Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Did we do a vote in August for July? I dont remember any results being posted...

[Native America (DoE)]

We did, they weren't, IIRC.

[Aztecs (DoE)]

The in game storyline asks for cities to be placed under the protection of neighbouring countries, to prevent famine and utter destruction.

* Therefore rebels ask for protection of the neighbouring countries. If the naval blockade continues, nothing will remain from Azteca. Save the civilians!
Only the neighbouring countries can control enough of the countryside to prevent famine.
> Tijuana rebels are already under protection of Native America.
> Texcocan rebels ask for protection of United States.
> Calixtl asks for protection of the Incan empire.

The Natives already accepted. They Inca's are contemplating it, and the Americans say they can not accept according to the game rules.
That last thing may be the case: so I ask the enemy block (Russia, Ottomans, Natives, and Inca) what they find of this particular case.

[Russia (DoE)]

I think those rules are made for purpose to avoid this cheesy way of saving your cities of capturing when attacked, but I am OK with these city trades, only from storyline perspective, as otherwise if you wanted to save them from harm, there is much easier way - just accept back your Oil city.

And dont label the Natives as your enemies - being friends with me doesnt mean they are helping me with something particular to hurt you.

[Native America (DoE)]

If I may throw in my own two-cents worth:

I certainly haven't taken control of Tijuana out of some desire to add the city to my country; I've been racking my brains to figure out how NOT to end up with Tijuana given that my cultural borders are slowly enveloping it anyway. And I'm perfectly happy to hand it back to the Aztecs, or whomever succeeds to the "Aztec" nation just as soon as I can. Or not, as the story goes.

Which brings me to my point: regardless the "rules", I think that, assuming the transfers aren't accomplished to avoid the consequences of the war, but rather to drive the story/plot, it should be allowed. I personally find the story line that is developing quite fascinating: the way the Turks, Aztecs and Russians have taken my somewhat off-hand comment about selling a city and run with it into a MAJOR story line for the game is awesome. The revised cartoon pics in the Russian post #74 from the August thread stil makes me giggle; the frantic Aztec press communiques in the heat of the chaos of revolution and war are quite realistic; the pounding of the door by the Turkish fleet and general, the description of the sinking of the fleet, etc. quite fun to read. It's the best story line since the Great War thread.

IF we can all work the city "trades" into the story line, and deal with them realistically, and not just take blatant advantage of the fact that they are now effectively out of the reach of the Russo-Turkish forces, THEN no one should have cause to complain. The Russian and Turkish players can weave the situation into their storylines: outrage or satisfaction or whatever, depending upon the situation. Those of us who receive the cities can create difficulties for ourselves, rather than taking naked advantage of the situation. The Aztecs can strive to hang on, in the hopes that the situation resolves with a return to sovreignity for some faction of their nation; perhaps the cities will be re-patriated, or perhaps not, depending upon the story.

Now, if the Aztecs had tried to gift the most menaced cities in their heartland just a turn before the Russian attack, THAT would certainly have been the sort of thing the rules were intended to address. It seems to me that's not what happened, and if the Russians are actually razing cities they capture, it's not like they can complain that the transfers are depriving them of their rightful spoils of war.

One point I do wish to bring up: I'm assuming that the current story line for the Aztecs, and the way the attacks have gone, have some at least tacit approval from the Aztec player. Otherwise, I do have to wonder at exactly how "measured" this war currently is?


Or, on review, what the Russians just said (though they apparently admire brevity).

[Arabia2 (doe)]

My two cents:

Many rules have/guideline have been broken: the city trade during war, the aztec double move, Russia starts the war with a double move, measured war concept thrown out of the window, but until the war-participians are fine with it me too. I just hope this behavior don't get rewarded. (I mean the strategy : let's hurt a small nation so much that he will not want to play anymore then it is fine to take all their land) Not saying that is the case now, just don't let it be the case.

[Aztecs (DoE)]

@ all:

as strange as it may sound: the way things are developing has my approval.

The way Russia and Ottomans acted is completely within the central storyline they had. Aztecs have been always very much opposed to this line, so it would not be very logical if we would roll over the moment Russia intervened (as it was looming over us for hundreds of years..). And of course they go ranting about the situation around Tlaxcala oil. Without the oil all was lost anyway, as then the sea was lost.

Furthermore we Aztecs tried to make as much as possible from a bad position (we entered around 1000 AD), and were two times (cleverly) tricked by the Ottomans resulting in the massive loss of ships.
(the second time was the worst: the entire aztec fleet was lost, while in viking harbour, and protected by around 30 units, but as Ottomans were on open borders with the vikings, while being in war with aztecs, they simply moved one unit into the harbour and then 30+ ships were lost) (so Suleiman wasn't such a big hero after all but great story )

Now I am getting as much fun as can be had from a dead position. And when it's over, it's over..

[Russia (DoE)]

First and most important of all - great attitude of all involved. How well strategical it was played is another story. I have a lot of thoughts and would love to discuss all this, but will do it in my lunch-time in couple of hours.

[Aztecs (DoE)]

This is about the mindset I am in (me being the black knight )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

Famous lines:

" It is just a scratch"

"What are you going to do, bleed on me? "

" All right we call it a draw "

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Monty Python..."None shall pass!" I know that one without even clicking the link... classic.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

I noticed the turn just rolled and America is logged in. Just going on the record that this violates turn order/DM rules. I will have to see what they did to determine whether to ask for a reload.

[America (DoE)]

America gave in to all your requests so I thought that there was no need to stick to the turn order, as we agreed upon.
This is simply b/c I am a sub for America and I do not want to pull them into a this war without their approval.

I also rejected the city trade b/c of the rules.
But I accepted it the 2nd time since it seemed like everybody was ok with it.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Oh I did not realize America player was still gone. But anyway from your PM it seems Ok, so our agreement stands based on what you are saying, I haven't logged in to check yet though...

Not thrilled about the city gifts, they smack of denial of right of conquest, but I will log in and see what was done before making any premature judgments.

[Native America (DoE)]

Actually, we all got together the other night at the bar and threw a dart at the board and it landed in "Screw the Ottoman Bastages Over!" Now you know.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Actually, we all got together the other night at the bar and threw a dart at the board and it landed in "Screw the Ottoman Bastages Over!" Now you know.