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.
) to deny me the chance to move into first position. They listened to my arguments about how it was a request in consideration of me giving them advance notice etc., but ultimately, I think that they were so convinced that if only they could move first, they would be able to move their whole army into Ekron and prevent me from taking it... So that's what they did, over my objections. Of course there wad no way for them to know that I really didn't want to attack Ekron anyway, I just wanted them to give it up willingly... so they came to the conclusion that it was ALL important for them to move first, because otherwise they would lose Ekron.


Leave a comment: