Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[France (DoE)]

So.... not necessarily to complain, but just to get a sense of everyone, what do people think about the fact that the Vikings and French have now dogpiled me with little or no story, justification or diplo and have now taken two of my most important cities, one of which (my capitol) was responsible for well over half of my national GNP (due to wonders)? Is this against the rules or spirit of diplo? Or not? Or have we abandoned full diplo and this has become diplo-lite?

I was worried about that. And I appreciate that I am pushing the line here from a diplo game prespective. But the last six weeks or so have been hectic for me and hence my lack of posting - and voting.

My hand was somewhat forced by other events.

Also, the game needed some excitement. Let's see where all this takes us. First world war?

[Inca (DoE)]

RE: War between England, France, and Gozzo

On Limited War & Capitals

My problem with this is I suspect most capitals are 25%+ of players' economies, with perhaps only a few exceptions. So, keeping them would be against the rules of limited war we all agreed to. Capturing, okay, but returning then becomes mandatory. I think if Nidaros was captured, it would easily be 40% of the Vikings' empire (at present, I'd guesstimate 65%), for example, and I would assume Neandor and Paris to be at least 25% of their respective empires as well.

If London indeed did take out ~50% of England's economy (and from the demo graph it appears to have done just that), it's clearly a 25%+ scenario by itself, not to mention York. I would suspect that even if both are returned, 25% of England's power/economy have been taken out by the war and its aftermath alone.

This is why I feel that, in the nature of a diplo game, wars should be fought over border cities, colonies, and the like, rather than as strategic assaults on the cores of the empires and their capitals (as one would do in a non-diplo styled game). If the Vikings wanted land, they could have raised an army, gone to Australia or wherever, and started taking it, but instead they went right for the jugular. In the end, I suspect both cities will be returned and both England and the Vikings will have sacrificed much for no real gain to either side, which makes about as much sense as, well, whipping half your population away on soldiers you disband a few turns later. Another reason that going after capitals makes little sense.

Basically, if going after colonies/border cities makes more sense IC than going after a core (eg, it's not Neandor v France), then that should be the course of action as it decomplicates things considerably. In this case, England had colonies and the Vikings had plenty of galleons, and it was quite doable. It doesn't ruin two players' empires for no good reason.

On RP and Stories by All Parties

I would disagree with England in that France and the Vikings didn't give proper RP for it. France's is thin currently, but they've been busy in the last couple of weeks apparently, and have been preparing a good RP story over their queen's death and domestic politics for a long time in such a way that was obviously preparing an RP causus belli. This is OOC, of course, as IC I have quite a ton of issues over the French attack.

The Vikings' haven't really contributed much to the story thread, certainly nowhere near what I'd expect for such a major war in terms of story/RP, but they've got a fairly clear RP (and OOC) reason for their actions that make that a bit moot.

[Russia (DoE)]

Russia and England are now at war with Vikings and France. It will be practical we to group for the turn orders - England and Russia first, then Vikings and France.

[France (DoE)]

Russia and England are now at war with Vikings and France. It will be practical we to group for the turn orders - England and Russia first, then Vikings and France.

Sounds good.

[France (DoE)]

On Limited War & Capitals

My problem with this is I suspect most capitals are 25%+ of players' economies, with perhaps only a few exceptions. So, keeping them would be against the rules of limited war we all agreed to. Capturing, okay, but returning then becomes mandatory. I think if Nidaros was captured, it would easily be 40% of the Vikings' empire (at present, I'd guesstimate 65%), for example, and I would assume Neandor and Paris to be at least 25% of their respective empires as well.

If London indeed did take out ~50% of England's economy (and from the demo graph it appears to have done just that), it's clearly a 25%+ scenario by itself, not to mention York. I would suspect that even if both are returned, 25% of England's power/economy have been taken out by the war and its aftermath alone.

This is why I feel that, in the nature of a diplo game, wars should be fought over border cities, colonies, and the like, rather than as strategic assaults on the cores of the empires and their capitals (as one would do in a non-diplo styled game). If the Vikings wanted land, they could have raised an army, gone to Australia or wherever, and started taking it, but instead they went right for the jugular. In the end, I suspect both cities will be returned and both England and the Vikings will have sacrificed much for no real gain to either side, which makes about as much sense as, well, whipping half your population away on soldiers you disband a few turns later. Another reason that going after capitals makes little sense.

Basically, if going after colonies/border cities makes more sense IC than going after a core (eg, it's not Neandor v France), then that should be the course of action as it decomplicates things considerably. In this case, England had colonies and the Vikings had plenty of galleons, and it was quite doable. It doesn't ruin two players' empires for no good reason.

I will have to think about this. Generally I would agree, but we have this awkward situation where the two capitols were two tiles apart. The English blame the original French player, but if I was him/her, I would have been miffed as well as to where the English put their capitol.

So this is a bit messier, IMHO.

On RP and Stories by All Parties

I would disagree with England in that France and the Vikings didn't give proper RP for it. France's is thin currently, but they've been busy in the last couple of weeks apparently, and have been preparing a good RP story over their queen's death and domestic politics for a long time in such a way that was obviously preparing an RP causus belli. This is OOC, of course, as IC I have quite a ton of issues over the French attack.

The Vikings' haven't really contributed much to the story thread, certainly nowhere near what I'd expect for such a major war in terms of story/RP, but they've got a fairly clear RP (and OOC) reason for their actions that make that a bit moot.

Yes, my RP could have been stronger regarding the attack. I agree with that. However, we have long-standing historical disagreements, and clearly no friendship as such, with the damnanglais.

[Israel (DoE)]

Israel agrees with all parties that think that the most important cities should not be captured.
Israel suggests that we reload back to 755 BC.

[2metraninja]

Historically the Vikings had devastated the English islands, so this can be a good RP. Willem the Conqueror go even further by conquering Britania, so possible RP again, but purely in-game this must be painful for the poor England. I am all against "divine" intervention in the game, but maybe some kind of ransom can be negotiated for peace and the return of London back to England?

[Germany (DoE)]

A reload must surely be out of the question. All this stuff was discussed before the game guys.

And plenty of RP exists for what is happening despite lack of story posts.

[Inca (DoE)]

While we're reloading, I never did get a reload back on like T155 for when the barbs got a double move and captured Talcho...

[Russia (DoE)]

Neither I got a reload when I lost my second settler by double moving barbarians while I was at work.

Anyway - I think the Israeli are just sarcastic - look at the date they propose a reload - 775 BC - I guess this is when Jerusalem was destroyed.

I will not comment on reloads as an ally to England, but I also think a solution must be found.

Or other way millions will die

[Germany (DoE)]

Neither I got a reload when I lost my second settler by double moving barbarians while I was at work.

Anyway - I think the Israeli are just sarcastic - look at the date they propose a reload - 775 BC - I guess this is when Jerusalem was destroyed.(

Oh I see, I missed that!

LOL

[America (DoE)]

I agree that the attack on the English is pretty hardcore, and I would expect some kind of awesome roleplaying end to it in which they receive their cities back under some kind of hated terms. This will of course create a terrible grudge, ultimately plunging all of us into World War I at some point, thus reviving our storytelling and turning this into a heavy diplo game

[Israel (DoE)]

Thanks Russia, for actually reading my post
What I just tried to say: nothing can be as harsh as what happened to the jews, you bunch of anti-semtises!

But hard it is, what is happening to England.
It shows again that christians are barbaric city razing heathens

Please all abandon your paths to doom.

[Russia (DoE)]

Let me remind you, dear Rabi, that Jerusalem was razed by your fellow Judaism brothers in faith
And this current war was started by the Hinduists

[Vikings (DoE)]

As Germany said it was either them or the English. Difference came down to diplomacy. Germany actually answered our private letters over the years while the English ignored us. One showed interest in dealing with us, the other was too busy expanding like a virus all over the globe. Only when we decide to take action, we are contacted by the English. Many worked hard to pull us into the anti Germanic alliance. Why should we turn on the only nation who have been fair to us.

Yes this war has hurt us much, only to prepare for it we have crippled our economy. I am astonished how some will morally side with a 20 cities civ VS a 6 cities civ.

Anyway many of you should be thankful for what we have done, this was a job no one of you was willing and had the balls to do.

For the record we do fight as gentlemen no pillages etc, the English have on the other hand pillaged what they could. My armies could easily destroy all the land imps, but we haven't done it.

Why would France joining us is a problem, combined we still BOTH have less cities than England. At best maybe equal.

I state again, this war is bad for us, still someone had to do something about weakening the largest civ in the world.