Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Russia (DoE)]

I think it is too early to discuss the things in an ongoing game, but will anyway address few points:

This from the English who threatened to raze my holy city and three other coastal cities, forcing the ACE into a peace we didn't want and having to give back all the cities we acquired.

It was not England who threatened you - it was me who introduced at your attention the real threat that the English fleet and army can raze all your 3 poorly defended cities in Scandinavia, including your Holy City. And you just took the life-saving belt I threw to you I can hear someone calling "speculation" and "bluff", but this would have been not exactly the truth

1, The game won't end in 80 turns, we will continue until someone achieve a real victory, it was a mistake setting the game for 500 turns instead of the normal 750.

Of course! Why would we want to end prematurely such a great game?

2, India would had absolutely no chance in this war if they'd just capture cities: so are we saying that India shouldn't even have a chance, but have to endure whatever China wish to do with them? (They also threatened India with seizing their remaining cities and destroying their infrastructure unless they surrender)

India have absolutely no chance in the current situation too... And with the other things I agree to some degree.

3, Do you guys realize what is happening with the Azteca? It's nice of them that they are not complaining, but still..

What is happening with the Azteca is direct and logical consequence of their in-game and in-character position. Not to mention they willingly gave away 2/3 or 3/4 of their cities to other nations while I am not intending to keep any of their cities. Even the Viks saw the logic of the situation and proposed back Tlaxcala, but the Azteca just refused it. I think they just lost hope they can achieve something big. Great way of implementing this in-game though - the rebellion.


David is remembered trough the millenniums because he challenged Goliath and won. But this came at the cost of hundreds of Davids who stand against other Goliaths and as expected and logical, have lost.

[Inca (DoE)]

No, I have no clue what's happening with the Azteca. I don't pay attention to African politics... On that note, I'm a bit pissed at the Aztecs for stealing my late-game playbook now I have to come up with some other conclusion, because my "split my empire in a civil war" approach is just going to look like I'm copying them. If the Azteca want to call the measured war rule, I'll 100% support it. To be a bit hypocritical, I'm not terribly happy about what's happened to them either, but then selling a major city to someone on another continent...

Well, the Indians, I dunno, could've surrendered then. I don't see the issue with that, depending on terms, and if the terms were ridiculous, well, that's why we have a measured war rule. Just because England and a couple other players haven't called that rule yet doesn't mean it's in poor sport to do so. If India wants out of the war and a lasting, non-punitive peace, they can request it be so. Instead, they want to keep fighting, so okay, China can get involved. And if China doesn't mind losing over a third of its cities, well, that's fine also. If China wants a reload due to the measured war rule, okay, I'll support that as I've said.

Sometimes, yeah, you don't have a chance in multiplayer games. This wasn't supposed to be straight military game anyway, so they can focus on some different goal and role if the military side isn't working. I mean, they did basically approach most of the game as pacifists, maybe it's time to go back to that approach... Some of my best story telling and involvement came when I was 100% isolated, hacking through jungles and getting constantly raided by barbs for the first third of the game at 17th place or so. You don't need a strong military or a large empire to enjoy this framework. Yeah, it helps, but it's not necessary. It's a crutch in many ways...

[America (DoE)]

I'm back! Going to e-mail sub now and read up on everything that happened later today.

[Arabia2 (doe)]

If I can think of one good thing about civ5 I think it would be that there is no instant city razing.
deleted rest of the comment, too much ooc stuff, let's wait till the end of this game

[Robert]

We should disable city razing in the next game

I'm RP, not tier 1, but I've never been absent from this game. I may be not that vocal anymore b/c of reallife stuff, but I am playing every turn.

This game has been more violent then former diplogames, what India is doing is in line with it, I think.
It's quite harsh, to raze 3 or 4 cities. Yet again, it's not forbidden. It's a bit of a problem though that China isn't here. Where is he?

[Arabia2 (doe)]

Technical question: Can you see the pictures in my post? I can see them with this account, but not with the other or when I'm logged out.. why is that? :/

edit: I've uploaded them to an image hoster (before that they were uploaded from my computer), but now they are shown in double.. at least for me.. Why does it show the attached files at the end of the post?? I'm getting annoyed that I can't figure out how to post pictures correctly.. .

[England (DoE)]

I see them.

[England (DoE)]

This from the English who threatened to raze my holy city and three other coastal cities, forcing the ACE into a peace we didn't want and having to give back all the cities we acquired.

Riiiiiight!

I've been deliberately silent for awhile, having mostly lost interest in this game, but I just had to post about the hypocrisy of this statement.

I'll go into this in detail when I get caught up on my history of the Great War in the story thread. Stay tuned!

[France (DoE)]

This from the English who threatened to raze my holy city and three other coastal cities, forcing the ACE into a peace we didn't want and having to give back all the cities we acquired.

Riiiiiight!

I've been deliberately silent for awhile, having mostly lost interest in this game, but I just had to post about the hypocrisy of this statement.

[India (DoE)]

I don't have time to talk for length right now, but I will be short:

China has not been crippled. They still have a larger empire, a bigger economy, a bigger army and a huge tech lead over MOST of the civs in the game. They have taken a huge hit, but they were so insanely huge that even after losing 4 cities they are still in a far far far better position than India and most other civs.

If it is ok for India to be reduced from 10 to 6 cities, why is it not ok for China to be reduced from 11 to 7? I am going to put this simply, if it is not considered an excession of measured war to reduce a civ by 40% before, then doing so now can not be so either. China still has 7 huge extremely rich cities as well as the other assets mentioned above. I expect their huge army to smash me, but I also plan to give them a hell of a fight. It will be the most fun I will have had in this game for some time now. Keep in mind this is my revenge for China blocking my expansion chances, supporting Japan in a completely unbased sneak attack etc etc. If they are allowed to screw me, why should I not be allowed to do the same to them?

Measured war is a rule that prevents people from vanquishing other civs to such an extent that it will no longer be fun for them to play. China is still in a better position than half the civs in the game. If reducing India by 40%, squashing Mongolia into 7 awful city sites, stealing land from the pitifully poor Americans, and so on does not invoke measured war, then for China to be moved from the top position to the 4th or 5th position is in no way unfair.

Why is it ok to knock a civ from place 11 to place 12, but not to knock a civ in place 2 to place 5? In the latter case the big civ is still far ahead of the former, but that is unreasonable and unmeasured war? In the former case the civ is way way worse off. Are you guys really saying that small civs can be smothered, weakened and squashed, but it is illegal to do the same against big civs?

I see measured war in the following way: no civ shall be hurt so hard that they can not recover. If India can recover from what China and Japan did to it, then China can recover from this. Anything else is hypocrisy.

[India (DoE)]

as for China's presence, I had no idea until the turn I attacked, after that I checked to see when China usually plays his turns and saw that he has not played for a while.

As for the razings: No chance in hell could I ever fight China militarily, yet the entire game they have used their position to squash me. I told them in the early game that if they did so they would eventually regret it. I have been planning this for some time now, the Japanese attack delayed me, then the war result accelerated my plans.

I did what I did to put China and India on an equal footing so I would have at least a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Why is it wrong for me to reduce China to my strength so that I can win a war against them? Am I supposed to accept mediocracy and be unable to do anything about it? Why can I be crushed into mediocrity, but China can not?

I am basing my "measured war limit" on the notion that I will not reduce China below the level of the weakest civs in the game. Or is there a rule that says that a top tier civ should not be hurt too much?

[Vikings (DoE)]

I think it is too early to discuss the things in an ongoing game, but will anyway address few points:

It was not England who threatened you - it was me who introduced at your attention the real threat that the English fleet and army can raze all your 3 poorly defended cities in Scandinavia, including your Holy City. And you just took the life-saving belt I threw to you I can hear someone calling "speculation" and "bluff", but this would have been not exactly the truth

You told me that the English intended to raze my cities. I would NOT have asked for peace if all they intended to do was capture them. I could have captured them back later when Neandor and France returned some of the units I sent off to them. But if the cities were razed then I would have been crippled for the rest of the game.

Of course! Why would we want to end prematurely such a great game?

Because you already own half the world through yourself (the strongest nation who feels they can get away with anything because they actually can) and your horde of cronies and hounds.

[Russia (DoE)]

Hah! What is said when enemies are taunting at each-other isnt exactly a reason one of them to get scared and give up, isnt it? And I am not sure I said that England INTEND to do this. About what I am sure I did said is that I will make sure they DONT DO this. (I have sceenies, but its not worth to go and check - after all we were enemies back then and I kept what I DID promised that I will do to the letter, didn't I?

It is whole different story that you and your allies allowed this to be a real option for England to consider

Because you already own half the world through yourself (the strongest nation who feels they can get away with anything because they actually can) and your horde of cronies and hounds.

Well, this is how you feel at this moment - maybe tomorrow you will feel different. If you just give up, you will never know.

[Vikings (DoE)]

Well, this is how you feel at this moment - maybe tomorrow you will feel different. If you just give up, you will never know.

No. I really won't. There is nothing that the ACE can do in this game anymore.

You outright own the Ottomans, the English, the Mali, the Zulus, the Native Americans and (I guess) to a lesser extent the Arabians and the Incas. The Incas say they are not your allies but back when we were at war they wouldn't help the ACE against you, and there is no way that the Ottomans could have gotten such a large stack of destroyers built so quickly a few turns ago without Incan help. The Incas also ignored any American-continent protocol and settled near American lands a turn before me because I was actually asking the Americans if I could settle the northern American oil tile. Until the new player took over the Arabians were in your pocket as well and you've bullied the new player and told him there would be repercussions if they sold oil to us.

Four of the six top players (according to score) are part of your alliance, and China might as well be since they decided that they hate the Vikings, which means they would side with you in anything that threatens the ACE. The ACE's only allies are America and the Aztecs (who have been decimated because you and your dog decided that you didn't want the ACE to have oil). We can't even directly respond to your aggression because of the treaty.

I applaud you. You've played the game perfectly. You win. I just can't see playing 80 (or even worse 330) more turns of doing nothing because I can't do anything. I have no desire to write anything more in the story threads. So what is the point of playing?

[mzprox]

I don't know too well what's going on in this game, but there is always a chance that the 2nd, 3rd etc civs decide that 2nd or 3rd place is not good enough. It's an other question that there is no point of them being allies at all. Part of the game is to play for victory not to let your ally win