Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Inca (DoE)]

So in other words, Japan, India and Mongolia was supposed to be forced to make war on China and not aim for peaceful development?? How silly of Mongolia to make the Pyramids, they were "supposed" to make an all out army and invade China." Seriously!?

Not necessarily War, but certainly not the peaceful conciliatory stance that Japan and India took (AND CONTINUE to take). All three of you have only one direction to expand where there is ample resources... that was toward China... but two nations continually choose to instead go into their respective corners and leave China alone... Who's fault was that? Certainly not Russias' or Arabia's fault, and certainly not the mapmaker's fault. I mean the Mapmaker practically gave you guys a neon arrow pointing towards China... you just choose to ignore it out of fear.

After careful map review, I revise my stance on Mongolia: they weren't an early game counter to China but a mid and late game counter. They had a TON of room to expand to in the NW/N/NE and a very natural border with China. But, basically, yes, not necessarily militarily, but at least aggressively REX in the early game.

But, otherwise, Otts' critique is about what I'd say. Mids are hugely expensive especially without an IND trait or stone, and counter-productive, imo, when you're as food-poor as they are.

Also, how is a civ which has very few resources compete against one that has more than twice as many?

I have like 14 resources total, you have 5 ancient resources in your capital's BFC :?

You say that Japan and India should have done something about it, well first of all, I took over India AFTER China had city spammed to contain India AND city spammed to contain Mongolia, all at a time when India had NO military due to Arabia's recent invasion.

First, what city was it they attacked again? I forgot.

Second, that's not Ozzy's fault. There's really no way to expect them to cross a veritable desert to go after the subcontinent, especially with the T1/2s all around them. Their play was very odd, imo, but perhaps not, I wasn't there...

It is difficult to catch the metaphorical ball when your enemy so greatly outstrips you in early production.

First 3-4 cities between you and China are nearly even. Your capital is better than theirs, Japan's capital is also a powerhouse. A lot of China's resources are calender-meh. You should have been expected to make a solid border with Arabia and then focused on China. Instead... ???

but has the map maker seriously designed the map to be balanced on the premise that all neighbours of China would attack her?

Not that exactly, but something like it, yes.

A civ with vast resources and a defensive advantage? That was the premise for balance? Why did the map maker block in India completely with only 2 land exits? One of which is as close to China's capital as it is to India's?

First, diagonals are 1.5 tiles in this game... so it's farther. I know you don't like it, but it's true. Second, galleys. Third, then settle that bloody site ASAP. No reason Guangzhou shouldn't have been your #2 city, or an early #3, or then later captured. Blame the first player.

You've had every chance to take it again, especially with Mongolia knocking out half of China's army and taking 2 of their cities. Yet... no, nada. Okay, fine, play the peacenik, it's a full diplogame, nothing wrong with it, and I'm certainly not going to say that's an issue, it's not... Just stop complaining basically because you're playing very suboptimally from a pure MP game perspective and one of the other players is running away with local domination.

A. All her neighbours should be aggressive
B. All her neighbours should be skilled players
C. All of those neighbours should be more inclined to deal with each other than with China
D. China's initial headstart would NOT enable them to gain a production advantage which they could use to seize strategically valuable positions
E. China would not be conducting any diplomacy to make her safe from harm.
F. China's superior production and tech would not make them too scary to attack for nations that were poorer?

A) Yes, they're human.
B) Yes, they're T3, T4 is for the idiots
C) If China's going to dominate if they don't, yes.
D) They had no initial headstart. Your capital is better, nuff said.
E) You could do the same.
F) Again, at the onset this was not an issue, and only became an issue later due to being outmaneuvered and an unexpected externality (Arabia).

Be thankful your civ isn't stretched out along a 30-tile long and 1-tile deep coastal strip with about 8 resources in that area, with an interior covered in plains-jungles and almost resource-bare

[India (DoE)]

1 Quick question: How often in a diplogame does a group of smaller nations win against a larger one in a war? And how easy is it to get a small nation to take that huge risk and go after a bigger nation (even with allies?).

Response to Inca:
A. Yes, human, not pre-programmed. Aggression is a risk, and many humans will avoid risky behaviour if there is an alternative. Your presupposition is that all three neighbours would be aggressive risk-takers, and none of them peaceful builders. You say that Mongolia should have acted like Mongolia, but what about India? Should I have acted like... Mongolia? What about sea-faring isolationist Japan? Should they have acted like Mongolia? Mongolia DID act like they were supposed to and fight China. But with the ridiculous advantage China had, they fought them off (the Russians not being a help to balance either). India and Japan acted "according to history".
B. Again, ALL 3 neighbours would have to be smart enough to realize that they would be better off challenging China by military might. If ONE of them decided to be friends with China it would be 1 very rich civ + 1 not so rich vs 2 not so rich. Your assumed responses of the 3 roundlaying nations is flawed. You assume that they would react like top level players going straight for the money. Yet as you admit yourself, they are the mid-level players. Mid-level players might not realize these things (as they obviously did not).
C. Again, related to A and B, not only would all THREE people have to come to the same conclusion, but they would have only have done so if they were good players. But as you have said, they are mid-level players.
D. Beijing has 8 resources, Delhi has 5 or six. I can't seem to connect to the game so I can't check. But you are absolutely right, the original Indian player should have immediately taken the Guangzhou area. But a mid-level player obviously did not realize the huge strategic significance it had.
E. I HAVE been conducting diplomacy to keep myself from harm, the point is that it is far easier to make deals to keep yourself safe than it is to build an offensively purposed military alliance. Especially when that military alliance has to be with TWO other players. Keep in mind, a single trade-off with one of the 3 would keep China safe. It would require a very skilled player to realize the discrepancy between a short term gain and the long term gain. Keep in mind also that if the attacks had failed the 3 nations would have been completely screwed in terms of peace-time development.
F. Again, the mapmaker based the entire balance in the east on human beings being rational and logical. Have you met humans?

As for my inactivity against China it should be obvious as to why, there is NO way I could ever challenge them even WITH the Mongolians fighting them in the north. Partly because of the ease they had in seizing Guanzhou which makes any attack practically impossible.

Also, you say that diagonal tiles are "further in distance" than regular ones? Allow me to ask you this in practical terms: Does it take longer to move a settler 10 diagonal squares to a given square than it does to move 10 squares from left to right? If the answer is no, then for practical effects and purposes the distances are the same. If it takes China 5 turns to move to Guanzhou and India 5 turns to move to Guangzhou (from their respective capitals), how can you say that one is further? Your point is moot.

Did you look at India at startup? More than half of it was jungle.

[France (DoE)]

Russia, the Turks, and India are all logged into the game together! What evil plot are they cooking up now?

(watch out China .....)

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Turks were trying to finish their turn when when India and Russia conspired to crash the game before Turkey could actually finish the turn... Poor poor downtrodden Turks

All joking aside, game is crashed and needs reloading so I can actually finish my turn

@ India - Well I guess since China is so strong and you are so weak, and China has all the resources sand all the best land, so it was inevitable that they would win anyway... and afterall you are just a Mid-level player, so you cant possibly be expected to figure any way to change the balance, plus the fact that are obligated to fufill India's "historic role" and modern day role and reputation as a peaceful friendly nation... you might as well sit back and watch China win... Good luck with that

(... As an aside, I think you are confusing India's history with Ghandi ... sure Ghandi was a man of non-violence, but that is a very very small part of Indian history... see the history of the Mauryan Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire or;

the ongoing Indian-Pakistani conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pa..._and_conflicts

India is not a peacenik country... far from it... India is one of the world's few Nuclear Powers...)
`
So in summation... you have persuaded me that your position was completely and utterly hopeless from the start, and despite excellent play by you, you are irreparably thwarted by insurmountable and irreversible odds. China is unstoppably destined to win the game, and the mapmaker planned it to be so... that is how you feel, and no one can change your mind...

So my question is... What do you expect the rest of us to do about it?

[Robert]

It wasn't really crashed, but India's login failed to create an autosave, which caused a pop-up window, which pauses the game.
It's ongoing again now. Nothing is lost.

[France (DoE)]

It wasn't really crashed, but India's login failed to create an autosave, which caused a pop-up window, which pauses the game.
It's ongoing again now. Nothing is lost.

And here I thought it was fail-safe mechanism to deal with the evil-doers.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

And here I thought it was fail-safe mechanism to deal with the evil-doers.

[OzzyKP]

1 Quick question: How often in a diplogame does a group of smaller nations win against a larger one in a war? And how easy is it to get a small nation to take that huge risk and go after a bigger nation (even with allies?).

Response to Inca:
A. Yes, human, not pre-programmed. Aggression is a risk, and many humans will avoid risky behaviour if there is an alternative. Your presupposition is that all three neighbours would be aggressive risk-takers, and none of them peaceful builders. You say that Mongolia should have acted like Mongolia, but what about India? Should I have acted like... Mongolia? What about sea-faring isolationist Japan? Should they have acted like Mongolia? Mongolia DID act like they were supposed to and fight China. But with the ridiculous advantage China had, they fought them off (the Russians not being a help to balance either). India and Japan acted "according to history".
B. Again, ALL 3 neighbours would have to be smart enough to realize that they would be better off challenging China by military might. If ONE of them decided to be friends with China it would be 1 very rich civ + 1 not so rich vs 2 not so rich. Your assumed responses of the 3 roundlaying nations is flawed. You assume that they would react like top level players going straight for the money. Yet as you admit yourself, they are the mid-level players. Mid-level players might not realize these things (as they obviously did not).
C. Again, related to A and B, not only would all THREE people have to come to the same conclusion, but they would have only have done so if they were good players. But as you have said, they are mid-level players.
D. Beijing has 8 resources, Delhi has 5 or six. I can't seem to connect to the game so I can't check. But you are absolutely right, the original Indian player should have immediately taken the Guangzhou area. But a mid-level player obviously did not realize the huge strategic significance it had.
E. I HAVE been conducting diplomacy to keep myself from harm, the point is that it is far easier to make deals to keep yourself safe than it is to build an offensively purposed military alliance. Especially when that military alliance has to be with TWO other players. Keep in mind, a single trade-off with one of the 3 would keep China safe. It would require a very skilled player to realize the discrepancy between a short term gain and the long term gain. Keep in mind also that if the attacks had failed the 3 nations would have been completely screwed in terms of peace-time development.
F. Again, the mapmaker based the entire balance in the east on human beings being rational and logical. Have you met humans?

As for my inactivity against China it should be obvious as to why, there is NO way I could ever challenge them even WITH the Mongolians fighting them in the north. Partly because of the ease they had in seizing Guanzhou which makes any attack practically impossible.

Also, you say that diagonal tiles are "further in distance" than regular ones? Allow me to ask you this in practical terms: Does it take longer to move a settler 10 diagonal squares to a given square than it does to move 10 squares from left to right? If the answer is no, then for practical effects and purposes the distances are the same. If it takes China 5 turns to move to Guanzhou and India 5 turns to move to Guangzhou (from their respective capitals), how can you say that one is further? Your point is moot.

Did you look at India at startup? More than half of it was jungle.

Risks come with rewards. Yes, starting a war IS risky. Very risky. But if you don't take that risk then you deal with the consequences, which is the unbalanced situation you have now. I don't think anyone is necessarily blaming you for not taking action, but pointing out that the situation you are complaining about is a result of your inaction. It was your decision to make.

Also, Mongols were supposed to be a tier 2 player. So, in theory, they should have been better prepared to deal with China early on. Honestly I think things would be hugely different today if Russia didn't get involved. There actually is some very nice land up there, that Mongol city that got destroyed (I think) was in a prime spot. The Russian city there now has 17 population! That's bigger than Beijing! Actually, assuming my maps are up to date, that's bigger than every Chinese, Indian and Japanese city except Kyoto. If the Mongols weren't screwed by that early on (and if they didn't make the bone head move to build the pyramids) things would be considerably different in Asia.

You were complaining that India only got 20 resources. Looking at current "homelands" the Neandor have 19, France has 20 (28 with Africa), England has 14 (17 with Iceland), Vikings have 15, Ottomans have 19, Russia has 16 (west of the Urals), 21 for Aztecs, 23 for Inca, 20 for Native Americans, 13 for America (eek, sorry guys!), 9 for Mali (they have floodplains though, and it would have been 17 if they took NW Africa like they were supposed to, heh), 18 for Egypt, 23 for Arabs, 17 for Zulu (would be more if they had more than like 3 cities, hehe). Mongols currently have 16, if they had taken all the land east of the Urals they'd have 22. Still less than China, surely, but more than enough to contest them. With the exception of the poor Americans (crap, really sorry guys, but you shouldn't have given so much land to the Natives) it looks like the balance is pretty decent. Better than I expected actually.

Also, in terms of squares of land (not counting mountains, deserts, or unforested, unrivered tundra) here are some homeland comparisons:
England 31 (counting Iceland)
Vikings 42
France 44 (not counting Africa)
Ottomans 51
India 66
Neandor 68

[America (DoE)]

Haha, yeah I noticed the resource problem Ozzy, it is indeed quite crappy, especially as the Natives quickly blocked me off in the mid-West with some settlements and at that point I didn't know that the rest of the land was so crappy. There was no way of knowing for me that I had to go in that direction, and even if I had known, the Natives had already started settling towards me. Oh well, it is what it is

[Native America (DoE)]

The Great Lakes should have been our battle zone, but I got there firstest and have good early units, so I got lucky that way. Was only natural for me to do it, because to my backside were the Rockies, and they are junk. Of course, I think the Americans have modified strategy appropriately to take advantage of their heavily coastal nature.

I have no opinion on the issue of Mongolia v China as far as starting positions go. But I will say this: to assume that you can play a nation as you WANT to play a nation is a poor assumption, even in single-player Civ. In MP Civ, I would consider it foolish in the extreme. If the Mongolians chose to try for a pacifist, city-building strategy in the absence of decent resources, with a potentially powerful neighbor on their flank, they were taking a huge gamble, and perhaps they have lost it.

As far as the current situation vis-a-vis these two nations goes, why is India complaining that China is beating up on Mongolia and no one is doing anything? I would think India would be the PRIME civ to take down the Chinese in that case. Probably in concert with the Japanese. Make it happen.

[OzzyKP]

As far as the current situation vis-a-vis these two nations goes, why is India complaining that China is beating up on Mongolia and no one is doing anything? I would think India would be the PRIME civ to take down the Chinese in that case. Probably in concert with the Japanese. Make it happen.

[France (DoE)]

To be clear - our diplo game rules clearly prohibit the transfer of cities whilst at war. The Vikings and the French considered such a move, but it was/is prohibited. And rifles would have clearly altered the recent battle in North Africa ......

[China (DoE)]

Ok wow!

I didn't see all this, I am going out now and will respond in the morning.

Until then peace and love and remember we all love this GAME.

PS I have never been in a "power" position so please don't make me feel bad for playing well, this is my 2nd ever diplo game!

[Germany (DoE)]

EDIt - just saw Russia's post in the story thread about a Mongol peace process...

[Native America (DoE)]

Ok wow!

I didn't see all this, I am going out now and will respond in the morning.

Until then peace and love and remember we all love this GAME.

PS I have never been in a "power" position so please don't make me feel bad for playing well, this is my 2nd ever diplo game!

*I* think you're doing wonderfully well. It's up to the tier twos around you to man up and beat you back.