Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Russia (DoE)]

And how to make my avatar to appear larger so more of my fascinating person to be clearly seen for all of you to awe?

[Robert]

I hope today.... I'm right now trying to get two pitboss servers running on 1 machine. It may be up in an hour.

[Robert]

Game's up now!
Both DoD and DoE are now running on the same machine.
Please let me know ASAP if things go wrong! (ie. you can't login to any of these 2 games, or games get mixed up on PYT.)

Please PM me in such a case! Then I'll get the message within 15 minutes wherever I am.

[Israel (DoE)]

I am so sorry for posting my stories so late.
Please don't kill me for being late.

I read all stories now first time as well! They are wonderful!
Big LOL at France punch in the German ribs so early!!

Please don't kill me Germany, for laughing about that. I couldn't help it.
I am your slave.

Great stories people!
*Egypt sits quietly in his humble corner again*

[2metraninja]

Ok, I read few times the rules and terms, but the one about measured war made me think a bit and I want to discuss it here. Not try to revolt or initiate changes of rules, but some things that I thought to myself.

All civs in Europe are packed tight, so 3-4 cities for every one of them. Say you are the Viking, attack the Holy Roman, take 2 near cities and the >51% votes the war to stop. Then if you are too powerful, but already boxed in from the remaining Holly Roman cities, what you should do? If you want to expand you need to cross their land and attack Spain for example and because you cant take their capitol which will remove the fun for them to play anymore, you are basically forced not to wage war with them at all, as if you take 1-2 coastal cities before the war is stopped, they will be so heavy pressed with culture, so they will starve most of the time and only drain you maintenance.

This also prevents early wars, as if someone lose 1 of his 2 cities he is crippled too much. Is building a military waste of time and production then?

[The Priest]

I think you raise really important points. There is a danger that, however much we say 'war is fine, right and good', it becomes so constrained that it doesn't seem worth it. Civ depends on the tension between investing now in science against investing now in production and military. Too much of the former, and someone will invade and nick your goodies. If our rules mean that you know they won't invade, or at least you won't lose much, then you can just invest in science, and we lose the possiblities of different strategies and the only wise option is avoid all conflict and research. The point you make about interlocking culture is really important too. Of course that would encourage early war, when the built up culture isn't so overpowering.

However, in practice I am not sure it is quite so bad. The 'vote' rule has never been used, and I don't think it ever will. It is there to avoid people thinking they can just ignore the diplo spirit. There can be a lot of flexibility in what deal you actually agree with the Holy Romans to ensure you have a next step. Capturing a city and giving it back as part of the peace means the culture buildings in that city are destroyed which can help, or of course when a city is gifted as part of a deal some of the culture ( I can't quite remember the details) passes as well. There isn't a special rule about capitals (it would be too easy to exploit, and if the captial is the border city what can you do!).

But you are right to point out that the pressure on space in Europe may make this particularly difficult.

I think that there is a particluar dynanic in these diplo games compared to the SP I play. In SP I try to elimiate whole countries because it avoids culture problems and 'we want to join our homeland'. These diplo rules stop you doing that. I worry too that this basically means you can't really benefit from war. The other person can definitely lose from it, but can you benefit? I remember asking a while back if any diplo games had ended in conquest/domination victories, since I couldn't see how they would. Can't remember what the answer was.

Also, most importantly, the voting system does benefit aggressive nations. If you sit and bulid, you have very little interaction with other nations, and have little to write about. All you can do is write about how wonderful your new navel gazing device is. While if you are involved in war and conflict you end up at the centre of much writing. You might wonder which gives you better votes but the evidence of all the games is that fighting and conflict gives you votes. Indeed, I have known people start wars or phoney conflicts simply to give them stuff to write about, and it works. So maybe it does pay off, even if not in the way it does in SP civ.

I know some e.g. St Jon, avocate elimiation after a certian point as if happening in Doom of the Diplomats. The only problem there seems to be the dynamic in which if you attack someone and do them some damage, they then give up, and then the rest of their nation is very easy pickings. This can end up quite unbalanced.

Can you tell me if you are next to me before I answer the question about early war and losing one of two cities?

I'm rambling. I'll stop. But I think you ask important questions.

[2metraninja]

First of all, I am new to all this stuff with the diplo-games role-playing and writing, although I enjoy it so far. And I am in no way trying to criticize. Just wanted to raise questions, which to me seems obvious.
To me, it's OK there to be a voting mechanism to stop wars which are obviously irrational - say in a pitboss I play, a neighbor of me attacked me when I was at war at the other side of my fairly large empire, but I had info he is going to attack me, and I was able to stop him and turn the war in my favor. I advanced to his empty cities and asked him just to give me 5 of ~30 of his cities in reparation for the efforts I made to counter his attack, but he refused. It was clear that I will slowly walk all over his empire after his main army died, but he refused peace to the end. In this case it was only obstinacy and it would have been nice to have UN to stop the war.
But with such small space to develop in Europe where those supposed top-players will extend their empires? Knowing that you are safe from complete killing is not good educative method. This way a really great conqueror will have spotted empire With a lot of small enclaves which are the former capitols and core cities of his defeated enemies.

The Priest raises a good question too - when a Diplo game ends - at 2050 or someone launching SS? Or by culture? Because if nations are not gonna be wiped out completely, conquest and domination victory conditions just are not working, although they are enabled in the game.

[mzprox]

If someone has only 3 cities then you probably shouldnt take even 1 from them, you could still wage war though... Threat him to pillage the land if he will not pay for example.
I think europeans in this game should try to get as much land from other continents as possible.. it's like the handicapped top-players vs the others.
I could totaly see treaties where two europeans declare that they are at war in Africa or anywhere else, except in the old world.

[OzzyKP]

Ah yea, colonial wars, that'll be neat.

[2metraninja]

If someone has only 3 cities then you probably shouldnt take even 1 from them, you could still wage war though... Threat him to pillage the land if he will not pay for example.

This is what I meant - Europeans are virtually immune to wars between them or someone other attacking them. Japan too. Knowing the bloody history of Europe and how many wars are fought between the Europeans, also how many tribes attacked Europe, conquered kingdoms and stayed there forever, it just don't seems right. Also, you have to do a research if someone is mature enough for attacking. EU - brother's love fest in action

[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.)

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.