Domination of Barbarians [Diplo Game] [Setup Thread]

[Sommerswerd]

The Forum changed my a's and b's to 1's and 2's . I also made some edits based on your answers to make things clearer. Plus you're funny as hel! Nabaxo... I had to borrow that Sparta line

Anyway... So based on what you said, I would say Tier 5. Check again with the edits to see if you agree.

[nabaxo]

Updated my post. I think tier 4 fits me fine.

[DNK]

So, I can be T4 again in this game?

[Black Knight 427]

I am tier 2 maybe three def not lower then that.

[damnrunner]

For the various civs will people have option to choose leaders if the civ has more than one?

[damnrunner]

1. e (generally yes, no, no) 2. e (or f - get them at war with each other and take advantage of the situation) 3. a (high difficulty raging barbs and always war, that starts to get tricky) 4. a (given we can't rush each other, I don't see the issue here) 5. b (at least for vanilla), 6. b (how else does one duel?)

[Sommerswerd]

So, I can be T4 again in this game?

Of course! If that is the category you fit into, then you should play in that Tier So you're playing then? If you and nabaxo are both playing, then I can post the Map and we can get started!

For the various civs will people have option to choose leaders if the civ has more than one?

Very good question. I had not even thought about that. I am able to edit the Map to change the leaders around, but I think that the leaders I selected are the better leaders for each Civ. I based it on the following premise FIN>PHI>IND>CRE>IMP>EXP>SPI>ORG>CHA>AGG>PRO. Anyway, decide for yourself (I also added this to the OPs):

France - Louis (IND, CRE)
Spain - Isabella (EXP, SPI)
Portugal - Jao (IMP, EXP)
Netherlands - Willem (FIN, CRE)
Rome - Augustus (IND, IMP)
Greece - Pericles (PHI, CRE)
Germany - Bismarck (IND, EXP)
Ottomans - Suleiman (PHI, IMP)
Holy Rome - Chalemange (IMP, PRO)
Russia - Peter (PHI, IMP)
Persia - Darius (FIN, ORG)
Byzantines - Justinian (IMP, SPI)
China - Qin Shi Huang (IND, PRO)
Arabia - Saladin (SPI, PRO)
Viking - Ragnar (FIN, AGG)
Japan - Tokugawa (AGG, PRO)
England - Elizabeth (FIN, PHI)
Celts - Brennus (SPI, CHA)

Something worth noting for this game (will be especially apparent when everyone sees the Map). PRO is going to be more valuable than usual, because of the powerful barbs. The civs who are not boxed in and thus will be facing barbs, will want to get Archery must faster than normal of course, which makes PRO really valuable.

Also, in such close quarters, Border Pops will be so much more important, so CRE is really, really valuable in Europe. Plus, in close quarters, a Wonder could be a real game changer, so IND is very valuable on this Map. Last thing on this line, is that expanding fast will be critical, so IMP is a really important trait to have.

1. e (generally yes, no, no) 2. e (or f - get them at war with each other and take advantage of the situation) 3. a (high difficulty raging barbs and always war, that starts to get tricky) 4. a (given we can't rush each other, I don't see the issue here) 5. b (at least for vanilla), 6. b (how else does one duel?)

Sounds like you're Tier 1 to me! That's great because we need to have players to fill all the Tiers.

[Exploit]

3.A Civ who declares war (attacker) may not capture cities, on any turn, until the defender (the Civ who the city is being taken from) has at least logged into the game that turn (visible on civstats/PYT). 1.This rule means a Civ can effectively avoid losing cities by simply not logging in. If you are protecting your cities by intentionally refusing to log in, your attacker is not allowed to induce you to log in with a fraudulent offer of peace.

This rule is easily abused as written. The defender waits until the turn timer is nearly over then makes his move thus denying the attacker the chance to capture a city or forces the attacker to wait until the turn timer is nearly over and then login simultaneously with the defender so that attacks have to take place in real time.

Combined with the Standard Measured War rule it effectively makes taking and keeping a city from another player impossible with any decent use of the rules. Defender enacts Standard Measured War rule after being attacked. Once he notices that he is at risk of losing more then 3 cities, the defender automates his moves for the remainder of the 20 turns and does not login again until after the war period expires. The attacker must then give back 3 of the defender's cities (i.e. the max that should have been taken if the defender uses the above tactic).

The only way to circumvent this tactic by the rules as written would be to take four or more cities in one turn, an extremely difficult feat to say the least.

I recommend this rule be removed (or at a minimum heavily modified). The Standard Measured War rule already makes it so that losing cities is only a temporary inconvenience in most cases so this rule is unnecessary at best and extremely abusive at worst.

[Exploit]

Based on the descriptions, I would peg myself in the Tier 3-5 range. REX with Diety level barbs sounds challenging to me and I haven't played in over a year so Tier 5 is probably appropriate.

[Sommerswerd]

This rule is easily abused as written. The defender waits until the turn timer is nearly over then makes his move thus denying the attacker the chance to capture a city or forces the attacker to wait until the turn timer is nearly over and then login simultaneously with the defender so that attacks have to take place in real time.

You are correct. The rules note that a defender can use the rules to prevent an attacker from taking cities by just refusing to log in. So this is not an abuse of the rules, it is using the rules exactly as they were intended.

The rules are designed to steer the players to play in 'diplogame' style, as per the Apolyton FAQs etc, on Diplogaming. In other words, the rules are designed to preserve the 'fun' and enjoyability of the game for as many players as possible. This rule is a good example, and I am glad you pointed it out, so we can talk about whether it needs to be changed, or dropped, or tweaked or whatever.

Combined with the Standard Measured War rule it effectively makes taking and keeping a city from another player impossible with any decent use of the rules.

Again, you are correct. And again, this is exactly what was intended. It is supposed to be difficult to permanently take cities away from your opponents. Not impossible, just difficult. If the rules make it impossible, then we need to discuss and make changes, but it should be substantially more difficult than a standard MP game. To take somebody's cities, and keep them permanently, its going to be tougher than MP, because losing cities is a real tough pill to swallow and causes people to lose interest if its too harsh or too quick. (TBH, In a Diplogame, you should have allies behind you and supporting your efforts... that's a seperate issue really, so more on that later.)

Defender enacts Standard Measured War rule after being attacked. Once he notices that he is at risk of losing more then 3 cities, the defender automates his moves for the remainder of the 20 turns and does not login again until after the war period expires. The attacker must then give back 3 of the defender's cities (i.e. the max that should have been taken if the defender uses the above tactic).

Yes, that is exactly what a Defender can do if they are hit with an overwhelming attack. A good rule of thumb is don't go to War, intending to conquer and keep cities, unless you can capture more than 3 cities in a single turn. Otherwise, you should use negotiation, threats, political pressure and implication, etc, to get what you want. (However, notice that if someone just dissapears for 20 turns without any word, they can be dropped from the game and replaced, but that is a side issue...)

Remember that the Defender has to invoke the Measured War rule. They have to swallow their pride and admit that they can't defend themselves and have to use the mercy rule. Most guys are very reluctant to do this. But you are right, if they can get past their pride, they can get back up to 3 of the cities you took... but remember, the cities will be heavily damaged, and you (the attacker) will get capture Gold from the conquest. Plus, you get 20 turns while they are not logging in to ransack their lands, pillage all their improvements, kill all their units, capture their units, sink their ships etc. All you are prohibited from doing is capturing their cities. I doubt many players would leave their nation at your Mercy like that for 20 turns. They will be crippled. Better to stand and fight and try to negotiate for a better deal than losing all your units and infrastructure.

And that is the point. Forcing them to negotiate rather than take the mercy rule, and forcing you to negotiate, rather than capture a few cities that you know you cant keep. A final point to remember, is that they can force you to give back the city in 20 turns, but then 10 turns after that, you can Declare War again, and take the city again. In other words, sure, they can frustrate your attempt to conquer them, but you can also frustrate their attempts to avoid being conquered. It just takes longer, thus it preserves some playability for the defender, the gurantee that he can never truly be crippled or elimminated.

I recommend this rule be removed (or at a minimum heavily modified). The Standard Measured War rule already makes it so that losing cities is only a temporary inconvenience in most cases so this rule is unnecessary at best and extremely abusive at worst.

It seems like your concern with this rule is it interferes with conquest, and makes it harder to take land via war. But that is kind of the point of the rule. What I suggest is you say what your goal is... like "I want a system where I have more freedom to engage in conquest." Then tell us how you suggest to modify the rule:
1. Keep it very, very, very, very simple and easy to understand/remember
2. Make sure it keeps things fun and enjoyable for the person who is losing the war. If a rule makes it easy to quickly crush a person, to the point where they want to quit or lose the will to log in and play, then that is not a good Diplogame rule.
3. The rule does not likely lead to a need for reloads, pauses, mandatory turn order, administrative rulings, or anything that stops or slows down the game

Just so I am clear... You are suggesting that we leave the measured War rule as it is, but just get rid of the rule that you have to wait until the other guy logs in to take his cities, right?

The reason we need that rule, is because it prevents you from taking the cities of someone who is away for a day or two, not paying attention, and it also makes it very difficult for you to use a double-move to capture a city., without enacting mandatory turn order with administrative reloads

[2metraninja]

Based on the descriptions, I would peg myself in the Tier 3-5 range. REX with Diety level barbs sounds challenging to me and I haven't played in over a year so Tier 5 is probably appropriate.

LOL, you are at the same category as me, so then I should be tier 5 too.

[nabaxo]

So, for someone like me, who has no pride, this game will be awesome! ;D

[Sommerswerd]

@ Exploit- Re reading your post, I think it warrants some additional clarification...

If the defender is waiting all the way to the end to move so you can't take his cities (unless you monitor the game and log in when he does), that doesent mean you can't attack him or play your turn. Remember, there is no turn order, so you can log in before the defender and do whatever, kill his units, get all in position to take cities, except you cant take cities. Then, if you're really dedicated to his destruction, you can wait to cactch him logging in and take the cities. When you think about it, its really desperate to wait all the way to the end to move and probably counter productive, because what? You're gonna launch a brilliant counter attack during a quick 30 second stealth-move in the last 35 seconds of the turn? No way! you're gonna log in and find your armies ruined and you won't have time to figure out what to do. Best bet is to just not log in at all.

[Sommerswerd]

Here is an example of how the rule helps keep players viable (and participating). If I have my capital, plus four remote colonies in Africa (5 cities total) and you suddenly Declare War and capture 3 of my 4 colonies, now I only have 2 cities. Me so sad, right? It's quittin' time right? Well no, because I can use the measured War rule to force you to give me the cities back in 20 turns. Yaaaa! Me so happy! My Civ gets a second chance to live and I have learned my lesson to defend my colonies better.

The only way to circumvent this tactic by the rules as written would be to take four or more cities in one turn, an extremely difficult feat to say the least.

Again, you understand the rule very well, and that is the point. Here is a perfect 'warmonger' attack under these rules. You position your forces so that they don't know the attack is coming, wait for them to move, and then you log in and capture more than 3 cities in one fell swoop. They are forced to ask for surrender terms and you generously agree to spare their peoples lives in exchange for a hefty bounty. Or they invoke the mercy rule and get their nation pillaged to the ground(you collect gobs of pillage gold) while they wait 20 turns. (Note that they dont have to stay out of the game becuase they call Measured War, they can still keep fighting you, they just have to surrender in 20 turns (and you have to accept peace).

I should mention that this is another reason that the fast Naval movement is important. It allows you to hit your opponent really hard in that initial turn before they have a chance to take the mercy rule.

Essentially, there is a 100% surcharge on conquest at 3 captured cities, so you arent getting the conquest, just the capture gold, pillage gold, and the advantage of damaging (but not crippling) your opponent. That's valuable, but not as valuable as the cities, so you have to consider how costly is it going to be to engage in a war to set your opponent back or punish them, knowing you can't keep the conquest (if they invoke the mercy rule). At 4 cities, it's a 75% surcharge, at 6, 50% surcharge. So in other words, Wars of pure conquest need to result in a huge amount of captured cities to be profitable. And that is the spirit of a Diplogame, to discourage plyers from crippling each other.

Here is another thing to remember. When you are attacking a Civ with over 5 or 6 cities, they will be especially reluctant to invoke the rule. If I am defender and I invoke the mercy rule, it means I can get 3 cities back, but it also means that I will probably be stuck losing however many cities over 3 that I lost before I called Mercy rule. So if I had 6 cities and lost 5 in a first turn amphibious raid, am I gonna call my allies and get them to help me take ALL my cities back? Or am I gonna call mercy rule and get back 3 out of 6 cities? See what I mean?

Another idea along these lines. You attack and take 3 of my cities. I can immediatley call Measured War and in 20 turns you have to give me back the 3 cities you took, but the only way I can avoid losing more cities is to stay out of the game. So while I stay out of the game, you pillage all my land and kill all my units... On the other hand, you make me an offer to give me peace right away instead of in 20 turns, no slaughtered armies, no pillaged lands... And all I have to do is give up my Measured War rights, and let you keep 1 or 2 of the cities you took. Sounds like a better deal to me, depending on what cities I am losing.

Plus, if I have a vast 9 city empire, there is no way I'm gonna just let you run roughshod and pillage all my iprovements and kill all my units for 20 turns while I hide from logging in. I will be set back even farther then if I actually fight and lose a couple cities

[Bulgaria (DoF)]

Is there still room in the game or you are launching?