Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[France (DoE)]

France is playing for France. I have used a sub, not associated in anyway with this game, while I am traveling, which I will again be in two weeks time. The last time he played for me was in June. I have informed this thread when that happens.

I am NOT playing the Vikings turn. The Vikings player is. He just isn't posting much. He is still pi$$ed for being vilified for honoring the deal made with India by the previous Viking player, which IMHO was the right thing to do.

And Neandor is playing Neandor's turns. He is very busy with RL work, so doesn't have much time for story posting.

[Arabia2 (doe)]

By the way: why don't we advertise that we are looking for sub(s) We could at least have a thread in the multiplaying section.

[Robert]

@Russia: thanks for your explanation!

I can indeed see it on the pitboss server. It just caught my attention when I was scrolling through the list of players to see if any of them was online (I always check that before I pause the game, don't want to pause it while someone is busy)

[Robert]

Also what penalty would you propose for violation of this rule?

penalties are handed out by teachers to children.
I do not know how often you have played a board game with adults. But I have made many rules during those board game sessions, while we never handed out penalties. Adults usually just stick to the rules

[Robert]

The rule is there for exactly the hypothetical situations Arabia describes.
Of course usually under more realistic circumstances though, but that doesn't matter for the sake of the argument.

But the Turks are right that the (sub) thing doesn't work here b/c PYT doesn't update
So it's good indeed to re-confirm that it at least has to be posted here in the forum.

I agree with Turkey that it's not needed to exactly make clear who is subbing for who. Just stating that there is a sub is enough.
I personally always put (sub) behind my name when I'm subbing. (it can be seen at least in the login-screen if one briefly selects any civ) but well, the rules don't say that you have to make clear who is subbing.

[Arabia2 (doe)]

What is your opinion based on? A similar level of experience or just your gut instict about fairness?

Both.

If one player plays more then one civ it needs to be known, especially if it's permanent. Allies subbing for a few turns it's usually ok without notice, but I'd still prefer to have that. Most contact happens in pm anyway, but if the subbed player gone for good it needs to be known and also if it's subbed by other player who is already playing an other civ.

And Ottomans: I think none of us have any problem with you subbing the Zulus, actually we are grateful for that. The only thing is that it is better to known for several reasons.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Personally, I think anytime someone subs for more than a few days, it should be noted here that there is a sub in, and it should be noted when the sub leaves. If the sub is more or less permanent, it should also be noted that a new player has entered for X civ.

Again, what is "a few"? And is that based on arbitrary what-feels-right gut-instinct or some sort of empirical evidence, like "in the last X games played, when a player was absent for more than Y days there was an Z% chance he wasn't coming back"?

Also what penalty would you propose for violation of this rule? Because I can tell you, the situation you describe happens ALL of the time where civs are subbed for days, even weeks without any notice or posting, and the subs come and go quietly, no posting, no notice, no nothing... maybe you didnt realize that I can see how that might be uncomfortable for you, as you are very very public about it whenever you are subbing, as if the whole concept makes you uncomfortable... am I right?

[Inca (DoE)]

Personally, I think anytime someone subs for more than a few days, it should be noted here that there is a sub in, and it should be noted when the sub leaves. If the sub is more or less permanent, it should also be noted that a new player has entered for X civ.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

I disagree with the Ottoman position. The players of the game have a right to know ...

Okay so we have a simple difference of opinion. My opinion of what works in pitboss and what does not, is based on over 5 years MP and pitboss experience, hosting dozens of games in normal Direct IP and Hamachi format, including all kinds of team games and all kinds of Maps. This includes acting as an non-player administrator as well as administrating games that I was actually playing in. This also includes mediating disputes ranging from DM issues to arguments over subs, turn order, map bugs, missed turns, etc.

What is your opinion based on? A similar level of experience or just your gut instict about fairness?

Which is not to say it has to be posted in big, banner letters. But it has to be posted, and everyone has to know...

It has been posted plenty of times that Zulu needed a sub and/or had a sub. If people missed it, that's because they werent paying attention. If people knew at one time, but then forgot, then good, that means the sub is doing their job. A sub of a farce civ should be invisible, so as not to undermine the enjoyability of the game for the REAL civs.

So while I might agree that players deserve an opportunity to know a civ has a sub, I disagree that "everyone has to know." Whether you "know" or not depends largely on how well you pay attention to the threads.

By "everyone" are you saying that we should pause the game every time a new person joins or comes back from vacation to give them a rundown on all the sub situations going on? And by "has to know" are you saying that the game must stay paused until that person actually confirms that they have recieved and are aware of the sub situation? Otherwise how can we be sure that EVERYONE KNOWS all the subbing situations?

Subbing situations are quite fluid in this game and often last well over the 2 turns you are talking about. I suspect it might blow your mind to know how often civs have subbed for each other in this game, for many turns, during wars and everything else, apparently without you even noticing, which is exactly the point. This allows us to avoid long pauses, (which BTW I have heard YOU complaining against IIRC) while waiting for subs to be approved/acknowledged, etc. Do you have any idea how much the game would be paused for arguments etc, if we followed your "everyone has to know" philosophy?

And where do you get 2 turns from anyway? Is that just an arbitrary number you pulled out of this air? What if the turn is 36 hours instead of 18? Does that make a difference? Did you even consider that?

I have a friendly suggestion for Natives. Why don't you try right now to find a sub for the Zulu, and imagine that the game would be paused all while you are trying to find a sub. Imagine us having to do that everytime somebody went on vacation. Then you can evaluate your "everyone has to know" approach from a more informed position.

If you don't feel like finding a sub for the Zulu, then that just proves my point. Don't make up arbitrary rules that create work and headaches for others. Somebody has to actually spend the time to go out there and recruit a sub for these teams.

Having recruited hundreds of players for dozens of games myself I can tell you, that finding subs is a blooming hassle. Especially when people then come out of the woodwork to criticize the subs and how it was handled etc. So if you aren't going to find the sub yourself then making a bunch of demands about being informed about this and that is terribly unfair.

The hypothetical situation is hypothetical and not based in this game. Does Ottoman agree to the following:

If Civ A wants to make a deal with Civ B to do something against Civ C, and unknown to all players it is Civ C who is subbing for Civ B and thus gets to know OOC secret information, then that is hugely problematic.

No I do not agree. The hypothetical situation you describe is not "hugely problematic" at all. First of all there is no OOC information involved in the situation you describe. Civ A wants to harm Civ C is completely IC info. Second, that situation has actually happened to me multiple times in this game, and you just move on, no big deal... Certainly nothing "hugely problematic."

One thing I have discovered in my experience hosting games, is that what players THINK they WANT to know, and what they NEED to know to keep the game fun is often two very different things. It is human nature to WANT to know everything, but like in a magic show knowing everything spoils the fun.

[India (DoE)]

The hypothetical situation is hypothetical and not based in this game. Does Ottoman agree to the following:

If Civ A wants to make a deal with Civ B to do something against Civ C, and unknown to all players it is Civ C who is subbing for Civ B and thus gets to know OOC secret information, then that is hugely problematic.

If only it is known that Civ B is run by a sub, then any subbed civ would be a huge risk to communicate with as they may well be played by a rival. It is a controversy that people do not know if another civ's player is behind the mask of a "neutral" civ. It completely shatters any sense of trust in any civ run by a sub, especially as it would be unclear whether the sub was an independent temporary sub or another nation's player. There needs to be a system for subs so that the hypothetical Civ A would know that he would not risk telling their rival something they should not be able to know.

[Native America (DoE)]

I disagree with the Ottoman position. The players of the game have a right to know if there are behind-the-scenes mechanisms resulting from anything more than the most temporary of substitution efforts by a current player of another civilization. And by this, I would mean more than two turns, and ANY subbing during a time of war.

Which is not to say it has to be posted in big, banner letters. But it has to be posted, and everyone has to know. Otherwise, you can have a situation like that which has apparently occurred: a major power who has for some turns been substituting for another player, without the knowledge (apparently), of the other players.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

1, it was just an example

It was a poor, nonsensical example. If you are trying to use a hypothetical to prove a point, then you have to use a hypothetical that makes sense, or the point that you are trying to make will also not make sense... That is exactly what is happening here.

2, the harm would be that I lose the surprise on attacking whoever I want. So if I send diplo message I want to know who i'm dealing with.

That does not make sense! First of all, you can attack whoever you want by surprise regardless of who is subbing for who. Just dont tell anyone about it, and it will be a surprise. Second, if you ask Turkey to attack their ally Zulu, there will be no surprise, because obviously I will tell my ally that you want to attack them. So obviously whether Turkey is playing for Zulu or not, there is still no element of surprise. What surprise? What are you talking about?

Alliance are not permanent. I may try to convince the Zulus to break the alliance with you and it is not fair if I don't know who am I dealing with.

First off, you are switching your hypothetical around, now you are saying its not fair because you wanted to get Zulus to betray Turkey? I thought you wanted to get Turkey to attack Zulu? Second, of all, it IS fair that you don't know who you are dealing with. That is the whole point of anonymous play. It makes it so dplomacy is more dangerous and exciting because you have no idea who you are dealing with. Nobody is supposed to know who they are dealing with, so that is just a silly complaint to make.

This is important to understand. In anonymous play, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between an alliance that you cant break up between 2 independant civs and an alliance you cant break up between a principal and a subbed nation. There is no way for you to tell the difference, precisely because YOU DON'T KNOW who is playing/subbing any of the civs, so there is nothing for you to complain about. This allows everyone to have fun, exciting diplo with all nations.

Alliances are not necessarily permanent, true, but you are not entitled to any guarantees that the alliance will ever break up. Maybe the next sub for Zulu will not want to be allied with Turkey, maybe they will, but what you are saying is that it is unfair that Turkey has an unbreakable alliance with Zulu because Turkey is subbing for Zulu.

But that would be true whether you knew about the subbing or not, so what are you complaining about? How does that have any relationship to your complaint about not knowing about the sub? You knowing about the sub would have no effect, on the relationship. All it would do is alert you that Zulu was a farce, and thus make the game less exciting for you. The only way to keep Zulu from being a farce in this game is to either get a sub (which YOU YOURSELF refused to do), or to keep the fact that they are being subbed quiet.

But not just in diplo, I also want to know what intel is available to each player, so for example I won't send my surprise attacking fleet trough Zulu's land to attack you if I know you are subbing for them.

Now again the hypothetical is reversed, and you are getting Zulu to betray me, but whatever... My answer is simple. You aren't entitled to know what intel is available to each player. Are you serious? You never know that!

Even if Zulu was an independent player, they would still inform allies of something like that, but even if, again, we go with your miniscule-odds thing happening (Zulu betrays ally for Arabia's benefit), You would still have no idea whether they noticed it or not, and whether they informed me or not. this is constant regardless of whether a civ is independent or being subbed. You NEVER know for sure what intel they have and what they share.

What you are saying, is that you are entitled to a guarantee that I don't know anything about what the Zulus can see, or you are entitled to warning that Zulus share info with Turkey. That is ridiculous! Are you entitled to a warning from Neandor that France shares intel with them? Give me a break

(I hope you are now paranoid enough .. no these are all just examples what kind of problems can come if one player subs for an other and it's not public).

As I said, there are no "problems". The only "problem" is all the far fetched, half baked Don-Quixote, theories that occur when a subbing situation IS PUBLIC... Like now.

I don't understand what is that you don't understand.. I want to know if you are subbing for someone, so I won't ask you to help me against them.. that simple. I will ask someone else or no one.

Now you are reversing your hypothetical again. First its asking Turkey to attack Zulu, then asking Zulu to attack Turkey, now we are back to asking Turkey to attack Zulu. Which one is it?

Anyway it doesn't matter, because as I already said, if you had asked Tukey to attack Zulu or vice-versa, the answer would have been no, and the ally would have been told about it. Its that simple. That would have been true whether Zulu was being subbed or not.

You might want to argue that if Zulu was not being controlled by Turkey then there was some slight, miniscule chance that Turkey would keep it a secret from Zulu that the new guy was gunning for them, but that's a silly argument. The reason that argument is silly is because:

1. Your whole argument pre-supposes that the miniscule unlikely thing would be the most likely to occur. That is to say, that it is WAY MORE likely that allies would tell on you if you tried to get them to betray the other. So trying to get allies to betray each other is a HIGH risk, and usually dumb move. So you should expect it to backfire almost all the time.

What you are saying, is that by keeping the sub a secret it ruins your chance that Turkey would betray Zulu. But that has no chance of happening anyway. Allies generally dont betray each other to join up with unproven strangers. So the opportunity that you are pretending you lost was never a real opportunity in the first place, whether or not Zulu was being subbed.

2. The point of a sub being Quiet is so that everyone can proceed as if there is no subbing going on. Playing a game where there are a bunch of subs is a farce and it is no fun. The point is for the subbed team to SEEM like a regular civ and be reacted to and treated like a regular civ, so the game remains fun. Hopefully other teams start to forget about the sub and just treat the subbed team as a normal team.

Part of this, is you are supposed to be susceptible to the trap of trying to convince one ally to betray another and having it backfire on you. That is the danger of cloak-and-dagger diplomacy. What you are asking for is to be indemnified against making foolish or dangerous diplomatic mistakes. Well that's no fun, and that's not how diplomacy works.

You know what is the most ridiculous, most Don Quixote, trying-to-create-controversy where there is none part of this conversation? When you joined the game, you were given the choice of playing the Zulu or Arabia and YOU CHOSE Arabia. So you KNEW that the Zulus were being subbed even though you didn't know by whom. So this entire line of argument you are trying to make is just over-the-top in its ridiculous nature.

Some other civs may have forgotten Zulus were being subbed, but not you. If ANYONE knew Zulus were a sub it was you because you TURNED DOWN the opportunity to sub for the Zulus. So again, your hypothetical makes no sense whatsoever.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Vikings? I am pretty sure they were here last time. I think they only complained a bit. It will be pity if the viking quit for real.

No, I'm pretty sure they already quit and either France or Neandor are subbing for them. I base that on them saying noting since making these comments:

Well I guess I don't have the correct mindset for this game then, or diplogaming in general. I can't play a game expecting to lose and have some moral victory because I've been creative. I've played out losing games to the bitter end before, but that was when I had an actual chance to make a difference in the game.

And I can't be creative with a game I'm not enjoying. Nor do I look forward to another half a year of this.

I'll be attempting to find someone to take over for me.

Apparently this login cannot create a new thread so if anyone knows anyone who wants to be a sub please let France or Neandor know.

That's the last thing Vikings said, so yea, pretty sure they quit. But they had a quick, nice, QUIET sub, so nobody noticed... which is exactly how it should be

[Arabia2 (doe)]

2. Even assuming you did make such an absurd request (Turkey help Arabia attack Zulu), I would have just said "No, Zulu are allies of Turkey" and that would be the end of it. What would be the great harm or grievance to Arabia in that?

1, it was just an example
2, the harm would be that I lose the surprise on attacking whoever I want. So if I send diplo message I want to know who i'm dealing with. Alliance are not permanent. I may try to convince the Zulus to break the alliance with you and it is not fair if I don't know who am I dealing with.

But not just in diplo, I also want to know what intel is available to each player, so for example I won't send my surprise attacking fleet trough Zulu's land to attack you if I know you are subbing for them.
(I hope you are now paranoid enough .. no these are all just examples what kind of problems can come if one player subs for an other and it's not public).

4. To turn your absurd hypothetical around... What if when you joined the game, without reading any of the history (and therefore being oblivious to the obvious Turk-Zulu alliance) you formulated a grand plan to invade the Zulus assembled your forces, developed your strategy, and actually did ask Turkey to help you invade Zulu, and I immediately informed you that Turkey was subbing for Zulu. What would happen then? You would resent that too, that you wasted all that planning and time, and then you would be resenting it every turn, more and more, that your plan was spoiled. So either way you would be mad. That is my point. Subs should be quiet, not public and visible.

I don't understand what is that you don't understand.. I want to know if you are subbing for someone, so I won't ask you to help me against them.. that simple. I will ask someone else or no one.

[Russia (DoE)]

Vikings? I am pretty sure they were here last time. I think they only complained a bit. It will be pity if the viking quit for real.