Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[mzprox]

In the mentioned game Persia gave a settlers for that city, and there was plenty of land to settle yet. (on the other hand getting that city left Persia with a huge peninsula to settle alone)

[St Jon]

Is something amiss with the server? I cannot connect.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Guys, while those of us who supposedly have done something wrong still have no idea what is going on, but are trying to follow our rules and keep quiet, it might be better if others did too. The uninformed speculation doesn't help, particularly when you can't respond to it.

[OzzyKP]

Is something amiss with the server? I cannot connect.

We are paused so everyone can cool down and take a breather during this dispute.

[OzzyKP]

In the mentioned game Persia gave a settlers for that city, and there was plenty of land to settle yet. (on the other hand getting that city left Persia with a huge peninsula to settle alone)

There really wasn't plenty of other land. I was surrounded on all sides. I guess it is ultimately my fault since I made the map and Russia had the most difficult spot in the game. But... oh well, that's how it goes.

[France (DoE)]

Given that France, like many others in this forum, understood the Measured War Rule to mean that civs are not allowed to permanently take or raze cities from other civs with few cities (loosely defined as 3 or less), and;

Given that when the question as to whether civs could take cities from other civs with 3 or less cities was posted to the organization thread for clarification that the game administrator clearly stated that they could not be taken and that other rewards needed to be found, and;

Given that Germany has indicated that their motives are expansionistic and that they will not settle for anything less than France losing its second city, and;

Given that the game administrator, in contradiction to his previous forum posting, has indicated that France must accept the loss of his city and possibly accept a future settler as compensation (roughly estimated to be 30-50 turns from now depending upon how quickly Writing is researched so the settler can be gifted and how long the settler takes to be built and moved into position),

France is hereby requesting that a vote be taken to end this war under the Measured War Rule.

The bottom line is that it is not fun to be deceived by being told that the rules are one thing and then to have the rules completely altered to the exact opposite at a critical moment. I would have been happy if the rules had always allowed for the capture of other civ cities but obviously my strategy would have been different.

I would ask that when players are weighing their vote considerations that no weight be given to past diplo game precedents, as several players of this game are new to diplo games and have no means of knowing what happened in past games. Instead consideration should be based upon what are the diplo rules presented in this forum along with the clarifications given by the game administrator.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

France, you can't expect people to vote when people have only heard your side of the story.

Some of us have been silent, because that is what is asked of us. It sounds like RP hasn't agreed with you. I think it is fair we all hear from him before we do any voting on anything.

[OzzyKP]

Hmm, France does have a good point that discussion in the thread was that taking cities like this wouldn't be allowed. I think that generally it would be ok, but if he was led to believe it wasn't and acted accordingly it is very poor form to change things now. Whether that is an appropriate understanding of the rules or not is a separate issue (I'd say, as I did earlier, that taking one's second city is appropriate normally) but if Robert or anyone wanted to clarify that it definitely was or wasn't against the rules, it seems like it didn't happen and France believed it was against the rules. So he shouldn't be penalized for that. (but maybe I'm really France and just arguing for myself.... )

I advise Germany & Ottomans to execute a choke of Paris instead. (but maybe I'm really the Ottomans and just arguing for myself... )

[Germany (DoE)]

I have restricted my communications with RP until now. It would be better that no discussion occured here and that no arguments had been presented yet, even by Robert. But more and more keeps getting written.

We should have waited until RP, arbitrating behind the scenes, presented a decision or balanced case for all the players to consider, if necessary.

Then, if no decision is made or it is not accepted, maybe a debate is asked for by RP/organisers. THEN France and Germany can present cases. But I would find it so exhausting to do that and in the process much of the magic of the game gets revealed in bits and pieces and we spoil the game.

I think it fair for me to say just one thing:

IF we accept that any civ can build THREE cities in safety and only guard them with warriors and not worry about aggression;
and we accept that in Europe none of the civs can build more than three cities, then it can only be a lovefest in Europe

Even if we were to make deals to get tribute your position is weakened because everyone would then know that they can't lose a city.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Ozzy, not fair for you to comment on the basis of what France says. He only tells one side. The rules say we don't handle disputes publicly. RP you say you will delete all posts about a dispute. Can you please do that. This is unfair for some to keep making their point while others stay quiet.

[mzprox]

Paying tribute is quite a big thing. If they won't pay you take a city, pillage the gold from it and give back.. A pretty good reason to have your city garrisoned.. much cheaper than paying the tribute, and paying the tribute is usually cheaper than losing buildings and production from attacks-still, the best is to protect your cities. I'd say: it's ok to take a city if the other player has at least two more than you or he is in much better position, (tech-wise for example). Since I don't know the situation, can't see the map and I don't even know how big is this earth map I'm just saying these as general rules (as my rules not the game's). If all Europeans can only have 3 cites then they are unlikely to change owners without getting conflict with the measured war rule.

[BranksDilly]

As an active participant in this game, but purely objective as I am far away from Europe, this is my 2 cents:

If there is a dispute, it should be put to a vote for all members of the game. We should hear the facts and then decide on a future action. RP is good at being a mediator so he can present the facts to us.

Based on what I understand, a city has been taken, or is about to. Although we did agree upon measured war, I don't see why the aggressor should be punished. If he's not allowed to take a poorly defended city, then he should be entitled to a comparable reward. Maybe France should be ordered to pay him a settler?

I don't feel as if we're being true to the game if we allow everyone to build 3 cities and no military, this is not realistic. I play diplo games to have a realistic political experience so would be disappointed with a silly rule such as this.

[Germany (DoE)]

Measured war dictionary and rule

Just posting a neutral copy/paste of the war rules.

DICTIONARY - Measured war

A Civ Diplo Game has to balance two factors in war.

1. This is Civ - Warmongering, conquest and domination is a perfectly acceptable and honourable way to play. There is no intention that Diplo games need to be 'builder orientated' (though that is just as acceptable a strategy too).

2. This is Diplo - No civilisation should be crippled with the result that the game stops being fun for the player involved. This means that there is a balance to be struck. War is costly for the aggressor, building up forces while other nations race ahead, so the victor should be able to make real gains from the war. But if they gain too much, the loser may be crippled. Its impossible to make a hard and fast rule out of this, because that can just be exploited (e.g. a loser refusing to make a reasonable peace because 'the rule' will then kick in and save them). But as a guide, a 25% loss is an appropriate threshhold (loss being an overall measure, not just a city count - losing 3 tiny fringe cities may be much less of a loss than 1 major city). More than this may well be crippling the loser. But a loss/gain up to this probably is appropriate benefit for the victor. Again this can't be a rule - taking a small bite out of a neighbour every ten turns will cripple them, but having won a war against a neighour a millenium ago doesn't mean you can't fight with them again.

This concept of measured war is enforced in rule 7.

---

RULE 07. Measured War Rule

a. When 51% of the players for ooc-reasons think that a war should*end then it must end. This to avoid that civs will be cripled too much by a war. The terms of the end of war are in such a case: immediate peace for 50 turns. It is advised for both parties to agree on the best possible terms for peace before this happens.
*
b. Such an end of war must be organized in the org thread. (ie. players must announce their opinion regarding the end of a war in the org thread).

Reasons for such an end-of-war vote are only OOC! Not IG (like: my allie is losing this important city)

Debates/votes about this will always happen with the normal apolyton id's, not the anonymous id's!

[Robert]

I'm at the moment away for the weekend. My Internet connection here sucks.
It's hard for me to follow the debate, let alone to guide the debate. And guidance is pretty much needed here.

Therefore I am going to close this thread for now. If OzzyKP wants to take lead now then he can unlock the thread and act as the game leader in my absence. He can then, if think it's needed, organize a vote.

But I think we need some time to cool down anyway.
All consider:
1. Can I continue to have a fun game while I lose a city now, and how do I need to be compensated to have fun. What's the least I need to continue to have fun.
2. Can I understand that I take the fun of others away by my actions, and is this action such an action that does. What am I willing to do to make sure that my enemy continues to have fun in this game.

Thanks all!

[Robert]

@France: for the record, what I am writing in PM's to you has the intention to help you to see things from different perspectives. I do not say it in private for no reason.

I have no sight on the situation. I don't know the location of the involved cities. I do not know the resources, the space that's left to settle, etc. etc. So I can never give a fair judgment.
In general I can say that the early game is about 'land grabbing' and placing cities on strategical positions. It would be boring if people can place their 2nd city without defense and without having to fear that someone would take it.
Losing the 2nd city may be about losing 25% of ones empire. (The capital has 12 times as much commerce, 5 times as much production, 2 times as much culture, etc.)

It's not by default that losing the 2nd city (out of 2 cities) equals unmeasured war.
It also depends on the compensation, the peace deal that can be made.

I cannot make that judgement. Maybe this 2nd city of you has a gold mine already and is size 2. Maybe it's on a better spot then your capital. Maybe a religion has been found in it. It's for you and Germany to judge.
Please have a fair look at the situation.

I am not saying that you are wrong or that you should accept.
I am just trying to say that it's not as simple as "I lose 50% of my cities thus it is unmeasured war".
I think that the paragraph, posted by Germany, is clear on that as well.

I like the early land grab phase.
It's a mix of expansion and defending.
Last game I focused on power and strength. I had 5 axes and appeared in front of Russia's 2nd city. He gave it to me in exchange for 1 settler and my help against his other enemies. We signed peace and after that my 5 axe army marched towards the other border of the Russian empire to help him there.

THe city stayed disputed, btw. Russia conquered it, I liberated it again. (or the other way around, he liberated and I conquered it again). It became my holy city. Russia though never fully recovered.
Taking a city that early is pretty harsh. I don't know if I would do it again. But yet again, it's also the risk to put a 2nd city on ground that could be disputed. One can also chose to first build a save 2nd city or an axeman to defend it.

Anyway, consider everything and try to make a deal with Germany that's fair and fun for both sides.
If you two can't agree ooc (!) then we may have to make it a vote. In that case both of you have to make you case in a clear post with screenshots. But let's first cool down and consider everything.