Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by talonschild, Jul 29, 2012.
Care to explain further? Not everybody here played in DoE, whatever it means
And just as I suspected, 3.2 is worded by RB original. Our Amazonian wording was:
where in this letter from RB we find the following :
It does not matter much how this definition went in to our official NAP agreement, maybe even I had put it there worded like this to make it easier for RB to accept. Dont really remember who forged the tect of the agreement. And it does not matters much. But was interested from where this definition came.
MZ had told me they got NAP with RB to t170
5 turns difference in our and their NAP end is nothing we must worry for. No one can use 5 turns to effectively take advantage on someone. Also, MZ is not rookie. He knows how to fight and what is required to secure their team. And Poly will be ready for RB at t170. We must concentrate on our own business
Otherwise the idea of telling someone who we have this worded NAP with, that we are about to sign in-game DP with third party to prevent those 2 declaring war to each-other is good idea and we must keep it in our sleeves.
And yes, making RB keeping at par with whole 3 neighbors in military is the first phase of the plan. Being forced building/whipping/drafting 3x units will slow them down significant, while they will not be able to use this military advantage as they cant just turn around their back to one of the allies and go to kill the other one.
DoE stands for Destiny of Empires and was an epic 18-players Huge Earth pitboss game played under the Diplo-games rules over Apolyton.
Diplo-games means diplomacy, politics and players interaction works very much and stories are written by the players to reflect their in-game actions covered with role-playing. If I remember right you said you loved to follow my adventures as the brave general of the Amazons, you will be simply fascinated by reading the story threads of DoE. Valor, greed, bravery, evilness, alliances, treachery, religious wars, victory and defeats, ups and downs, threats, love, hate, revenges, ulcer rage and hilarious humor - it have everything. Real poetry in action. 10-15 threads by over 100 posts each.
There I was playing the Russians with Catherine. Me and Sommers crushed all competition at the end. I was either loved and hated by everyone, (where Sommers was almost only hated and feared lol). I cant give link to the threads now, but you can check at www.apolyton.net and look for the multiplayer section and DoE thread.
There in one of the final big actions we have taught our enemies that in-game-DPs are easily to overcome by just asking an allied nation to declare war to one of the DP nations. The DP is triggered, all nations declare war to the original declaring nation and then, seconds after the DP is triggered and already expired, you can declare war to whoever you want from the DP-bind nations without triggering the chain war-declaration by the others
So all we would need to overcome such move from RB (RB using the same tactic against us, ie DPing with SpAp to prevent us from attacking them. ) is to ask for example Poly or CP to declare war to the Spaniards, which will trigger the DP and then we can declare to Spaniards without any problems.
2metra, thx for explanation - I did not realize the DP dissolves the moment the war triggered by it starts.
Yeah, that's another thing I've just learned from this game. Thanks for explaining that.
Also, thanks for finding the origin of the language of the NAP. Even though I still feel that using a DP to try to prevent a DOW would go against the spirit of our agreement, I feel a little better about it knowing that RB brought it against themselves.
T170 is a perfect end date, though. RB can't move against them because we'll be moving in right afterwards.
We used a pre-attack (DoW) to exhaust a DP, then the secondary attack to sink an newly upgraded enemy fleet of like a dozen or more Destroyers in-port. The pre-attack cancelled the DP, and allowed the secondary attack (consisting of one Infantry) to sink a whole fleet of destroyers right under the nose of several enemy MGs and other soldiers ) The maneuver broke the spirit of the enemy alliance and basically won us the game. Just one example of getting around a DP (Thanks for reminding me of this 2metra... Ah the thrill of Victory)
The very last post in this thread is basically the end of the DoE game. It explains what happened (in story form): http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/196801-Destiny-of-Empires-Diplo-Game-Story-Thread-11-August-2011?p=6038937&viewfull=1#post6038937
This is the actual "last" story thread of the game (the game continued unofficially for a little while after it was over with a few players):http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/197612-Destiny-of-Empires-Diplo-Game-Story-Thread-12-October-2011
BTW if anyone is interested in Diplogames in general, we are playing one right now and there is space for players to join. Here is a link to the Organization thread:http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/198931-Domination-of-Barbarians-Diplo-Game-Organization-Thread
And the latest Story Thread:http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/203035-Domination-of-Barbarians-Diplo-Game-Story-Thread-14-May-2013
If anyone is interested in joining the game, send me a PM.
Last night we discussed 2 very important things with MZ on chat.
One is what RB intends to do with their mass drafted units.
And the other is who will get the GM from Economics.
We need to send to Poly the basic NAP. I changed 3.1 with the better wording. Do anyone have any concerns about it before we send it?
Also, we must push on Poly in preparing army and be ready if it happens that RB and Germans have no NAP. Waiting 3-4 turns after RB (and possibly WPC) declare war to Germans and then hitting Germans will effectively deny RB some 3-4 cities and quite some land. There was idea to gift units to WPC so they can take bigger part of the German land and strengthen relations with them, but now I read our basic NAP agreement and it turns out that we must consult with RB before gifting units to WPC. The questions will be too much and our motives will be really transparent.
As WPC is not in war with RB at the moment we don't need to consult them. Even if RB was in the war with Germans, we could gift units to WPC. The agreement only prohibits gifting units for the team in war with RB. True, gifting units to WPC would make RB's war much less effective, but there is nothing in our deal with RB that prevents us being total douches in the things that we have not written down.
Sneak edit: We could even gift units to Germans before RB declares war on them. We can even march them through RB lands if we think that we can get the units across before DoW.
Hmmm... I was with the impression the "consulting before gifting" clause was included in our agreement with RB, but it is not. Now when I think of it I think I removed it on purpose just for such cases LOL!
But now, I personally, dont want to put such bad karma on myself by playing that kind of douche
Why do we not just put the following clause:
It seems like there are like 4 different clauses in the treaty that are directed at exactly this, so why not just say it outright rather than leave it up to interpretation which can always be manipulated?
Also, the treaty skips from 2.2 to 2.4. Not a big deal but I just noticed it.
Yeah, we should treat RB with the courtesy they shown us
Heh, I saw that too now. I missed it somehow.
About in-game-DPs forbidden (LOL, I thought for another meaning), it is very good solution for the DP loopholes (LOL)
But there are other loopholes too I think. We still must leave the "not declare war to the other" part I think.
This is a chat with MZ from today.
Diplomacy with Apolyton get even more heated over the Economics free GM. Here is what we talked since yesterday with MZ:
Hm .. I may be misinterpreting this - but I'm surprised it seems MZ is actually threatening with running to RB to get his way ...
What do you intend to follow this up with, 2metra?
And here is what we spoke with Bistrita last night and today about this case:
Separate names with a comma.