Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Ozzy, not fair for you to comment on the basis of what France says. He only tells one side. The rules say we don't handle disputes publicly. RP you say you will delete all posts about a dispute. Can you please do that. This is unfair for some to keep making their point while others stay quiet.

[Germany (DoE)]

I have restricted my communications with RP until now. It would be better that no discussion occured here and that no arguments had been presented yet, even by Robert. But more and more keeps getting written.

We should have waited until RP, arbitrating behind the scenes, presented a decision or balanced case for all the players to consider, if necessary.

Then, if no decision is made or it is not accepted, maybe a debate is asked for by RP/organisers. THEN France and Germany can present cases. But I would find it so exhausting to do that and in the process much of the magic of the game gets revealed in bits and pieces and we spoil the game.

I think it fair for me to say just one thing:

IF we accept that any civ can build THREE cities in safety and only guard them with warriors and not worry about aggression;
and we accept that in Europe none of the civs can build more than three cities, then it can only be a lovefest in Europe

Even if we were to make deals to get tribute your position is weakened because everyone would then know that they can't lose a city.

[OzzyKP]

Hmm, France does have a good point that discussion in the thread was that taking cities like this wouldn't be allowed. I think that generally it would be ok, but if he was led to believe it wasn't and acted accordingly it is very poor form to change things now. Whether that is an appropriate understanding of the rules or not is a separate issue (I'd say, as I did earlier, that taking one's second city is appropriate normally) but if Robert or anyone wanted to clarify that it definitely was or wasn't against the rules, it seems like it didn't happen and France believed it was against the rules. So he shouldn't be penalized for that. (but maybe I'm really France and just arguing for myself.... )

I advise Germany & Ottomans to execute a choke of Paris instead. (but maybe I'm really the Ottomans and just arguing for myself... )

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

France, you can't expect people to vote when people have only heard your side of the story.

Some of us have been silent, because that is what is asked of us. It sounds like RP hasn't agreed with you. I think it is fair we all hear from him before we do any voting on anything.

[France (DoE)]

Given that France, like many others in this forum, understood the Measured War Rule to mean that civs are not allowed to permanently take or raze cities from other civs with few cities (loosely defined as 3 or less), and;

Given that when the question as to whether civs could take cities from other civs with 3 or less cities was posted to the organization thread for clarification that the game administrator clearly stated that they could not be taken and that other rewards needed to be found, and;

Given that Germany has indicated that their motives are expansionistic and that they will not settle for anything less than France losing its second city, and;

Given that the game administrator, in contradiction to his previous forum posting, has indicated that France must accept the loss of his city and possibly accept a future settler as compensation (roughly estimated to be 30-50 turns from now depending upon how quickly Writing is researched so the settler can be gifted and how long the settler takes to be built and moved into position),

France is hereby requesting that a vote be taken to end this war under the Measured War Rule.

The bottom line is that it is not fun to be deceived by being told that the rules are one thing and then to have the rules completely altered to the exact opposite at a critical moment. I would have been happy if the rules had always allowed for the capture of other civ cities but obviously my strategy would have been different.

I would ask that when players are weighing their vote considerations that no weight be given to past diplo game precedents, as several players of this game are new to diplo games and have no means of knowing what happened in past games. Instead consideration should be based upon what are the diplo rules presented in this forum along with the clarifications given by the game administrator.

[OzzyKP]

In the mentioned game Persia gave a settlers for that city, and there was plenty of land to settle yet. (on the other hand getting that city left Persia with a huge peninsula to settle alone)

There really wasn't plenty of other land. I was surrounded on all sides. I guess it is ultimately my fault since I made the map and Russia had the most difficult spot in the game. But... oh well, that's how it goes.

[OzzyKP]

Is something amiss with the server? I cannot connect.

We are paused so everyone can cool down and take a breather during this dispute.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Guys, while those of us who supposedly have done something wrong still have no idea what is going on, but are trying to follow our rules and keep quiet, it might be better if others did too. The uninformed speculation doesn't help, particularly when you can't respond to it.

[St Jon]

Is something amiss with the server? I cannot connect.

[mzprox]

In the mentioned game Persia gave a settlers for that city, and there was plenty of land to settle yet. (on the other hand getting that city left Persia with a huge peninsula to settle alone)

[Exploit]

I agree with Ozzy that I do not see anything wrong with the war itself however the scenario he is describing in which Persia took Russia's first city would violate the rules of measured war as they have been described to us earlier in this thread by the game administrator.

If the German objective is to conquer and keep or raze a French city then that is the definition of expansion. If the French have 3 or less cities then this clearly falls under the hypothetical scenario that 2metraninja raised earlier in this thread to which the game administrator responded:

War is more then taking cities.
You can steal workers, destroy armies, pillage the lands, besiege cities for long times (effectively ending a civ's progression), etc.
Expansionistic wars: no, but wars about giving goods, money, converting to a religion, hand over a great person, etc: still possible.

I personally would have preferred to allow cities to be conquered earlier (and argued for such) however this doesn't appear to be a discussion about what we would like the rules to be but rather what the rules currently are. For the game administrator to tell us all that early expansionistic wars are not allowed and then to allow such a war would be patently unfair!

At this point, Germany should be limited to demanding resources, gold or maybe a right of passage so they can settle other lands as the game administrator indicated in the quote above.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

RP content to accept the CTT. Its always better to pause and sort things out, than let things go on and the problems grow, and you get into all the difficult stuff about reloading.

Ozzy's post (does he have some source of knowledge?) suggests someone is unhappy with my conduct. I won't get into explanations or defences here, because our rules are to avoid public posts in such circumstances. But very happy for someone to pm me and ask whatever questions they want. I've got nothing to hide.

[OzzyKP]

Then again, maybe I'm Germany and just saying this to support my war...

But just think, 3 days ago everyone was worried that Europe would be a love-fest where no one ever went to war.

[OzzyKP]

I'm certainly not an ultimate arbiter, so don't confuse my intention, but in my opinion I don't see anything wrong with the war. We all know the map, and knew we were going to know the map going into this. We knew also that Europe was going to be cramped and that there will be fighting for land. France made a land grab gamble which could, if unchallenged, result in a huge strategic advantage for them over time. They made the calculation that if they are the first to pop out a settler, then their position and cultural trait will be successful. They decided against building proper military to defend themselves. Germany made the calculation that they were going to build units (instead of settlers? who knows) and focus on the military side of things. Ottomans decided... I suppose... to get mad about things and go the diplo route of making stronger friends to fight their battles.

All good strategies. All interesting strategies. Now we just need to see how they work out when they come into conflict. Maybe it'll work out for Germany and Ottomans. Maybe it'll backfire. Maybe Russia will take this opportunity to gobble up a bunch of land to their east. Who knows, that is what makes the game interesting. In Dance of Civilization I was playing Russia and I started the game with France's strategy: pump out a settler quick, grab some land, and allow my culture to secure my spot. The vile Persians decided to capture, and then keep, the very first city I built. It sucked. It really sucked. It hurt Russia for the rest of the game, but I never thought it was against the rules of the game. I took a chance and I lost. It sucks, but that's life.

As for the allegation that Germany/Ottomans are playing to win OOC, not role playing... I dunno. I see the argument, and France may be right. But it is impossible to stamp that out completely. We need to have some flexibility there. Though, to put it in character, if I was an ancient civilization and I saw a rival civilization expand toward me, I would certainly get nervous. There was certainly war and conquest in 2375 BC in the real world. Was it because they wanted a better shot at building a space ship one day? No. They just wanted more power, more wealth, more land. Germany and Ottomans seem to just want more land, more power, more wealth, etc. Nothing strange or non-historical about that.

But that's just my opinion. France's complaint isn't without merit. He certainly has a point, though I think most of his complaint is based on sour grapes. I've been in your shoes France, and it really sucks, I understand your frustration.

[Robert]

I can't change the turn timer for the current turn but will extend the turn timer for the next turns to 12 hours.
I'll make sure that the turn won't proceed without all involved parties having moved. Right now that's Germany and France, I think.