Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Robert]

If I'm correct, India's city was razed. A bit hard to undo that with a deal.
I don't think that the outcome of the Ottoman/Egypt war should be different. What's done is done, we're not discussing that war now. It's about India/Arabia.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

I think that German is right. Trying to go back 6 turns is very hard, which is why Arabia should have raised the problem when he noticed his opponent wasn't taking his turns. But we definitely need a solution - some sort of enforced deal between India and Arabia seems the easiest to me.

Regarding Jerusalem, if other players thought it right, and if Israel wanted a deal to keep Jerusalem alive, I'm certainly happy to talk since the raising wasn't my intention. However, I don't think we should let that distract us from the India-Arabia issue.

[OzzyKP]

Good try my Jewish friend. But sadly the Ottomans can't quite forget the fact that in one turn, maybe Jersualem would grow, but you would also complete an axeman in the city, so no I don't think I will be delaying anything. If you want Jerusalem to avoid burning, then just hand it over ....

@RP Is 4 turns to the point when the city fell, or when war was declared, or when arab armies arrived at the frontier and there was a moment for deals. No point just going back to the point when a city is doomed to fall.

If we do reload then yea, I support Israel just gifting the city to the Ottomans. Do it!

[Germany (DoE)]

@japan and @thepriest: the PYT is somehow showing the stats for a different game, so nothing to worry about

Take a close look. PYT is making no sense at all and is reaching a point of irrelevance. The guy who runs PYT needs to completely reset it or something?

[Germany (DoE)]

You seriously can not go back turns. With so many players you will end up with several suddenly or gradually realising that things went worse (or better) for them. Then retro-complaints may surface and we have the proverbial Dr Who dogs breakfast.

Just my tuppence.

And it is clear that not all players are reading all posts so confusion may occur.

[2metraninja]

Good try my Jewish friend. But sadly the Ottomans can't quite forget the fact that in one turn, maybe Jersualem would grow, but you would also complete an axeman in the city, so no I don't think I will be delaying anything. If you want Jerusalem to avoid burning, then just hand it over ....

From what I understood, Israel is willing to empty the city and give it to the Ottomans if the game is reloaded.

And Arabia did told in the story thread they had some kind of diplomacy with India - they asked them not to settle any west, India asked for what right they ask this and Arabia decided to move their armies to show who is right and who will be left .

Aside from this, India not playing turns after Arabia declared war is no good.

[Robert]

I'll wait for your comment, Arabia.

[Arabia (DoE)]

I am at work right now, but would like the oppertunity to comment before we go rolling back turns. Give me a 6 hours.

[America (DoE)]

@japan and @thepriest: the PYT is somehow showing the stats for a different game, so nothing to worry about

[Robert]

True, 4 turns is the fall of the city.
I don't know when war was declared.... have to login to check that. Can't login right now.
We may have to go back 5 or 6 turns (I assume that Arabia declared war when able to invade, so max 2 turns before the fall of the city

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Good try my Jewish friend. But sadly the Ottomans can't quite forget the fact that in one turn, maybe Jersualem would grow, but you would also complete an axeman in the city, so no I don't think I will be delaying anything. If you want Jerusalem to avoid burning, then just hand it over ....

@RP Is 4 turns to the point when the city fell, or when war was declared, or when arab armies arrived at the frontier and there was a moment for deals. No point just going back to the point when a city is doomed to fall.

[Israel (DoE)]

In civ4 pop1 cities get autorazed if they never went above pop1, after that they won't. Culture, buildings, even wonders don't matter. If razing the city was not Ottoman's intention maybe you can work out something to change what happened.. note I'm not playing this game and changing history may not be a good precedent, so it's your call

I'm totally willing to cooperate with the Ottomans if they want to keep the city instead of autoraze.
I think Jerusalem would grow to size 2 in only 1 turn, so if the Ottomans just delay their attack by one turn after a reload needed to save India, then I'm totally ok with that....!

Just like I said, I'll fully cooperate to replay history if the Ottomans want to, or create a new history if the Ottomans want to try to keep Jerusalem as a holy city!.....

/me purges the past 5 PM's to the Ottomans from the Ottomans memory

[Robert]

I have just paused the game.
I did already send a PM to India asking for feedback from him. (he recently played his turn and did thus not leave the game).

We have to go back 4 turns to undo the fall of the city.
I think we should do that. Israel already promised to let Jerusalem fall again.
I want a confirmation from India first though.

If he thinks that the city would have fallen anyway and he's fine to continue anyway, then we should do that.
But he's completely right if he wants a reload.

[Native America (DoE)]

Let's get it sorted out quickly.

[The Priest]

India - Arabia

1. I think we should pause. The timer is still ticking, and on a 8 hour timer, the whole thing just gets more complicated with every turn which passes. A pause, without prejudice as to whether there will be a reload etc., but it gives time to think.

2. On the India-Arabia issue. It does seem pretty poor. I don't remember any stories about the war, and yes I'm surprised that Arabia didn't raise the problem themselves - surely they must have known that their opponent wasn't playing - if only because when at war you have to watch turn order closely. It feels as if Arabia did know but just tried to keep the whole thing quiet, to his advantage. That may not be true - be good to hear from Arabia on it - but wars against people who aren't playing and don't know there is a war is pretty bad form.

Our double-move rules make this clear:

03. Wartime Double Moves
a. Civilizations that are at war have to observe the turn order. The turn order is set during the first turn of the war. If the invaded party played first in the turn before the war started, then the agressor must let him play first in the next turn as well before he can declare war on him.


b. Players are free to agree on a new turn order if all involved parties agree and this new turn order is published in the organization thread and all involved parties publish their agreement there as well.

c. The host will pause the game if the turn is about to advance in about 2 hours while any player involved did not play his turn.

d. During war all players must always play their turn. If it takes a player more then 24 hours the game administrator will look for a temp sub.

I don't blame our host for not pausing etc. as the rules required, because nobody told him there was a war on. But the rules are clear that you can't have a war in which turns aren't taken.

3. What to do? Reloading is the clearest solution, but it depends how far back you need to go. More than a couple of turns and its impossible and very boring for everyone else to replay accurately. I am sure Israel and the Ottomans can sort a replay of Jersualem but even so, more than a turn or two would be very hard (which is why perhaps arabia should have raised the problem earlier). A more possible solution would be a peace deal between arabia and india which perhaps returns the city which was captured while the other player wasn't playing and couldn't diplo, but gives some benefit to Arabia.