Planning cIV BTS MTDG III

Turning off diplomacy is a way too harsh. After all, we are all thinking humans. Diplomacy is not mandatory - those who want it will do it and those who dont will not. Negotiating, making deals, keeping and breaking them is part of the human nature. Why we would want to remove such a natural part of a interaction between humans as the diplomacy?

- if you build Great Lighthouse other team wont OB with you

Click to expand...

I've never seen a game where someone got isolated completely. And if he fell in this situation, it is no one else's fault but his own. And what - if we remove diplomacy, will this change somehow? Will people be more willing to sign OB with anyone who possess the Great Lighthouse?

- you will have to divide wonders between allies

Click to expand...

Diplomacy is a deal. You decide what deal you want and what deal you cant accept. It is up to you to agree or not.

- i give you ivory, but dont make war elephants

Click to expand...

It is also one option. I personally have never heard of such kind of deal, but it can be done if there are two teams who agree to and see fit in it.

- and many many strange and imho even stupied things

Click to expand...

But thats part of the beauty in the game when playing humans! Humans cant be so easily manipulated as the AIs in to non-beneficial to them deals. And not using diplomacy will degrade the game to something like many duels put on one big map to be played simultaneous. Also if you cant speak your terms and make a deal with your neighbor, it will turn the game in to something like a big dice throwing - do your neighbor decides to attack you this turn or not. And what if 2 neighbors decide to attack you on the same time? Or what if 3 decide to attack you? Your whole game is ruined by pure coincidence and there is nothing you can do about it.

And what is the worst you will get several peace treaties including so known "forever peace. At some moment one side will realize that it is unfair for it. It is allways only fair for one side but you cant allways understand it in time. What then? Play for the second place? this is the key problem, the problem that makes somebody start playing against you directly wasting everything just to change your civics or other examples."

Click to expand...

Forever peace is something which should be not agreed to at first place, but even if it happens, this is their choice. If a team is so competitive, that he cant accept being at second place, and was so stupid to sign eternal alliance with someone, then maybe his pride will be stronger than his honor and he will break his oath? I hardly can believe that in such a competitive game between so many communities things could happen just like that. Every team will try his best to win, if not for anything else, by pure local chauvinism.

You will have to spend a lot of time writing messages trying to trade better conditions.

Click to expand...

Well, diplomacy takes some time. If you are good, or you propose deals, to which no one can refuse, it will take less. With some teams it will be harder to agree, while with other it will be easier. But this is a Democracy team game. Even ruling your own nation is supposed to take a lot of writing. Diplomacy in my opinion and experience is way less time and keystrokes consuming part.

How do you tell em that there is no more rose garden over here.

Click to expand...

It is a human thing. If you've been nice trough the agreed period, and if you feel need to have this nation as ally for next period, and those feelings are mutual, then you re-sign deal. If not, thats what the agreements and written deals are for - once it is over, you are not obliged by it and you can act however you feel is best for you.

It takes too much time. It is never fair and mostly allways frustating.

Click to expand...

Just like attacking someone with superior military power is unfair and frustrating to the losing side, just like out-building and out-teching someone is unfair, just like being randomly attacked simultaneous on two fronts in ancient times in games without diplomacy allowed is unfair, but no world nor game is perfectly fair and if we could possibly do something ourselves as thinking humans to avoid being on the receiving end of the world or game unfairness, this is the diplomacy. Removing diplomacy will severely dumb down the game in my opinion.

I agree with just about everything 2metra has written above, and am in strong favour of leaving diplomacy on and always war off.

2metraninja said:

Diplomacy is a deal. You decide what deal you want and what deal you cant accept. It is up to you to agree or not.

Click to expand...

This isn't true at all- if diplo is allowed, and you don't want to participate you'll be cut out of all the deals, and everyone else will see you rightly as isolated and a prime candidate to be teamed up on. Not participating in diplo when everyone else has been is game over for that civ.

I agree with most you have stated, 2metra. But it doesnt change the thing that diplomacy is boring. It takes much more time to be good in it. And spending much time doesnt guarantee you from being tricked.

Yes, I personally prefer to have game achievements rather than diplomatic. I dont really feel satisfied attacking somebody 2x1. Isnt it dice roll?

You are completely wrong if you think that somebody can randomly attack you at the same time. If you are attacked by someone it means that you have forgotten to build defence. In general defending side has advantage in civ4 and I more fear that nobody will attack anybody than that the war will have too much impact. Attacking is quite hard. If you are got doubled or trippled this can mean 2 things:
1) they cheat and have dealt to do this
2) you have done something wrong trying to grab too much land or neglecting army

Nations which could not defend themselves had no chance in history. This is cruel but truth. I see no fun in building only warriors and developing at the beginning just because everyone is dealt to do this. I like advancing these both parts of the gameplay and searching for balance between them.

OT4E

This isn't true at all- if diplo is allowed, and you don't want to participate you'll be cut out of all the deals, and everyone else will see you rightly as isolated and a prime candidate to be teamed up on. Not participating in diplo when everyone else has been is game over for that civ.

Click to expand...

Maybe you are so strong, that you dont need to make deals, I dont know. For the normal players making deals is indeed very important part in the game. Still it is up to you if you use it or not. Just like producing or neglecting military is up to you. Yet again, just like diplomacy, if you neglect building army, this will most probably end up bad for you?

My point is that diplomacy is just a tool, which adds one more dimension to the game. And having options in games is something I consider to be good for the game.

But it doesnt change the thing that diplomacy is boring.

Click to expand...

Well, that might be a personal flavor thing, as I know a lot of people think this is the best part of playing with humans rather than AIs.

It takes much more time to be good in it.

Click to expand...

Like in the most things in life, to succeed in it you need either to be genius and have a gift at it, or you must invest in it to be good.

And spending much time doesnt guarantee you from being tricked.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly! You never know! Diplomacy and agreements are just a tool. It is far away from an "instant win" button or something to be afraid of. With diplomacy you still need to be decent in the game. Even in my experience, the stronger and more successful you are in pure game terms, so the better your chances are your word to be heard amongst the others. And I know for many cases, where someone had considered backstabbing someone, but then not doing so because he is afraid of his military might. Or he is not doing so, because he is afraid that once he puts the stain of deal-breaker on himself, then no one will ever make a deal with that proven deal-breaker and then he is isolated. Many times backstabbers have ended up being mauled badly and losing the game despite taking advantage initially by backstabbing. So one must consider his options, the pros and cons of keeping or breaking his word.

Yes, I personally prefer to have game achievements rather than diplomatic. I dont really feel satisfied attacking somebody 2x1. Isnt it dice roll?

Click to expand...

Game achievements do not contradict at all with diplomacy enabled. It is even the opposite. As I said already, if you are strong, you have more levers to make diplomacy. And even being the strongest, using diplomacy you can ensure you will not be gang-banged by all the other players only because you are going to win the game. What fun is to play the strongest and then being attacked by all other nations by default only because you played well? This is what usually happens in CTONs. And in CTON you play on a map, where you have only 2 neighbors and the game ends before serious fleets can be put on water. On a normal game, you can have like 3-4-5 neighbors and others can send considerable fleets to bring down the runner-up.

You are completely wrong if you think that somebody can randomly attack you at the same time. If you are attacked by someone it means that you have forgotten to build defence. In general defending side has advantage in civ4 and I more fear that nobody will attack anybody than that the war will have too much impact. Attacking is quite hard.

Click to expand...

This particular game it was not the case. In general you cant tell what army one have before it is too late without OBs. When you get 4-5 chariots/skirmishers on each front by the time you settle your second city on top of the copper and have fended off the initial waves of harassers, I doubt it have something to do with good or bad play on your side. It is either very bad luck in those two guys having randomly chosen you as 100% target and keeping pushing towards you, or you've been tricked out and they made agreement despite diplomacy was not allowed. In both cases, you hardly can do anything about it without using diplomacy yourself.

If you are got doubled or trippled this can mean 2 things:
1) they cheat and have dealt to do this
2) you have done something wrong trying to grab too much land or neglecting army

Click to expand...

I suspect it was the case 1), but can never tell for sure. So what good "no diplo" has brought to me then?

Nations which could not defend themselves had no chance in history. This is cruel but truth.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! If you are weak and defenseless, who will ever want you as an ally? He will just roll over you and get whats your. So where is the problem here with diplomacy?

I see no fun in building only warriors and developing at the beginning just because everyone is dealt to do this. I like advancing these both parts of the gameplay and searching for balance between them.

Click to expand...

Diplomacy is just a third part to put in balance with those 2 you mention and removing diplomacy only flattens the game and reduces possibilities in my opinion.

I dont want to go on and argue with you. I think both positions are clear. I just want to point that I am not that bad in diplomacy or that good in raw game as you can consider. I find diplomacy very boring. Yes, it open one more dimension and this dimension can make all others being useless. And it can turn in the way hated by everyone.
Never seen leader being attacked from all sides. Most players are usually involved in conflicts where they can earn something. So dont fear to be No1 in allways war, but of course you need to keep power at moderate level at least.

I dont want to go on and argue with you.

Click to expand...

Arguing is for clarifying the truth, where using diplomacy is more of a preference thing.

I find diplomacy very boring.

Click to expand...

I guess here comes the "Team" part in a MTDG. If you find diplomacy boring, then hand these duties to other members of the team.

this dimension can make all others being useless

Click to expand...

Just like any other tool, it can turns out very strong when combined correctly with the other tools, or it can prove complete waste if relying too much on it. Balance still must be achieved.

Never seen leader being attacked from all sides. Most players are usually involved in conflicts where they can earn something.

Click to expand...

The same thing happens with diplomacy on. There are always some teams, who will have their own agenda and will act not as someone could expect from them.

So dont fear to be No1 in allways war, but of course you need to keep power at moderate level at least.

Click to expand...

It is just the same with diplomacy allowed. Weaklings cant achieve much using diplomacy and the strong ones will still be strong.

I think both positions are clear. I just want to point that I am not that bad in diplomacy or that good in raw game as you can consider.

Click to expand...

It was great to see your position and I thank you for understanding mine too

I think other players can make their opinion on diplomacy too reading our posts if they dont have clear position yet.

Few points on AW and diplo:

-I'm sure we can not ban NAPs-it will just happen, and even if it won't the guy who get attacked will think that the others had signed NAPs.

-If we disallow trades we need a tailored map where everyone has (almost) everything since not having any strategic resource would break the game for them.

-the result of a game which is not 1 vs 1 will never depend only on player skill, no matter how much you want it. One decies to go on early war, possibly ruining its enemy's or its own civ (or both) so even if all teams have the same skill there are unpredicable events which makes one civ stronger an other weaker-till this point no diplomacy is involved. Diplo however has the possibility to even things out. Everyone wants to win, those who have fallen behind-if they are following a correct startegy-can band together to stop the stronger.

I was hoping to not comment at all on this game any more, but I thought it would be disrespectful to the other players not to post what I've found out.

Over on RB, they've taken the decision to limit the team members based on the fact that they think the other players in this game will cheat and post a spy on the RB team. They are doing this because of actions a certain player in this game (Calanthian, to be specific) have done in previous PBEMs with RB members. I'm sorry, and I must apologise, and inform you that they don't have any faith in their fellow players to not cheat. I'd say they aren't all bad but most of the RB people I've talked with feel this way about the rest of you

Krill said:

I was hoping to not comment at all on this game any more, but I thought it would be disrespectful to the other players not to post what I've found out.

Click to expand...

WTF Krill I thought you weren't even playing? Why start submarining people? What do you care? You're not playing right? So this game shouldnt even concern you, right?

Anyway, I perfectly understand the lack of trust in the honor of other players, particularly players you don't know, so I don't fault RB at all for that. Trust is earned, not given for free. Its not reasonable for me to expect anyone at RB to trust me if they don't know me. I also have alot of sympathy for you specifically Krill, given the way you got hosed in BTS MTDG I.

All that said, I think that calling out a player specifically was a little overkill and unnecessary, especially since you claim you arent even playing but hey, freedom of speech and all that...

Quite some allegations to just toss into a post without reason...

The reason I mentioned Calanthian by name is that there was an incident in a CFC PBEM where he used the admin password to check other peoples turns, and on one occasion played a full round of turns and passed the PBEM onwards. He admitted all this, and it is public knowledge if you know where to look:

http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showpost.php?p=222629&postcount=535

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11300483&postcount=483

I'm not mentioning this to smear Calanthian; he's already admitted this and paid the price. I'm stating this so that everyone playing in this game knows that RB are taking a certain level of precaution because of this. It seems reasonable that everybody concerned in the game is aware of the whole situation and the sites act as they see fit.

No one here is questioning RB level of precaution. Nor you are member of Team RB as far as I know, nor the aforementioned players acted questionable in previous not connected games are members of MTDG3 Team CFC, so I cant really see the point in posting this here, except for malice attempt to disturb a game, which you decided to not play in anyway.

Not looking for a formal inquiry, just wondering why we're calling out a leading member of another team here for no apparent reason.

As far as i can see He admitted that he had tested the outcome of a battle and got caugth because sent a wrong turn. now this is very wrong of course, but there is nowhere what you are trying to suggest to us that he repetedly misused the admin pw, an also there is no reason for name-calling in this game. so just leave, please.

Maybe this particular conversation should be moved over to ACS. I think it has more relevance there.

So, uh, what happened to this new dedicated forum? Things seem to have stagnated a bit in the game startup process. How about we just branch out into the relevant game discussions in this forum, and have someone move the relevant threads once the new forum exists? Otherwise we could be sitting still for a while.

Heard from ainwood this weekend, but it seems he did not get a chance to put the forum up. Waiting to hear an ETA on that. There was some confusion on whether we needed subforums for all participants, but I let him know that everyone was doing their own.

On second thought (my Dad always used to tell me to follow directions), maybe we should just go ahead and give ainwood the info that he is asking for, so we can just get this forum put up ASAP. So I need a final list of the teams participating, their team name, and who their team reps (the person(s) responsible for approving requests to join the private subforum) will be. I need two (2) team reps for each team.

So like this, for every team:

1. Team Civfanatics - 2metraninja, Sommerswerd
2. Team Apolyton - Robert Plomp, OzzyKP
3. Team Realms Beyond - Lord Parkin, ?
4. Team We Play Civ - Rob Worham, ?
5. Team CivPlayers - ?
6. Team Spanish Language Apolyton - Magno, Manolo
7. Team Civforum.de - ?
8. ...

etc...

Anyone can chime in to speed this process along if you know the answers. And if you have contacts on any of the participating forums please don't hesitate to reach out to them and let them know to post this info here ASAP.

Please Note - I AM FULLY AWARE THAT EACH FORUM WILL MAKE/USE THEIR OWN PRIVATE FORUM/SUBFORUMS. However, this is the info ainwood said he wanted to set up the Game Forum, I already told him I didn't think we needed it, but the forum was not set up, and he has not responded to me since. So I am assuming that he is insistant on getting this info to set up the forum. Please don't flame or argue or debate about this . Just please cooperate with me to get the forum up ASAP. Again, I am sorry to everyone for the delay. I am just as anxious to get started with the game as you.

I think OT4E was heading Civ Players.

The other teams that were invited (that I know of) were the French, Polish, and Chinese civ sites. I think the French might have made one post here ages ago... not sure if they're still planning on playing. Only ever heard secondhand about the Polish site, so no idea there. As for the Chinese, I haven't heard much more from them since the initial invitation. Will check up... though they may have found the idea a bit daunting.