Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

[jimwinsor]

Some thoughts on the Seleucids/Bactria:

1) According to Wikipedia, Bactria was a Seleucid satrapy until 245 BC (or so) when it declared independence. So perhaps it shouldn't even be a starting country? But rather a late arriving country like Galatians and Parthia? As has been noted, it is very difficult to play and doesn't seem like a lot of fun.

2) The problem with Seleucia is mainly what to do with Maurya. Maurya is a country with little incentive to have peaceful relations with it's western neighbors, since the only direction it can go is west. Seleucids know this, and hence feel strongly motivated to simply end them once and for all. A cease fire with ANT them becomes very alluring, as this allows them to accomplish that goal.

But as I found out, there are very strong Maurya map edge migrations that can occur, that will necessitate a strong garrison in the east regardless, greatly reducing the benefits of a total conquest. So the Seleucids might be more inclined than I once thought to seek peace from time to time on this front; the problem now being to give Maurya some such incentive as well.

As a possible solution, I think off map conquests by Maurya should yield a permanent Legacy income, in addition to the free unit bonus they currently yield. It should be assumed that each off map city is fully developed, and is thus producing X Legacy. That would give Maurya some reason to seek peace with the Seleucids, from time to time. Give them something productive to do, by sending forces through the "stargate."

[devoncop]

Interesting again.

I was definitely at fault not contacting Macedon early on.

The garrison mechanic is useful in certain circumstances but not with multiple enemies moving region to region taking your territory. In one turn I was able to check the Antigonids and defeat totally the field army of the Celticii knocking them out of the war. My only hope was to keep moving and stop territories I desperately needed to give me money and manpower from falling. I could sit in garrison more yes but being left with four enemy armies and one region would just be a slow death rather than a quick one

Finally...yes....I don't mini max.

[pnoff]

Interesting again.

I was definitely at fault not contacting Macedon early on.

The garrison mechanic is useful in certain circumstances but not with multiple enemies moving region to region taking your territory. In one turn I was able to check the Antigonids and defeat totally the field army of the Celticii knocking them out of the war. My only hope was to keep moving and stop territories I desperately needed to give me money and manpower from falling. I could sit in garrison more yes but being left with four enemy armies and one region would just be a slow death rather than a quick one

Finally...yes....I don't mini max.

Not a personal criticism of you, hope you understand. Just explaining how what happened was not a predetermined outcome. Not saying it was a kamikaze run, but it could have ended quite embarrassing for us.

[devoncop]

Interesting again.

I was definitely at fault not contacting Macedon early on.

The garrison mechanic is useful in certain circumstances but not with multiple enemies moving region to region taking your territory. In one turn I was able to check the Antigonids and defeat totally the field army of the Celticii knocking them out of the war. My only hope was to keep moving and stop territories I desperately needed to give me money and manpower from falling. I could sit in garrison more yes but being left with four enemy armies and one region would just be a slow death rather than a quick one

Finally...yes....I don't mini max.

Not a personal criticism of you, hope you understand. Just explaining how what happened was not a predetermined outcome. Not saying it was a kamikaze run, but it could have ended quite embarrassing for us.

I don't mind criticism .....I deserve plenty

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

As a small nation I can confirm that I knew I was either going to get eaten or help someone eat someone else.

With regards to the Indians, it might be better to crush them but leave them a couple of regions, it might stop the huge reinforcement blob from turning up on the edge of the map.

I agree that if you want to win you need to be ruthless, I'm playing another MP game with devon and he is next door to me and I could have and probably still can wipe him off the map. To be honest, I probably should as I know how devious he is but I've been watching him create an army from nothing and he's finally taken an area important to his faction so he might get a cool building so I've decided not to. I'll just wait until hes built the temple for me then take it off him (I jest)

I do find that once you get into the real detail the mechanics for combat and movement can get a bit janky, coordinating anything is a nightmare, it would be nice to be-able to create symbols/war targets that only allies can see.

Anyway, the game isn't over is it? Or are we calling it a bust?

Either way, I'm still interested in playing with your ruthless bastards and apologies for the lack of game chat or fluff but I think I can fairly say that no-one is interested in my situation or what I think.

p.s. Devon, I still haven't forgotten the Syracuse incident

[devoncop]

As a small nation I can confirm that I knew I was either going to get eaten or help someone eat someone else.

With regards to the Indians, it might be better to crush them but leave them a couple of regions, it might stop the huge reinforcement blob from turning up on the edge of the map.

I agree that if you want to win you need to be ruthless, I'm playing another MP game with devon and he is next door to me and I could have and probably still can wipe him off the map. To be honest, I probably should as I know how devious he is but I've been watching him create an army from nothing and he's finally taken an area important to his faction so he might get a cool building so I've decided not to. I'll just wait until hes built the temple for me then take it off him (I jest)

I do find that once you get into the real detail the mechanics for combat and movement can get a bit janky, coordinating anything is a nightmare, it would be nice to be-able to create symbols/war targets that only allies can see.

Anyway, the game isn't over is it? Or are we calling it a bust?

Either way, I'm still interested in playing with your ruthless bastards

p.s. Devon, I still haven't forgotten the Syracuse incident

The "Syracuse incident"......are you sure that was me ?

I may be being slandered.

As for the Judeans and Jerusalem, as I took it off the Seleucids I don't expect to be around long enough to add more than a couple of bricks and a nice ornamental fountain before I get squashed

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

As for the Judeans and Jerusalem, as I took it off the Seleucids I don't expect to be around long enough to add more than a couple of bricks and a nice ornamental fountain before I get squashed

Well, I except at least the outer walls to be completed

Possibly but sometimes it's best to make sure of these things

[ledo]

-) Antigonids.

Geffalrus is strong, but so what? Seleucids are strong too, for example. I thought Carthage&co was just writing propaganda, but it looks like they actually got high on their own supply. The diadochi mechanics trick is sad, but it basically means that he can be Glorious when other people are stable (there is some doubt in that, see discussion here https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=534 I hope if this gets fixed then Antigonids thingy will get fixed too, sorry Geffalrus ), which is a boon but not apocalyptical.


I agree the Seleucids are powerful and acknowledge that they benefit from peace in the east as well to an extent. The difference between the Antigonids and the Seleucids is they have a natural strong enemy they have to deal with on the other side of the world. That's much different than having your power concentrated in the centre of the world. That allows you to strike anywhere and be struck from anywhere. If the latter doesn't happen the former is a massive advantage. As for our diplomacy, now that we are discussing post-game (semi, but we are having open discussion), although I like to do some roleplay, the logic I was discussing in private diplomacy appears to be sound, even if I failed to recognize the size or immediacy of the threat. Considering Geffalrus' Great Plan the idea that the Antigonids were dangerous, that the invasion of italy was a turning point that needed to be addressed and that the peace among the northern diadochi was a dangerous set of affairs I don't think anything I said was that far off, although definitely it was good tactics to muddy the waters and push back on that idea.

As far as you not being completely in the hands of Macedonia, I think we were aware, Rome had talked to you during the Epirus incident (after I told them they should not defend Epirus openly on the forums but instead leverage a position of false neutrality) and discovered that and I remember receiving a copied message from them regarding the fact that you were suspicious of the Antigonids. To some extent there was definitely an opportunity lost to turn you, but since you were talking up the Antigonids as loyal allies compared to the Epirotes it was not hard to see why we suspected an alliance between you two might already be strong. And because of this we thought it might be easier to use you as a diplomatic foil and hope suspicions between you and Antigonos grow rather than try to negotiate directly. Indeed we were worried about your loyalty as an ally following the Epirus Incident (we don't know exactly what happened but it looked bad), so reaching out to form an alliance seemed a bit of a risky maneuver. We took a different route hoping that you and the Antigonids would not remain allies forever and that we would gain allies elsewhere off the back of what looked very much like naked aggression (and a few empires were indeed worried following the invasion of Epirus and opened communications).


tl;dr
Stay calm and keep playing. Use diplomacy, not propaganda. Put your nation first, this is both in the spirit of the game AND in the spirit of time period. Leave altruism for IRL.

As far as this, we never argued for altruism, it was always about winning and the serious threat of losing if the Antigonids took Italy. There was nothing there that didn't talk about the dangers of the Antigonid invasion, and the fact that other nations needed to respond to maintain a chance of winning. There was some strong text in character after the invasion of Italy, but that was just a lot of fun. My actual diplomacy with our allies and those we had a rapport qwith described scenarios and outcomes depending on what everyone else did while Italy was invaded, and that is generally what we discussed between ourselves. No one was saying the Antigonids and Macedonians are bad people, but instead both during the Epirus incident, which made us worried that Macedonia was aggressive and opportunistic, and the Antigonid invasion which was a real powerplay, we discussed whether other nations were at threat, whether Antigonos would win on legacy etc. I really think you just took the roleplay stuff a bit too seriously. That was just the fluff, and it mostly just drove people to our PM box where we did indeed discuss tactics, and it was always about winning. It served a purpose, but it wasn't the focal point of our efforts.

Our aim was always to win. If my aim was try to win some argument with you, I wouldn't have told Rome to stop publicly supporting me, or I would have tried to convince 13obo who was sympathetic to our plans to join in. I didn't need a public chorus to shout you off the forums. I needed you to stay there to continuously re-litigate the Epirus incident, to make sure everyone noticed it happened and then see what the reactions were and filter the communications either through Rome who would act neutral or Carthage for those who were genuinely worried that the Antigonids and Macedonians had created an alliance, and that the Macedonians at the very least had expansionist intentions. We hadn't even closed the door to an alliance with you. In fact I was hoping that Rome might be able to create a good relationship with you, but forever delay any suggestion of a joint war with me (considering Carthage is a fine target for Rome so that suggestion might have come).

[pnoff]

In short, you were not communicating with me as you should have been, for your own sake, not mine, which was exactly my point. Everything is overthought and overcomplicated.

In other news, it looks like sacred Pocus oracle is angry with Macedonian state. The messages of pythias are criptic, as they always are, but our wise men point at abysmal working conditions in Great Salt Mines of Pella as the most likely cause.

error_1.png (12.65 KiB) Viewed 1630 times

error_2.png (10.26 KiB) Viewed 1630 times

(created bug report https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewto ... 60&t=93907, I'm afraid I'm skipping this turn because game in inaccessible)

upd. New turn is up and it works fine, but I probably stalled the previous one.

[13obo]

pnoff, I get those errors often too but just relaunch the game.

Back to the game, I think the discussion is definitely going around in circles now (unless this is another of ledo's Machiavellian tactics to manipulate us!).

On another note, as I mentioned, I've stopped playing FOGE all together now due to some annoying features of the game (not because I was upset about this specific game), but would be happy to return once the new patch arrives, which will hopefully fix the biggest downfalls.

Would anyone here be willing to start a new game with the lessons learned from this one? From the limited information I've gathered from Pocus' posts, it sounds like it will be a major patch.

[devoncop]

I would

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

Sure, I'd play another.

[Geffalrus]

Absolutely. I think it would be VERY interesting to see how a game with the same players (not necessarily playing the same factions, perhaps) would play out. Maybe we should start a new forum thread for that?

I think we should think very hard about the factions that are utilized. For example, I don't think Bactria is a good fit unless there is a major change. Rome, Carthage, Macedon, Lysimakos, Antigonos, Seleucus, and Ptolemy are all obvious choices. Are there other factions out there with enough early game presence to intervene in the event of another Evil Alliance of the major powers? Arverni seemed a bit too far away. Iberi in southern Spain maybe? Nubia and Maurya since they're the great threats for Ptolemy/Seleucus? Epirus again? Pontus?

[devoncop]

Maurya is hamstrung in that it essentially can ONLY attack the Seleucids if it wants to grow.

An Alliance with the Seleucids is impractical.

Realistically Carthage, Rome, Antigonids, Seleucids, Ptolemaic Egypt, Lysimachids and Macedon are the nation's that all have decent military resilience and options diplomatically.

The second tier have one or the other but not both.

That is not to say a second tier nation is uninteresting in any way but anyone who takes one on needs to Tobin with their eyes open as to potentially limited game lifespan

By the way, in contrast to a human player Nubia being a "great threat" to Egypt it would actually represent the best chance of getting a secure southern border.....the AI has zero interest in cooperating with Egypt in most games so it couldn't be worse !

[Morbio]

Yes (Glutton for punishment) I'd be prepared to play again.

However I wonder, since the game is based on historical locations, strengths, weaknesses, etc. whether the game is essentially self-limiting regarding who can win? Given the effectiveness of the Macedonia / Antigonid alliance then what is the incentive to adopt a different strategy? It's also very difficult to get all others to communicate and cooperate to even try to stop the grand alliance and for some it would be suicide for the common good.

My fear is that this makes this potentially great game very limited from a playability perspective.

[13obo]

Elaborating on what devoncop said- let's breakdown starting nations' strength into four components: economy current (EC), economy potential (EP), military current (MC), military potential (MP). EC is the starting buildings and number of regions a nation has, EP is what you for your economy based on independent/AI regions around you. MC is your starting army and quality, MP is what you can get your army to given your available units to recruit (for example, can you hire units with 7+ attack?). MP is obviously limited by your country's EC and EP but let's just stick to the units available as otherwise we'd be having crossover effects between the categories.

Let's put ratings (1-5) on each nation and the categories mentioned above (we could also put weights for each category to come up with a final score but let's do that later). So let's discuss the player factions we had and their starting conditions:
Tier 1:
Rome - EC 3, EP 4, MC 3, MP 5.
Carthage - EC 4, EP 3, MC 3, MP 4.
Antigonids - EC 5, EP 5, MC 5, MP 5.
Seleucids - EC 4, EP 3, MC 4, MP 5.
Ptolemey - EC 4, EP 3, MC 3, MP 5.
Lysimachus - EC 2, EP 2, MC 4, MP 5.
Macedonia - EC 3, EP 5, MC 4, MP 5.

Tier 2/3:
Bactria - EC 1, EP 1, MC 2, MP 5 (not sure if Bactria has access to phalanxes or not but if they do, then MP is 5).
Arverni - EC 2, EP 2, MC 3, MP 3
Celtiberi - EC 2, EP 2, MC 2, MP 3
Epirus - EC 2, EP 5, MC 3, MP 5
Pontus - EC 2, EP 1, MC 2, MP 5 (not sure if they have access to phalanxes but if they do, then MP is 5)
Armenia - EC 2, EP 1, MC 2, MP 3

It is obvious from the above that even the t1 factions don't start close to equal. Lysimachus, for example, has a bad start because of their horrible economy and potential to expand unless they somehow manage to go in Greece. They may have a reasonable starting army, but that's all you can recruit for a long time. Seleucids may have a reasonable starting condition but nowhere nice to expand to unless they want to clash with the Antigonids. Etc. Note: the above categories don't consider your starting neighbours, which in Rome's case, for example, is quite tough, but let's ignore that too for the sake of "simplicity".

Why do I bother writing all of this? Because if we want a fun game and also to start killing each other from the start, then there are clearly nations that have superior starting conditions, which somehow needs to be accounted for. This would also mean that we basically have to play with tier 1 factions.

On the other hand, if more time is given, tier 2/3 nations also become viable, so we can have more people join. Epirus, for example, has potential but needs space and time. Being next to Macedonia means they will compete for Greece and therefore need to make an arrangement or clash, which will likely resulting in Epirus' demise due to Macedonia's superior starting conditions.

Ok, finished. Excuse the long post but I wanted to explain my position on the last game and how I see a "fun" game.

[Geffalrus]

Good post 13obo.

Couple questions for people:

- If Macedon eats an AI Epirus, are people going to just take that in stride?

- If Macedon eats a Human Epirus, are people going to just take that in stride?

- Are major powers more or less likely to defend tier 2 powers for some future gain?

- Are we accepting that major powers should have a path of expansion into AI areas, in which case are we kind of playing SP for the early game before really getting to MP mid game?

About Lsyimakos:

- Their major early advantage is that their allies in Anatolia provide them with multiple angles of attack on the Antigonids.

- In a way, I guess they're a spoiler for both Macedon and the Antigonids due to their position.

[Morbio]

Elaborating on what devoncop said- let's breakdown starting nations' strength into four components: economy current (EC), economy potential (EP), military current (MC), military potential (MP). EC is the starting buildings and number of regions a nation has, EP is what you for your economy based on independent/AI regions around you. MC is your starting army and quality, MP is what you can get your army to given your available units to recruit (for example, can you hire units with 7+ attack?). MP is obviously limited by your country's EC and EP but let's just stick to the units available as otherwise we'd be having crossover effects between the categories.

Let's put ratings (1-5) on each nation and the categories mentioned above (we could also put weights for each category to come up with a final score but let's do that later). So let's discuss the player factions we had and their starting conditions:
Tier 1:
Rome - EC 3, EP 4, MC 3, MP 5.
Carthage - EC 4, EP 3, MC 3, MP 4.
Antigonids - EC 5, EP 5, MC 5, MP 5.
Seleucids - EC 4, EP 3, MC 4, MP 5.
Ptolemey - EC 4, EP 3, MC 3, MP 5.
Lysimachus - EC 2, EP 2, MC 4, MP 5.
Macedonia - EC 3, EP 5, MC 4, MP 5.

Tier 2/3:
Bactria - EC 1, EP 1, MC 2, MP 5 (not sure if Bactria has access to phalanxes or not but if they do, then MP is 5).
Arverni - EC 2, EP 2, MC 3, MP 3
Celtiberi - EC 2, EP 2, MC 2, MP 3
Epirus - EC 2, EP 5, MC 3, MP 5
Pontus - EC 2, EP 1, MC 2, MP 5 (not sure if they have access to phalanxes but if they do, then MP is 5)
Armenia - EC 2, EP 1, MC 2, MP 3

It is obvious from the above that even the t1 factions don't start close to equal. Lysimachus, for example, has a bad start because of their horrible economy and potential to expand unless they somehow manage to go in Greece. They may have a reasonable starting army, but that's all you can recruit for a long time. Seleucids may have a reasonable starting condition but nowhere nice to expand to unless they want to clash with the Antigonids. Etc. Note: the above categories don't consider your starting neighbours, which in Rome's case, for example, is quite tough, but let's ignore that too for the sake of "simplicity".

Why do I bother writing all of this? Because if we want a fun game and also to start killing each other from the start, then there are clearly nations that have superior starting conditions, which somehow needs to be accounted for. This would also mean that we basically have to play with tier 1 factions.

On the other hand, if more time is given, tier 2/3 nations also become viable, so we can have more people join. Epirus, for example, has potential but needs space and time. Being next to Macedonia means they will compete for Greece and therefore need to make an arrangement or clash, which will likely resulting in Epirus' demise due to Macedonia's superior starting conditions.

Ok, finished. Excuse the long post but I wanted to explain my position on the last game and how I see a "fun" game.

I think that you have psuedo-scientifically agreed with my previous post. Only the tier 1 factions are viable and if the 2 strongest, and centrally positioned neighbours (a strength for allies), ally then the rest are really up against it.

I wonder if the game would be better if the Tier 1 countries were excluded as playable armies?

[13obo]

My personal opinion is that no nation is equal to another or if there are such nations, they are very few and would mean we need to play as a very small subset of people. A Lysimachus player is essential and although more difficult to start with, is a good check to the regional balance of power.

The best game is one with the most people, which will have different capabilities but that's ok as long as people consider that. I'm not saying you shouldn't destroy a smaller nation, but don't do it just to "crush the opposition" or at least make peace before you wipe them out completely? I don't mean to put constraints on how we play, of course, I just want to make you think about your actions.

And no, I don't think a game without the major powers as players would be fun. I had a few games like that and the AI is just too random and can easily wipe off a player at the start entirely due to bad luck.

[Geffalrus]

I wonder if the game would be better if the Tier 1 countries were excluded as playable armies?

I think that would be a very interesting game if all the humans took tier 2 powers and worked together to try and divide the tier 1 powers, creating new empires in the process. After that, we'd have a new set of top tier factions that could then engage in diplomacy and backstabbing. This would nicely mirror the dynamics of the Alexandrian conquest transition to the Wars of the Successors. It would also give players interesting options for the early AND middle game. Potentially.

If people are interested in that, I'd be willing to set it up under the title: New World Order