- sweet rollers. I do believe zyxy is competing with me for the long post award!
AutoTeller makes a great point about it being profoundly unlikely that we'll pop a tech on FREE's side. In all my hand wringing, I missed that… probably because the tech plan still wasn't done when I was grappling with what to do on huts.
This revelation really frees our hand. If we pop a tech on our side, swell for us. If FREE pops a tech on their side… kudos to them! The only potential problem area is FREE popping a tech on our side of the deal, and in that case we then have a chance to be magnanimous outside of the confines of the treaty and score some diplomatic points. (ie, we can say "that's great, we'll pick up one of your cheap techs at the end in exchange, and we're ok with that being in your favor. Nice work allies!" … and then bask in the glow of their adoration of our generosity
)
I'm going to just delete the entire hut popping section from the treaty, and just figure we'll deal with it as/if it comes up.
zyxy also makes a good point about us likely to be ahead of FREE in tech – but I think this just means we want to be extra generous with them. Yes we want to out-strip them… but not too soon. We want to keep them roughly equal with us until we're safe from attack. If we start getting very far ahead of our dear allies, they'll really have no choice but to start looking for a way to abandon our alliance and join with someone else they think they can beat. We want them to stick with us for a good long while, and that means making sure they profit right along with us.
zyxy said:
I think it would be good to leave the second half of the research division more open to amendment: the overall goal is to get to the MA (and beyond) asap, in principle by equal division of research, but this can easily be amended if one team falls short.
This sounds good in principle, but I'm afraid it wouldn't work very well in practice. As the game heats up, misunderstanding and the whispering serpent's tongues of our enemies will only increase the likelihood of something going wrong. The more clear we are about the plan, the better off we all are… imo.
zyxy said:
Some other matters:
The term "hostile action" obviously involves initiating war by any means. Does it also include trespassing without permission, destroying improvements in neutral terrain, blocking the other teams units, culture battles, not living up to (part of) this treaty?
I think all those things you mentioned are pretty clearly hostile. And also demonstrates why I oppose listing all those things. IF we were to list them, what if we forget one? What about Pirate ships? What about try to convince a foreign power to attack? Or not trade? How do you define a "culture war"? What's "neutral terrain"?
I think you're making my point on why the treaty should just blanket prohibit hostile action. If FREE wants to argue with a straight face that any of those things on that list aren't hostile, then we're not going to have a successful alliance anyway.
zyxy said:
A nitpick, but "both teams agree to ... not look for ways benefit at the expense of the other team" can be taken out of context and abused to nullify the treaty at any silly excuse ("you settled where we wanted to settle!"). Of course we will (eventually) look to benefit at their expense, we want to win. And so do they
I'd like to reiterate that I think we're in a great position to be unstoppable in the late game… we just have to make it that far! IF we try to leave FREE in our dust too soon, we're going to put a powerful team on the side of our warmongering enemies. I think we must do what we can to (at the least) keep FREE at technological parity with us and do everything we can to make sure they don't feel like they're falling so far behind us that they can never win. Our underlying strength will be better thanks to our commercial trait, so when we do abandon them we can rocket ahead. But we must avoid doing that too soon (imho).
As for fearing a silly excuse to abandon the treaty… Who's going to stop them from abandoning the treaty for NO reason at all? Even if the treaty was perfect, if they really want out, they can just wipe their feet on it and go. The only check on that (however slight) is fear of world opinion… and frankly, in terms of world opinion, I think it looks worse for them to offer a "silly excuse" than it does to just say "The Council was getting to powerful, and we had to take drastic action."
So why put that line in the treaty at all? Well, assuming that FREE will act in good faith (we have no reason to NOT believe that) then I think that clause clearly establishes the idea that we're supposed to be working together… not in opposition.
zyxy said:
Does Article IV hold indefinitely?
Good call, each dissolution point should probably be more clear. I'll add a point in each section on that.
And with that… here's
Version 4:
I. Peace
- FREE and The Council agree to take no hostile action, of any kind, towards the other.
- This peace treaty will last indefinitely, and can only be cancelled by fifteen turns of written notice.
- Notice of intent to cancel the peace can NOT be given before the start of the Middle Ages.
II. Mutually Assured Advancement tech Plan (MAAP)
- FREE and The Council agree to cooperate on gaining knowledge to get Republic asap, and quickly advance into the Middle Ages.
- Both teams agree to not execute a "slow burn" in getting any technologies in favor of stockpiling gold, unless explicitly approved by the other team. Essentially, both teams agree to do their level best to proceed in tech at a rapid pace and not look for ways benefit at the expense of the other team.
- Both teams agree to stick to the following tech plan as close as possible.
(For ease of reference, all tech beaker values are the base costs, according to CAII)
Note: This chart assumes average beaker rate of 50bpt… we're sure this won't be accurate over the life of the AA, but we're aiming more to show progression rather than "actual" turns… operating under the assumption that both teams will progress in beaker counts at about the same pace, making the relative dates of discovery about equal to what's shown. Again, this depends on mutual good-faith.
- The MAAP can only be canceled or modified based on joint agreement of both teams.
- The MAAP naturally expires after the exchange of our respective Bonus era advancement techs, but The Council and FREE both hereby express their desire to negotiate a new MAAP agreement for the Middle Ages at that point.
III. US vs. THEM
- Both teams agree to not conduct any trades with foreign powers unless the deal is explicitly approved by the other team and factored into how it will affect the MAAP.
- If either team meets a foreign power, they will immediately notify the other of the contact. Whether or not the in-game contact is shared will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for maximum mutual benefit (in making techs cheaper for us and not for our foes).
- This agreement of coordinated diplomacy will last indefinitely. It may only be cancelled by mutual agreement, or by five turns of written notice.
- The coordinated diplomacy part of this treaty may be cancelled independently of the Peace Treaty, but not independent of the MAAP.
Are we liking this better?
EDIT: Sent to FREE gmail and CommandoBob via PM... title: "Proposed Treaty"