Destiny of Empires II [Organization Thread]

[DNK]

Also, I can't get in because Taejo is still in-game and it won't let me connect.

[LzPrst]

it seems he is constantly ingame. (I was able to connect despite it though)

[Carthage (DoF)]

Blackknight: please finish your turns..

[Black Knight 427]

I do finish my turns. if you look in game you can see i already finished but it doesn't always show on pyt.

[OzzyKP]

just a quick question, is this scenario supposed to be balanced?

I see Byzantium has in 5 turns taken Jerusalem, Cairo, Visegrad AND built the Oracle, a wonder in 5 turns!?? Did they start out with it almost finished? Starting with a powerful wonder almost finished, an army of cataphracts and a rich AI unable to fight well. Meanwhile the Khmers start with 1 junglecity. Have I missed something?

Also, the Spanish have taken 3 Arab cities, not only finishing the reconquista 500 years early, but starting a colonial adventure 800 years early. France (me) has also taken an Arab city. In another 5 turns the Arabs will likely be extinct, though someone commented that they were overpowered. What did I miss?

Scenario is not supposed to be balanced, no. It is important to be familiar with the scenario. I've played and beaten the game with just about every civ before, so no one starts completely crippled, but no, it isn't balanced. If you want a tip, build lots of wonders, and then go colonize the new world (and/or Africa), you'll be a world power in no time.

As for the Arabs being strong, that is what we were discussing before the game started. In SP they are strong because a high difficulty for the human player makes them strong. But after some testing it doesn't appear that we can set the AI's difficulty individually, like I thought. So sadly they became much weaker then I was hoping for. But even a strong AI has difficulty against several human players teaming up against it. But if a human started as the Arabs... that would be quite strong.

And no, the oracle wasn't half built for me, I really did just build it in a few turns. Marble + Org. Religion + Forest chop = Oracle in 5 turns. But you're industrial, so you should be cranking out the wonders yourself now. France is fun to play, I was hoping I'd end up with them (not that I'm interested in switching now).

[Kenshin2]

On another note:

The discussion in DoF has reminded me that we haven't set any ground rules yet. We stopped at game options. Given the tight nature of the scenario from the start, it might be good to get that worked out before the first crisis comes up, as it will invariably.

I would suggest:
Gentleman's honor to not abuse game mechanics in an unrealistic fashion (e.g. sinking a naval fleet in a city guarded by that person's ally with whom the attacker has OBs; or, gifting a city, upgrading units, and gifting the city back rapidly).

Limitation on unit gifting (none?)?
Unit naming requirements?
City gifting rules?
Limits on conquest of other humans? Crippling?
Are we voting for the story thread?
Universal NAP from the start for some time?

We had a bunch of ideas after DoE, but we never really discussed it here, preferring to get things started first. Well, okay, now we can talk.

First off, sorry about taking all those cities so quickly. Cordoba was a given because it would have crippled me to be stuck with only two cities. And, I originally was going to take Tunis, but then the other was only guarded by one Archer. I am currently writing the RP to back that up. But it is over now, we have made peace with the Arabs. That should help them a bit (though all their western holdings are gone...).

Was unit gifting a problem? I could understand buying units from one another, or maybe giving allies a couple but it couldn't have been that bad. As long as buying units from one another doesn't count as gifting them I am ok with whatever.

I don't think we should require anything like that. It should be up to players to name them how they want. I personally was going to make each of the knights lords and giving them names, and the rest just leaving as normal.

Well the only realistic city gifting that could take place would be colonies, and that would be selling not gifting.

I think each player should be allowed to keep 3 cities. That is what I started with (counting Cordoba), same with France, and that would allow everyone to at least have fun. Personally I don't plan on attacking other players simply for conquest. If I'd attack I would just demand payments/units/vassalage ect. Perhaps we could make the rule that to "conquer" a player you have to take all their cities accept their capital, then you must destroy any army they may have (leaving of course a unit of two), then they must become your vassal. When they are vassaled they should be given back 3 core cities. So now they kinda act like part of your empire, and they can still have fun. They would act like a 'minority' and eventually they could rebel and declare war if they wish. Would be fun

We should vote. I thought that was the point of Diplo-Games, winning via story-telling.

Not sure what a Universal NAP is. It's probably self explanatory and I'm just not getting it...

[LzPrst]

was plotting something like that, but 5 turns? I have marble and org religion and the best I can get is 15 turns I believe... + chopping. and I am losing cultural territory to germany and spain... not complaining, just saying it is a strange situation to adapt to straight out the gate.

[Kenshin2]

I doubt my culture will exert much pressure at all on your borders. To tell you the truth I am quite worried about the opposite. Your borders have already reached just a tile north of Barcelona.

[DNK]

Oh, there was a lot of talk about unit gifting (includes selling/buying), especially as proxy armies that would be returned eventually. I think a few thought it best to ban it outright in the next diplogame, and I sort of came to agree with that after much debate (in which I was against the position). Upgrades are another matter, of course.

I think it's best if we limit gifts/sales to "machine" units: siege and navy (and tanks and planes later). That allows players to continue to get involved in the trade game, yet precludes the gameyness of gifting entire armies of soldiers to others (usually expecting them to be returned). If you want to "rent" your army, well, be a good merc army and declare war yourself Otherwise, to influence the balance of forces, stick to diplomacy and upgrades.

Naming units: it was suggested that any units gifted/sold should be named as such. In the last diplogame we had a sort of gentleman's agreement that most kept to (most of the time). Perhaps not mandatory, but I for one sign on to this voluntarily.

Regarding city gifting, I agree that colonies ought to be fair game, but "homeland" shouldn't, and there should be some sort of rule about when/how cities can be gifted to avoid issues as we've had in the non-diplogame DoF. 50T rule for regifting is reasonable, and no gifting during a time of war unless it's part of a peace proposal (in case you're fighting multiple enemies).

The measured war rule (MWR) from DoE1 was a lot stricter than what you're proposing, and I think it was about as fair as can be given the complaints we got from that ruleset. I have no issue reusing it. The basic idea is to not cripple or take the fun out of anyone's civ. It's more of an honor code than a strict rule. "Vassalizing" people isn't exactly diplogame spirit, and I'm not okay with it. The purpose of this isn't outright conquest, and it's expected that everyone should remain somewhat competitive and independent until the end. The MWR was loosely quantified by the idea that no war could remove more than 25% of a civ, whatever that means.

There was also a lot of talk about limiting alliances and such, but that's a much thornier issue. Best to figure out the simpler ones first



As far as the intent of the rules, it should be to ensure the game remains fun for everyone, the diplomacy remains dynamic and interesting, and to refrain from "gamey", unrealistic moves as much as possible.

[Kenshin2]

I had typed a big long response about how it was better to allow the buying of armies, but your way is much more realistic and fair. In the real world you cannot buy simply buy men from another country. So I agree with you on that. I also agree on the machine, so that means ships, catapults, trubachet, helicopters, tanks, ect.

Name units I'm still not convinced on. I just don't really see the point. Especially with the rules about no buying armies.

Agree. Though homeland should be defined more specifically. For example in the current game all the cities on the Noth-African Coast owned by me are right next to mainlaind Spain. I could technically make the argument that they could be part of my homeland because one they are touching my borders, and two I need them to stay competitive with say Germany. This of course is more cut and dry because it is obvious where the 'homeland' of spain is (Ibera) while Russia could be out to the Ural Mountains. That is much bigger than Iberia. What about China? Byzantium? Ect. So maybe just a certain number of cities that all must be in proximity could count as homeland 3-4? I'm not sure.

Maybe we can make it so that the majority of the players must recognize the original Casus Belli was worthwhile? Then after that I think it should be fair game up until their core cities (Main 2-3). At that point if they had a larger and more superior force then I would personally capitulate, and I think it is fair that I must capitulate. If someone is down to their last cities and is unwilling to capitulate/give in to any hefty demands the aggressor has made then they should be free range for their stronger opponent to whittle down until they finally do agree to capitulate/give in. Then of course they will be given back their core cities. The Casus Belli recognition would stop any potentially harmful/unjust/fun killing wars. And after that, if a player seriously gives a much more powerful opponent a viable Casus Belli against them than by all means they should have to deal with the consequences. I feel that there are few who would join a game specifically geared towards diplomacy and a fun time for everyone that would seriously want to wage wars of conquest.

Limiting alliances I think is personally out of the question. Anything that limits diplomacy is harmful to the spirit of the game. I can't even imagine a scenario where alliances would be harmful. Since this is just a game, we don't have to worry about avoiding wars like WWI that spiral out of control simply because of Alliances because that just adds to the fun!

Oh, and you left out the part about voting, which I want to remind everyone about, because I find that very important. Recognition from peers for hard work done on a story only gives one more incentive to write better stories.

EDIT: 20 Posts! Pictures!!

[OzzyKP]

Also, I can't get in because Taejo is still in-game and it won't let me connect.

MNGold, please don't stay logged into the game all day. It probably slows things down too.

[DNK]

Well, I've connected since, but I had to wait a few hours. I also can connect to FB now. Not sure why.

[MNGoldenEagle]

Sorry about that. This is my first time playing in multiplayer in a Civ game and I'm used to just Alt-Tabbing out of the game and leaving it on all day whenever I'm taking a break instead of actually leaving the game, so I'm not quite used to the new play style. I'll make sure not to leave it on all the time in the future, especially since I was flooded with desynch messages when I switched back into the game.

[Carthage (DoF)]

Holy Rome missed already two turns in a row.
Please react, or otherwise I advise to look for a replacement (missing these early turns is crucial)

[Bulgaria (DoF)]

Ask me, I have missed 30 early turns and its ain't fun at all