Destiny of Empires II [Organization Thread]

[OzzyKP]

Destiny of Empires II - Set Up Thread

New Diplo!

I created a new thread, moved over all the recent posts about a new game here, and created an OP with two options for settings. Check it out.

[St Jon]

I would like to get back into playing a 'Real Diplo', though in truth my heart lies with a less rigid style, as the Role-Play is such fun and you can still enjoy running a lost cause. I have concerns, however and I summarise them here.

I have issues with the 'Earth Model', which is why I quit DoE within 10 Turns and I am the perennial stick with it guy, as you cannot generate a big enough Map to accommodate 18 Players. If, as you must to use it, want a degree of 'Real' World feeling you have to accept that certain Civ's are going to span continents and achieve populations of over a billion whilst others will either disappear or be reduced to little more than satellites. This goes against the whole 'Diplo' ethos but it is the way that the World works and needs to be reflected in any such game. You HAVE to allow annihilation and Vassalage! The model just won't work with 18 Players as you will get too many sidelined people who obviously lose interest as they really have little or nothing to do. You will get Super-Powers and the Warsaw Pact v NATO will come to pass - face it!

From what I have read of the progress of DoE the quitting was a major issue and stagnation brought about by major Power Blocks was a killer. Look at the 'Real' World and ask yourself just what else could England, Spain, Portugal, etc have done but expanded overseas and effectively either consigned entire peoples to vassalage or committed monstrous acts of genocide. They had no choice, no excuse, because they were collectively too strong to destroy eachother but far too weak to survive in isolation. It's not nice and this is my big issue with a Diplo based on real geography as you try to use a sword that cuts both ways and will never work properly as that sword tries to be true to life whilst being blunt on the other edge and never cutting too deep.

My opinions which I guess you can tell indicate a lack of desire to participate in a straight DoE reprise.

[Robert]

When I saw the game title I knew that Ozzy had started it
I'll follow the thread and decide in the end if I'll join or not.

[OzzyKP]

When I saw the game title I knew that Ozzy had started it
I'll follow the thread and decide in the end if I'll join or not.

So who is in?

[Russia (DoE)]

I dont know - I am in too much games I guess. But knowing myself, I can hardly resist

I will see - if we gather enough and reliable players and I like the scenario, I will join.

[Robert]

If I'll join depends on if I'll have enough time. I'll accept any game settings.

[Inca (DoE)]

Must be toroidal map. Forgot that one, but it's essential for MP, I think.

[Sommerswerd]

Isn't Toroidal the default setting for all maps? Or is it cylindrical? I always get them confused. Which is which? I like it when the East-west ends connect, the default setting. But I want another Earth Map so I guess it doesnt matter.

I would play if there is an Earth Map or a random Map, but not a localized one.

[Russia (DoE)]

Cylindrical is the default (east-west are connected and there are polar caps) . Toroidal quadruples the maintenance (I think).

[Calanthian]

Option 2:

- Map: World Map, 1000 AD scenario
- Players: 18
- Normal Barbarians
- Random Events
- no tech trading
- vassal states allowed, but no capitulation
- ships move twice as fast on ocean tiles! (less of a boost for modern ships)
- tiers? Or maybe best players pick last?

YES PLEASE!

[OzzyKP]

Ok! Let's start a vote!

List of players (add your name):

1. OzzyKP
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Option 1 or 2?: Option 2

Civ Switching?: Yes

[Sommerswerd]

Option 1, No switching.

[Inca (DoE)]

Toroidal means that neighbor connections increase greatly. It means there is X-axis and Y-axis wrapping. So, no more "corner" civs with one or two empty sides to their empires. Everyone has neighbors in every direction. The average neighbor civ number increases greatly this way.

Now, on to options. Things I sort of insist upon:
Ships don't all have double MPs. It should be capped around 10MPs. Your average train runs about 50MPH (in the States, and let's assume we aren't bullet training our troops around the country). I think destroyers usually run about 35MPH at top speed on calm seas. Giving destroyers MORE movement points than trains makes 0 sense, and it kills naval tactics heavily.
So, 1MP land troops get 10MPs on rail networks. While it makes a lot of sense to give earlier ships (galleons and frigates) significantly more movement, by the late game it's not necessary and quite unrealistic to have ships bolting around the world twice as fast as trains.

I propose this for oceanic MPs:
4MPs - galleys-triremes
6MPs - caravels-galleons-frigates-SotLs-Privateers-attack/missile subs-ironclads
8MPs - transports-battleships-carriers
10MPs - destroyers-advanced ships

Beyond that, I really hate REs, and don't care much about the rest.

[OzzyKP]

You'll see that for both options I indicated that modern ships wouldn't receive as big a bonus. Please vote.

[Sommerswerd]

What are these "REs" Inca hates?

I liked the double movement, but frankly can't we just play with the default movement if folks are uncomfortable with it. I mean no matter how you slice it, ship movement is unrealistic, so why even bother with discussing it in terms of realism? The faster ships move, the more valuable ships become, so we can just go with the default and have less naval battles in general.