I would like to adnounce that we have meet with C3B. Here is the log.

2(121802:121102:125002) 02(Pggar02) hi CG, who's responsible for the idsg2? I need to talk to any CFC official
02(121802:121302:120402) 02(CivGeneral02) yes, is it the C3C one or the PTW one?
02(121802:121302:121402) 02(Pggar02) C3C
02(121802:121302:122402) 02(CivGeneral02) yes, im in the C3C one
02(121802:121402:120802) 02(Pggar02) well, we met
02(121802:121402:123502) 02(CivGeneral02) May I ask what nation I am speeking to :)
02(121802:121502:120102) 02(Pggar02) I tried to contact you guys, but it's a bit hard to reach you
02(121802:121502:121902) 02(Pggar02) C3B
02(121802:121502:124502) 02(CivGeneral02) Nice to meet you :)

(Please excuse the mess that the NNS created)

What are we supposed to do now? :confused:
What chatroom are we supposed to use? #demogame_cfc_isdg?
We should ideally start trading soon, and I assume it's all to go through Zarn first?

To note, I have gotten this via a Private Chat message.

From what side of our map are they coming from?

We know nothing as of yet, besides that we've met -- although i'm 99.99999% sure that it's the NE.

We urgently need our captain/FA guy to do something.

We would probaly want to get somone in the emmbassy or thier emmbassy soon. I am assuming we want to keep the ivoy a big secret for now. We should build the canal city soon to stop them from going south to find the ivory. Or we could move our new warrior to the canal cities' site to stop them.

So I guess we're not on an island. We probably want to settle the canal so they don't have access to the heartland of Fanatica.

Thanks for the news, CG. :)

I received this correspondence from C3B's leader, Pggar, at our msdg email address.

Our group of warriors have stumbled with some strange red dressed people.

We'll be holding the save for a while since we feel the need for a first
meeting.

I was thinking of something around 23:30 GMT.
We can use our chatroom, but since it's on cgn server, that might be a
bit too obvious.
We can use MSN, but since most of you guys don't seem to have it, that
might be a bad idea as well.
I think we can use CFC server, if the messenger thing doesn't work.

If you send a mail to this adress (jdd@civ3.com.br), all C3B government
members will receive your message.
I'll be out most of the day, and should be back around 22:00 GMT.
You can talk to either Bremp, Trigo or Keiselhorn during the day.
They're our current ministers and might be available during the day.

If you guys have MSN contacts, ICQ#, or any other means of fast
communication, let us know.
My contacts are:
MSN: pggar@hotmail.com
ICQ: 11143975

Other msn contacts:
bremp1@hotmail.com (Bremp)
dctrigo@hotmail.com (Trigo)
jose_damasceno@hotmail.com (Keisel)

I then later received a PM from Pggar here at CFC. Though it was sent later, it was the first one I had read.

C3B meets CFC
As you will notice next turn, we've met.

I tried setting up a meeting today, but got no response.
I've sent a message to cfc demogame mail.
There you'll find most of our contatacs.

I was hoping to find some of yours.
An ambassador should be nominated pretty soon.
But it would be nice to have a quicker form of communication.

Let me now when a meeting is possible.
Let's try to get together in the next few days.

Pggar
C3B President

Can we do it on AIM if it suits them?

Should we make a list of things we want an agreement on with this team?

Our group of warriors have stumbled with some strange red dressed people.If we look at our map:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=1711582

That would either be our warrior in our core, or the warrior up north. I bet it's the north warrior.

We can try to get the canal-city up quickly, but a single fortified warrior blockade is also enough to keep them from our core. That will keep them guessing for some time longer.

What do we want from them ?
I suppose a tech leading to the Statue of Zeus.
We could do with a non-aggression pact. Not friendship; our ancient cavs will need some victims later on.
Further: nothing really.

My suggestions:
Tough approach: non-aggression pact until further notice, border is where we met, no, unit may advance towards each other, both units take defensive positions, or we reserve the right to respond with force;

Mild approach: let us both explore together but we block the isthmus (we need two warriors); non agression pact until further notice;

Friendly approach: let's be friends and trade techs allow each other to explore, 30 turns non-agression pact which cannot be canceled.

I sent a response to the C3B team this morning. Could Zarn or somebody please send a follow up email to them regarding entry to our Embassy chat room? Please post your correspondence here when you have finished.

Also everyone here is welcome to attend this historic meeting.

President Pggar and C3B Team,

The people of Fanatica are honored by your presence. I too agree that discussions should begin as soon as possible. If it helps, I will be available today(Monday) from 2130 GMT to around 0000 GMT.

We are doing our best to upgrade our communications techniques, but in the meantime please feel free to continue correspondence at msdg@civfanatics.net. Now that I know that we could receive more than just the save at this address, I will check it more often without the prompting of the Turn Thread. You can also PM me at CFC as Pggar did on late Sunday, or reach me by email at donovan_zoi@civfanatics.net.

Please let me know if my proposed time works for you and I will try to gather the citizenry all I can for this meeting. Please expect an email later today on how we can make this work.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatica

So that's tonight. Pretty long time to hold up the savegame. :undecide: So will we meet with mIRC?

I suppose Zarn should show up pretty quick. But Donovan, you can do the diplomacy too of course, since you're the president.

In any case, I suggest to play with open cards concerning techs. Let's trade as much as possible and tune our future research with them! Especially in the beginning one should try to take advantage to trade techs.

Yay we aren't alone:)

Cool. :)

Originally posted by Yndy
My suggestions:
Tough approach: non-aggression pact until further notice, border is where we met, no, unit may advance towards each other, both units take defensive positions, or we reserve the right to respond with force;

Mild approach: let us both explore together but we block the isthmus (we need two warriors); non agression pact until further notice;

Friendly approach: let's be friends and trade techs allow each other to explore, 30 turns non-agression pact which cannot be canceled.

I think we should go for friendly approach...


Who are they in the game, I mean what civ did they choose? :hmm:

If they are on the eastern landbridge there is one thing that must be given the highest priority: Close the landbridge!

If they are in the west we might have a problem if they go hostile...

I agree but we won't know 'til tonight.

Yes... waiting is annoying...

We should go for a mild approach. We can't leave the back door open yet playing tough would make us look like pricks. After I get home from work tonight, I will present them available times for chat. Please give me your times, if you wish to participate. Also we should nominate people for ambassador for this election, because appointing someone one would be useless right now.

After I get home from work tonight, I will present them available times for chat

Hopefully you're not on the west coast :undecide:

For my, ideally it would be between 9 and 11pm GMT, but that's getting sooner and looking unlikely.
At a push, maybe up until 1am, but my parents are getting quite pissed off with me staying up to the early hours of the morning ;)

I would like to participate in the meeting.
Can someone confirm/at least say where/how we are going to meet 'em? The only thingies I can use (have) are MSN and mIRC. Could someone post the details of what room/password/whatever we're going to use?
Gracias.

Time's ticking away, i've only got another 37 mins :(

what happened to the meeting?

Everyone
Sorry, just got back from work not too long ago.

I just sent an email to Pggar about meeting in 20 minutes. The chatroom is demogame_cfc_embassy startthegame

The last part is the password and it should be entered as shown above if you go through the java chatroom. MIRC users may need to add the # in front(unsure on this).

Hope to see a few of you there. :)

As of right now, Pggar and Bremp of C3B have arrived at our Embassy. Please proceed there if you wish to take part.

See previous post for instructions.

Chat finished.

Cheetah, please post a log if you wre logging.

I will be back with the particulars in a few hours. Sorry for the delay. :(

Just wanted to caution. IMHO, Bremp is EXCEPTIONALLY STRONG player, with particular strength on micromanagement and warfare. How do we deal with C3B might be crucial. Not that we should be afraid but it is always bad to underestimate the opponent.

We need to prevent them from preemtively denying us of the Statue of Zues. they WILL do so if they can. I expect we will have a Javelin Thrower vs Immortal war before we can muster ancient cavalry.

Sorry, I couldn't make it guys. I was at work from 3 to 11 GMT -5. :(

First Meeting with C3B - Recap

Actually, talks went rather well. Here were the key points:

Non-Aggression Pact C3B is very interested in a non-agression pact, and the number that was tossed about the most was 30 turns. I told them I would discuss it here and our two nations would reconvene by Friday. I also granted them free exploration during that time, which should only be 2-3 turns. We would of course be granted the same priviledge.

Trade Possibilities C3B is very interested in a steady trading partner, and so far talks have been very promising. Right now they still only have the two lead-off techs, Masonry and Bronze Working. Of course, they are currently researching Iron Working so Immortals are just around the corner.

Along with our shared tech, Masonry, we currently have Pottery and Warrior Code on them. I have shared this information with Pggar and company and they seem interested.

<><><><><><>


***My Thoughts***

I believe that over time, we could have serious troubles with stacks of Immortals. This is why I believe it may be a good idea to find an early ally, and I feel that C3B's Immortals would offset our Ancient Cavalry nicely. This of course leaves alot to speculation(our securing of SoZ).

I also understand that a temporary non-aggression pact would allow our neighbor to safely raise unchecked a formidable attack force to use against us once the treaty expires. For this reason, we may want to consider an even stronger early bond that secures our northern region so that we may concentrate on what lies in the west. And from the beginning of this game, I was hoping that our first contact would be with either C3B or CGN, as I feel the other two teams(GCA and CDZ) may be bent on less peaceful means.

On the tech front, Bronze Working may not be of much use to us, except to get us Iron Working faster. For this reason, we may want to consider a trade of Warrior Code for BW. I think that a mutual military tech trade-off would show good faith on both sides. If we offer a benign tech such as Pottery for BW, C3B may become suspicious of our intentions.

Well, let this be a starting point, and let's discuss this very important decision fully over the next few days. I would like us to reach some kind of consensus on the tech issue and the treaty issue by no later than Thursday.

Once again, my apologies for the delay in making this public.

WE MUST STOP THEM FROM CROSSING THE CANAL CITY'S SITE! We must not let them know that we are making the SoZ. If they know I am sure that we will see immortals coming to our lands soon. We should make a border with us getting the tobacco and maybe have the rest to them. The north is not that important unless the south leads to sea. We need much land as to get all of the resorces when they become avalable so we can make money.

Originally posted by Emp.Napoleon
WE MUST STOP THEM FROM CROSSING THE CANAL CITY'S SITE!

Agreed. I am more in favor of an early attack against them than I am of their seeing our ivory. Get two warriors to block the canal. Do not fortify them either (to seem unthreatening). Just hit spacebar every turn.

I can assure you, they will not see our Ivory. They won't even see Fanatazuma.

Next turn, I will parse the turns to see what our new Warrior from our capital has to do to secure the canal site. I would rather not have Edward shadow the C3B Warrior, as that would look untrusting as well. I think he should keep heading north.

Now do you think they will press F7 to find out if we are building the SoZ or am I the only one who still does that?

Very exciting negotiations indeed!

Re Non-Aggression pact. At least 50 turns IMO to finish SoZ and get some AC running. Or no more than 10 turns. After 30 turns they will just build up 10-12 veteran immortals and it is pretty much evident what would happen.

Re Trade. We should not trade WC to them for BW. It is very dangerous deal which allows them to build barracks. However, if it is possible to negotiate for 50 or even 60 turn Non-Aggression pact, we may part with WC in echange for BW. We need roughly at least 60-70 turns to settle the area, build SoZ and FP and start on some infrastructure and decent military IMO. And send several boats in search of other civilizations. This may allow us to broker techs and seek alliances.

Re Free limited exploration. If they are not going to inspect our core or see ivory, it might be OK.

Re What they research. Apparently Iron Working because if they started on Pottery, they would have discovered it by now. Since they don't have it, they are not researching it. However, Pottery is in general more valuable tech than IW, BW, or WC. We're just blessed to have it from the start.

@Hygro. War with JT against Immortals with Bremp as a commander must be avoided at all costs. Even in hands of a much less experienced opponent, this smells of trouble. The only hope is that they don't have iron nearby.

Edited. They must also understand that we can rush 2 or even 3 JT right now and cripple them really badly.

They have never played in a MSDG so I do not know how trusting they are so I do not think that we should just consider that if they have a non-aggression pact with us they will not attack us. If I were them I would attack in about 80 turns after building up an army of immortals. Caution is advised.

Chilling news for us. I think, no matter what happens, we'll eventually see immortals coming after us. For now we'd better hope for the SoZ, some strong defenders, and a little luck. :undecide:

Two warriors are all we need to block them off from our heartland, which I assume they're coming towards full blast. Like others before me have said, we cannot let them see our ivory. Right now our focus should be on founding as many cities as we possibly can.

To prevent them from spying with f7, use a prebuild for as long as possible.

Originally posted by Emp.Napoleon
... If I were them I would attack in about 80 turns after building up an army of immortals. Caution is advised.

You don't need 80 turns to build an army of immortals. Maximum 30 turns to build 10-12 units. After 80 turns, it would be as many as 50 or 60 units depending on terrain bonuses they have.

Originally posted by RegentMan
... For now we'd better hope for the SoZ, some strong defenders, and a little luck. ...

Don't understand what strong defenders are you talking about. Musketmen? They can handle Immortals but not so easily. The only way to fight with them are horsemen and AC if we can get them with SoZ. Other units are completely useless. Defending against Immortals is not a wise decision.

Let's not be scared about immortals right now. From where our warrior is standing they need 17 turns to get their immortals to Fantazuma. If the warrior can find a position from where advance warning could be given then we're OK.

If we propose 40 - 50 turns non agression they would think we fear them and be susceptible to brake the treaty. If we decide on 30 turns and a DMZ zone (exploration only) in the area in between us we're OK.

Don't forget we have a good choke point at our end of the isthmus with a mountain and two hills. Pikes on that terrain could defend against Immortals but of course we don't have them now.

I'm not sure about Warrior Code for BW. In PTW it was a straightforward trade but in C3C, WC allows Barracks? Then I say never give them WC. Pottery is a strong tech early on, they should give us BW for it.

Edit: What about discussing Alphabet for Iron Working? Probably they won't agree but is there a reason not to try?

Originally posted by Yndy
... From where our warrior is standing they need 17 turns to get their immortals to Fantazuma. If the warrior can find a position from where advance warning could be given then we're OK. ...

This actually makes sense. If the warrior is parked on a choke point, he has to be attacked then unless they would use boats to transport immortals right to our Capital bypassing the warrior. Then, 30 turns of peace plus 15 turns to march from the choke point is about 45 turns which is indeed close to 50 turns and might be OK. With boats it is difficult to transport many units.

barracks does not need warriorcode.

Yes, you are right and I was confused, WC is not needed for barracks.

It's not that the warrior is on a choke point but he can give advance warning, to us. The non aggression pact should include a DMZ for the area between us (exploration only) and our warrior could see that the treaty is being respected.

Warrior Code for BW sounds reasonable then.

I like the "hide our SoZ" through a prebuild choise. But in fact that is underestimating the opponents, at least the ones we've met. They know we have Mathematics at that stage; they know we have Ivory connected. They will know it's the SOZ we are going for.

Let the DMZ end no further South than the northern part of the landbridge, perhaps we can bluff and demand even further north. They really don't know how far south our nation is.

Have we got a screenshot of where their contacting unit is ? I'd like to see it before determining our options and response.

Depending strognly on the terrain bonuses and so...

We can use a palace prebuild for almost all the time, as we have masonry. That's good... what city is gonna build it? Fanatazuma?


I think a NAP would be nice... 30 turns would be enough for a while, but I think we should and try to get a alliance with them... more than a NAP...

Originally posted by Ankka
We can use a palace prebuild for almost all the time, as we have masonry. That's good... what city is gonna build it? Fanatazuma?


Unfortunately, our capital cannot because it already has a palace. :)

I agree with Rik(welcome BTW :D ) that we should hold onto the landbridge. I would suggest a city near the the trio of hills just north of the landbridge. I will post a screenie during the next save, and nothing will be solidified until we see their position(under the new rules, we can't trade maps until Navigation, so I can't ask them for theirs :( ).

And I agree with akots that a war against Immortals should be avoided at all costs. I can elaborate on this a bit more later.

Other than that, there are alot of great ideas here that I unfortunately don't have time to respond to. I will be back in about 9-10 hours so please keep posting your thoughts here.

I continue to be against placing a 'strategic' city on the landbridge. Not only that it would not provide anything more than a mere one or two shields per turn, it would not be a barrier since there is a two tile landbrigde.

We would also then need to protect the city when our best protection would be the mountains and hills at our end of the landbridge.

A city on the landbridge gives away too much. 2 blockading warriors will do.

I want the landbridge as ours, the land north of it can be some DMZ. But perhaps it's better to bluff and demand 3 or 4 more tiles deep north on the landbridge as ours and then a 3 tile DMZ. We can always lower our demands, not increase. Leave them guessing where we are; just past the landbridge or far south of it.

I agree, let'snot show were we are before they find us...

I like the city on the landbridge because in the future it will allow for a canal. I do not think it would be giving away too much since we could say it is for something on the other side of the bridge, like a resorce. Two warriors seams too hostile to their ideals. To me it seams like a threat rather than just a city.

Lets just hope they are distracted (another civ). Also we should build our UU in defense (Our UU attack 2, their UU defense 2). They would have slightly better odds. Would we be able to get any cities producing units in time (meaning we need more turf)?

I would still be against tech trade. We have two very important if not critical techs for AA. Pottery enables granaries and WC is on the way to Monarchy. BW gives us nothing we need right now because our UU has defense 2 and is better than spearman. And we don't need Colossus or IW in the near future for development. They need Pottery on the other hand and may need WC if they don't have iron. If it is C3C map with 5 players, there may be only 4 or even 3 or 2 iron deposits on the whole map. May be, their desire for peace is indeed sincere. They may have already discovered IW and noticed that there is no iron. That is why they want WC badly.

Might be true, akots... but they could also be bluffing and have a iron resource there...

Per our discussion, C3B had not discovered IW yet. Of course, we have no way to confirm that 25-30 turns sounds about right for IW coming out of the box.

OK, here are things we need to solidify by Friday. I really want us to focus on these topics.

Non-aggression Pact - 30 turns or 50? I am leaning toward 30 turns since that amount was selected as a starting point during our negotiaitons. If they come back with something different, we can be ready to adapt to it. That is, I would be okay with 50 turns of NAP if C3B offered it first.

Trades or Not? - Some of you want to trade; some of you don't. I fully agree with akots that we have nothing to gain from BW or even IW at this stage of the game. Yet I am concerned with Immortal wrath if we decide not to play ball. Let's figure this out please. :)

DMZ - Could be my initials, but it ain't ;) Anyone in the chatroom could tell you that. But seriously, we will need to address this subject carefully as well. Do we designate imaginary lines that, if crossed, could void the treaty? Not a great idea if the line is being crossed by an Immortal SoD. So how do we handle addressing the DMZ?

Future relations - It all comes down to whether C3B would be a solid ally in the future. I would like to have the ingredients of Yndy's proposed "double castle" in place ASAP, but is this the team we should go the distance with?

(Double Castle strategy presented here (http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=106947))

I just want to say that in most games we will have about two other nations on our continant. C3B may be important now but I am sure that in less than 50 turns we will have meet at least one of the other teams.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
...
1) Non-aggression Pact -[/i] 30 turns or 50?...
2) Trades or Not?...
3) DMZ ...
4) Future relations - ... "double castle" in place ASAP

1 and 2) Yndy made a strong point but still may be it is worth 30 turn NAP without trade and 50 turn with trade.
3) DMZ as big as possibly reasonable to scout with 2 or 3 warriors around tobacco-rich area.
4) Terrain and layout favor castle or double castle. Also, we don't have particular strengths for other strategies prior to SoZ. Map seems to require lots of settling with rather large size of empire. To defend it, we need to build to castle strategy. But keep in mind even a tiny opportunity for strong offensive. Early wars seem too distant and being agricultural makes it easier to just out-settle the opponents and out-expand them. However, we need a good settler factory to do that accurately.

Yet I am concerned with Immortal wrath if we decide not to play ball.
We’re going to have the Immortal wrath whether we like it or not, it’s the strong point of the Civ and they would be fools not to use it to it’s full power. I estimate 30-60 turns until they can throw about 20 Immortals towards us. The most efficient strategy for them would be to build cities towards us so that they could have roads to speed up the invasion force.

Now it’s up to us to decide how to counter it. The treaty we are going to sign must take this into account.

How likely is it that they'll be able to create a large Immortal stack and get MapMaking as well ?? I don't think it is very likely at all. That means we'd only face Immortals who pass through our land-bridge.

We are going for Mathematics soon; SoZ needs that tech. I think a large spear / cathapult / archer stronghold on our mountaintop in a fortress (or multiple fortresses) can counter their thread. And we can hide them, as we declare the landbridge "ours" and a no-go zone for the Immortals.

When we get SoZ and get some ancient cavs operational, or we have succesfully stopped an Immortal-rush, we can start planning conquest. But first our nation needs to be Immortal-proof.

Sounds like a plan ;)

Yes, very nice and well-planned. :D

I can't be bothered to make a long post, so...

NAP, i'm not really bothered. Y'all could make that decision better than me.
Trade, Bronze working for Warrior code. Fair deal.
DMZ, I have no idea. I'm not experienced in multiplayer agreements like this.
Double castle thing: I don't have the time to read that article at the moment, but i'll read it later and edit in my response :)

Btw, i'm going to be away from ~midday GMT tomorrow, till mid-day tuesday. I don't think i'll have internet access in this period.

Uho, a couple of days without Gainy Bo's gidence. What will we do?
What do you guys think we should do after we make the Soz? Should we show it to them or let them find out for themsleves?

they will know about it by hitting "f7" After we finish building it, we should brace for a war. They will want to get it early for 2 reasons

1) To Deny us this game winning wonder
2) To Aqquire this game winning wonder

I total agree with Hygro. We need to get read for a early war between our glorious Calvary and the sinister imortals.

Originally posted by Emp.Napoleon
I total agree with Hygro. We need to get read for a early war between our glorious Calvary and the sinister imortals.

I would prefer to have a Javelian Thrower/ 'calvary' mix. Lets take advantage of our UU's trait. Make them think twice before sending immortals.

I agree with Zarn.

The first obstacle is: as soon as C3B realises we have Maths and Ivory they can choose 2 paths:
1) suck up to us. We then have a lapdog.
2) try to destroy us. We then have an enemy.

If 1) happens; fine by me. But if 2) (more likely) happens; they'll be coming for us. We need to think now how we can stop them. Mountain fortresses, filled with caths, spears and javs can do the trick, but are timeconsuing to build. If we want it, we need to focus on that now. In roughly 8 turns we have alphabet. In roughly 25 turns we'll have Maths. We have to be nearly ready then.

To gain even more time; don't connect the Ivory. Leave them clueless until we actually start Soz. Perhaps even with a fake-wonder build. But I fear they'll realise quickly. What idiotic Civ would research straight to Maths and then build a wonder ? So in about 40 turns we can expect a large force of Immortals, assuming there is noone south of us.

Get some workers build to build a road to the Mountains. Build caths, spears and javs. Research to Construction (after Maths) for fortresses. Who knows; they might come in handy later in the game. If we can survive till SoZ is build by us, we practically have the game in our hand. Or at least we can become the big dog. We need to hold out till that time.

They don't get to see what techs we have, only what techs they have that we don't. You just made it painfully clear that we should build the Piramids, and switch last second.

Zarn, we most definitely will need a mix. First and foremost, the Statue of Zues won't produce its troops fast enough to be our entire army. Secondly, the slaves from our enemies will be quite lucrative in value.

I like Rik Meleet's idea of fortresses.

I think thats a waste of worker time at this point

Please, let us stop the discussion of how to wage a war against immortals. There is no way to counter them without defence 4 unit fortified in a city with walls. They can be softened with horsemen and cats slightly in the hands of AI but in the hands of a human player, they are unstoppable. AC, defense 2 units, other things, it is all waste of effort. Just pray they don't have iron or we can get an alliance deal. Or they will spare us or we get at least to pikemen to minimize the losses.

akots, I just mentioned the possibility of an alliance in the other thread. :D

War against Immortals will seriously tax the resources of our great nation, so we should only waste our energy on this prospect when our northern sentry alerts us of advancing stacks of 4/2/1s. Instead, we should be devising ways to stay in the good graces of C3B without being tooo conciliatory.

One way to do so would be to honor the BW for WC trade, even though it doesn't benefit us much. We could follow with an IW for Alphabet trade(if they go for it) to solidify our relationship just in time to talk alliance. I would have to test the waters on this one the next time we meet with them. If it works, we can start alliance talks with 10 or so turns left in the NAP.

What do you think?

I'm open to an alliance until their services would no longer be required. :p

Of course, I will be friendly right now as we don't know what is going to happen, yet.

Akots, I think you greatly underestimate ancient cavalry. They are simply better than immortals.

Let's take an immortal, an ancient cavalry, and a knight.

---------------Immortal--------------Ancient Cavalry-------------Knight
HitPoints------3/4/5------------------4/5/6--------------3/4/5
attack---------4---------------------3---------------------4
defence-------2---------------------2----------------------3
movement----1---------------------2-----------------------2
total atk pwr-12/16/20---------12/15/18-----------12/16/20
total def pwr-6/8/10--------------8/10/12--------------9/12/15

Notice how a regular ancient cavalry is as good as a regular knight, and how a veteran is not much worse. People argue that horsemen are better than swordsmen, when horsemen have worse attack and defence. Well ancient cavalry barely have a worse attack than an immortal. Our Javilin Throwers can also attack the 2.2 (minimum defence including terrain) immortals with 2 attack, which are decent odds.

My point is things aren't hopeless, just kind of dangerous. Besides, we should be outproducing them soonish anyway.

You calculations look very reasonable. The point is in the numbers of units and numbers of wins/promotions. AC is limited in numbers which is a disadvantage. This might be not important in our game considering rather small map size and apparently high corruption. Certainly, benefit of SoZ on this map would be enough to eliminate C3B prior to MA or early in MA. Second point, Immortals would have high win ratio whereas AC would retreat without using up the last hp (which may bring the win). This basically makes them regular 3.67 hp (33% retreat) veteran 4.5 hp (50% retreat) and elite 5.33 hp (67% retreat). I'm not sure about retreat probabilities in 1.15 beta. If our values are recalculated with these assumptions, conclusions are not that clear IMO. One version of combat calculator has this included for AC, other versions do not have. Forgot which one does.

RNG plays weird games with players either, as you know. Having low numbers of units and playing pRNG is a risky option. For a clear win, numbers should be enough to beat some sense into pRNG. For Immortals, these numbers would be smaller than for AC. Not saying about attacking them with JT. This is just waste of shields building them (JT). It might be better to use horsemen (veteran!) and certainly swords in our territory with properly built roads. IMO, in MP games, attacker should reinforce immortal SODs with cats and may be even archers when planning to advance deeply into enemy territory. Or aim at surprise attack (delivery by ships in our case) to capture cities. Again, the map size is not very large. So, losing a few cities would mean defeat. Also, I would expect pRNG playing very important part because of small numbers of units.

I would say a retreat is a significant advantage. You prefer to open up with knights or medieval infantry against a city?

JT are not for sure a waste. While they are expensive for their stats, the slaves can definitely counteract things. While slaves are useless if we are losing the war, we will be greatful if we are winning.

Speaking of slaves, I would suggest we leave a small area of land of ours completely undeveloped for barbarian farming.

Originally posted by Hygro
I would say a retreat is a significant advantage. You prefer to open up with knights or medieval infantry against a city?...

Try to avoid MDI at all if there are horses somewhere. However, if the city is small and defended by regular spears, even swords might be OK. However, the situation would be opposite. We would be attacked. If SOD would be large and we would have few AC, they would just take off few hp from few immortals (in bad for us pRNG variant) and SOD would still be functional slaughtering our retreated AC next turn on their move. It would be nice to attack SOD with horses, scatter them a bit next turn for some hits they take from horses attacking and horses being slaughtered and then, finish up the scattered units with AC. Evil tactic indeed. Just need 1 horse/1 immortal and 1 AC/2 immortals in SOD. Whereas immortals can be acquired by upgrading warriors, horses and AC have to be built/generated from the scratch.

Re barbarian farming: I'm both hands up for it. Just find that piece of land!

Originally posted by Hygro
... JT are not for sure a waste. While they are expensive for their stats, the slaves can definitely counteract things. While slaves are useless if we are losing the war, we will be greatful if we are winning. ...

This is a very weak point of JT as UU. They are poor attackers. Therefore, since they cannot be very useful in attacks, their enslavement ability is good only against defense 1 units which we would not face in reality.

You are right that situationally things are not great for our JTs

But they can beat barbs easily on both defence and attack. :whipped:

Originally posted by Ankka
But they can beat barbs easily on both defence and attack.

Have not seen a single barbarian yet. They would be very wellcome indeed. We even may join the barbarian hunt slaves to our wonder city to accelerate SoZ prebuild.

Originally posted by akots


Have not seen a single barbarian yet. They would be very wellcome indeed. We even may join the barbarian hunt slaves to our wonder city to accelerate SoZ prebuild. OH LORD NO!!!!!!!!!!

Do NOT join barbarians to your cities. I have seen two results. 1) the barbarian citizen is eternally unhappy do to war with the mother country (vanilla civ--I was playing an odd mod) 2)the game would crash (bug from ptw or c3c or both). Either way, no good comes out of it.

Actually, does someone want to test it? If it turns out not to be a problem due to some kind of fix, that would be awesome.

How you could have got barbarian (worker) citizen in Civ3 or PTW? There was no enslavement there. May be it was just a slave from civ with which you were at war? I'll try to check it with C3C 1.15.

I was playing a mod before I understood AI, and I thought it would be really cool if barbarians were settlers and cruise missiles, so they would act like suicide bombers and build a barbarian empire. Instead, they sat around in their camps waiting to be turned into workers and such.

Because the game was still vanilla, I was able to capture cruise missiles in the ancient age and keep them, not destroy them... things were rather interesting.

Checked with C3C 1.15 and you are right. They are indeed unhappy asking to stop the war against their fatherland. Interesting though, can they be assimilated eventually and at what rate. Did not play that far. Definitely, joining barbarian worker is a bad idea. Guess, barbarians make bad citizens. Fistfight, drinking, drugs and other bad barbarian things. Interestingly, lost 2 JT to barbarian warriors. One on attack and another on defense redlined. On Emperor. Had to build third to get one slave out of a single hut. That's my pRNG. 90 shields for a slave.

Well, you must have had bad luck, I was playing this game, and I won I'd say all of my JT vs barb fights and got slaves with a better percentage of the wins than 1/3... Must be RNG...

Then what about the principle of: the best defence is attack ? If Immortals are unstoppable in the hands of a human player, we must prevent that they have a chance to attack.

Originally posted by Rik Meleet
Then what about the principle of: the best defence is attack ? If Immortals are unstoppable in the hands of a human player, we must prevent that they have a chance to attack.

I agree with this, Rik, and I think the best way to do it is to push for a 50 turn NAP. While it was said before(by Yndy, I think) that asking for a 50 turn NAP would us make us look fearful, I believe we can turn it around to show our new friends that our reasoning makes perfect sense.

That said, I believe we should offer C3B this longer NAP due to the fact that a 30 turn NAP negates our UU almost entirely, while ending just in time for the full power of theirs. I believe that C3B's leaders will appreciate this reasoning and if they are genuine about stronger relations with us, they will sign. Otherwise, maybe we should back away from the table, as we certainly would have the upper hand at this point.

I can present this to C3B in a way that will not make us look like cowards, but as practical neighbors that are looking for complete fairness.

What do you think?

Looks good if you put the things right way. If they know about Ivory they may be more cooperative in the agreement. We can get SoZ apparently same time they are ready for Immortal rush thus discouraging it.

50 turn NAP + Non-disclosure (to the end of the game) +DMZ west of tobacco +BW+IW for Pottery+WC+Alphabet now and promise to trade luxuries (and techs) in the future.

Just thinking if we are two on the contient and development of our two civilizations is not slowed down by wars and stimulated by fair trade, we can then unite our forces and take our the other teams of another contient later in the game. They would be probably fighting there and thus greatly weakened.

Even if one of the teams of the other continent would prevail, corruption may be so high that if we have two teams here, our two countries would easily outproduce the other continent with a single country.

Our UU + SoZ and their Immortals may be rather similar in strength and bloody war would leave winner absolutely exhausted and unprepared for major assault from another continent.

IMO, we may share this plan with C3B unofficially rather soon. Official negotiations can take place later when we would be more sure in their positive attitude. However, I like it. Chances we are not successful are very slim and would rely upon common sense of C3B which should be sufficient. Again, may be I'm putting too much trust in them. But I don't see any benefit for them if they betray us.

Positive thing is that we get rid of Anarres and company forever (?don't know about that?) and make ourselves familiar with C3B playstile for future games. The plan is evil in nature though does not run under rule violation in the present version of the rules.

Don't see how the other continent can counteract such approach except they do something similar (Lucky plus Anarres).

I would suggest in the long run, we promise not to try intentionally to outscore them (so they become a winner) and we get second place. Ambition is not a good property IMHO.

Originally posted by akots
Looks good if you put the things right way. If they know about Ivory they may be more cooperative in the agreement. We can get SoZ apparently same time they are ready for Immortal rush thus discouraging it.

50 turn NAP + Non-disclosure (to the end of the game) +DMZ west of tobacco +BW+IW for Pottery+WC+Alphabet now and promise to trade luxuries (and techs) in the future.

I am still a bit wary of disclosing our Ivory intentions, although I am sure it would help in negotiations. What if they happen to be near the only other sourse of Ivory? Remote chance to be sure, but should be considered carefully nonetheless.

I think your proposed 3 for 2 tech trade and a bit of sound reasoning should be enough for us to buy a 50 turn NAP. When this treaty comes up for renewal, we can reveal the grand plan.

Also, on your DMZ proposal, you mean "north" of the Tobacco, right?

Just thinking if we are two on the contient and development of our two civilizations is not slowed down by wars and stimulated by fair trade, we can then unite our forces and take our the other teams of another contient later in the game. They would be probably fighting there and thus greatly weakened.

Even if one of the teams of the other continent would prevail, corruption may be so high that if we have two teams here, our two countries would easily outproduce the other continent with a single country.

Our UU + SoZ and their Immortals may be rather similar in strength and bloody war would leave winner absolutely exhausted and unprepared for major assault from another continent.


I wholeheartedly agree with this, but wouldn't be surprised if other teams had this same thought. Based on previous talks, this should be an easy sell. :)


IMO, we may share this plan with C3B unofficially rather soon. Official negotiations can take place later when we would be more sure in their positive attitude. However, I like it. Chances we are not successful are very slim and would rely upon common sense of C3B which should be sufficient. Again, may be I'm putting too much trust in them. But I don't see any benefit for them if they betray us.

Positive thing is that we get rid of Anarres and company forever (?don't know about that?) and make ourselves familiar with C3B playstile for future games. The plan is evil in nature though does not run under rule violation in the present version of the rules.

Don't see how the other continent can counteract such approach except they do something similar (Lucky plus Anarres).

Good points again. I still think that we should save our Ivory disclosure for the next wave of negotiations, when the SoZ is secure and our friendship has been sealed.

Getting rid of CDZ is another story, but it would be nice to deny them a top 3 finish. We do have our work cut for us, though, as Cave of Caerbannog has been the fastest growing city by far this game.


I would suggest in the long run, we promise not to try intentionally to outscore them (so they become a winner) and we get second place. Ambition is not a good property IMHO.

Last I checked, second place is still in the Top 3, so that is good enough for me. :D I have a feelng they will think the same way on this.


Also, one thing of note, though it probably doesn't matter. C3B President Pggar is currently a member of GCA's PTW ISDG team, so I am not sure if that will have an impact once they meet GCA in this game. Something to ponder, however.....

Anyone else have any thoughts on this matter?

Also, I have sent an email to the C3B team requesting their appearance at our embassy. This chat is tentatively scheduled for 1500 GMT(10am EST), so if anyone can make it there you are more than welcome.

**In other news, CDZ is holding the save for an extended period of time. Could they have........oh, I don't know.......met someone?? :mischief: :D

@DZ. In retrospect, could you please post time and date of chat and location just to make life easier. Looking forward to hear about the results.

@Pggar. Pggar is the president now. If he is misbehaving, he may not be re-elected for the next term. This is demo game after all and there are certain penalties for this kind of misbehavior. If we make the negotiation protocol available to all our members, same goes for them. Also, some assistants of Pggar would be present during these negotiations as well. However, I have no idea how this might impact the negotiations. In any case, he may be interested in taking out CDZ as a priority.

@Our team. The team is strong and has many strong players. Actually, onyl one or two are needed to play well even though it is a demogame. We cannot be considered as some kind of weakiling to play with. Our wrath would be mighty and we would then set our goal to get rid the world of C3B even if we lose the game overall. Considering some backup opportunity of CDZ negotiations (if we survive to this point), C3B should be interested in keeping good relationship.

@At their plan. It is obvious at present. Being slightly scared and unsure about our possibility of early attacks with JT, they are going to build-up Immortals and get rid of us having the continent at their own disposal. They must be informed, may be indirectly, that this would not be very easy and we have some "secret weapons" to counter this plan. And if they firmly decide to befriend our team, this weapon would be disclosed.

@SoZ. If we are not planning to destroy C3B, building SoZ would be just a big waste. We don't need it for late Medieval war against the other continent. Instead, we can build some more useful wonder like Pyramids or ToA or GLibrary or GLighthouse. I would put a priority on the latter as it might allow us to explore better by ships. Even FP would help a lot. Thus, threatening to build SoZ may be more important than the actual wonder. Personally, I don't like it and find it too one-sided (purely militaristic) and too expensive for its benefit. We would not even get the shields we invest in it back for a thousand years by disbanding AC units.

Edited: IMHO, assumption that we are together with C3B on a continent is correct but have a slim chance to be wrong. We have not met anyone yet though they might have met some other civilization but did not trade techs yet. Then the whole scheme may be pure speculation. Then, I'm afraid that the whole set up of the game is unfair. This means they had better contact oppurtunities form the very start. This goes against the spirit of MP competition. Since we are pretty sure that the set up is fair, it seems that a possibility of them having another contact is unlikely.

Denial of another team's Statue of Zues is reason enough to build it, as that team will probably take over half their world with it, being quite the superpower.

If this team with SoZ is on another continent, this would make our life easier. Two civilizations allied with each other and going for peaceful development would always outrpoduce, outresearch and outgrow a single civilization just because of less impact of corruption. We would act like a single civilization but with two completely independent and productive cores.

Yes, DZ what is the date?

Once now I could make it if it is today...:D

DZ, is our IRC embassy channel the same one we use for the PTW MSDG?

And do we have a password set now?

Well, it's past the chat time now, and noone is there...

Actually, Pggar and I have arrived there just now, at 11am EST. It seems that during Daylight Saving Time in the US, GMT is actually one hour closer to EST. So it all worked out. :)

Show up if you can, and I will try to be less confusing in the future. :)

The second set of talks between C3B and CFC have completed.

Here are some of the issues that were discussed earlier:

Trades: C3B would prefer that we give Pottery for Bronze Working, followed by their giving us Iron Working for Warrior Code and Aplhabet. I told them that I would have to check with the citizenry and that we could immediately broker a BW/WC trade next turn. Their suggestion would ned to be raified, and would be contingent on their granting us Iron Working.

Next research: They have not decided yet, but would either go for Ceremonial Burial, the Wheel, or Writing. I told them that our decision was either Mathematics or Construction. I did this to initially cloud our inside track for SoZ, but once we have a treaty in place, I will most likely divulge our SoZ intentions.

Non-Aggression Pact: I have convinced them to take a 50 turn NAP back to their people, and Pggar thought that that wouldn't be a problem. He also said that his team is quite open to a.......

Possible Alliance: Actually, this topic was first introduced by Pggar. He understands that an early alliance such as this could give us an upper hand on other teams that would choose the path of war.

<><><><><><><><>


I believe that was all that was discussed. We didn't really approach the topic of DMZ, but will do so once an NAP is in place. I had mentioned the confirmation of future borders, and how that would fall into alliance discussions.

I will do my best to furnish a chat log of the proceedings within the next day.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday at 2200 GMT(5pm EST). I will let discussion go for a bit over 24 hours and then conduct polls if necessary on Monday afternoon EST. Please post here with any thoughts you may have on these developments. :)

Info on access to the chatroom can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81097).

:( So I was one hour to early there on the time it was a suitable time for me...

Oh well. Let's see...

@ the BW etc tech trade: I don't really know about this...

@ Next research: I wouldn't tell them we're gonna build SoZ before we almost have it, and can handle an attak from them, which would be likely if they got to know that we might become a superpower so early...

@ NAP & alliance: I'm all or this, we'll need an ally against CDZ and other teams... depends also a lot on what we find and hw the world is shaped...

TRADE: Love it! :love:

Next Research: Don't tell them until 5-8 turns before we have it. I know I won't.

NAP: Sure I can use one right now (joke). As for the Non-Agression Pact, 50 turns sounds good. After that I don't know if I would want to continue it.

Alliance: Maybe, it depends how events unfold. They may be our ally or one of our victims. :evil:

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
I did this to initially cloud our inside track for SoZ, but once we have a treaty in place, I will most likely divulge our SoZ intentions.


I just want to say that just because we have a treaty I do not think that we should trust them that much. I am always thinking about backstabing by another team and how devestating it would be for us within the next 50 turns. Also with a GCA team member Presadent, I am a little worried that the rift that formed in the PTW MSDG might carry over here.

Indeed a great progress with negotiations!

They do show a good understanding of the current situation. And want Pottery because already started Granary prebuild. It is due soon and they are counting on our Pottery. This means they have food bonus and can get a settler factory. We can try slightly to exploit this by throwing in a non-disclosure to the end of the game, 50 turn NAP, DMZ north of tobacco (may be I'm too greedy but a city there would have lots of commerce) and agreement to discuss a long-term alliance possibility.

As promised, here is the Chat Log for 2750 BC:

Great chat log! Pggar seems to be interested in long term relationships and is considering a CDZ threat seriously. Looks like we are alone with C3B on the continent.

I'll try to make it to the next chat for support but not sure it is possible. You were alone and Pggar had 2 other team members! This is not good. Zarn should have been present IMO as well as Emp.Napoleon.

We can present a treaty draft proposal by then:

1) Immediate trade Pottery-BW.
2) 6-7 turns later trade Alphabet+WC for IW.
3) 50 turn NAP starting from Pottery-BW trade.
4) Complete non-disclosure to the end of the game.
5) DMZ north of tobacco. Tobacco is ours.
6) Pledge of good relationships and regular chats.
7) Pledge of fair tech trades.
8) Discussion of long-term alliance possibility.
9) Exchange of other relevant intelligence information regarding resources and luxuries, bood bonuses, contacts, and other essential events on a fair terms.
10) Non-overlaping research paths.

Something else, but it slips my mind right now.

Trade issue: I for one agree with the current proposal.

Next research: OK; disclosure of SOZ: delay

NAP + DMZ + trade sharing: OK

Possible Alliance: I’m not comfortable with it, too early commitment and what’s the use?; I fear a trick from their behalf. For now let us agree to let each other know of other contacts (Chief of Justice, please check rules, is it allowed?) and discuss then. If we know other nations, we could put our alliance to good use, otherwise, it would only be a NAP called alliance. Nothing would prevent us for exploring alliance throughout the NAP.

Also I insist on DMZ for the good of all parties, and long cooperation. Tell Pggar that we need to agree now or we will commit some serious forces to guard the border area… which we won’t but just tell him. ;)

Good job DZ :)

Important issues:
Let’s agree to a flexible border with a DMZ between us. We will both be allowed to have warriors in the DMZ for exploration purposes but any non-warrior unit will automatically trigger freezing of alliance talks and question the entire process.

For now we say we want the territory up to where their warrior currently is but pending future expansion we might re-discuss the issue. Ask them to give themselves space for two three cities towards us and let us know their territory request (up to the swamps?). Agree that we’re not going to have a race for land between us which will hamper overall development.

Warning: The optimum development of the Persian Civ requires that Immortals are put to good use starting from turn 80 until turn 130 - 150. Afterwards, the development of the civ would be linear. Let us be cautious at all times.

The next wave of talks with C3B have been completed!

Here's the skinny:

First trade: In Turn 28(2670 BC), C3B will send us Bronze Working unaccepted , after which we will add Pottery and accept the trade as is. Then on Turn 29(2630 BC), C3B will accept the trade and we will have BW that turn.

Non-Aggression Pact: Turn 30 will actually mark the commencement of our NAP, which will run for 50 turns.

DeMilitarized Zone(DMZ): This one will need further discussion, as I offered what I would like our "initial preferred border(IPB)" to be. I had told Pggar that I would like the southern part of the DMZ to start just north of the Tobacco. At chat time, he wasn't certain of where their IPB would be but would consult his team to nail this down.

Future Trade: The Iron Working for Warrior Code/Alphabet trade is still to happen as scheduled, which should be 5-6 turns. C3B is still uncertain of their next tech, but seems to be leaning towards Writing.

<><><><><><><><>


That's about it. I hope to furnish a chat log soon, and also need to draft up an NAP/DMZ treaty. Since I am going to have a busy next few days, I would appreciate any help I can get. :)

C3B is drafting a separate Tech Treaty and we plan to reconvene on Thursday at 2200 GMT(6pm EST). Please post here with any questions or concerns.

S'good.
Just a few things:

If we can, we should try to give them warrior code instead of pottery. Although warrior code costs more to research, pottery would be more beneficial to 'em.

With the NAP, are we binded by the law that we can't break it? Or will we just lose all credebility? :) If so, then i'm quite happy to do the latter if the time is right.

For the DMZ, does that mean where we are and aren't aloowed to move our troops? If so, I don't think we should make one.

For the future trade, we should swap Pottery and Alphabet instead IMO.

I can't download the chatlogs for some reason btw :hmm: And I should be able to make it for the chat on thursday :)

For anyone interested, here is the chat log from Tuesday:

I still can't download it :( (no idea why)
Could you maybe just quote it? Or is it too large?

Edit: Thanks :)

<Pggar> hello fanaticans
<DX_Zoi> good day, pggar :)
<DX_Zoi> have you been here long?
<Pggar> just got home, and here ;)
<DX_Zoi> cool...I had other pages open and hadn't checked here for like 10 minutes.....
<DX_Zoi> so how did discussions go at C3B?
<Pggar> well, they're open
<Pggar> I'm checking them now
<DX_Zoi> looking over mine as well
<DX_Zoi> our people approve of the BW for Pottery trade, as long as the IW trade
will go through afterward
*** Signoff: Bootstoots (Quit: brb, rebooting)
<Pggar> what do you mean?
<Pggar> as soon as we have it we'll trade
<Pggar> I think that's what we had agreed on
<DX_Zoi> exactly
<DX_Zoi> so immediate trade of BW/P
<Pggar> when you finish alpha and we finisf iw we trade
<Pggar> alpha+wc/IW
*** Bootstoots (~bootstoot@Oper.irc-chat.net) has joined channel #demogame_cfc_embassy
*** Mode change "+o Bootstoots" for channel #demogame_cfc_embassy by ChanServ
<DX_Zoi> futue trade(5-6 turns): IW for Alpha/WC
<Pggar> isn't that it?
<DX_Zoi> yes
<Pggar> well, that's what we proposed to our people ;)
<DX_Zoi> have you decided what you are researching next?
<Pggar> We're a trusting binch ;)
<Pggar> well, we're discussing
<Pggar> *binch = bunch
<DX_Zoi> as are we, and trustwothy as well. :D
<DX_Zoi> we are still discussing too. we should met in 3-4 turns so that we can
make sure not to overlap
*** Signoff: Bootstoots (Quit: brb, hopefully for the last time)
<DX_Zoi> OK, so there are no problems with the trades, though I didnt expect any
<DX_Zoi> Next we have the issue of th NAP
<DX_Zoi> was 50 turns workable for your citizenry?
*** Bootstoots (~bootstoot@Oper.irc-chat.net) has joined channel #demogame_cfc_embassy
*** Mode change "+o Bootstoots" for channel #demogame_cfc_embassy by ChanServ
<Pggar> I'm getting there :D
<DX_Zoi> np ; )
<Pggar> well, tey seem to like the nap for 50 turns ;)
<DX_Zoi> great news :)
<Pggar> no votes for "Die CFC!!!" :lmao:
<DX_Zoi> well, thats a relief..... ;)
<Pggar> heheheh
<Pggar> did CFC decided for Math already?
<DX_Zoi> but the fact that it was presented as an option causes us great corcern
<Pggar> hehehhe
<DX_Zoi> :D
<Pggar> actually it wasnt, but its a nice touch for the next time :D
<DX_Zoi> we are still in talks....starting to look that way though
<DX_Zoi> we have 5 more turns to figger it out, and I have set the 2 tunr mark as
decision time
<Pggar> Well, we need to know how fast will you finish alpha
<Pggar> as we need to know if Writing is an optio of research
<DX_Zoi> 5 turns : )
<Pggar> 5 turns, last turn?
<DX_Zoi> yes
<DX_Zoi> how bout IW for you?
<Pggar> well, 5 to 8 turns
<Pggar> it all depends
<Pggar> if we want to research writong next, we cant finish it in 5
<DX_Zoi> if we finish alpha before you, then you can head to Writing, correct?
<DX_Zoi> can you go to 6 turns?
<Pggar> yep, otherwise we waste a turn or two
<Pggar> well, I'm not sure, I would have to check with my people
<DX_Zoi> can you bump up the gold for a turn? or emphasise production over commerce?
<Pggar> of course, but do we want that?
<DX_Zoi> that's your call.... : ) Only friendly suggestions
<DX_Zoi> you mean, do we want writing?
*** Octavian_X (octavian_x@Oper.irc-chat.net) has joined channel #demogame_CFC_Embassy
*** Mode change "+o Octavian_X" for channel #demogame_cfc_embassy by ChanServ
<Pggar> yeah, that and, do my people want to wait one turn and then research writing
;)



Session Start (goldfish.syd.au.irc-chat.net:DX_Zoi): Tue Apr 06 19:35:25 2004
<Pggar> is oc, cfc, poly or cgn in this game?
<Pggar> octavianx I mean
<DX_Zoi> poly, I just sent him a PM
<DX_Zoi> or a pcmw rather
<DX_Zoi> he is on our PTW team
<DX_Zoi> we should really get another room for this game, but I am a chat novice
<Pggar> well, we can use ours, it's on cdg's server
<Pggar> but you can acess directly through our site
<DX_Zoi> maybe in the future, we can do so
<Pggar> the problem is: we shouldn't talk freely with him there
<Pggar> so should we use this private chat instead?
<DX_Zoi> can you log a PCMW(this convo)?
<DX_Zoi> there you go
<Pggar> yep, I'm logging it ;)
<DX_Zoi> cool, let's just talk here...we are the only ones anyway
<Pggar> trillian can do some amazing wonders ;)
<DX_Zoi> oh, wait...there's trigo
<DX_Zoi> trillian...is that a program?
<Pggar> yep, a messenger that supports, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo, MSN and IRC ;)
<DX_Zoi> is it freeware?
<Pggar> yep
<DX_Zoi> I'm there
<DX_Zoi> :D
<DX_Zoi> ok, so where were we?
<Pggar> If yopu ever get an MSN contact let us know, most of my people have it ;)
<Pggar> it's easy to set up chats with it ;)
<Pggar> anyway
<DX_Zoi> Wil look into it
<DX_Zoi> The only other thing I can think of is a possible DMZ
<DX_Zoi> DeMilitarized Zone
<Pggar> yep
<Pggar> we have to talk in codes, since we can't share maps :D
<DX_Zoi> I take it your Warrior is awash in fields of Tobacco at the moment?
<Pggar> pretty much
<DX_Zoi> hows that for code? LOL
<DX_Zoi> Ours is currently swampin' it
<Pggar> I got a little dizzy there, there's some strong stuff there :D
<DX_Zoi> hehe, soon to be Fanatca's finest. :D
<DX_Zoi> ....or so we would like
<Pggar> I guess I'm close too your borders then
<DX_Zoi> we would actually like to claim that area as the southgernmost section of
the DMZ and would like to hear where you think the northern section should begin
<DX_Zoi> youre getting warm.....
<Pggar> hehehe
<DX_Zoi> is our request acceptable?
<Pggar> not sure, need some more info and opnions ;)
<Pggar> but I would say yes, If it were just me ;)
<DX_Zoi> of course; also please discuss what initial border you would like to claim
<DX_Zoi> understandable
<Pggar> but let me see if I got this right
<DX_Zoi> ok
<Pggar> that would be the beggining of the DMZ area?
<Pggar> the tabacco field I mean
<DX_Zoi> yes, preferrably
<DX_Zoi> the end of our initial preferred borders so s to speak
<Pggar> meaning: no unit crossing, no city building?
<Pggar> what would be a DMZ to you guys?
<DX_Zoi> I was thinking Warrior or Chariot exploration only within DMZ
<DX_Zoi> I would have to clarify, as would you whether we would allow each other to
explore outside the DMZ (into preferred borders
<DX_Zoi> what is your take on it?
<Pggar> hmm, I'll take the idea back, but it's a fine one I believe
<Pggar> well, I think we should procede exploring
<Pggar> but with limited units
<Pggar> so that we don't feel insecure in any way
<DX_Zoi> exactly, and we both may sentry any part of the DMZ
<Pggar> how long (I'm not sure that's the best word) should the DMZ be? 2 tiles, 3
tiles?
<DX_Zoi> it can be as large or as small as we both choose, and negotiable as our
civs expand
<DX_Zoi> my initial thought was from just north of Tobacco city to the mountain just
south of the marshy lands
<DX_Zoi> that gives us a 7-8 tile deep DMZ, which should do for the early game
<Pggar> I think we should formulate official proposals then and work from there
<Pggar> what do you mean by tabacco city
<DX_Zoi> Once expansion gets us to the DMZ, we can discuss further. Does this sound
fair?
<DX_Zoi> Since we do not know your location yet, I certainly don't want to
shortchange your team
<Pggar> it does, as long as I can find myself :D
<Pggar> I can see a tabacco cross
<DX_Zoi> tobacco city....oops, me with delusions of smoke-filled noghts
<DX_Zoi> no city there yet....
<Pggar> ___X
<Pggar> ---X
<Pggar> XXX
<Pggar> ---X
<Pggar> this is what i have
<Pggar> a lot of tabacco :D
<Pggar> they are the X
<DX_Zoi> yes it is
<DX_Zoi> hehe
<Pggar> so, what tabacco are we talking about :D
<DX_Zoi> The whole shebang, I guess. :D
<Pggar> well, we should replace farofa for tobacco :D
<DX_Zoi> I hadn't nailed down the particulars yet
<DX_Zoi> LOL
<Pggar> ok, someonbe should know how to describe this better than I do in my team
<Pggar> so I guess it's not a problem :D
<DX_Zoi> alas, we chose for a non-modded agem. :lol:
<DX_Zoi> agem=game, really
<Pggar> I'm not sure I follow you
<DX_Zoi> typo
<Pggar> do you mean the treaties won't go to the admins?
<DX_Zoi> oh, sorry bad joke about modding the game to include farofa..... :oopS:
<Pggar> heheheh
<DX_Zoi> yes, the treaties should go to the admins
<Pggar> I'm a bit slow sometimes :p
<Pggar> as you can see
<DX_Zoi> don't blame yourself on this one..... ; D
<DX_Zoi> so, I guess we can take these things back to our teams
<Pggar> well, should the trade begin now?
<DX_Zoi> one of us needs to draft a treaty that includes the following
<DX_Zoi> NAP 50 turns
<DX_Zoi> the two discussed trades(if you think that has to be in there)
<Pggar> well, it could be 2 separated treaties
<DX_Zoi> sure, if you havent played the turn
<Pggar> each team would draft one of them ;)
<DX_Zoi> send BW to us unaccepted, and we will throw Pottery in accpetd
<DX_Zoi> is that necessary?
<DX_Zoi> doesnt matter though
<Pggar> nope, just suggesting, I would like to have the two treaties separated, for
it makes things easier in our foruns
<DX_Zoi> are your saying one trade treaty, and one NAP/DMZ traety?
<Pggar> they come from different ministries
<Pggar> yep, could be
<Pggar> I wouldn't mind have the DMZ attached to the NAP
<Pggar> since they go along nice
<DX_Zoi> I can agree to that
<DX_Zoi> well, should we work on the NAP/DMZ treaty?
<Pggar> sure
<DX_Zoi> cool, I guess all you need to do is decide where you would like your side
of the DMZ to start
<Pggar> well, we have to decide when to start counting the 50 turns as well ;)
<DX_Zoi> I would like to start it with the acceptance of our first trade, if there
are no objections
<Pggar> do you mean to start counting after the first trade is completed?
<DX_Zoi> Yes, so I guess that would be 2670
<DX_Zoi> next turn
<Pggar> ok, I have no problems with that
<DX_Zoi> fret not, we don't have any crafty plans for this turn
<DX_Zoi> :D
<Pggar> I guess we should regroup in two or three days with the DMZ proposals
<DX_Zoi> sounds good....just consider our "border" to start just north of the Tobacco
<DX_Zoi> for your discussion purposes
<Pggar> we should discuss the number of units that are allowed to explore as well
<DX_Zoi> can you send me a log to both chats again(public and Private?)
<Pggar> yep, I'll do that
<DX_Zoi> and if they are allowed beyond the DMZ
<DX_Zoi> in your case, south of the tobacco
<DX_Zoi> for refernce
<DX_Zoi> feel free to keep exploring until these details are solidified however
<DX_Zoi> I see no problem with expolring outside of the DMZ, but want to clear it
with my people
<DX_Zoi> I think that no more than one 1-offense unit should be allowed to explore
into the others preferred borders
<DX_Zoi> and that no more than 3 1-offense units should be allowed in the DMZ
<DX_Zoi> but these are just my first reactions
<DX_Zoi> I am just stating these to help along tyour discussion and am (hopefully)
not sounding like you are unwelcome to explore
<Pggar> Summary
<Pggar> Decisions of this chat
<Pggar> - Tech trade settled (BW/PO now and IW/AL+WC as soon as we have them)
<Pggar> - 50 turns NAP, beggining on 2610bc
<Pggar> Decisions for the next chat
<Pggar> - DMZ limits
<Pggar> - Can units explore beyond the DMZ?
<Pggar> - If so, how many and of what types?
<Pggar> Did I miss something?
<DX_Zoi> I think that's it
<DX_Zoi> Note my preferences to help along your discussion, but I am flexible
<Pggar> of course ;)
<DX_Zoi> cool, so should we meet on Thrursday or Friday?
<Pggar> Whichever you prefer
<DX_Zoi> Thursday at this time works for me....Friday is up in the air
<Pggar> then thursday it is
<DX_Zoi> Thiurs at your 1900
<Pggar> If I'm not available, I'll send domeone ;)
<Pggar> sure, 19 is great
<DX_Zoi> sounds great!
<Pggar> then ok, see ya thursday

There you go.

I had to turn smilies off...

Very polite and lengthy discussion. Indeed, a true diplomatic negotiation by our President!

However, not much of a progress at a closer look. Though Pggar did not back off as well. Looks like a good step towards better understanding between two great leaders.

To me it sounded like he now understood the sprit of the DMZ (prevent nasty surprises on both sides) and seems to approve it. That would mean they're not that eager to butcher us, for now.

I would like them to research Writing but Ceremonial Burial would be useful for us too (Temple). A later tech trading treaty would need to be agreed.

I believe I can actually make it today. Finally, I get to talk. :yeah:

I had some free time and drafted a treaty (it was our job to draft it wasn't it?). It's much longer than I expected and sounds very lawyerish. I must stay away from my lawyer colleagues.

Here goes:
Non Aggression Treaty between the nations of Fanatica and Civ3Brasil
dated and enacted on 2670BC

We, the leaders of the two countries,
Donovan Zoi, president of Fanatica,
and
Pggar, C3B Team leader,

with the full authority granted to us by our great CivNations ratify this treaty.

The nations of Fanatica and Civ3Brasil wish to leave in peace with each other, respect the Rules of the ISDG and cooperate for the good of both nations in order to both promote in the following Finals of the ISDG Tournament.

The duration of this treaty is 50 turns from the date of the treaty meaning from 2670BC until 1075BC;

To this end for the duration of this treaty:
- we agree not to attack each other’s units, destroy improvements, break trade treaties or any other treaties we sign between us or harm in any way each other (Non Aggression Pact or NAP);
- we agree to limit the rights of each other to enter or take actions in the territories of our nations (National Preffered Borders or NPB);
- we agree to limit the rights of each other to enter or take actions in the buffer zone between the NPBs of our nations (De-Militarized Zone or DMZ);
- we agree to limit the rights of each other to enter or to take actions in the coastal territories bordering our nation’s NPBs (Coastal Waters Area or CWA)

Definitions and interpretations:
We are using for reference areas that we both have discovered on the map, we will not define or disclose any areas to each other in this treaty.

We agree that the territory of National Preferred Borders of Fanatica is the area that is limited but includes:
- in the North the three neighboring tobacco fields, the hill with coastal access in the North, North West and West of the three tobacco fields mentioned and the tiles going East from there following the order (hill, tobacco field, whatever is next up to a tile which has access to a coastal tile in its East).
- in the East, South and West, the tiles with access to CWA or borders with other Civ nations which would be revealed if Civ3Brasil fulfils the following conditions: has met the other nations in the presence of a Fanatican unit and has map knowledge of the area which currently is defined as border of Fanatica.

We agree that the territory of National Preferred Borders of Civ3Brasil is the area that is limited but includes:
- in the South the tobacco field and the mountain just south of it, the swamp with coastal access, just East of the mountain and the tiles going West from there following the order (swamp, mountain, plain, whatever is next up to a tile which has access to a coastal tile in its West).
- in the East, North and West, the tiles with access CWA or borders with other Civ nations which would be revealed if Fanatica fulfils the following conditions: has met the other nations in the presence of a Civ3Brasil unit and has map knowledge of the area which currently is defined as border of Civ3Brasil.

The DMZ is the area limited in the North by the Civ3Brasil NPB, in the South by the Fanatica NPB and in the East and West by water.

Limitation of rights
Civ3Brasil will be allowed to have only one unit (Explorer) inside the NPB of Fanatica at any point in time. This unit will either be a Warrior unit or a Chariot unit. The explorer will have the right to freely explore the territory inside the NPB of Fanatica but will not be allowed to:
- spend more than one turn on any tile (including fortification) without requesting and obtaining Fanatican approval;
- move on any improved tile (road, irrigation, mine);
- move on any luxury, resource or bonus tile without requesting and obtaining Fanatican approval;

Fanatica will be allowed to have only one unit (Explorer) inside the NPB of Civ3Brasil at any point in time. This unit will either be a Warrior unit or a Chariot unit. The explorer will have the right to freely explore the territory inside the NPB of Civ3Brasil but will not be allowed to:
- spend more than one turn on any tile (including fortification) without requesting and obtaining Civ3Brasil approval;
- move on any improved tile (road, irrigation, mine);
- move on any luxury, resource or bonus tile without requesting and obtaining Civ3Brasil approval;

Both teams will be allowed to have a maximum of three units (Patrol) inside the DMZ area at any point in time. This units will be either Warrior or Chariot units. The Patrol will be allowed to move freely inside the DMZ but will not be allowed to form any blockade, by placing one Patrol unit in the NE, NW, SE or SW of another Patrol unit

Neither of the teams will be allowed to build a city whose any of the 21 tiles radius would enter into the DMZ.

Each team will be allowed to have one ship into the CWA of the other nation. Furthermore there is a maximum of one ship per team in the coastal areas at the edge of the DMZ.

Changes to this treaty
With mutual consent, the DMZ and the NBP of Fanatica and Civ3Brasil can be changed at any point within this treaty.

Breaking of the treaty
If any of the two nations breaks any stipulation of this Agreement, proof of this break will be forwarded to the other party and the Admin and this and all other Agreements will be declared void and a state of cold war will be automatically instated.

I think it is fine.

Kudos to Yndy for such a detailed and exquisite treaty draft! There is not a single word to throw away or to add IMO at the current situation!

Apparently, it is Zarn's Office job to draft such thing?

Foreign Affairs Consul- Lord (??) Zarn
Officer of Treaties and Alliances (Deputy)- RegentMan
Officer of Trade and Support- akots

Well, good example to learn for the future.

It's a little wordy, but there is not much we can do about that.

BTW akots, since its term 2, offices change hands, however I would glady reappoint you to the Officer of Trade and Support, since I was re-elected.

I would humbly suggest to Your Noble Lordship to appoint Yndy as OTA officer. He made such an excellent C3B treaty draft recently. If Yndy agrees...

Originally posted by akots
I would humbly suggest to Your Noble Lordship to appoint Yndy as OTA officer. He made such an excellent C3B treaty draft recently. If Yndy agrees...

I accept your proposal, as long as Yndy does.

I would be happy if you just call me Senior Adviser to the Fanatica Government.

Yesterday I was kind of bored at work and drafted the treaty but ussually my boss doesn't let me get bored. He actually asked my yesterday why am I doing overtime if I don't have a task pending.

I'll try to help in any way but I don't want any formal Government position.

The treaty looks very good, but there is one point I am wondering about.

Neither of the teams will be allowed to build a city whose any of the 21 tiles radius would enter into the DMZ.

Have we decided where we want our city/cities by the tobacco to be? Will that be during this treaty and thus not using any tiles inside the DMZ? Or will we have to ammend the treaty to place our city/cities?