Foreign Minister - chiefpaco
Deputy Foreign Minister - Padma
Former Term 3 Deputy Foreign Minister (Resigned) - Plexus

I will open by continuing the work of Shaitan and Plexus in the previous term. The policies and operations from term 2 will carry over and re-assessed in time. This thread is open for all debate, recommendations, and objections to the scope of our Foreign policy.

FOREIGN POLICY
[list=1] We will declare war only in the event that an ally requests an alliance against a civ below that ally's rank.

We may not seek military alliances, military protection pacts, or trade embargos with civilizations of a lower rating than recognized or potential victims.

We will not agree to foreign demands of extorsion.

We will prosecute a campaign of Cultural Assault in support or our Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny is defined as territory in the effective corruption reducing radius of Fox Nest.

We will practice a campaign of regular extorsion against Rogue Nations. We will extort Suspect Nations if they have a required resource or technology.

We will not sign Rights of Passage with Rogue Nations. We may sign Rights of Passage with Suspect Nations and Common Neighbors to achieve strategic goals. We will always endeavor to renew Rights of Passage with Most Favored Nations and Able Partners.

We will not raze captured cities.

We will not renew Peace Treaties with Rogue Nations. We will renew Peace Treaties with Suspect Nations if they posess a resource or technology that we need. We will always renew Peace Treaties with all other ranks of civilizaitons.

Unless specifically previously proposed and accepted by the citizens, Military Protection Pacts, Alliances, and Trade Embargos shall be rejected during the course of a turn. They will be noted and put to a vote for us to decide if we wish to initiate them for turn 0 of the next round.

We will attempt to achieve and maintain a polite or gracious attitude from our Favoured Nations and Able Partners. We will also attempt to avoid a furious attitude from our Common Neighbours. This may involve any of the following with such nations, subject to a proposal and citizen acceptance:
- Promoting trade
- Small Gifts
- Establishing Embassies
- Right of Passage Agreements
- Limiting troop movement in their territory
[/list=1]

RANKS
Most Favored Nations
Iroquois
England

Able Partners
Rome

Common Neighbors
Zululand
India

Suspect Nations
Greece
Azteca
Babylon
China

Rogue Nations
None


HOW RANKS ARE DETERMINED
Polls are taken asking citizens to score the AI civs from 5 (best) to 1 (worst). These votes were tabulated and run through a simplifying formula to come up with the rating numbers.
Spread Formula (vote, points):
5, 3
4, 1
3, 0
2, -1
1, -3

These will be repolled each term for all civs and as needed for individual civs when their actions warrant it (someone declares war on us, attempts extorsion, agrees to an alliance and helps us kick butt, etc).


CURRENT CIV RATING NUMBERS
England 30
Iroquois 24
Rome 19
India 6
Zululand -3
Babylon -12
Greece -14
Azteca -14
China -18

Public Opinion Results Spreadsheet (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/PhoenaticaOpin.zip)

RATE# RANK
20+, Most Favored Nation (MFN)
10 to 19, Able Partner (AP)
-9 to 9, Common Neighbor (CN)
-19 to -10, Suspect Nation (SN)
<=-20 Rogue Nation (RN)


HOW RANKS DEFINE THE FOREIGN POLICY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS TURN PROPOSALS

EXCHANGE RATE - These generalizations will be used to help figure out whether a proposed deal amount is acceptable or not.

MFN - Fair trade
AP - Small Gain
CN - Medium gain
SN - Large gain
RN - Extortionate gain

CREDIT RATING - Deals for gold/turn get more income but also create the possibility that the AI civ will bankrupt and declare war to break the deals and save their economy. This table shows how we will try to structure deals.

MFN - Straight payment first, then g/t
AP - Straight payment first, then g/t
CN - Even mix
SN - G/t first, then straight payment
RN - G/t first, then straight payment

ALLIANCES - When requested by a foreign nation, consult the civS' ranks. An alliance can be granted if the target nation is a rank below the requesting nation. When we seek alliances, requests may be made to nations equal to or above the target nation's status.

RIGHT OF PASSAGE - Rank will determine whether we always want an ROP, never want an ROP or will use opportunistic ROPs (when we intend to move through that civ's territory).

MFN - Always
AP - Always
CN - Opportunistic
SN - Opportunistic
RN - Never

PEACE TREATY RENEGOTIATION - Rank will determine whether we will seek peace treaty renegotitations.

MFN - Always
AP - Always
CN - Always
SN - Opportunistic
RN - Never

EXTORSION - Rank will determine if we will extort the civ at all, only when they have something we want, or if we will do it constantly.

MFN - Never
AP - Never
CN - Never
SN - Opportunistic
RN - Every 20 turns or less

The Department thread for term 2 can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21613).

The department of Foreign affairs has made recommendations for the next round. Please give your input:

Foreign Affairs Proposal for June 2 Turn (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23778)

Hello evreyone, thanx for re-electing me as deputy. (don't feel bad, I didn't even vote for myself). :)

The Department of Foreign Affairs is hosting discussion and polls on the shape and direction of our nation. Please participate!

Setting Public Opinion on England:
Public Opinion Poll: England (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23988)

Revolution Discussion:
Revolution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23990)

Next turn chat proposal:
Foreign Affairs Proposal for June 5 turn (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23986)

Changes to our Foreign Policy:
Changes/Additions to Foreign Policy - MPPs and Embargos (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23999)

Also, I support discussion on our Military Policy, hosted by the Military Department:
Military Policy (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23948)

I propose changes to article one of the Foreign Policy:

1. We shall declare war on three conditions: the people see it fit, if war will benifet the people, and if we can destroy the opposing nation within 50 turns.

We could probably destroy any civilization in 50 turns but that would be a judgement call. Benefiting the people is a definite judgement call. If the people want war, that would overrule a policy in any case.

I think what he meant was that the ppl should be in the mood for war, not exactly cry for war.
That is a difference (at least i think this). At the moment, im running a "war!" informational poll to see the moods of citizenry. This will tell us wheter we will have to avoid war under any circumstance or wheter we can risk war.
If we are allowed to "risk" a war, then we should instantly build a strike force in addition to our strengthen our defence.
Example:
We could have easily avoided WWI if we would have given away our map. Now, our foreign policy stated not to give it away. We could had hade this dependant on citizen mood, so if there was a "no war!" mood, it would have been appropriate to give the map away. If there would have been a "war!" mood, the action taken would have been best choice.
[i dont want to bring up old issues, but this seems the best example]

At that time we were definitely in a war mood. We were preparing an invasion of America. That's why the policy was formatted so agressively. In other words, I agree that our policy should reflect the overall desires of the populace. The current policy carried over from last term. That policy was revised when we were finally at peace after millenia of war and there was a very strong anti-war feeling but also a strong desire for expanding relations and gathering allies. It's possible that popular opinion is swinging back to the agressive side now, in which case the war clause would need to be readressed.

thats why i started the poll war! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24027) to find out. The result will have major impact on all of our departments.

At the moment, I am still coming to grips with being the Foreign Leader and am still finding out what "Foreign Policy" (FP) means. Whether it is the official stance of the Foreign Department, demands, expectations, recommendations, guidelines, hints, or the collective belief of the citizens.

I have so far thought it to be a mix of "official stance of FA" combined with "recommendations". Citizens then get their say when FA makes a proposal and then again when they vote on issues.

If my assumption holds true, then I think we can declare war whenever we want. The FA dept would not support it, but citizen voting can turn anything over. What they aren't changing is the policy but the direction our nation takes. I'd probably rant saying "this is an outrage!" and "you are all bloodthirsty maniacs!" and we'd continue on with the war.

In the case of the map trade, I hope that it was also a vote from the citizens to not trade maps or at least a general citizen consensus. Otherwise, I think the FA may have been acting a bit above the citizenry which I would not tolerate in these times. The game has come a long way since those early days so this was not a fair comparison, but an illustration to how I would handle it differently today.

To tie in the policy changes I recently proposed, I'm not sure if I need a citizen vote to set the FA stance. Citizens can always question and reject my proposals anyway. The elected Leader was voted in, and I'd like to think that the citizens did so because they agreed with the Leader's ideals. At the same time, citizens also have the right to debate it. I am still unsure of how the FP supports changes though. Surely a leader who does not listen to the opinions of the citizens will not become very popular. At the same time, I have a job to do and a great responsibility and wonder where I should be focusing it.

Just to sum up, I don't think the FP are rules of the game. I think they are guidelines for our nation to follow but certain circumstances and opposition definitely take precedence. Does this mean FP is useless? I don't think so, but the Dept of FA needs to have an official stance on issues. Where does the citizen will fit in though? That I am still thinking about.

Just to clarify. The map that started the Domino war wasn't a trade. Babylon tried to extort it. When we refused to be extorted they declared war. The Foreign Policy at the time was that we would not give in to extortion attempts unless the President thought it would start a war and the Military Leader thought we were unprepared to fight a war.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Just to clarify. The map that started the Domino war wasn't a trade. Babylon tried to extort it. When we refused to be extorted they declared war. The Foreign Policy at the time was that we would not give in to extortion attempts unless the President thought it would start a war and the Military Leader thought we were unprepared to fight a war.

Right. I mixed my words too much on editing. Regardless of how it was handled in the past, I meant to say that I would keep the stance of FA clear & open it up for a citizen vote. It was a bad example and I will jump into the trout-slapping bin for 15 minutes.

I also wish to state that the poll disorganizer posted has not been officially recognized nor endorsed by the Foreign Affairs Department and shall not be bound by the result of the poll.

cp:In the case of the map trade, I hope that it was also a vote from the citizens to not trade maps or at least a general citizen consensus. Otherwise, I think the FA may have been acting a bit above the citizenry which I would not tolerate in these times.

I think at the time, the citizens in general felt that we should not give in to their demands.

Originally posted by chiefpaco
The game has come a long way since those early days so this was not a fair comparison, but an illustration to how I would handle it differently today.

I wish to rephrase this as I know it to be incorrect and caused confusion, just so we're clear (theme of the day!). Omit the word "differently" and I think it reads better and to what I intended.

It seems that the polling method is somewhat flawed because the scoring system also depends on the number of votes. i.e. a civ that gets more "lower" votes than another can have a higher rating. I will see if there is a better way to do this. Perhaps the vote re-adjustment forumula could just be lowered by one so each vote is balanced around 0 rather than an ever increasing number.

This is a reminder too all cabinet members and governers to post their turn chat instructions here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23980) for tonight's turn chat, if you haven't done so already.

I have done a study on re-evaluating the ranking system that we currently use because it skews the results towards polls with higher votes. While I think voter turnout is a valid criteria for Foreign Nation opinions, I'm not sure it works well in the structure of our game because of the flux of citizens we have coming in & out of the game and the fact that polls may be held at different times, gather different traffic, etc...

In my study, I am proposing 2 alternatives to the scoring method to avoid this potential issue:

#1: Centred Ranking. Centres the voting around 0 so that # votes don't really matter.
Votes are tabulated 1-5 where:
5 (best) = 2
4 = 1
3 = 0
2 = -1
1 = -2

#2: Spread Ranking. Basically this one is like Centred but puts more weight on the extreme votes.
Votes are tabulated 1-5 where:
5 (best) = 3
4 = 1
3 = 0
2 = -1
1 = -3

In the case of these 2 proposals, I propose the following ranking criteria:
Favoured: 20+
Able Partner: 10 - 19
Common Neighbour: -9 - 9
Suspect: -19 - -10
Rogue: <-19

The results of the study for our current voting are shown in the following spreadsheet that I prepared with Excel. I would appreciate anyone's feedback, especially that of Shaitan, the founder of the ranking system and my deputy.

Thanks,
cp

Civ Ranking Study (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/CivRanks.zip)

I hope you can read it ok.

Unless you use smoothing (averaging), the number of votes will always play a factor. A generally positive vote will rank a civ higher if there is a larger voter turnout. Same with a generally negative vote - the larger the turnout, the lower that civ's score.

Of the ones you've got spec'd out I like the spread better.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Unless you use smoothing (averaging), the number of votes will always play a factor. A generally positive vote will rank a civ higher if there is a larger voter turnout. Same with a generally negative vote - the larger the turnout, the lower that civ's score.

Of the ones you've got spec'd out I like the spread better.

Good point. It is not entirely a bad thing, as we agree on. I'd like to lessen its effects. The proposals I've got seem to work ok or well with our current ranks but I can't be sure it will be perfect. I'm not sure how to mathematically prove the ranking value. In any case, I am leaning towards giving the spread formula a go for the next round.

Originally posted by Plexus
I propose changes to article one of the Foreign Policy:

1. We shall declare war on three conditions: the people see it fit, if war will benifet the people, and if we can destroy the opposing nation within 50 turns.

How about on 1 condition? If we are attacked first, in which case we can defend ourselves. :D But I seem to be the only reasonable voice in our empire. :) Looks like we have warmongers in our midst. Or revenge seekers. I think "destroying" other nations is sick, and should never be considered. Of course I just joined our civlization, so I wasnt around for the past wars, but I would have been pushing for peace the whole time, even if no one listened. :lol:

But this is the Game of Democracy! Not the Game of RX2000's Peaceloving Tendencies. :lol:

If the people are bloodthirsty, they must be satiated eh? :slay:

Oh rest assured young one, your not the only peacemonger.

Welcome RX2000. You'll be happy to know that Phoenatica has never declared war. We do have a rich military history though, as others have declared war on us for most of the past 5000 years. :lol:

Originally posted by Plexus
I propose changes to article one of the Foreign Policy:

1. We shall declare war on three conditions: the people see it fit, if war will benifet the people, and if we can destroy the opposing nation within 50 turns.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with ol' #1 too. It makes it sounds like we will be accepting some proposed alliances when perhaps we wish not. I have proposed changes to #2 which flipped the statement around to say when we would not sign alliances. Now I suppose they could contradict.

You're on the right track, but I'm not sure if your conditions will satisfy us that well. Sly leaders can always justify a war and 50 turns is quite a long time to say and would likely be hurtful under a Republic (assuming we "declared" war, as stated in the article). 5 turns may be more appropriate, but are we that savage?

I'm thinking we could re-word the measure to accept declaring war based on a certain procedure, given our Republican nature. Something like a mandatory discussion followed by a vote where a 2/3 citizen majority is needed.

Discuss. I'll open a new thread if it heats up.

50 turns would become even more hurtful in a democracy unless we obtain Universal Suffrage, if we do then the 50 turn rule has less bad side effects for a Republic, add in polic stations and we can keep it down, plus all of the happiness wonders we have. 2/3 rule sounds good Chiefpaco, but perhaps scrap tradition and make it a 3/4 rule, or differing amount that we should vote for in the future. 5 isn't a good number either, perhaps 15-25, and we should always think about War mobilization, but I don't think that that would be a good idea.

The Foreign Policy was amended based on discussion in this thread:

Changes/Additions to Foreign Policy - MPPs and Embargos (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23999)

England's Status was added based on the voting in this poll:
Public Opinion Poll: England (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23988)

England was scored on the "Spread Ranking" formula I proposed.

Objections to and discussion on Foreign Policy are always welcome here.

Foreign Relations
Gracious: None
Polite: England
Cautious: India
Annoyed: Rome, Greece, China, Zululand, Iroquois
Furious: Babylon, Aztecs

ROP Agreements
(nation, turns left, gpt to us)
Rome, 10, 0
Greece, 0, 1
Iroquois, 0, 1
Zulu, 0, 0
India, 0, 0

Other Foreign Pacts
Greece and India share a MPP.

FA Spending
(Nation, amount, turns to expire)
Greece, 2gpt, 11
Iroquois, 2gpt, 10
India, 2gpt, 10

Next turn's Foreign Proposal is posted here: Foreign Affairs Proposal for June 12 turn (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24506)

The President's office asks FA what can be done to diplomatically remove the Greek forces from our territory.

As you can see their are many greek troops inside of are terrority, but most of them are pass are cities. I think if they were going to attack us they would have already. I also came up with the possibility that they could attack the chinese, but most of their forces are far away from the nearest chinese town. The most reasonable thing I could think of was they are going to attack the Iroquois.

Teal: Are troops

Yellow: Greek stacks

Blue:Greek troops

Green: Greek possibility of attacks

Purple: Iroquois troops

I agree Greece does not appear to be headed towards us because some of their troops have already crossed our lands and are currently in Iroquois lands. They do not seem to be headed towards the closest city of India or the closest Chinese city. Unless they can walk on water, I think they are headed to Iroquois lands. I haven't heard official word from Greece and their silence worries me.

Greece is an Able Partner of ours, but we certainly do not endorse agression towards a Favoured Nation like Iroquois. In this case, we would be more supportive of the Iroquois. It should also be noted that Greece share a MPP with India so this could get messy.

Since we can not ignore Greece's wishes right now, I can see very little we can do to stop their troop movements. We have a ROP with them and we should remember we used a ROP honourably with them on our Aztec enemies and I will trust them to this point. That said, perhaps we can create a favoured passage for them to steer their troops from passing directly by our cities. I will make this recommendation to the Military Dept.

My other goal is to maintain our deals with Greece on a turn-by-turn basis, should we feel a need to instantly revoke them. Therefore, I'm proposing no new agreements with them this round so they may be instantly canceled any time.

Greece shall be warned that their actions against a higher ranking nation shall not be endorsed by our nation. They shall also be ill advised to turn on us at this point, lest powerful action be directed to them.

Sorry I ment to post an attachment with that, but it didn't work out to well.

Please cast your vote regarding how we should show our generosity towards Rome:
Pleasing Rome (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24605)

Strider, I thought that might have been the case :)

Go here for an important resignation thread from myself:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24639

In light of Plexus' resignation, I would like to appoint Padma as my Foreign Affairs Deputy. Padma finished next in voting in the last election and is a fine contributer to Phoenatica. That is, pending Padma's acceptance.

I'm hoping for someone to be backup for the FA in case I have to leave and second opinions on FA affairs. I hope to give the deputy a turn or 2 behind the wheel too, if we can manage.

I have discussed this with chiefpaco, and am willing to accept this appointment. It would be an honor to serve Phoenatica.

The only caveat, as I pointed out to cp, is that RL can intervene, sometimes suddenly. For now, in my case, turn chats simply cannot be guaranteed. Sunday/Monday are impossible, and all other days are questionable. I will try to make tonight's chat.

If you don't have a chat rep CP I voulanteer to be it. I can make most of the turn chats and I already represent two departments. Why not make it three?

Umm.. Strider, don't bite off more than you can chew. :)

Don't worry.... I can't chew much, but I can eat alot :)

Congrats, Padma.

Thanks for the offer, Strider, but I think it's best for me to not accept. I've been able to attend pretty well every chat so I'm not hiring at the moment.

Foreign Relations
Gracious: None
Polite: Rome, England
Cautious: India
Annoyed: Greece, Iroquois, China, Zulu
Furious: Aztecs, China

ROP Agreements
(nation, turns left, gpt to us)
Zulu, 0, 0
India, 0, 0
England, 6, 0
Iroquois, 0, 1
Greece, 0, 1
Rome, 5, 0

Other Foreign Pacts
Greece and India share a MPP.
Greece declared war on Iroquois in 1315AD.
India declared war on Iroquois via MPP in the following year.

FA Spending
(Nation, amount, turns to expire)
India, 2gpt, 5
Iroquois, 2gpt, 5
Greece, 2gpt, 6

Foreign Relations
Gracious: None
Polite: India, England, Zulu
Cautious: None
Annoyed: Greece, Iroquois, China, Babylon, Rome
Furious: Aztecs

ROP Agreements
(nation, turns left, gpt to us)
Zulu, 0, 0
India, 0, 0
England, 2, 0
Iroquois, 16, 0
Greece, 16, 3
Rome, 1, 0

Other Foreign Pacts
Greece and India share a MPP.
Greece declared war on Iroquois in 1315AD, still continuing.
India declared war on Iroquois via MPP in the following year, still continuing.

FA Spending
(Nation, amount, turns to expire)
India, 2gpt, 1
Iroquois, 2gpt, 1, 1gpt, 16
Greece, 2gpt, 2

Foreign Governments
Democracy: England, Rome, Greece, Zulu, China, Babylon, India, Aztecs
Anarchy: Iroquois

The new opinion polls are being posted. This will again identify our fellow nations as defined by Foreign Policy. Please consider carefully before voting, as this will determine our perspective for the remainder of the term and possibly part of next term too.

I wish I could have written a little blurb on each civ, but have decided against, for the following reasons:
[list=1]
Time - It would take me ages to compile a history on 9 civs.
Bias - I could not easily present a fair representation of each civ.
Realism - It is up to the individual to consider the actions of other civs, and do research if they are undecided. Perhaps it may be realistic that long ago events may be washed from our memories.
[/list=1]
That said, I will be happy to assist those searching for answers. Please vote so we may gain an accurate opinion on our fellow nations.

Note that England will not be repolled. That poll was posted as soon as we met them only a few turns ago, during Term 3. When the results of these polls are tabulated (probably by the end of this week) England's votes will be retabulated to update their score.

I didn't notice this before and will add this to my turn reports:

Foreign Trade Embargos
Rome
With Against
Greece Iroquois
Iroquois Greece (yes, they do)

Greece
With Against
Rome Iroquois
Aztecs Iroquois
Zulu Iroquois

Iroquois
With Against
Rome Greece
Aztecs India
Babylon India

Zulu
With Against
India Iroquois
Greece Iroquois

India
With Against
Zulu Iroquois

Babylon
With Against
Iroquois India

Aztecs
With Against
Greece Iroquois
Iroquois India

I really hate it when all civs gang up on one other one. I am tempted to begin advocating an aggressive stance towards any nation that declares war on the Iroquois, as it doesn't seem like they did anything to deserve this.

Please share your views regarding the FA's next turn proposal and the current crisis of the Iroquois:

Foreign Affairs Proposal for June 18 Turn (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25071)

Commitment to Iroquois (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25070)

Foreign Relations
Gracious: None
Polite: India, England, Zulu
Cautious: None
Annoyed: Greece, Iroquois, China, Babylon, Rome
Furious: Aztecs

ROP Agreements
(nation, turns left, gpt to us)
Zulu, 0, 0
India, 0, 0
England, 0, 0
Iroquois, 11, 0
Greece, 11, 3
Rome, 0, 0

Other Foreign Pacts
Greece declared war on Iroquois in 1315AD, still continuing.
India declared war on Iroquois via MPP in the following year. Peace negotiated in 1370AD.
China and Iroquois allied against Greece in 1365AD. Hence China declared war on Greece in 1365AD.
Rome and China allied against Greece in 1365AD. Hence Rome declared war on Greece in 1365AD.
India declared war on China in 1365AD (MPP with Greece likely cause).

FA Spending
(Nation, amount, turns to expire)
Iroquois, 1gpt, 11

Foreign Governments
Democracy: England, Rome, Greece, Zulu, China, Babylon, India, Aztecs
Communism: Iroquois
Anarchy: Greece

Foreign Trade Embargos
Rome
With Against
Iroquois Greece
China India

Greece
With Against
Zulu Rome
Zulu Iroquois
Aztecs Iroquois

Iroquois
With Against
Rome Greece
Aztecs India
Babylon India

Zulu
With Against
India Iroquois
Greece Iroquois
Greece Rome
China Greece

India
With Against
Zulu Iroquois
Babylon China

Babylon
With Against
Iroquois India
India China

Aztecs
With Against
Greece Iroquois
Iroquois India

China
Zulu Greece
Rome India

I propose that Greece be reranked from Able Partner to Suspect Nation. Their slaughter of the civilians in Tyendenaga was an atrocity of the worst sort and we must not be seen to sympathize with such scum.

Proposal accepted. Ranks will be decided again however, for the next chat though.

Turn 0
Trade Embargo Greece with straight-up deals with:
China, Babylon, Iroquois, Rome, Zulu


Can we do this while we have current trade agreements with Greece? Do we risk losing our current income from Greece or worse, do we risk war? I think Greece is still paying for medicine (44 gpt).

Originally posted by donsig


Can we do this while we have current trade agreements with Greece? Do we risk losing our current income from Greece or worse, do we risk war? I think Greece is still paying for medicine (44 gpt).
Signing a trade embargo will break any deal that you have that has a resource involved. It does not affect deals that have only money, diplomatic concerns and/or technology involved.

Whew - I was worried for a minute!

We did cancel our luxury exports to Greece during the last turn chat. :)

Furthermore, it would only restrict our luxury and resource trading with Greece. We could still trade technology, gold, and sign a MPP with them, if we wanted to.

Foreign Relations
Gracious: None
Polite: India, England, Zulu
Cautious: Rome
Annoyed: Iroquois, China, Babylon, Aztecs
Furious: Greece

ROP Agreements
(nation, turns left, gpt to us)
Zulu, 0, 0
India, 0, 0
England, 0, 0
Iroquois, 3, 0
Greece, 3, 3
Rome, 0, 0

Trade Embargos
We signed against, with, turns left
Greece, (Zulu, China, Iroquois, Rome, Babylon), 12
Greece, (England, Aztecs), 17

Other Foreign Pacts
Greece declared war on Iroquois in 1315AD. Peace agreed in 1390AD.
China and Iroquois allied against Greece in 1365AD. Hence China declared war on Greece in 1365AD.
Rome and China allied against Greece in 1365AD. Hence Rome declared war on Greece in 1365AD.
India declared war on China in 1365AD (MPP with Greece likely cause).
Babylon allied with Iroquois against Greece in 1370AD. Hence Babylon declared war on Greece in 1370AD.
England and Iroquois signed MPP agreement in 1385AD.
Babylon and Aztecs signed MPP agreement in 1385AD.
England declared war on Greece via MPP in 1385AD.
Aztecs declared war on Greece in 1400AD.
Babylon is at war with Greece, via MPP? (1385AD?)

FA Spending
(Nation, amount, turns to expire)
Iroquois, 1gpt, 3, 3gpt, 12

Foreign Governments
Democracy: England, Rome, Greece, Zulu, China, Babylon, India, Aztecs
Communism: Iroquois, Greece

Foreign Trade Embargos
Target - Nations embargoing

Rome - Greece, Zulu

Greece - Phoenatica, China, England, Rome, Iroquois, Aztecs, Babylon, Zulu

Iroquois - Greece, India, Zulu

India - Iroquois, Babylon, Aztecs, China

Aztecs - Greece, India

China - Rome, India, Babylon, Zulu

I'll be away much of this weekend (21st-23rd). Padma shall have full power over FA duties, should he be available.

Thanks to Padma and thanks to all,
cp

Please citizens! Vote on whether we should war with Greece!

War with Greece! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25454)

Eyrei: I really hate it when all civs gang up on one other one. I am tempted to begin advocating an aggressive stance towards any nation that declares war on the Iroquois, as it doesn't seem like they did anything to deserve this.

Vultures they are. They gang up on the weak. As a defender of justice, we must play our part in the global balance accordingly.

The latest opinion polls have been tabulated. Thank you for your co-operation. Please refer to post#1 in this thread to find the new opinions.

Here is another link to the scoring sheet I used.
Public Opinion Results (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/PhoenaticaOpin.zip)

Foreign Relations
Gracious: None
Polite: India, England, Zulu
Cautious: None
Annoyed: Iroquois, China, Babylon, Aztecs, Rome
Furious: Greece

ROP Agreements
(nation, turns left, gpt to us)
Zulu, 0, 0
India, 0, 0
England, 0, 0
Iroquois, 0, 0
Greece, 0, 3
Rome, 0, 0

Trade Embargos
We signed against, with, turns left
Greece, (Zulu, China, Iroquois, Rome, Babylon), 2
Greece, (England, Aztecs), 7

Other Foreign Pacts
China declared war on Greece in 1365AD (with Iroquois alliance). Peace achieved in 1425 AD.
Rome declared war on Greece in 1365AD (with Chinese alliance).
India declared war on China in 1365AD (MPP with Greece likely cause).
Babylon declared war on Greece in 1370AD (with Iroquois alliance).
England and Iroquois signed MPP agreement in 1385AD.
Babylon and Aztecs signed MPP agreement in 1385AD.
England declared war on Greece via MPP with Iroquois in 1385AD.
Aztecs declared war on Greece in 1400AD.
Rome and India allied against China in 1430AD. Hence Rome declared war on China in 1430AD.
Aztecs and India allied against China in 1445AD. Hence Aztecs declared war on China in 1445AD.

FA Spending
(Nation, amount, turns to expire)
Iroquois, 3gpt, 2

Foreign Governments
Democracy: England, Greece, Zulu, China, Iroquois, India, Aztecs
Communism: Greece, Babylon
Anarchy: Rome

Chief, maybe you should redo the Foreign status polls, since the current situation has shifted Public opinion a bit for certian civilizations.

Originally posted by Falcon02
Chief, maybe you should redo the Foreign status polls, since the current situation has shifted Public opinion a bit for certian civilizations.
:confused:
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean public opinion polls? Those I just repolled last week and reset a couple days ago.

Council Vote in session

chiefpaco, please cast your vote in the Council Vote to approve new Provincial Borders (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25820).

At War with
Greece declared war on us in 1480 AD.

Foreign Relations
Gracious: None
Polite: India, Iroquois, England, Zulu, Rome
Cautious: None
Annoyed: China, Babylon, Aztecs
Furious: None
Greece does not acknowledge our envoy.

ROP Agreements
(nation, turns left, gpt to us)
Zulu, 0, 0
India, 0, 0
England, 0, 0
Iroquois, 0, 0
Rome, 0, 0

Trade Embargos
We signed against, with, turns left
Greece, (Zulu, China, Iroquois, Rome, Babylon), 1
Greece, (England, Aztecs), 6

Other Foreign Pacts
Rome declared war on Greece in 1365AD (with Chinese alliance).
India declared war on China in 1365AD (MPP with Greece likely cause).
Babylon declared war on Greece in 1370AD (with Iroquois alliance).
England and Iroquois signed MPP agreement in 1385AD.
England declared war on Greece via MPP with Iroquois in 1385AD. Peace achieved in 1480AD.
Aztecs declared war on Greece in 1400AD. Peace achieved in 1480AD.
Rome and India allied against China in 1430AD. Hence Rome declared war on China in 1430AD.
Aztecs and India allied against China in 1445AD. Hence Aztecs declared war on China in 1445AD.

FA Spending
(Nation, amount, turns to expire)
Iroquois, 3gpt, 1, 5gpt, 19

Foreign Governments
Democracy: England, Zulu, Iroquois, India, Aztecs
Republic: Rome
Communism: Greece, Babylon
Anarchy: China

The Trade Department would like to bring a list of trade possibilities (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=349655#post349655) to the Foriegn Advisor's attention.

At War with
Greece declared war on us in 1480 AD.

Foreign Relations
Gracious: None
Polite: Iroquois, England, Rome
Cautious: India, Babylon
Annoyed: China, Zulu, Aztecs
Furious: Greece

ROP Agreements
(nation, turns left, gpt to us)
Zulu, 0, 0
India, 0, 0
England, 0, 0
Iroquois, 0, 0
Rome, 0, 0

Trade Embargos
We signed against, with, turns left
Greece, (China, Rome, Babylon), 0

Other Foreign Pacts
Rome declared war on Greece in 1365AD (with Chinese alliance).
India declared war on China in 1365AD (MPP with Greece likely cause). Peace achieved in 1480AD.
Babylon declared war on Greece in 1370AD (with Iroquois alliance).
Rome and India allied against China in 1430AD. Hence Rome declared war on China in 1430AD. Peace achieved in 1505AD.
Aztecs and India allied against China in 1445AD. Hence Aztecs declared war on China in 1445AD.
India and Zulu sign MPP in 1490AD.
Iroquois and Babylon allied against Greece in 1515AD. Hence Iroquois declared war on Greece in 1515AD.

FA Spending
(Nation, amount, turns to expire)
Iroquois, 5gpt, 10

Foreign Governments
Democracy: England, Zulu, Iroquois, India, Aztecs, China
Republic: Rome
Communism: Greece, Babylon

I am going to be partly away for a few days so I encourage the new Foreign Leader, new Deputy, and the citizens to make any FA proposals for the next turn. I can still pop in from time to time but probably not enough to analyse anything.

I noticed Greece's new capital is on an island and they do not have a harbour. If they were at peace with India, they would have one. So, right now they can not trade with anyone. I suggest letting the Trade Embargos end because considering Greece's weak state, I don't think trade could make much difference to their fate now.

War Weariness is just starting to affect our citizens. Greece will talk to us now of peace. We could maybe get a city or 2 in a peace deal. Right now, we can only get Pharsalos (by the Oil). I think we should at least stop when the War Weariness rises to the point of hurting our nation. I see not much more we can strategically gain from Greece.