Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Russia (DoE)]

I am sorry to have been so late to play my turn leaving 4.5 hours for France to play. I paused the game, so please, anyone after me pause it too for France.

[Israel (DoE)]

@The Priest: Your razing of Jerusalem was never a problem ooc, neither was it the reason for the more recent 'ramifications'.
I never considered to be a real ooc mess. It had a big impact on my game, but like I said before, I gambled and lost. If I would have been you I would have done the same.

More recent Israel has counter-backstabbed the Ottomans, who then razed one and occupied one city. After peace was signed they attacked again together with Russia. That 2nd war was what the ramifications were about b/c moi (Isreal) thought that the Ottomans/Russians/mali took way too many cities then measured war would allow. (6 out of 9, including the capital). The Russians/Ottomans believed that Israel should just have accepted their peace proposal (10 turns of 100% gold output to Russia, including cities going full wealth, and then about 50% of all commercial output for 20 more turns, and some IC stuff).

Well, that was what the argument was about.
Your original razing of Jerusalem was only brought in to explain the counter-backstabbing of Israel in character, and to explain why Israel (imho) could not affort the huge price the Russians/Ottomans demanded for peace, b/c we had been 'behind' since the beginning of the game. (ie. we are a backwards civ, not a strong going civ, and that's why we can't affort another 20 turns of no progress).

That was the argument. So nothing you did was wrong or caused any problems.

[Robert]

I'm still unsure if my votes took or not. I tried it twice and both times it said that I hadn't voted.

Edit: never mind. I just went into the voting link again and it said I had voted.

You have voted!

[The Priest]

Just thought I would look in here from old time's sake (I was Ottoman before rl became too much).

Sorry to see an argument over Damascus/Jerusalem.

But I can confirm that from an Ottoman point of view there certainly was no back-stabbing of Israel. At one point we accept the existance of Jerusalem. Didn't like it, didn't wish it, but accepted it. Then it became the holy city. We tried to live with that for a good many years wanting peace with our neighbours, but it became clear that the culture from the holy city would destroy us - it was already stripping off cultivated land and luxuries from existing Ottoman cities. So we attacked it and destroyed it.

This left a sore which I knew would come back at some point. From the Israeli point of view, the Ottomans had accepted the existance of Israeli Jersualem, and then a while later changed their minds. From the Ottoman point of view, they had accepted the existance of Israeli Jerusalem as a city living within its borders, but Israeli action - turning it into a holy city and a cultural powerhouse - meant it became a huge threat to existing Ottoman cities and action was needed. Israeli's say, "you broke the peace when you attacked Jersualem". Ottoman's say "you broke the peace when you turned Jerusalem into a cultural powerhouse stripping away Ottoman land". Such are the things which give birth to millenia-lasting hatred.

But I (knowing nothing about what is happening now) still believe that the Ottomans were right then. Its the oldest trick in the book to launch non-military attacks on your neighbours - cultural war for example - leave your neighbours with no viable option other than a military response - and then call them aggressors. I've used the tactic many times! In BtP I seem to remember being involved in more wars than any other nations, winning them of course :-) and meanwhile trying to argue i was the most peaceful of nations because I had never declared war on anyone!

Mores seriously I remember the whole Jerusalem thing being a mess. Egypt/Israel has put a huge amount of effort into establishing Jersualem as a city and engineering it as the holy city, with a whole game plan, plan for stories etc. on the basis of it. Huge effort. So by seizing Jersualem I was destroying somethign really important IG and OOC for Egypt/Israel. But, IG, it felt like the only thing Ottomans could do, and IG a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But if someone has staked a lot of human effort and inginuity on a strategy, it seemed really bad - and maybe it was - to torpedo it. But it seemed that accepting it meant really bad outcomes for the Ottomans (even though that wasn't Egypt/Israel's intention). A real mess, and sorry to see it still has ramifications.

[Vikings (DoE)]

I'm still unsure if my votes took or not. I tried it twice and both times it said that I hadn't voted.

Edit: never mind. I just went into the voting link again and it said I had voted.

[Robert]

Please all cast your votes today.

[France (DoE)]

Could not say it better. France, you have a soul of a poet.

And the heart of a warrior!

I am leaving today for close to two weeks. A temporary sub will be playing for France. He is the same player who subbed for me earlier this year. Good player, not much into story-telling. His character was General Maray, but he was killed by an Incan mercenary outside of Plymouth. Working on a new story line now. I have a couple hours left.

[Russia (DoE)]

Difficult month for voting. Many great stories and a ton of RP!

Could not say it better. France, you have a soul of a poet.

[France (DoE)]

France has voted. Difficult month for voting. Many great stories and a ton of RP! Again, I congratulate Israel, Russia and Turkey on a civil and thoughtful debate over events. IMO it is very important to the health and future of diplo gaming to have such discussions. And it could have easily descended into a personal battle, and it did not. Kudos!

"Apolyton" is not hosting diplogames, we're just a platform and anybody can host diplogames here.
I personally am not hosting (and playing in) two full diplogames at one time.

I wonder if it's a good idea to spread the diplo community out over two sites (since it's quite a small community)
On the other hand, maybe it'll generate some new fans for the genre.

My original reaction was similar to your first thought above, Robert. Given the difficult in getting 17 or 18 dedicated players for a game such as this is a challenge, as is finding permanent or temporary subs when someone leaves. But then I progressed to your second thought as well. Maybe we need to 'mine' for a new group of players, including some who would play at both sites.

Spread the gospel! Let diplo gaming into your lives!

[Vikings (DoE)]

The uploader for PYT appears to be down.

Edit: not anymore.

[Inca (DoE)]

Hey, Rothothaerill, I tried registering to sign up for the game but I'm not getting any e-mails :/

Consider me signed up, but I can't register to do it over there...

[Rhothaerill]

@Rhothaerill: I meant a link to this forum on Apolyton, my name isn't that important

No problem. It has been added.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

What happened:

- Arabia and Turkey were very angry about Jerusalem being build.
- Arabs declared war on Israel, Israel could stop them.
- Ottomans approached Jerusalem with too many armies.
- Ottomans and Israel negotiated peace. Israel offered land to Ottomans to compensate.
- Ottomans then accepted this proposal and official peace was signed. Included in this peace was the Ottoman support to Israel against Arabia.
- Arabia then also signed peace.
- 2 turns later Jerusalem became holy city of Judaism
- Ottomans then declared war and razed the city.

And just looking at your timeline, (again without researching what happened for myself) I can already see a big hole in your "Ottomans betrayed us" narrative. I bolded the main points of what happened, and I notice, from you own account, that the so-called peace deal with Ottomans and Arabia was signed BEFORE you made Jerusalem into a Holy city right on the Ottoman/Arab border ...

Regardless of what kind of deals you had BEFORE you made Jerusalem the Holy City, you have got to agree, that putting a holy city on someones border is, risky, offensive, aggressive, and will often result in that city being attacked because of the overwhelming culture theat holy cities produce. Especially if the parties you were making so-called peace with have not agreed in advance that you could put a Holy city there. You cant say you didnt know it would found in Jerusalem if that was you only other city/2nd city, because religion always founds in city 2 if there are only 2 cities. Everyone knows that. So you meant to get it in Jerusalem.

Now I remember you saying that you founded Judaism with th Oracle right? Now everyone knows that Oracle is one of the most prized Wonders and there is always racing to get it, so when somebody gets the Oracle it is always a suprise and a provacative let down. But one thing is sure... nobody tells enemies that they are going for the Oracle, so we know that it was a suprise.

Last thing... Jerusalem was only your second city (Tel Aviv I assume was first) so what land could you have offered them in exchange? You only had 2 cities, you didnt have any cities to give...

So what I conclude, based on your own version of events, is that you tricked Arabs and Ottomans into a peace deal without telling them of your Holy city plans, in the beleif that they would feel bound by the peace deal to leave your suprise Holy city alone, which would allow you to overwhelm them with culture down the road. You were probably thinking "Hey, I'll make this peace deal with them to save Jerusalem, before I make it a Holy City, because once it already is a holy city they would never accept it. Once I get the peace deal though, they will be trapped into peace with me and I will be able to make my holy city and they wont be able to do anything about it... Heh, Im so clever"

But what ended up happening, is that the Ottomans did not fall for this, adn as soon as they realized they had been tricked, the punished you. So now I believe, based on what you have said, that really you should have known that Jerusalem would have been razed or at least captured under the circumstances.

And, and, AND!... now that I think about it, if Jerusalem was razed basically right after it was founded, then you had no Holy Shrine there yet, so all this IC blustering about losing your sacred shrine has just been smoke and mirrors

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Ottoman player: When you joined the game I wanted to help you to understand the history of the Ottomans and Israel. Exactly to avoid that you would be surprised by any attack from Israel. It was not to belittle you.

OK fair enough. That was my mistake, sorry to accuse you of gloating since that was not your intent just my incorrect impression.

And I am complaining indeed, about 3 civs ganging up on Israel. I am not complaining about Jerusalem being razed. What I said was that Israel was already a behind-small civ since the razing of Jerusalem, and that's why we can't affort to pay that much.

Please link me to one of my posts where I am OOC complaining about the razing of Jerusalem.
Once again: you can't find it b/c it's not there.

Well thanks for at least admitting that you are complaining. That is at least something. Now to your second point, and maybe we will never agree on this, but to me, saying "Israel was already a behind-small civ since the razing of Jerusalem, and that's why we can't" (do this that or the other thing), IS COMPLAINING. That is EXACTLY what complaining is... You are complaining that Russia's demands are unreasonable and using the razing of Jerusalem way back at the beginning of the game as your excuse. THAT IS COMPLAINING about the razing of Jerusalem. Can't you see that?

To illustrate:

If I get pulled over and ticketed for speeding or running a stop sign, and I say to the policeman / judge "Well this isnt fair... you see I just can't pay this ticket because I got fired from my job last week" ... That is complaining about losing your job! It is also complaining about the ticket, and it is also trying to give a excuse/reason for not paying, but it is STILL COMPLAINING about the reason you can't pay, ie., you lost your job. Saying you cant pay Russia because you lost Jerusalem is COMPLAINING about losing Jerusalem.


That's one thing, the other is that Jerusalem was razed. There is no Jerusalem. There is a Turkish founded city named Damascus where I guess Jerusalem used to be. Its not like Turkey captured Jerusalem and renamed it. So every time you call Damascus Jerusalem, you are complaining about losing Jerusalem. It is like an old woman who loses her house, the land is sold, bulldozed and a Hospital is built there. Every time the old woman passes the hospital she says "There is my house." But it is not her house, it is a Hospital where her house used to be. She is calling the hospital "her house" to remind you how sad it was that she lost her house and how sorry you should feel for her about it... SHE IS COMPLAINING about losing her house. And that is exactly what Israel does everytime you refer to Jerusalem, especially when you call Damascus Jerusalem. You are COMPLAINING about losing Jerusalem.

As I said many times. Complain about it all you want, just don't try to claim you are not complaining about it.

Finally, I thought your challenge was so outrageous that I actually just randomly clicked back a ways into the threads and started linking all the time you complained about losing Jerusalem... I lost count and gave up looking because there was no point in continuing after finding so many complaints... but it was a lot, so your statement that "I cant find a single example" was just a little funny. There are so many I just put them in a spoiler

Spoiler:

A top civ that doesn't tech for 10-15 turns may become a subtop civ.
A behind civ that can't tech for 10-15 turns becomes a death end civ. There's no perspective anymore.

England is still a top civ, look at turkey, they are strong and big.
How can you compare that to Israel? We were already far behind when the first war started.
Remember that Israel got an early kick already when our 2nd city and holy city was razed in the very beginning of the game. We have been behind all the time. And your offers would push us back even further. Harming a big civ doesn't compare to harming a small civ.

You compare apples with oranges.

Russia took Tel Aviv, my capital.
This game is not fun for me anymore (refering to the explanation of a diplo game).
All 'measured war' rules have been broken. I wonder if Russia and Turkey even have read the terms of a diplo game.

I will not call for a measured war vote and I will just continue to play this game.
I will just continue the game and try to find some fun somewhere.
But Israel is completely cripled right now. Most of it's most important cities are gone, occupied or occupied in the past resulting in most buildings gone.

The list is:
- Jerusalem (holy city in early game: early game development hugely harmed)
- Tel Aviv (capital, most important scientific city, piramids city)
- Ekron (Razed 3 times)
- Hebron (occupied and returned)
- Sidon (occupied by Mali)
- Nain (occupied by Turks)

Israel has now 3 cities left over that were never occupied.

Israel is in a war with two civs that are just not accepting any reasonable terms for peace.
All they want is a terrible load of money that will criple Israel even more.
When Ekron was requested, Ekron was offered by Israel, but then it was rejected.
Then Israel offered a lot of money, which was rejected.
Now Israel offered the holy city of christianity, which produces a huge load of money. It was rejected again.
It's not as if Israel is stubborn and doesn't want to comply.
Israel has already capitulated many times, but Russia/Turkey just do not care and want to criple Israel beyond reasonable diplo limits.

This is not what diplogames are about and it's clearly defined in the rules/definitions of this game.
Many times I have raised this issue, but it was ignored all the time.

I am bringing it up to make clear that the fun for me is totally gone.
The diplo spirit is completely broken. This is not a diplogame anymore.
I will continue nonetheless.

Some phrases from the rules and definitions from the main post of this thread:

Dictionary of Terms; measured war:

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.

Dictionary of Terms; Diplomacy Game:

Another purpose of the game is to keep it interesting for everybody. Nations won't be annihilated or broken in such a way that the fun is gone for a player. On the other hand, players must be willing to compromise when losing a war and be willing to accept terms of their enemy.

For the record: I do not want anything to be undone. The game is going as it's going. OOC influences on the game suck. We will just let this war continue. But please do not do this to other civs. England has been hurt way too much as well, though England is still a world class subtop civ.

Keep in mind that these games last for months. People invest in it.
Civilization is a game where it's easy to gang up on another civ with 3 players in such a way that that civ has no chance in hell to win. We have diplogames to prevent this from happening in very long games where people invest so much into.

The backstabber thing makes sense IC, but it doesn't ooc.
Israel isn't a backstabbing nation. It has always had an eternal vendetta with the Turks since the razing of Jerusalem. Most of my story posts were about how we hate the Turks and how we long for Jerusalem. I was surprised when the Turks approached me to allie with them. I was like: WTF? do you not know how much we hate you? Then I ended many of my messages to Turkey and Russia with "For Jerusalem!" and then they still did not get it.

Israel did not backstab the turks, we just continued our eternal vendetta against them trying to get Jerusalem. Which would only be a response to the terrible betrayal of the Turks in the early game. If we backstabbed then we only counter-backstabbed.
We were completely trustworthy towards the French (We got an offer from the Russians to get Jerusalem if we would backstab the French, which I did not accept b/c of not willing to betray the French).

Of course what we did to the Turks was a very very evil action. But it was not unepected and it was not out of the blue. The Israelian hate to the Turks was the core of my story. Even the turn before I talked with Russia and ended with: "For Jerusalem", Russia then answered with: "for Jerusalem, hehe". I'm sure that they didn't got it.

The most terrible backstab in this game came from Mali, btw.
No offense, civs are allowed to backstab.
But I get the idea that many players ooc think: "Israel deserves this b/c they are terrible backstabbers"
Those players do not really understand what's going on and believe the IC propaganda (good work Turkey) too much in an ooc way.

England, you are still a sub-top civ. That doesn't compare to Israel.
20 turns of being complete idle (including building nothing!) hurts a behind civ like Israel even more.
Add to that that we had already suffered from our betrayal. We lost Ekron (razed) and Hebron had lost most of it's buildings, including all cultural buildings, which was terrible for our cultural war with the Arabians.

Add to that that the Turks really can't be trusted. twice they have broken a just signed peace agreement. (first with Jerusalem's razing, which happened 3 turns after signing peace, then this current time, when peace was broken 12 turns after signing it). Add to that that the demand made first (give up Ekron) wasn't good enough enymore when I accepted it.
The Turks have proven to me that it's hard to trust them. (despite that they claim it the other way around).
The Russiand increased their demands as well overnight. Suddenly another 100gpt was added without nothing happening.

So the offers were both outragious and untrustworthy.
Yes, what happened to England was outragious as well. But England is still an important nation. If I hear the numbers of armies you can bring up, your ships. You're still a power to deal with. Israel is now most probably at 10% of what England is.
Cutting 50% from a #1 nation doesn't compare to cutting 70% from a #12 nation.
You simply can't compare the English situation to the Israelian situation.

I was making deals. I gave up Sidon to the Mali and was willing to give up Bethlehem to the Russians. Ekron to the Turks.
Not a single moment did the Russians/Turks negotiate. It was always exactly what they wanted, or nothing.
I doubt that ever before a civ in diplogaming gave up so much for peace as Israel did offer this time.

Negotiations were always very hard b/c I was always accused of being untrustable.
Unfortunately the Israelian storyline and roleplaying was never understand.

That's not a problem. What happens IC is IC. All your excuses in your last post are valid b/c they're IC reasons and those are always valid.
Unfortunately I was dealing with 2 very very strong paranoid people that didn't understand Israel at all and explained everything negatively. Again: that is valid and acceptable.
In the end it doesn't change the fact that Israel is totally cripled now, gang banged by the Russians, the Turks and the Mali. (And the Arabs).

Unfortunately you only wanted to see Israel as an untrustworthy civilization player. Never in the role it was playing.
If you would have offered Jerusalem in exchange of all of Israel I would have accepted most probably (though I never wanted to put it on the table myself)

Israel was dealt with as one deals with a nation in a ordinary MP game, not as a role playing civ that tells a story.
Neither when Jerusalem was razed, nor now.

You are thinking from a gamer POV, not from a character point of view.

Why do you expect Israel suddenly wanting to be friends with Russia/Turkey after everything that happened?
In no diplo-war you can expect your enemy to turn into your friend if they have to give things up to become you friend.
If you want to become friends then end the war without conditions. (like how Turkey and me made peace initially, that was a step into the right direction).

It makes no sense to make peace with a lot of demands and then think that the other party will not want to get back at you.
Of course I would try to get back Bethlehem later, like I still want to get back Jerusalem.
And of course I would always have wanted to get back Ekron after I offered it. And when I gave Sidon to the Mali it was only with the thought in mind that I would try to get it back later. What else do you expect?

And that's why we could not make peace. You did not only want to make me pay, you also wanted me to accept that I had to pay and would never get it back.
That's just silly.
All you can do is accept payments and defend what you got. (= defend Bethlehem with huge stacks).
If you want ensure peace then don't ask huge terms.

And why I prefer to give up Bethlehem above paying 6000 gold? (apart from the hope to regain control over Bethlehem later)
1. I could immediately go on as an independant nation. All debts are paid.
2. when I refused the 6000 gold I didn't know yet that the Mali and the Russians would also invade me. Russia didn't declare war after our first attack on Turkey. How could I know?

rule of thumb:
- friendship = giving back everything the other civ lost (end WW2)
- making demands and especially territorial demands: secure your bordres b/c they will attack you again one day. (end WW1)

@England:
peace offers:
* made to Israel
1. give up Ekron to Turkey (accepted by Israel)
2. give up Sidon to Mali (accepted and done by Israel)
3. give about 6000 gold and Ekron (refused)

*made by ISrael
4. Israel becomes a vasal to Russia (refused by Russia)
5. give about 3000 gold (refused by Russia)
6. give Bethlehem up (refused by Turks/Russia)

So there were 6 possible peace suggestions, 5 were acceptable to Israel, 1 was acceptable to Russia/Turkey.
That one offer received a counter offer.
All 6 offers were of course more complicated then described above but this describes more or less the nature of the 6 offers.
So England, what you say just makes no sense at all.

Especially if you add to that that when that 6000 gpt offer was made Israel didn't even know yet that Mali and Russia were about to attack him as well.

Many peace offers were made, very fair ones considering the damage Israel did

Worst nonsense ever.
Israel's action did not more then end the life of like 20 units.
Your view of what is 'very fair' is absurd like always.
Especially if you consider that the Turks took Israel's holy city and already razed Ekron and took Hebron after we killed their 20 units.
And made peace after that which they broke immediately.

*sigh* your bias is bigger then the universe, as always.

[England (DoE)]