Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Inca (DoE)]

Glad that you're going to continue on, India. I don't think there's any issue being a "poor loser" given what you have been up against. The rule is there to prevent players from becoming discouraged or overly frustrated, and the threshold for that is going to be different for everyone. So, just because England puts up a good fight and continues on doesn't mean someone else is a poor loser or a weaker player just because they have a lesser tolerance for it in a game that's supposed to be about having fun and telling stories.

We can make the OOC rules look IC like. I have started to provide an IC method through the CIJ. Something like that, a League of Nations or "international intervention" of sorts (please, have a seat China and India and Japan, we need to talk...).

[India (DoE)]

Yes, I am certain that talking can solve our problems.

(irony...)

[Inca (DoE)]

The point was we have the OOC vote here and then translate it into story posts through some sort of "international league" vote or something. Given that the UN is coming up as a wonder, it makes sense to start a pre-UN league now anyway. This would be a good cause for it, and I have laid some groundwork, although it seems to have not taken, perhaps due to the complicated nature of it, or perhaps because no one is interested save the Arabs.

[Japan (DoE)]

Is the game down?

[Russia (DoE)]

It is server-side paused until we find sub for China and whoever else is being subbed.

[Israel (DoE)]

Israel is playing all by itself and all on it's own. No subs, no subbing going on.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Is this a temp or permanent sort of sub needed?

As I said a permanent sub is needed for the Zulu as I now refuse to sub for them anymore since it can't be done quietly.

No way, if a player subs for an other civ it must be public.

Sorry, I disagree and can not be persuaded on this issue. I have played AND hosted tons of pitboss and know all too well how the issue of subs affect the game. Subbing ruins the game because it makes the game feel like a farce. The more public the subbing is, the more quickly the game is ruined, period. I have seen this play out over and over again. The point of the sub is to be quiet so that people can continue playing as normal.

You are correct that the rules say something about subbing being public. What the rules say, is when subbing, you should put the phrase (sub) in the civs name so everyone can see it on PYT, that's it, as far as it being public. And this rule is hardly ever followed and NEVER enforced so it's moot. Plus PYT is not even in sync with civ names, so it wouldnt show up in a timely fashion anyway. So in other words, the rule about subs being public is ineffective when practiced and not being practiced anyway so... fuhgetaboudit .

Notification that a civ needs a sub and then a one-time notification that a sub has been found is plenty of notice in terms of the fact that there is a sub. We don't need alot of hulabaloo over it, and we certainly dont need to be reminded of it every turn. The idea is to get a sub for the civ quickly and quietly and hope that people forget about it quickly so the game can continue smoothly, without people remembering that one of the civs is a farce.

I will stay and fight to the death.

Thank you India. You can never be a sore loser when you stay and fight no matter the odds. Sore losers are the ones who say "Im not winning so the game isn't fun for me" and then quit.

[Arabia2 (doe)]

And for example what if I had asked your help against the Zulus not knowing that you are subbing them? I would be very very mad if it turns out later.

Of course it's always bad when a player plays more than one civilization, even if those civilizations were allies before (because alliances are not premanent, but subbing could make them to be). So this should be done only if there is no other solution and only temporarly.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

And for example what if I had asked your help against the Zulus not knowing that you are subbing them? I would be very very mad if it turns out later.

This statement perfectly illustrates exactly why subbing MUST be done quietly. Already the Don Quixote Windmill dragons are being fought

1. This hypothetical is absurd. Arabia has no reason to need help against the Zulus so the situation you describe would never happen. Not to mention the fact that Turkey is openly allied with Zulu, and was fighting a War to PROTECT the Zulus since before you joined the game. Why would ANYONE ask for Turkey's help against the Zulus? Especially since it is well known IC that all African Nations are under Russo-Turk protection since the Great War. So your hypothetical just doesn't make any sense or have any relevance.

2. Even assuming you did make such an absurd request (Turkey help Arabia attack Zulu), I would have just said "No, Zulu are allies of Turkey" and that would be the end of it. What would be the great harm or grievance to Arabia in that? You are trying to manufacture a controversy where none exists, which is exactly what always happens in these types of situations, people start coming up with all these imaginary overblown hypothetical grievances and conspiracy theories. This is exactly why public subbing does not work.

3. Most importantly what you are admitting is exactly what I have been saying all along. You would be mad to find out about a subbing situation. That is always how it goes, people are always resentful and suspicious of civs being subbed, whether they find out later or whether they are reminded about it every turn. The difference is when the DONT KNOW about it, what they dont know (or don't remember) does not hurt them.

4. To turn your absurd hypothetical around... What if when you joined the game, without reading any of the history (and therefore being oblivious to the obvious Turk-Zulu alliance) you formulated a grand plan to invade the Zulus assembled your forces, developed your strategy, and actually did ask Turkey to help you invade Zulu, and I immediately informed you that Turkey was subbing for Zulu. What would happen then? You would resent that too, that you wasted all that planning and time, and then you would be resenting it every turn, more and more, that your plan was spoiled. So either way you would be mad. That is my point. Subs should be quiet, not public and visible.

5. You never asked this anyway, so there was no harm done, even if there could have been any harm (which there couldnt have been).

Of course it's always bad when a player plays more than one civilization, even if those civilizations were allies before (because alliances are not premanent, but subbing could make them to be). So this should be done only if there is no other solution and only temporarly.

Exactly, its always bad. Thank you for making my point. That is precisely why it should be done quietly.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Yes, I am certain that talking can solve our problems.

(irony...)

"Thank U India!" Courtesy of Alanis Morrisette

Wait for it... she actually says "Thank you India"

Anyway Since India is sticking in there, I think we need subs for China, Vikings and Zulu. Isnt that right?

[Russia (DoE)]

Vikings? I am pretty sure they were here last time. I think they only complained a bit. It will be pity if the viking quit for real.

[Arabia2 (doe)]

2. Even assuming you did make such an absurd request (Turkey help Arabia attack Zulu), I would have just said "No, Zulu are allies of Turkey" and that would be the end of it. What would be the great harm or grievance to Arabia in that?

1, it was just an example
2, the harm would be that I lose the surprise on attacking whoever I want. So if I send diplo message I want to know who i'm dealing with. Alliance are not permanent. I may try to convince the Zulus to break the alliance with you and it is not fair if I don't know who am I dealing with.

But not just in diplo, I also want to know what intel is available to each player, so for example I won't send my surprise attacking fleet trough Zulu's land to attack you if I know you are subbing for them.
(I hope you are now paranoid enough .. no these are all just examples what kind of problems can come if one player subs for an other and it's not public).

4. To turn your absurd hypothetical around... What if when you joined the game, without reading any of the history (and therefore being oblivious to the obvious Turk-Zulu alliance) you formulated a grand plan to invade the Zulus assembled your forces, developed your strategy, and actually did ask Turkey to help you invade Zulu, and I immediately informed you that Turkey was subbing for Zulu. What would happen then? You would resent that too, that you wasted all that planning and time, and then you would be resenting it every turn, more and more, that your plan was spoiled. So either way you would be mad. That is my point. Subs should be quiet, not public and visible.

I don't understand what is that you don't understand.. I want to know if you are subbing for someone, so I won't ask you to help me against them.. that simple. I will ask someone else or no one.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Vikings? I am pretty sure they were here last time. I think they only complained a bit. It will be pity if the viking quit for real.

No, I'm pretty sure they already quit and either France or Neandor are subbing for them. I base that on them saying noting since making these comments:

Well I guess I don't have the correct mindset for this game then, or diplogaming in general. I can't play a game expecting to lose and have some moral victory because I've been creative. I've played out losing games to the bitter end before, but that was when I had an actual chance to make a difference in the game.

And I can't be creative with a game I'm not enjoying. Nor do I look forward to another half a year of this.

I'll be attempting to find someone to take over for me.

Apparently this login cannot create a new thread so if anyone knows anyone who wants to be a sub please let France or Neandor know.

That's the last thing Vikings said, so yea, pretty sure they quit. But they had a quick, nice, QUIET sub, so nobody noticed... which is exactly how it should be

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

1, it was just an example

It was a poor, nonsensical example. If you are trying to use a hypothetical to prove a point, then you have to use a hypothetical that makes sense, or the point that you are trying to make will also not make sense... That is exactly what is happening here.

2, the harm would be that I lose the surprise on attacking whoever I want. So if I send diplo message I want to know who i'm dealing with.

That does not make sense! First of all, you can attack whoever you want by surprise regardless of who is subbing for who. Just dont tell anyone about it, and it will be a surprise. Second, if you ask Turkey to attack their ally Zulu, there will be no surprise, because obviously I will tell my ally that you want to attack them. So obviously whether Turkey is playing for Zulu or not, there is still no element of surprise. What surprise? What are you talking about?

Alliance are not permanent. I may try to convince the Zulus to break the alliance with you and it is not fair if I don't know who am I dealing with.

First off, you are switching your hypothetical around, now you are saying its not fair because you wanted to get Zulus to betray Turkey? I thought you wanted to get Turkey to attack Zulu? Second, of all, it IS fair that you don't know who you are dealing with. That is the whole point of anonymous play. It makes it so dplomacy is more dangerous and exciting because you have no idea who you are dealing with. Nobody is supposed to know who they are dealing with, so that is just a silly complaint to make.

This is important to understand. In anonymous play, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between an alliance that you cant break up between 2 independant civs and an alliance you cant break up between a principal and a subbed nation. There is no way for you to tell the difference, precisely because YOU DON'T KNOW who is playing/subbing any of the civs, so there is nothing for you to complain about. This allows everyone to have fun, exciting diplo with all nations.

Alliances are not necessarily permanent, true, but you are not entitled to any guarantees that the alliance will ever break up. Maybe the next sub for Zulu will not want to be allied with Turkey, maybe they will, but what you are saying is that it is unfair that Turkey has an unbreakable alliance with Zulu because Turkey is subbing for Zulu.

But that would be true whether you knew about the subbing or not, so what are you complaining about? How does that have any relationship to your complaint about not knowing about the sub? You knowing about the sub would have no effect, on the relationship. All it would do is alert you that Zulu was a farce, and thus make the game less exciting for you. The only way to keep Zulu from being a farce in this game is to either get a sub (which YOU YOURSELF refused to do), or to keep the fact that they are being subbed quiet.

But not just in diplo, I also want to know what intel is available to each player, so for example I won't send my surprise attacking fleet trough Zulu's land to attack you if I know you are subbing for them.

Now again the hypothetical is reversed, and you are getting Zulu to betray me, but whatever... My answer is simple. You aren't entitled to know what intel is available to each player. Are you serious? You never know that!

Even if Zulu was an independent player, they would still inform allies of something like that, but even if, again, we go with your miniscule-odds thing happening (Zulu betrays ally for Arabia's benefit), You would still have no idea whether they noticed it or not, and whether they informed me or not. this is constant regardless of whether a civ is independent or being subbed. You NEVER know for sure what intel they have and what they share.

What you are saying, is that you are entitled to a guarantee that I don't know anything about what the Zulus can see, or you are entitled to warning that Zulus share info with Turkey. That is ridiculous! Are you entitled to a warning from Neandor that France shares intel with them? Give me a break

(I hope you are now paranoid enough .. no these are all just examples what kind of problems can come if one player subs for an other and it's not public).

As I said, there are no "problems". The only "problem" is all the far fetched, half baked Don-Quixote, theories that occur when a subbing situation IS PUBLIC... Like now.

I don't understand what is that you don't understand.. I want to know if you are subbing for someone, so I won't ask you to help me against them.. that simple. I will ask someone else or no one.

Now you are reversing your hypothetical again. First its asking Turkey to attack Zulu, then asking Zulu to attack Turkey, now we are back to asking Turkey to attack Zulu. Which one is it?

Anyway it doesn't matter, because as I already said, if you had asked Tukey to attack Zulu or vice-versa, the answer would have been no, and the ally would have been told about it. Its that simple. That would have been true whether Zulu was being subbed or not.

You might want to argue that if Zulu was not being controlled by Turkey then there was some slight, miniscule chance that Turkey would keep it a secret from Zulu that the new guy was gunning for them, but that's a silly argument. The reason that argument is silly is because:

1. Your whole argument pre-supposes that the miniscule unlikely thing would be the most likely to occur. That is to say, that it is WAY MORE likely that allies would tell on you if you tried to get them to betray the other. So trying to get allies to betray each other is a HIGH risk, and usually dumb move. So you should expect it to backfire almost all the time.

What you are saying, is that by keeping the sub a secret it ruins your chance that Turkey would betray Zulu. But that has no chance of happening anyway. Allies generally dont betray each other to join up with unproven strangers. So the opportunity that you are pretending you lost was never a real opportunity in the first place, whether or not Zulu was being subbed.

2. The point of a sub being Quiet is so that everyone can proceed as if there is no subbing going on. Playing a game where there are a bunch of subs is a farce and it is no fun. The point is for the subbed team to SEEM like a regular civ and be reacted to and treated like a regular civ, so the game remains fun. Hopefully other teams start to forget about the sub and just treat the subbed team as a normal team.

Part of this, is you are supposed to be susceptible to the trap of trying to convince one ally to betray another and having it backfire on you. That is the danger of cloak-and-dagger diplomacy. What you are asking for is to be indemnified against making foolish or dangerous diplomatic mistakes. Well that's no fun, and that's not how diplomacy works.

You know what is the most ridiculous, most Don Quixote, trying-to-create-controversy where there is none part of this conversation? When you joined the game, you were given the choice of playing the Zulu or Arabia and YOU CHOSE Arabia. So you KNEW that the Zulus were being subbed even though you didn't know by whom. So this entire line of argument you are trying to make is just over-the-top in its ridiculous nature.

Some other civs may have forgotten Zulus were being subbed, but not you. If ANYONE knew Zulus were a sub it was you because you TURNED DOWN the opportunity to sub for the Zulus. So again, your hypothetical makes no sense whatsoever.

[Native America (DoE)]

I disagree with the Ottoman position. The players of the game have a right to know if there are behind-the-scenes mechanisms resulting from anything more than the most temporary of substitution efforts by a current player of another civilization. And by this, I would mean more than two turns, and ANY subbing during a time of war.

Which is not to say it has to be posted in big, banner letters. But it has to be posted, and everyone has to know. Otherwise, you can have a situation like that which has apparently occurred: a major power who has for some turns been substituting for another player, without the knowledge (apparently), of the other players.