Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[India (DoE)]

I don't have time to talk for length right now, but I will be short:

China has not been crippled. They still have a larger empire, a bigger economy, a bigger army and a huge tech lead over MOST of the civs in the game. They have taken a huge hit, but they were so insanely huge that even after losing 4 cities they are still in a far far far better position than India and most other civs.

If it is ok for India to be reduced from 10 to 6 cities, why is it not ok for China to be reduced from 11 to 7? I am going to put this simply, if it is not considered an excession of measured war to reduce a civ by 40% before, then doing so now can not be so either. China still has 7 huge extremely rich cities as well as the other assets mentioned above. I expect their huge army to smash me, but I also plan to give them a hell of a fight. It will be the most fun I will have had in this game for some time now. Keep in mind this is my revenge for China blocking my expansion chances, supporting Japan in a completely unbased sneak attack etc etc. If they are allowed to screw me, why should I not be allowed to do the same to them?

Measured war is a rule that prevents people from vanquishing other civs to such an extent that it will no longer be fun for them to play. China is still in a better position than half the civs in the game. If reducing India by 40%, squashing Mongolia into 7 awful city sites, stealing land from the pitifully poor Americans, and so on does not invoke measured war, then for China to be moved from the top position to the 4th or 5th position is in no way unfair.

Why is it ok to knock a civ from place 11 to place 12, but not to knock a civ in place 2 to place 5? In the latter case the big civ is still far ahead of the former, but that is unreasonable and unmeasured war? In the former case the civ is way way worse off. Are you guys really saying that small civs can be smothered, weakened and squashed, but it is illegal to do the same against big civs?

I see measured war in the following way: no civ shall be hurt so hard that they can not recover. If India can recover from what China and Japan did to it, then China can recover from this. Anything else is hypocrisy.

[France (DoE)]

This from the English who threatened to raze my holy city and three other coastal cities, forcing the ACE into a peace we didn't want and having to give back all the cities we acquired.

Riiiiiight!

I've been deliberately silent for awhile, having mostly lost interest in this game, but I just had to post about the hypocrisy of this statement.

[England (DoE)]

This from the English who threatened to raze my holy city and three other coastal cities, forcing the ACE into a peace we didn't want and having to give back all the cities we acquired.

Riiiiiight!

I've been deliberately silent for awhile, having mostly lost interest in this game, but I just had to post about the hypocrisy of this statement.

I'll go into this in detail when I get caught up on my history of the Great War in the story thread. Stay tuned!

[England (DoE)]

I see them.

[Arabia2 (doe)]

Technical question: Can you see the pictures in my post? I can see them with this account, but not with the other or when I'm logged out.. why is that? :/

edit: I've uploaded them to an image hoster (before that they were uploaded from my computer), but now they are shown in double.. at least for me.. Why does it show the attached files at the end of the post?? I'm getting annoyed that I can't figure out how to post pictures correctly.. .

[Robert]

We should disable city razing in the next game

I'm RP, not tier 1, but I've never been absent from this game. I may be not that vocal anymore b/c of reallife stuff, but I am playing every turn.

This game has been more violent then former diplogames, what India is doing is in line with it, I think.
It's quite harsh, to raze 3 or 4 cities. Yet again, it's not forbidden. It's a bit of a problem though that China isn't here. Where is he?

[Arabia2 (doe)]

If I can think of one good thing about civ5 I think it would be that there is no instant city razing.
deleted rest of the comment, too much ooc stuff, let's wait till the end of this game

[America (DoE)]

I'm back! Going to e-mail sub now and read up on everything that happened later today.

[Inca (DoE)]

No, I have no clue what's happening with the Azteca. I don't pay attention to African politics... On that note, I'm a bit pissed at the Aztecs for stealing my late-game playbook now I have to come up with some other conclusion, because my "split my empire in a civil war" approach is just going to look like I'm copying them. If the Azteca want to call the measured war rule, I'll 100% support it. To be a bit hypocritical, I'm not terribly happy about what's happened to them either, but then selling a major city to someone on another continent...

Well, the Indians, I dunno, could've surrendered then. I don't see the issue with that, depending on terms, and if the terms were ridiculous, well, that's why we have a measured war rule. Just because England and a couple other players haven't called that rule yet doesn't mean it's in poor sport to do so. If India wants out of the war and a lasting, non-punitive peace, they can request it be so. Instead, they want to keep fighting, so okay, China can get involved. And if China doesn't mind losing over a third of its cities, well, that's fine also. If China wants a reload due to the measured war rule, okay, I'll support that as I've said.

Sometimes, yeah, you don't have a chance in multiplayer games. This wasn't supposed to be straight military game anyway, so they can focus on some different goal and role if the military side isn't working. I mean, they did basically approach most of the game as pacifists, maybe it's time to go back to that approach... Some of my best story telling and involvement came when I was 100% isolated, hacking through jungles and getting constantly raided by barbs for the first third of the game at 17th place or so. You don't need a strong military or a large empire to enjoy this framework. Yeah, it helps, but it's not necessary. It's a crutch in many ways...

[Russia (DoE)]

I think it is too early to discuss the things in an ongoing game, but will anyway address few points:

This from the English who threatened to raze my holy city and three other coastal cities, forcing the ACE into a peace we didn't want and having to give back all the cities we acquired.

It was not England who threatened you - it was me who introduced at your attention the real threat that the English fleet and army can raze all your 3 poorly defended cities in Scandinavia, including your Holy City. And you just took the life-saving belt I threw to you I can hear someone calling "speculation" and "bluff", but this would have been not exactly the truth

1, The game won't end in 80 turns, we will continue until someone achieve a real victory, it was a mistake setting the game for 500 turns instead of the normal 750.

Of course! Why would we want to end prematurely such a great game?

2, India would had absolutely no chance in this war if they'd just capture cities: so are we saying that India shouldn't even have a chance, but have to endure whatever China wish to do with them? (They also threatened India with seizing their remaining cities and destroying their infrastructure unless they surrender)

India have absolutely no chance in the current situation too... And with the other things I agree to some degree.

3, Do you guys realize what is happening with the Azteca? It's nice of them that they are not complaining, but still..

What is happening with the Azteca is direct and logical consequence of their in-game and in-character position. Not to mention they willingly gave away 2/3 or 3/4 of their cities to other nations while I am not intending to keep any of their cities. Even the Viks saw the logic of the situation and proposed back Tlaxcala, but the Azteca just refused it. I think they just lost hope they can achieve something big. Great way of implementing this in-game though - the rebellion.


David is remembered trough the millenniums because he challenged Goliath and won. But this came at the cost of hundreds of Davids who stand against other Goliaths and as expected and logical, have lost.

[Arabia2 (doe)]

1, The game won't end in 80 turns, we will continue until someone achieve a real victory, it was a mistake setting the game for 500 turns instead of the normal 750.
2, India would had absolutely no chance in this war if they'd just capture cities: so are we saying that India shouldn't even have a chance, but have to endure whatever China wish to do with them? (They also threatened India with seizing their remaining cities and destroying their infrastructure unless they surrender)
3, Do you guys realize what is happening with the Azteca? It's nice of them that they are not complaining, but still..

[Vikings (DoE)]

I agree. If the cities were captured, the damage would have been significant (I certainly know from experience) lots of buildings would have been lost, etc. But razing.. that's a totally different story.

This from the English who threatened to raze my holy city and three other coastal cities, forcing the ACE into a peace we didn't want and having to give back all the cities we acquired.

Riiiiiight!

I've been deliberately silent for awhile, having mostly lost interest in this game, but I just had to post about the hypocrisy of this statement.

[England (DoE)]

I agree. If the cities were captured, the damage would have been significant (I certainly know from experience) lots of buildings would have been lost, etc. But razing.. that's a totally different story.

[Inca (DoE)]

The Indians could have just captured the cities, pillaged a bit, and withdrawn and hurt the Chinese badly that way. It would have left the Chinese able to rebound without losing nearly a half of their civ. Losing that much of your civ 80 some turns before the end of the game is devastating. It's not really good play. Yes, the Indians have lost a lot of their civ also, but their core cities remain intact, while their colonies were lost. That's good play: don't hurt the core, attack and move around the colonies, don't raze. Anyway, I preemptively support a reload, but it's the Chinese player's call, of course. 4/11 cities is pretty huge, especially as some were key cities. I don't doubt the 25-30% threshold has been hit and surpassed.

[Arabia2 (doe)]

I don't like razing cities at all but in India's defense though: their only chance to do any harm on China was a surprise attack and in my pov what china did to india in the last war was also not really a "good sportmanship" using their superior power to force defeat on a smaller nation. I don't really want to condemn what China did there because in an other game I did something very similar. It's never an easy question: let the smaller nations play their own war or join in as an ally would but undoing their game/fun.