Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[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.

[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

[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

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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 .....)

[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.

[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

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

As for your "suppositions":

A. All her neighbours should be aggressive
-and
B. All her neighbours should be skilled players

Yes this seems right. First, your complaints about India and Mongolia's starts (poor resources, land + choke points) seem to be a red flag from the Mapmaker that you were supposed to be aggressive toward China, to get more resources and avoid being trapped... When you get alot of resources, it engcourages you to focus on developing what you have. When you have few resources you (should) expand to get more. Second, IIRC the players in Europe are high-level, Asia are mid-level and the ones in Africa and the Americas are the novice-level. So it was reasonable to expect India and Japan to be reasonably skilled players.

C. All of those neighbours should be more inclined to deal with each other than with China

No... this is not necessary. You did not have to deal with each other at all to avoid being dominated by China. All you (India, Japan, and Mongolia) had to do, is recognize that you could not be peaceful and co-operative with China. If all of you were acting against China as you were supposed to, China would have been contained, but her resources would have allowed her to remain competitive. That's how it was supposed to work, but India and Japan chickened out.

D. China's initial headstart would NOT enable them to gain a production advantage which they could use to seize strategically valuable positions
-and
E. China would not be conducting any diplomacy to make her safe from harm.

No this is not correct. China having more resources is irrelevant until they get them developed and connected. You dont need resources to REX, you just need settlers. Everyone can build settlers, everyone can tech slavery to slave settlers... so one has very little to do with the other... especially early in the game. Mids become available very early with Masonry, so sacrificing early settlers for Mids was one of the culprits here, not a lack of resources. Again this is exactly what was supposed to happen if India and Japan did not fufill their roles in containing China... and this is precisely WHY India cant simultaneously complain about the map and still be cooperative with China.

F. China's superior production and tech would not make them too scary to attack for nations that were poorer?

That is a courage issue, not a Map issue... China is too scary?!? If you are scared to face China then what are you complaining about? If a nation has superior resources, being afraid of them will not change that... only facing them will.

So it is not any more reasonable for the mapmaker to assume that civs would cower in fear from a wealthy nation than it was for him to assume that civs would challenge a wealthy nation to contain them and prevent them from getting too powerful. At least it seems clear which was the correct option.

Note that if just one of those suppositions fails, then the entire notion of balance in the region fails.

As I have shown, this statement is just flat out incorrect.

[Ottoman Empire (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??

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.

How silly of Mongolia to make the Pyramids, they were "supposed" to make an all out army and invade China." Seriously!?

Yes, seriously! That is exactly what we are saying! I don't understand what is so impossible to comprehend about that. The Mongols are supposed to act like MONGOLS, not Egyptians... Building Mids at the expense of REX was a very bad decision, and it at least partly to blame for this situation. especially when the good land was all in one direction.

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

Uh... is that a serious question? If so, the Answer is War... REX... Culture... Alliances with the nations around the wealthy one... you know, Civ 101 type stuff. You seem to suggest that if someone has more resources they automatically win.

... well first of all, I took over India AFTER

That is a seperate issue. All that means is that the person prior dropped the ball, rather than you... It DOES NOT mean that the map was unfair as you suggest.

China had city spammed to contain India AND city spammed to contain Mongolia

Right, so basically China outplayed India and Mongolia... because if someone city spams to contain you, and you find yourself trapped, there is no choice but to fight your way out. Mongolia did this, and India did not. That has nothing to do with map balance and eveything to do with poor decisionmaking. Also, it is proof that China recognized early where the key strategic territory was and claimed it... and THAT is the real reason... not China's resources that China is doing so well vis-a-vis her neighbors.

Of course, due blame should be handed to Japan for sucking up to China rather than challenging her

My thoughts exactly

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

Yes, it seems that way... since you readily admit that Japan was foolish not to "challenge" China and you say the previous India player played poorly by letting China trap India.

A civ with vast resources and a defensive advantage? That was the premise for balance?

No, that was the premise for China... ie making China perform in a historically accurate way.

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?

Is that a serious question?... Obviously, to encourage India to either contest China or Arabia early, possibly by expanding into southeast Asia. That makes it even more obvious that India was expected to be pushing back against China, further justifying China's superior resources.

Certainly the original Indian player did a crap job

Right... but then, by your own admission, the Map is not to blame... it was poor play.

[India (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!?

Also, how is a civ which has very few resources compete against one that has more than twice as many? 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. It is difficult to catch the metaphorical ball when your enemy so greatly outstrips you in early production. Of course, due blame should be handed to Japan for sucking up to China rather than challenging her, but has the map maker seriously designed the map to be balanced on the premise that all neighbours of China would attack her? 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?

Certainly the original Indian player did a crap job, but once again, was the premise of China's balance that:

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

Note that if just one of those suppositions fails, then the entire notion of balance in the region fails.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Basically explains this whole situation and why the start looks less fair than it was. Hard to REX when you've thrown whatever it is, 500 hammers into that.

Exxxxxactly... I did not even realize they had Mids' but that was like 4 early settlers they gave up to get those...

[Inca (DoE)]

In no way am I bashing their playing style, as they've managed to do a hell of a lot with what little they have, and much respect OOC...

They've got the Mids.

Basically explains this whole situation and why the start looks less fair than it was. Hard to REX when you've thrown whatever it is, 500 hammers into that.

That said, no way in hell I'd want that start

And, yeah, a lot of Incaco has crap for resources, so I don't want to hear any whining There are like 3 solid city/resource locations and then a bunch of places splitting 1 resource. But I had no neighbors (although I feel like I should've been more compensated for the barbs+jungles combo, but w/e it's worked out well enough). So, despite have #3 spot in land area, I have like 14 non-whale resources right now in all of my mainland territory, a lot of which were calendar ones or weren't settled until I had Education due to distance.