Foreign Policy: CivFr

[2metraninja]

Yes, we were willing to pay for peace.

In my eyes, them coming and saying just that they want peace means they accept the status quo.

Ot4e suggested that we start demilitarizing the border together - with French and us, but still not signing in-game peace, so we dont give hint to RB that other 40+ units are coming their way. I did that in previous game and it worked perfect, but I am not sure if we can implement it here with the French.

As a last thing, yes, we need to talk about this with MZ.

 

[2metraninja]

What about:

"We agree that peace between us will be better for both nations. We offer you peace and NAP to turn 210.

If you are interested in giving us some time to make surprising move against RB and we have your written agreement that you will send us peace offer to sign in-game peace at t185, we are OK with mutual demilitarizing of our front, starting with half of each army to be moved away from the border, then another 25% of the army until only 25% of our current armies are left 10 tiles from the border.

Team CFC"

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why do we even have to agree to demilitarize? Either we trust them to honor the NAP or we don't. If we don't, then a NAP is pointless. If we do then just make the NAP and then we can withdraw our forces. Adding in this demilitarization clause just makes things complicated and gives room for someone to misinterpret things. Remember that both sites do not share the same primary language. The less complicated the agreement the better.

 

[RegentMan]

I think he's talking about staying at war with them in-game until 185, then making peace, in order to make RB think CFC and CivFr at still at war. We would keep our peace with CivFr on the down-low and both CFC and CivFr would move their armies from each other's borders until that time.

Although I think I'd rather just make peace in-game and with a NAP until turn 210. This way RB knows we're not distracted on a second front and has to whip/draft that much harder, hurting their economy even worse in the build-up.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I guess it depends on whether we are still going with the "force RB to hurt their economy" plan or the "delenda est" plan

If it is the latter, hiding the peace with CivFr until the last minute makes some sense.

 

[2metraninja]

It is more the latter, though if it does not work, the first will still be OK. But yes, I would like we to hide our 40 units coming from the east as much as possible, plus if we are still at war with French, it can somewhat hide for whom our huge whips/drafts which are due in the next few turns are for. RB may think/hope it is for our war with CivFR and that we want to use the momentum when we have cannons to take advantage over CivFR (which we would had normally do if we were not to deal with RB first).

I will formulate them as 2 options for them to choose, so if they find the disarming while keeping the war technically going strange or suspicious, they can just accept our first offer - immediate peace and plain NAP till t210.

I am still waiting to hear from MZ for this NAP though.

 

[2metraninja]

This is getting tricky. Both Ot4e and MZ had said they MUST be protected by NAP with French by the same date as us.

Anyone willing to try to spell this out without as MZ said "tell them that they are gonna be the next" ?

 

[Aivoturso]

How about signing a pact that is a bit shorter than Poly's and CP's NAP with CivFr? If we can beat RB by the time that happens, we can hold CivFr back by ourselves if need be, right? And if we intentionally make a shorter NAP, it's not quite as blatant as if we go for the same exact turn. If we do this though, we should obviously insist on extending our NAP with Poly and CP beyond the CivFr war II. Otherwise we might find out that we actually are "the next".

 

[2metraninja]

Good point about who "the next" is going to possibly be.

About shorter NAP with French than Poly and CP, I think we will be those who have to tell French we will want 4-way NAP and it will be only logical if we ask for one and the same turn NAP.

 

[Aivoturso]

BTW, have we given any reply to CivFr yet? If not, I suggest that we'll send a short message to tell them that we agree on principle and are working out the details. For example:

Dear CivFr,

We'd be delighted to end this fruitless war. We also welcome a NAP with your team. We are currently discussing details of peace and NAP proposal. Let us get back to you by monday.

Yours,
Team CFC

 

[Aivoturso]

Another thing just popped into my mind. If CivFr agrees to continue the state of war a bit longer to help us surprise RB, would it make any sense to intentionally drop our Power e.g. by deleting a couple of our least useful troops. This could make the deception even more believable. And I guess that e.g. 35 more troops and a surprise attack is worth more than 40 more troops but no surprise, right?

 

[2metraninja]

Yes, a short message would be good. Though I would like it way more dry.

Why I did not sent anything till now was to not give the ball in their hands and us keeping the chance to make the first proposal (which more or less becomes the final usually).

About deleting units to drop our power, I would have loved to make this, but from this turn we will drat and whip so heavy, that any drop in power would be unnoticed. We still have a chance to make the disguise with something reasonable as fighting 2-3 more battles so we can get our next Great General. This will look way more convincing to RB that we are fighting and they will think we draft/whip to manage the French, but sadly suicidal training is forbidden by the rules (not that I hope we can make French give us something like this favor).

 

[2metraninja]

I calculated though. Only our knights can reach the RB front in time for t 175 or t176. The slow movers will be well.. slow for the show At least for the opening.

 

[Aivoturso]

How about this then:

Dear CivFr,

We agree to end this fruitless war. NAP is also a given. We are currently discussing details of peace and NAP proposal. We'll get back to you by monday.

Team CFC

 

[2metraninja]

I would only remove the part where we say it is fruitless war (well, it is, but it was they who came to ask for peace, so we can play it important and cool and not let them know we desire this peace very much too ) I would replace it with the reason which must have been made them come to ask for a peace at first place - RB.

Dear CivFr,

We agree that this war helps no one else except RB. We agree that we need NAP between us too. We are currently discussing details of peace and NAP proposal. We'll get back to you by Monday.

Team CFC

 

[2metraninja]

And in my native language, days of the week are not written with capitals and I was wondering why in English they are, but I found the explanation somewhere. Each day of the week is named after a god, so thats why they must all start with a capital letter.

 

[Aivoturso]

We've already proposed the peace and even recruited O4TE to mediate the deal. At this point I believe acting too non-chalantly is more likely to turn against us than not. AFAIK, if we were to act non-chalant our communications after DoW have gone something like this:

CFC: OK, SpAp is beaten. Let's stop this silly war and sign a NAP.
CivFr: No! To the death!
CFC: Please, can we stop this war?
CivFr:...
CFC: Hey, CP can you try to mediate the peace? CivFr is not communicating with us. We'd even pay something.
CP: OK. Hey, CivFr. CFC really wants a peace. They ask what's the price.
CivFr: We'll think about it.
<AP Vote> CFC votes yes, CivFr no.
CFC: Darn!
CivFr: Hey CFC. It seems that we can't really fight with you ATM. Still up for peace? We insist on NAP.
CFC: Meh, whatever. Fine, if it means that much to you.

 

[Bowsling]

Is the surprise value really that important in our war against RB? A clause like that in the peace deal seems like it would only make them mistrust us and think we're just trying to get them to send units away. Let's just keep it simple for now.

 

[YossarianLives]

I agree, let's not make this too complicated. A simple NAP is best without any extra clauses.

 

[YossarianLives]

By the way, when do CP's and Poly's NAPs with CivFr end? If you still have the chats where our allies insist that we time the naps to end together, could you post them?