of all of those cities including 3 galleons filled with troops.

They told the Axis that I was going to raze the Viking holy city unless peace was agreed to. In truth I had just returned to the game and absolutely wouldn't have razed your holy city. That'd be too much imho. I was planning to raze Jelling & Bjorgvin and then put all my troops in your holy city and see how long I could hold it. I hoped that it would hurt you temporarily (for as long as I could hold it), open up a second front (to help the Russians) and then destroy the infrastructure in Haithaliu enough to hurt your economy once you retook it. Russia insisted that even if I had no plans to raze the city, that he would TELL you guys that I would.

And it worked!

That's probably the biggest secret in the game. Your replacement and the Axis probably thought I was a monster for planning to raze a well developed holy city. But it was all a bluff! I was planning to discuss it and dramatize it when I finished my series of maps on the Great War, but I haven't gotten to it yet.

Also, Lz and others keep mentioning that our alliance was too big, and too powerful, and that's not fair. I'll say this over and over again, we built that alliance out of fear and at every step it never seemed to be enough to do the job. The war with the Axis was going quite poorly for most of the game. They were having victory after victory, turning our alliance, destroying our troops, taking our cities. We were always the underdog trying to catch up. Maybe that's not how the other side perceived it. But not once did it cross our minds that "we've got a huge, unstoppable alliance, we should let up to give the other side a fair chance" NO! It was "holy ****, we're screwed! What can we do to stop this juggernaut taking all our cities?" So an alliance was built, largely by Russia's amazing diplomacy. (though I brought Inca to the table, cause we're tight).

Lz also accuses us of trying to tear down smaller civs once we won the war. No. We were trying to protect our allies ("puppets" you say) who stood by us in the Great War. What kind of ally would we be if we let the Aztecs invade the Mali or Zulu? And sure, it sucks that everyone was caught up in this alliance structure, but you should have realized that when you made your plans. In fact when I was subbing for the Aztecs a long time ago I started building up an army to attack the Native Americans. They were soft, were rich, and were close. I don't know why the Aztecs didn't do that if they just wanted to expand. Probably no one would have stopped them. In fact, if they had done that the Axis would have gotten that source of oil.

This was a hell of a game!! At this point, with all the whiners and quitters, and revelations, I don't care if it ends or continues. But if people want to play on, I'll see it through. If not, then it was probably the best game I've been a part of! We definitely need to use this map again! (though I'll take everyone's feedback on resource distribution to balance it more)

[Russia (DoE)]

If the game keeps going India will keep playing its turns at least.

Great!

Viking? Are you coming as well?