Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Calanthian]

I didn't say it wasn't allowed or something, I just concluded that they had to come from elsewhere..

Furthermore I also acknowledge that you played a great game.

Also I am not complaining about the treatment I got in game: I sure as hell didn't give you another option then to take me out.
Perhaps strange, but for me, in the game position I was this was the path of the most fun

[Russia (DoE)]

Not to mention that you asked me to supply you with fleet and 30+ advanced troops to conquer the helpless Zulu.

[Russia (DoE)]

This was all IC communication.. OOC I was not sure but actually that didn't matter at that point

It was clear that the troops came from someone else as the Ottomans hadn't discovered Riffling
(in fact I think they still haven't)

Oh, this is flawed argument from the nation, who never teched Astronomy but had 40+ frigates and SOTLs gifted from France, who also never teched Astronomy

[Calanthian]

Oh, good that at least you give me credit for stopping the First Central American war. Because the Azteca still deny this to me and accuses me as instigator of the war.

This was all IC communication.. OOC I was not sure but actually that didn't matter at that point

It was clear that the troops came from someone else as the Ottomans hadn't discovered Riffling
(in fact I think they still haven't)

[Inca (DoE)]

eh, even in the "AAR" I get no love for playing brinkmanship with the Turks over America... I'm probably still paying for all that now, and certainly will be in the future if the game restarts. Pointless? I suppose so, along with whatever other behind-the-scenes stuff I did to help others.

[Russia (DoE)]

Oh, good that at least you give me credit for stopping the First Central American war. Because the Azteca still deny this to me and accuses me as instigator of the war. You are right however, that the world raising voice and the Axis fleet appearing in the Caribbean had their part of the peace Turkey wanted some "green land" to themselves, as after being a victor in the Great War, have suffered and invested so much in the war, they were still limited to 5 sea based, yellow land surrounded cities in Europe and 3 dusty desert villages size 1 in North Africa. How could I say "no" to them? I just asked them to be careful and not too greedy and cruel when attacking you. Also, we believed the Azteca threat to Africa was absolutely real - we was seeing a lot of Axis navy going forth and back from Europe and we suspected something is boiling and Turkey decided to act first. As it turned now it was that the Axis was preparing attack on the Inca instead But still, we were 1 step ahead drawing all the attention of the Axis in the Carribean. Plus their fleet. And we had plans of destroying it somehow, as it was still bigger and mightier than anything our block could muster. And at the end we did succeeded in this too

To me, this is what I see as the main thing about the Diplo-gaming - not only the individual players have conscience. The world have conscience. In a normal MP game the world would stay silent and only look after their own interests, while in the game even the biggest world Superpower have to care for the world opinion.

[America (DoE)]

One more misconcept in the game. It was me who asked the Turks to return your cities and withdraw. With all the shiny toys the Axis gave you, you still was going to lose Washington and if the Turks wanted, they would have kept your cities. If you and the Azteca had enough armies to fight the Turks, why at the end you gave up?

Ah, no I know that, you even stated that publicly, but without the threat of Aztec, French, German and Viking armies in the first war, I would have been completely defenseless, also diplomatically. It was a combination of your involvement and the help I got from the Axis that stopped that war in its tracks; suddenly the stakes were much too high for a simple land grab.

In the second war, the armies I got from the Axis arrived two turns before the game was put on the pause that it is still on now. I had to make peace with the Ottoman in order to protect Havana, as at that point, I did not know that the Axis were sending reinforcements.

[Russia (DoE)]

Ah, well, that was also not the case; they gave me and the Aztecs armies to fight the Turks, but it was logistically quite the challenge to get everything there in time, and it turned out to be too late for the Aztecs (in the second war). And America was also never really maimed, due to the help of the Aztecs and the Axis; America still has all its cities. The Axis was great in the first war with the Turks; without their support and that of the Aztecs, I would have been toast

One more misconcept in the game. It was me who asked the Turks to return your cities and withdraw. With all the shiny toys the Axis gave you, you still was going to lose Washington and if the Turks wanted, they would have kept your cities. If you and the Azteca had enough armies to fight the Turks, why at the end you gave up?

[Russia (DoE)]

If anybody had a feeling that there was a stalemate, or that it was futile to try anything due to the Russian alliance, then in my opinion all this could have probably been solved by writing one friendly and joking PM to Russia saying, hey man, you wanna hatch a crazy plan together to turn the whole world upside down and create some awesome stories? From what I've seen so far, I think Russia would be just the kind of player who would go, 'awesome, let's do it'. And that is what I consider perfect diplogaming.

Hah! Sorry I read down your message and stop to write answers at paragraphs. And thank you for this last paragraph. In fact, I can play by all rules and expectations. I just need to know the rules. If 3 top nations (Neandor, France and Vikings) can form a rock solid alliance and use their military power, why would I be restricted to not create a block to oppose them? When the ruined economies of my allies England and Turkey had like 200 GPT each and only Vikings had like 800 GPT and were headed to MGs, cannons, ironclads and other military techs to outgun us, I did researched Communism so I can repeat the Communist revolution and Krasnaia Armia victory over the Nazi Germany. And when all hope was almost gone that the Great War can be won by sheer power, I ended it with a bluff. Neat, eh? And when the whole world was laying at my mercy, did I lost control and become unreasonable with demands? Did I crippled my hatred enemies? No. I sticked to my roleplay - I needed just the justice restored. Even the Neandor King in a PM to me acknowledged that it was fair and just.

But well - Russia is still guilty for not being weakling and must be bashed about it.

[America (DoE)]

I meant the Axis gave you false hope, so you and Azteca to continue fight Turkey, while the Axis was not able to actually save you from harm. When the Axis fleet was gone, they actually stopped supporting you and left you on the mercy of the Turks.

This is what I meant - that they gave you hope, but it was false hope, as they deserted you later.

Ah, well, that was also not the case; they gave me and the Aztecs armies to fight the Turks, but it was logistically quite the challenge to get everything there in time, and it turned out to be too late for the Aztecs (in the second war). And America was also never really maimed, due to the help of the Aztecs and the Axis; America still has all its cities. The Axis was great in the first war with the Turks; without their support and that of the Aztecs, I would have been toast

[Russia (DoE)]

A diplogame in which you constantly have to take care not to have anyone grow to powerful and everybody should remain equal, well, that sounds a bit boring I think. As long as the ones who grow powerful think of ways to make the game fun for the rest, then it doesn't matter that they grow powerful.

Very well said. But the problem is that many of the players dont think so. They are either want to be independent or they want to be powerful or they dont have fun.

[Russia (DoE)]

- America was maimed and deserted....


I wasn't actually; the Ottomans attack did not put me back much, nor did I desert America. I was traveling for a month and a half

I meant the Axis gave you false hope, so you and Azteca to continue fight Turkey, while the Axis was not able to actually save you from harm. When the Axis fleet was gone, they actually stopped supporting you and left you on the mercy of the Turks.

This is what I meant - that they gave you hope, but it was false hope, as they deserted you later.

[America (DoE)]

- America was maimed and deserted

I wasn't actually; the Ottomans attack did not put me back much, nor did I desert America. I was traveling for a month and a half, but I did manage to play nearly every turn, apart from ten days, where someone subbed for me. I was very much into the game, still would be now that I am back. Reading all this, I have to add that I see no objection to anything that has happened. Sure, reducing a civ to just a few cities, that is a bit much, and it should be followed by some great storyline in which that civ is gifted land elsewhere, a colony or something, etc. But I believe that a simple behind the scenes PM to the aggressor saying, yo man, great attack, but eh, I feel a bit tiny now, would you perhaps have some cities somewhere else, and then we can start a fun storyline about a people in exile, etc etc? I would immediately do it if I had enough cities. Hell, I would even do it as America if someone asked me.

Many of your disputes seem to be about trying to equalize everything, trying to even out the playing field. But it doesn't matter if there are alliances, superpowers, etc; as long as these powers remain flexible and do crazy sh%t in order to make great stories.

To me, score in a diplogame is just a reflection of how well my economy and military and so on are doing. But whether you win the game depends on the storyline and the fun you create for yourself and others. Especially that last bit is what I keep in mind when playing this game: what can I do to make this fun for the rest? A funny story, a dramatic story, a crazy twist in game, an unlikely alliance, etc. All this talk about score, fights, alliances, unfair, unbalanced, it really doesn't make much sense to me. A diplogame in which you constantly have to take care not to have anyone grow to powerful and everybody should remain equal, well, that sounds a bit boring I think. As long as the ones who grow powerful think of ways to make the game fun for the rest, then it doesn't matter that they grow powerful.

Think of all the story twists a superpower could create, simply because he is a superpower. If I were a superpower - and I suck at civ compared to you guys so that will likely never happen - I would do craaaazy stuff; come up with some crazy ass cause that makes no sense strategically and have everybody wondering wtf is going on, or have a dictator take over and put your country on crazy civics, or start 'development aid' and beefing up the civ with the lowest score, give away territory to an unlikely civ, who will be completely surprised, spawning crazy stories, man, the possibilities are endless. If you try to create some kind of unnatural balance, you take away all that.

All these discussions - though of course necessary because you guys obviously needed to talk - to me seem to forget the most important point: your core task in a diplogame is to think of ways to make it fun for everyone. If you stick to that, the rest doesn't matter. To me the discussions about realism, balance, score, alliances...I think it all kinda misses the point. If anybody had a feeling that there was a stalemate, or that it was futile to try anything due to the Russian alliance, then in my opinion all this could have probably been solved by writing one friendly and joking PM to Russia saying, hey man, you wanna hatch a crazy plan together to turn the whole world upside down and create some awesome stories? From what I've seen so far, I think Russia would be just the kind of player who would go, 'awesome, let's do it'. And that is what I consider perfect diplogaming.

[Russia (DoE)]

I think Ahmed said it quite clear, logical and irrefutable. You should include this in the treatise

I always knew this, but just never been able to formulate this so clear to myself. Now when I see it formulated, I can agree that this is the way it works.

Allying, having superpowers, pawns and fodders is so natural, the fact that nations will join as the game advances to seek security and better chances of survival and/or becoming stronger themselves is so natural, that it mimicries the real life. Why would a families seek another families to form a tribe? Why dont they stay all alone on themselves? Why tribes will seek other tribes to form a nation? Why dont they just graze their sheep and horses and be happy? Because in this time the other tribes join in a nation, and when those nations join in empires - then those tribes who wanted just to graze their cattle will either be erased from the face of the Earth, or they will migrate, or they will be willing to become part of and to serve the empire.


Also, the whole "puppet", "pawn" "Master" and "alliances" thing was very wrongly presented and perceived by many players in this game. I am being accused the most of being a Master suggesting this is something bad and disgracing. But why would this be bad for me? And why would it be bad for my "pawns"? Lets see what so bad I did to those who chose to side with me.

- England got half his empire back from the invaders and were set up to be a world Superpower again.

- Turkey got North Africa back and advanced strong army during the Great War (here I will use the opportunity to answer those who accused me of using proxy to wage wars to the Americas - no, I DID NOT GAVE ANY ARMY TO TURKEY after the end of the Great War, nor I pushed them in to attacking the North-Americans. Whoever whats to believe, whoever dont want - this is his decision.).

- Inca got tons of upgrades for his soldiers to protect his vulnerable continent and got a ton of Russian money with % interest. He got Oil too to become a Naval superpower and be able to protect their shores - something they always longed to.

- Mali got land from Zulu and Israel

- Zulu were saved from the Mali attack and got land from Israel

- Japan doubled his land

- Arabia got a ton of upgraded weapons and security

Lets see what the Axis gave to those, who pledged loyalty to them - to see is it some flawed mechanism, random preference or I having friends and supporters is the most logical thing?

- Israel was maimed and then deserted to be attacked and defeated

- India was maimed and deserted when they needed their friends most

- Azteca was maimed and deserted

- America was maimed and deserted

Russia never deserted a friend. Is it so surprising I will have friends? Once Turkey said something which impressed me much, although I knew it by heart. He said that the word of Russia is the most valuable treasure and most powerful weapon our alliance have.

And now, after I have as you say unrealistically big alliance - have you ever wondered why never ever in the world's history one empire never conquered the whole world? Because it is not natural and it is illogical. Stability is never going to happen. Once all the threats to the Empire are gone, the empire (alliance in game) will fall apart - new nations (civs in-game) will look to challenge each-other, new rearrange of the powers and the alliances will happen - this is natural.

[The Priest]

Well Ottoman you are wrong. Your response to my post was a clever attempt to claim some 'special knowledge' and attack the person not the argument. Shame you didn't respond to what I actually said, rather than just keep repeating the same interesting, but slightly flawed stuff.

How many diplo games have you played in?

Because what I described as the way other games have been played is the truth. Were you in them? I guess not. Anyone who was part of Doom of Diplomats, Dance of Civilisations or Beyond the Pit knows well that there were indeed 'independents' not used as fodder by others.

Your example about your playing with your family is spot on. People haven't seen these diplo games as pure competitiveness because they do feel an ongoing relationship with those they are playing with. As RP often says 'there are no rules just gentlemen' and in most games that has worked well. This game failed on that basis with its endless rule arguments, reloads etc. In the other diplo games I've played in you had half a dozen reloads in a game, in this one you seemed to have been having that number each week recently. So yes there has been a different spirit at work in this game - and it would be very interesting to analyse why - but you are wrong in saying that all games would proceed like that. Its a simple fact that they haven't.