The Global Foyer

Your Majesty; I'm still awaiting your orders (if any) in regards to what I should do regarding the CDZ missive.

Originally Posted by Caledorn
I will work on creating a draft for such a letter, Your Majesty - the first draft should be ready tonight!

Click to expand...

I thought you were working on a draft

Indiansmoke said:

I thought you were working on a draft

Click to expand...

That is what I suspected you might be thinking I'll get back on that then - I asked in a message after the one with the draft in this thread if you wanted me to modify the wording of it. I'll have the draft prepared today.

Draft Response to Team CDZ

I'd really like to hear feedback on this draft, because I don't want it to come across as too obvious what our intentions are.

Their message to us, given its ramifications, was very curt, and didn't solicit a reply. In light of that I think the draft reply is a little too fawning. If it were me I would cut the "glorious" from the greeting (or move it from in front of "Viking" to "Incan" ), forget apologising for lateness and anything else that looks like an explicit olive branch. Keep it stern and accurate: we regret their decision, have severe doubts about the lifespan of the alliance but are still willing to trade in the future.

Just my non-royal two pence.

We have 3 options here

1 to go with something like this...."we regret your decision but understand it was the obvious choice for you. Easy choices are not always the best however, Amazon and sirious have closer relationships than you might think and after us it will be your turn."

2 to go with something like this..."after realizing that we are facing a 4 way alliance we feel that our options are very limited and it comes down to who will go down with us. So before we make our choice whether it will be you or Amazon we would like to hear anything you have to say"

3 to go with something short and typical like..."we regret your decision but understand it was the obvious choice for you. we will be here to talk in case you realize you made the wrong choice."

I know which approach I want but I want to hear from everyone in Merlot on this.

P.S we are not Inca

*blushes* Of course we are Mayans .. Slip of the mind there .. *coughs*

As to your options - I think I prefer number 2, as it is the most forthright and honest statement, while also being the least dubious one in my opinion.

If we're going to lose at least let's have some fun... putting the cat among the pigeons with 2 sounds like much more fun than gently and politely going to our doom!

Although it's a good idea to bring up the possibility that we have other friends (make a lot of noise to scare off the bear), using specific examples could severely backfire on us. Although at least one player from Amazon may be sympathetic to our cause, we can't assume he represents the team, and it is individuals, not the representatives, who may support us.
1-This could work well, maybe don't mention nations in specific as said (unless you feel it necessary).
2-Honest, and to the point. Of course, much more obviously aggressive. We need to come to a consensus if we want to more actively aggressive in diplomacy or more "nice guy".
3-Responding with a short message like that may be shutting down future diplomacy.

Sorry to go against you Caledorn, but I think I prefer option 1. Of course maybe re-worded a bit, but I like the idea of reminding them of the inevitability that the alliance will break.

But, it's not up to me. I'll leave it up to the King and Caledorn to decide our diplomatic path.

Snaker8 said:

Sorry to go against you Caledorn, but I think I prefer option 1. Of course maybe re-worded a bit, but I like the idea of reminding them of the inevitability that the alliance will break.

But, it's not up to me. I'll leave it up to the King and Caledorn to decide our diplomatic path.

Click to expand...

I don't mind you "going against me" the slightest bit, Sir Snaker8! In fact, I think it is good that you voice your opinion even though it is in disagreement with mine - and on this matter I think it's in fact very important that we hear more than just one opinion, since it's such an important issue. Besides, I'm just a humble servant of His Majesty anyways.

Of the three options, options 1 & 2 are the ones I like the most. Number 3 indeed represents a shut door in regards to diplomacy with Team CDZ in my mind too, so I'd rather not take that path, unless His Majesty is set on taking that path.

I would probably try to avoid burning any bridges, communicate i understand they are just doing what they feel is best to win the game, and that the phoneline is open in the future.

On the subject of cracks in the alliance, or breaking it up, its going to be difficult to take an active stance in that situation. The other teams are not stupid and without any assets that i know of, we cannot create these cracks-they must exist on their own. Just IMO of course

If the CDZ has any good players, I believe it is obvious to them that we don't really have any other option than 2. Personally I'd go for the option 2 just to see if they answer to that in some fashion. If they do, we can then consider forwarding the answer to Amazons If we want option 2 to sound a bit less like a threat we could add a clause like "unless you can convince us that the nature of your alliance does not spell a doom for us".

I also think 2 is the best option, with the modification Snaker made about not mentioning Amazon specifically. 1 and 3 are both quite weak sounding. 2 makes it clear we're still in the game. To make it not sound like empty threats/bluster we just need to be sure to highlight that we've been backed into a corner (i.e. "our options are very limited")

On the tv series Survivor and Big Brother players are often put in a hopeless situation where an alliance has decided for whatever reason to put them up for execution, as it is. Its not infrequent for the target to go visit the alliance leader(s) or key player and attempt to sway their mind, warning they will be the next target and that they need you. This almost always has the effect of making the player talked to not only ramp it up, but take it as a personal threat and that the targeted player must be absolutely removed from the game.

Im pretty sure CDZ\amazon are definitely aware the alliance could turn on them, just read their messages...i dont see making threats(even if they are not threats, they will be perceived as such) will help us.

OK, thats all i got in the way of rhetorical arguments. Whats the going to do?

The only situation I would "make threats" in is if it has been decided that we are done with the game and are just looking to blow up what we can. Since I haven't reached this point I don't think threats are the best option.

Until we are "done with the game" we need to appear pleasant for all the obvious reasons, and reasons previous discussed.

If King Indiansmoke's mindset is that we are done, and just "have fun" until we are destroyed, then fine - it is reasonable to make threats.

It seems to me that being "done" at this point is far too premature. We are on course to be "done" but to just roll over and play dead because 4 teams have said they are in an alliance of some undetermined type, for an undetermined length of time, when no team has the ability to wage an effective attack/war seems silly.

In another 60 turns from now, if the alliance is still an issue, then it's a different circumstance.

imho.

I do not believe threats will work at this point either.


So to determine what we need I ask myself the following question:

1. What would be the best possible outcome from diplo at this point (besides Maverics)?

The answer is to make an on the side non aggression treaty (even a silent one) with CDZ & to extract the date their treaty ends.



So my option for a reply to CDZ would be option 1. It is not a lie, I do believe that Sirious and Amazon have much stronger ties and are an alliance within the alliance. I feel that is what we need to get through to CDZ.


So if no objections that is the road I would like to take diplomatically with CDZ, wanr them about an alliance within the alliance.

Sir Caledron it is your task to find the right way to express that in the letter.

We need to get the message across in a way that is not too passive and sounds true.

Indiansmoke said:

We need to get the message across in a way that is not too passive and sounds true.

Click to expand...

"No doubt you have considered that Sirous and the Amazons have stronger ties within your alliance because of X (give them the real reasons we think this). With that in mind our goal is to come up with an arrangement with you that doesn't conflict with your current agreement and which can be kept quiet between us.

This is in your benefit because you will be able to prosper more quickly then your allies, and of course it is advantagous to us because we don't end up as far behind everyone else - - which is inevitable if all 4 kingdoms are against us.

The benefit is huge for you - another advantage over all kingdoms in the game. The benefit for us is negligible, we simply delay the inevitable consequences of competing with a 4 person alliance.

Of course it also paves the way for us to have better and more formal relations down the road should the terms of your alliance expire. Inevitably with 4v1 you will want to stay in the arrangement for only as long is as beneficial to you instead of feeding the inherent trait advantage of your competitors right till the end."

Off the top of my head something like that would be how I would position it. A win win situation for them which has essentially no cost.

Indiansmoke said:

I do not believe threats will work at this point either.

Click to expand...

We don't really have much to threaten with anyways, and the other teams know it at this point of the game. If we threaten CDZ, we will just be doing exactly what Sommer told us we should do - focus on CDZ. And if Amazons and Sirius have this alliance within the alliance, Sommer might actually be talking with two tounges. It would be in their interest to see us declare war on CDZ, so that when they're prepared to rush over us, CDZ will be an easy target afterwards due to their weakened position (even though they might have some veteran units to defend themselves with at that point, veteran units shouldn't have that much impact).

Indiansmoke said:

The answer is to make an on the side non aggression treaty (even a silent one) with CDZ & to extract the date their treaty ends.

So my option for a reply to CDZ would be option 1. It is not a lie, I do believe that Sirious and Amazon have much stronger ties and are an alliance within the alliance. I feel that is what we need to get through to CDZ.

So if no objections that is the road I would like to take diplomatically with CDZ, wanr them about an alliance within the alliance.

Sir Caledron it is your task to find the right way to express that in the letter.

We need to get the message across in a way that is not too passive and sounds true.

Click to expand...

I agree. And I have to say "Eek!" on the task here, because this is a tough one.

ash88 said:

"No doubt you have considered that Sirous and the Amazons have stronger ties within your alliance because of X (give them the real reasons we think this). With that in mind our goal is to come up with an arrangement with you that doesn't conflict with your current agreement and which can be kept quiet between us.

This is in your benefit because you will be able to prosper more quickly then your allies, and of course it is advantagous to us because we don't end up as far behind everyone else - - which is inevitable if all 4 kingdoms are against us.

The benefit is huge for you - another advantage over all kingdoms in the game. The benefit for us is negligible, we simply delay the inevitable consequences of competing with a 4 person alliance.

Of course it also paves the way for us to have better and more formal relations down the road should the terms of your alliance expire. Inevitably with 4v1 you will want to stay in the arrangement for only as long is as beneficial to you instead of feeding the inherent trait advantage of your competitors right till the end."

Off the top of my head something like that would be how I would position it. A win win situation for them which has essentially no cost.

Click to expand...

I will probably borrow heavily from this, ash, since this is very well written! Thank you! Given His Majesty's insights however, I'm going to need some help with the first part there - what exactly should be written as the reasoning behind our thinking Sirius & Amazons have an alliance within the alliance? Apart from them being neighbours, and probably the engineers of the alliance in the first place (whereas it was of course highly convenient for them to ally with the two teams on the opposite side of the continent, to easier eliminate us and the Mavericks, and then ditch the 4-way alliance in favor of a 2-vs-2-way alliance) - what other reasons can we give?

ash88 said:

This is in your benefit because you will be able to prosper more quickly then your allies, and of course it is advantagous to us because we don't end up as far behind everyone else - - which is inevitable if all 4 kingdoms are against us.

The benefit is huge for you - another advantage over all kingdoms in the game. The benefit for us is negligible, we simply delay the inevitable consequences of competing with a 4 person alliance.

Click to expand...

This is not true though. What exactly is the benefit? What can we offer CDZ? Nothing. All we can offer is peace.

The point is for them to realize that there is an alliance within the alliance and by themsleves realize that they need us as a meatshield against the others.

The best diplomacy is the one that makes others think that they are taking decisions on their own, when the information you seeded caused that decision.