Indiansmoke
Deity
That is a good idea Sir Caledorn! Please make a seperate thread where we post all communications sent and received, while we keep the discussion here.
The Global Foyer
- Thread starter Indiansmoke
- Start date
Indiansmoke
Deity
We need to set a deadline for Persia to reply, Sir Caledorn can you PM their diplomat and ask on the status of their reply?
CDZ and everyone else must get a reply from us very soon and Persia is holding things for us.
CDZ and everyone else must get a reply from us very soon and Persia is holding things for us.
Caledorn
Emperor
PM sent to Silentconfusion 
I hope we'll either get a reply from them formally or from him soon. I'll post here as soon as I get a reply.
Otherwise, I suggest that we give them until Wednesday afternoon (18:00 CET for instance?) at most - and even that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, since it feels impolite to postpone answering the other teams because we're dependent upon Amazon's response. I see the need for that response, though.
I hope we'll either get a reply from them formally or from him soon. I'll post here as soon as I get a reply.Otherwise, I suggest that we give them until Wednesday afternoon (18:00 CET for instance?) at most - and even that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, since it feels impolite to postpone answering the other teams because we're dependent upon Amazon's response. I see the need for that response, though.
Caledorn
Emperor
Received this PM today from Silentconfusion :
Caledorn
Emperor
We have received a response - and wow, what a response!
I have posted it in the Diplomatic Archives.
I have posted it in the Diplomatic Archives.
Indiansmoke
Deity
I missed the reply from Amazon, just saw it! I was a bit confused as I though we would use the other thread to post only received and send communications, not drafts...and that we would dicuss drafts here.
Anyway, the Amazon letter is just gaining time without saying much.
I think we should reply to them telling them about our resources and our willingness to ally with them and asking them directly if they are willing to enter a tech trading deal (lets inform them that we are on our way to monarchy).
Anyway, the Amazon letter is just gaining time without saying much.
I think we should reply to them telling them about our resources and our willingness to ally with them and asking them directly if they are willing to enter a tech trading deal (lets inform them that we are on our way to monarchy).
Indiansmoke
Deity
The letter to sirious
This is Ok lets add the resources we have and ask them what they have.
This is Ok lets add the resources we have and ask them what they have.
Indiansmoke
Deity
About CDZ lets tell them that we are a bit worried that the other 4 teams are exchanging techs and we fear that they are trying to isolate Merlot and CDZ and that of course we are willing to share info about land and resources and tell them what we discovered.
Indiansmoke
Deity
About quatronia lets ask them about tech exchange deal.
Diplo is getting complicated...
Diplo is getting complicated...
Ronnie1
Deity
Indeed...and will continue to be a bit convoluted IMO until all of the teams have been met and engaged. Surely some alliances are already in the making.
I was about to post this in the West Tower, but since it's more diplomatic, it probably deserves being here instead.
"TEAM A was talking to us about invading your great nation and plundering it for themselves, TEAM B. They will surely deny they ever said anything like that, but we must be on our guard, for we of Merlot do not trust them either. Perhaps our nations can forge an agreement to trade the bounties of technology we both carry?"
Of course this idea may not work and has major potential disadvantages. My point is, the longer you let any type of agreement or alliance last, the stronger it becomes. If you can't bring about suspicion and distrust between those involved, it will grow over time. Besides, diplomatically destroying relationships between nations is much less costly than going to war.
But I'm not the official diplomat on any of these matters, so you are welcome to ignore my ideas
I think I speak for us all when I say this can't continue. I would try to use misinformation to spread distrust between those involved in the trades.
"TEAM A was talking to us about invading your great nation and plundering it for themselves, TEAM B. They will surely deny they ever said anything like that, but we must be on our guard, for we of Merlot do not trust them either. Perhaps our nations can forge an agreement to trade the bounties of technology we both carry?"
Of course this idea may not work and has major potential disadvantages. My point is, the longer you let any type of agreement or alliance last, the stronger it becomes. If you can't bring about suspicion and distrust between those involved, it will grow over time. Besides, diplomatically destroying relationships between nations is much less costly than going to war.
But I'm not the official diplomat on any of these matters, so you are welcome to ignore my ideas
Cataphract887
Prince
Something like that could work, but it would need to be far more subtle. I suspect most people would see through that instantly. I rather doubt these 4 teams are in anything more than a trading coalition on a certain deal, ive never heard of a 4 man alliance in a 6 player game.
I suggest that whoever we ally, we be as fourthcoming as possible in our relations with them. In C4DG on poly, we knew our ally was turning on us when they started restricting info they would tell us, and managed to take the war to them first and win as a result
I suggest that whoever we ally, we be as fourthcoming as possible in our relations with them. In C4DG on poly, we knew our ally was turning on us when they started restricting info they would tell us, and managed to take the war to them first and win as a result
Caledorn
Emperor
My apologies, Your Majesty. I think I will keep the other thread as clean as possible by including both the letter and the reply in the same post. I realized that would be the most organized way of doing it only after I had already posted the first draft in a separate message though. If you agree with my idea, I will start posting it in the manner I am proposing here from now on. If you would rather have me post the drafts here in the Foyer, however, I will of course do so.
Using the method I have done below with direct linking to the posts might be a bit cleaner though. But that's the rather perfectionist organizator in me talking however. I have done the neccessary modifications to all the drafts in the thread (and sent off the letter to the Sirians). I will work on the CDZ letter too, but I have some other business to attend to first. So either in a few hours, or tomorrow for the letter to CDZ. Please approve/disapprove of the modifications done in the drafts.
Team Amazon - Draft
Team Quatronia - Draft
Team Sirius - Reply Sent
If I may comment on the letters,
Something I'm noticing is lacking in all of them is that we haven't asked what other nations think of each other - this isn't "incorrect" to ask, and I think it will give us a more in-depth view of how the nations feel about each other, something which we can take advantage of when the time comes. And if they decide to ask us, we don't have to give them the whole truth (as they probably won't give us the whole truth either).
We can even use this line of questioning to strengthen a possible agreement - whether trade or military.
And although tempting, we may want to stray away from the word "alliance", unless we feel we can trust the player and they will be helpful to us. If at one point we decide to attack our ally because it would be strategically good for us, then we of course would be breaking an alliance, and our ally would quickly announce this to the other players, therefore we'd lose confidence with all the players. However, if we come to an "agreement", we aren't officially allied - working closely together, perhaps, but not allies. Then, if the time comes, they don't really have the right to say we broke an alliance, because we never truly made one. (there's the lawyer in me!
)
Something I'm noticing is lacking in all of them is that we haven't asked what other nations think of each other - this isn't "incorrect" to ask, and I think it will give us a more in-depth view of how the nations feel about each other, something which we can take advantage of when the time comes. And if they decide to ask us, we don't have to give them the whole truth (as they probably won't give us the whole truth either).
We can even use this line of questioning to strengthen a possible agreement - whether trade or military.
And although tempting, we may want to stray away from the word "alliance", unless we feel we can trust the player and they will be helpful to us. If at one point we decide to attack our ally because it would be strategically good for us, then we of course would be breaking an alliance, and our ally would quickly announce this to the other players, therefore we'd lose confidence with all the players. However, if we come to an "agreement", we aren't officially allied - working closely together, perhaps, but not allies. Then, if the time comes, they don't really have the right to say we broke an alliance, because we never truly made one. (there's the lawyer in me!
)Indiansmoke
Deity
My apologies, Your Majesty. I think I will keep the other thread as clean as possible by including both the letter and the reply in the same post. I realized that would be the most organized way of doing it only after I had already posted the first draft in a separate message though. If you agree with my idea, I will start posting it in the manner I am proposing here from now on. If you would rather have me post the drafts here in the Foyer, however, I will of course do so.
I have done the neccessary modifications to all the drafts in the thread (and sent off the letter to the Sirians). I will work on the CDZ letter too, but I have some other business to attend to first. So either in a few hours, or tomorrow for the letter to CDZ. Please approve/disapprove of the modifications done in the drafts.
Team Amazon - Draft
Team Quatronia - Draft
Team Sirius - Reply Sent
You are indeed very organized Sir Caledron
Amazon letter is good lets send it.
The quatronia confuses me a bit, it is CDZ we want to talk about the 4 way tech alliance not quatronia (quatronia is in the 4 way trade).
So we need to ask quatronia more or less the same things we asked from Amazon and tell CDZ that we are concirned about the 4 way tech exchange.
Indiansmoke
Deity
Here is my general strategy on diplo which will be our guide to see what we are asking for from whom.
1. We need 1 nation next to us to be long term allly. That must be either CDZ or Amazon. This is vital as we canot fight in 2 fronts.
2. We need the other neighbour to be on short term treaty, so we don't get to war too soon and spoil our development.
These are the 2 most important things.
Then we need 2 more alies as I believe a 4vs2 tech alliance will form. However if we were to be on the 2 team side CDZ is the ally we would want to be with!
1. We need 1 nation next to us to be long term allly. That must be either CDZ or Amazon. This is vital as we canot fight in 2 fronts.
2. We need the other neighbour to be on short term treaty, so we don't get to war too soon and spoil our development.
These are the 2 most important things.
Then we need 2 more alies as I believe a 4vs2 tech alliance will form. However if we were to be on the 2 team side CDZ is the ally we would want to be with!
Indiansmoke
Deity
And although tempting, we may want to stray away from the word "alliance", unless we feel we can trust the player and they will be helpful to us. If at one point we decide to attack our ally because it would be strategically good for us, then we of course would be breaking an alliance, and our ally would quickly announce this to the other players, therefore we'd lose confidence with all the players. However, if we come to an "agreement", we aren't officially allied - working closely together, perhaps, but not allies. Then, if the time comes, they don't really have the right to say we broke an alliance, because we never truly made one. (there's the lawyer in me!
We are not stupid and the other teams are not stupid either. every move, every power rise every fleet, army gathering will be monitored. We will trust our allies but we will keep an eye on them too. and the same goes for them.
Backstabbing is for weak players and works only against weak players. Strong players are prepared for it and don't do it themselves because they can win fair and square. Those that cannot win are usually the ones looking for other ways!
In any case all these years in multiplayer I have never broken a deal and I am not about to start now! So as long as I have the word on that it will not happen.
Cataphract887
Prince
I agree on that stance-i prefer to craft a reputation for honesty and loyalty in diplo, even if there are some shortsighted gains to be made sooner.
Looking at Quatronia draft, im worried it sounds a little desperate in regards to their trading partners. Im not good with words, but maybe there is a way to make the third paragraph more mellow while still asking the question.
Why would a 4v2 alliance form? Is there some bad blood here in merlot and CDZ with the others to cause this? Its strange because usually an alliance isnt greater than 50% of the total game size. Or do we just mean a tech trading partnership between them? Either way, i think it wont last forever. Eventually they will dissolve into bitter infighting(i hope!) and then our long term policy of crafting atleast neutral relations and patience will pay off when new alliances form. Hopefully CDZ will see this aswell and be loyal allies\trade partners, i wouldnt want to get backstabbed by berserker armies.
Looking at Quatronia draft, im worried it sounds a little desperate in regards to their trading partners. Im not good with words, but maybe there is a way to make the third paragraph more mellow while still asking the question.
Why would a 4v2 alliance form? Is there some bad blood here in merlot and CDZ with the others to cause this? Its strange because usually an alliance isnt greater than 50% of the total game size. Or do we just mean a tech trading partnership between them? Either way, i think it wont last forever. Eventually they will dissolve into bitter infighting(i hope!) and then our long term policy of crafting atleast neutral relations and patience will pay off when new alliances form. Hopefully CDZ will see this aswell and be loyal allies\trade partners, i wouldnt want to get backstabbed by berserker armies.
Indiansmoke
Deity
A 4vs2 would be the natural and safest way to take 2 teams out of the game and leave 4 in contention increasing your own chances. So it is something that alot of people would think about. Whether it will happen or not remains to be seen.
My estimate is that it will.
Of course a 4 team alliance does not guarantee that your allies will help you in war. There might be a tech alliance but when war comes they might be too late or non willing to help.
I would be somewhat surprised if Dutch could be part of a long term 4 part alliance on this map. Their unique building is simply awesome on this map and other parties of the alliance would have trouble keeping up with them after Steam Engine.
On the other hand I am also a bit concerned about allying with CDZ. Their unique building allows very strong surprise attacks to the home islands, especially if (when) they are the first ones to circumnavigate the globe. Everyone should also know this, so I believe it is quite likely that they and their allies would be at the wrong the stick. I would rather see us allying with Amazons than CDZ. Though I agree completely with your assessment, my Lord, that we have to ally at least one of those.
As for 4 vs. 2 alliance, in this map I would say the perfect 4 vs. 2 alliance would separate the poor bastards left in the minority. For example if Vikings and Dutch were left behind, they would be losing really fast fighting on the both fronts. Four adjacent compatriots could not achieve same level of devastation as easily due to logistical issues.
On the other hand I am also a bit concerned about allying with CDZ. Their unique building allows very strong surprise attacks to the home islands, especially if (when) they are the first ones to circumnavigate the globe. Everyone should also know this, so I believe it is quite likely that they and their allies would be at the wrong the stick. I would rather see us allying with Amazons than CDZ. Though I agree completely with your assessment, my Lord, that we have to ally at least one of those.
As for 4 vs. 2 alliance, in this map I would say the perfect 4 vs. 2 alliance would separate the poor bastards left in the minority. For example if Vikings and Dutch were left behind, they would be losing really fast fighting on the both fronts. Four adjacent compatriots could not achieve same level of devastation as easily due to logistical issues.
Similar threads
