Team Free Embassy

Yes that was an x-post, I see Kuningas has proposed the same trade as I did, guess its a logical one and suggest we take it.
 
Well – it's time to start drafting a tech plan/alliance agreement.

Sounds like FREE is working on one also, but we might as well start our own. If they beat us, then we'll already have some of the critical discussion out of the way and be able to respond sooner. If we beat them, maybe we can help set the tone.

Here's the basics of what I'd propose:
I. Peace
  • FREE and The Council agree to take no hostile action, of any kind, towards the other.
  • This agreement will last indefinitely, and can only be cancelled by 15 turns of written notice.
  • Notice of intent to cancel 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.
  • Any beaker imbalance between the teams at the end of the AA will be paid by a ratio of 1-gold-for-every-2-beakers. (For example, the current proposal shows The Council short 60 beakers from team FREE. Therefore, The Council would pay team FREE 30 gold at the end of the AA.)
  • 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)
    Assumes average beaker rate of 50bpt


III. Hut, Hut, Adjust!
  • If either team manages to pop a technology from a hut, the free tech is immediately shared, and then the tech plan will be adjusted by mutual agreement to give the hut popper credit for "researching" just 50% of the value of the free tech.
  • This gives the hut popper credit for advancing both teams and taking the risk, but prevents things from becoming too unbalanced due to a string of luck.

IV. 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.

There you go!
It's a start! Now let's tear it apart and make it better :)
:salute:
 
Is the sharing of contacts/letting others know if the other has met someone something we want inserted, or is that covered already by earlier agreements?

I guess that could work both ways for us, since we know the outline of the map, hopefully ;)
What do you think?
 
Good idea to get this started!

I don't need encouragement to tear things apart :), so here's a list of comments. I am to some extent playing the devil's advocate - in reality we can probably count on FREE's good intentions.

  • I generally agree with the peace treaty. Fifteen turns is a bit much, but if we assume that we can outpace them in the endgame then this is to our advantage. Does "This agreement" refer to article I or to the whole thing? Do we need some "violate one condition and you nullify the entire treaty" clause?
  • Terms like "hostile action" and "slow burn" probably need some definition.
  • I agree with the idea of dividing techs. The division looks reasonably good, because after the initial swap the tech paths of the two teams are quite independent - only HBR requires a tech from the other team.
  • "Both teams agree to stick to the following tech plan as close as possible" is an empty but suggestive statement, and gives no guarantee on actual research speed. In principle this can be abused to not leave the AA and thus enforce article I indefinitely (it is of course suicidal to do so, but still.)
  • I guess the reason for sharing techs asap would be to avoid popping a known tech from a hut? Should we state this explicitly?
  • Why not put the Wheel or Mysticism on our side, and WC on their side. That evens out the beaker cost, plus, I would rather research the Wheel (horses) or Mysticism (could be an SGL) than WC (who needs archers...).
  • The turn numbers are almost certainly wrong. The price of Masonry suddenly dropped on the last turn that we researched it, so I think FREE only has 1 turn in on Math, while we already finished Lit. Thus, we are about 7 research units (of 30 beakers each) ahead of FREE. Also, we are getting libs earlier, and we lose less money on corruption. This means that towards the end of the AA we might be forced to wait on FREE. In any case, it is not clear that we can research equally fast, so maybe we should not set the whole tech division in stone. Up to, say Construction and Republic should be ok I think.
  • Our beaker output will most certainly go up quite a bit, perhaps even double towards the end of the AA, as we are getting libs and more towns. Similar for FREE, of course.
  • When Republic comes in, we probably both want to revolt, which is another unknown number of turns. I guess the research plan is only a guideline?
  • Do we need Republic in about 25 turns from now, or can we wait a bit longer for it? In the latter case, it might be good to try and steer FREE towards researching a few cheap techs early on. I'm uncertain about the right time to revolt. We only have 2 luxes with apparently no potential trade partners until ocean travel. This makes the republic relatively expensive to maintain...
  • With WC and Wheel so near the end, the value of hut popping is rather minimal. In deciding the research order we are basically weighing the benefit of a potential SGL against the benefit of a potential free tech. I don't know what's optimal here.
  • I am not sure hut popping should be covered in the treaty. We saved a few of ours, but maybe they didn't. I think they popped CB, because it is usually not a priority to research. But it's probably not a big deal.
  • The "Us vs Them" article is a risky thing, especially with the no-cancellation policy from Article I. I think we cannot outresearch the other three teams together, if they combine. I have no definite ideas on how to amend this, though - perhaps limit this article to the Ancient Age?
 
Wow! :wow: Lot to respond to here already! Very exciting.
Here goes nothing…

Tomasjj said:
Is the sharing of contacts/letting others know if the other has met someone something we want inserted, or is that covered already by earlier agreements?
Well – I'm a bit split on it.
I like the idea of mandatory notification of the other team if we meet some foreigners… and that should probably be written in the treaty.

However, I'd vote to handle sharing contacts on a case-by-case basis. For example, if we meet a team that already has some techs that we want… sharing the contact could be good to help lower the price. However, if we have tech that the foreigner wants, sharing contacts will only lower the price dramatically for them… something we want to avoid.

So it would just depend… ie, leave it undefined in the treaty.

Regarding zyxy's comments, rather than fill up this post with quotes, I'll just tackle each idea in order. I'll try to make my responses specific, so it's clear what I'm talking about without constantly scrolling up.
  • For 15 turns of peace, I just pulled the number out of my hat (or somewhere ;) ) – but I think it needs to be long enough that if FREE cancels on us, we have sufficient time to get ready. I'm open to any number, but 15 doesn't seem overly long to me if we're facing a potential joint invasion (assuming FREE abandons us to join with at least one other power)
  • I agree that the terms "hostile action" and "slow burn" could use more definition, but from past MTDG experience, it almost seems like the more definition you give something, the more wiggle room and weasel behavior can happen. (Since my team, MIA – used this very tactic with some effectiveness against KISS in MTDG1… :lol: ) Ultimately any deal depends on honor anyway, and unless they really don't understand the words, I think it's almost better being vague. But again – would be happy to write a more specific definition if we think it would be better.
  • Re: Sticking to this tech plan as close as possible" – again, I'd refer to my last point. This treaty will get very messy and complicated if we try to set hard deadlines and penalties for missing them etc. Much better to just try to work with FREE in good faith and ask them to do the same.
  • I'll add explicit langue about why we're sharing popped techs immediately.
  • Excellent call on swapping Wheel for Warrior Code! Mysticism can't be moved without really messing up the timing at the end.
  • I'll readily agree that the turn numbers are almost certainly wrong… I'm more aiming to show progression rather than actual turns. I'm 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. I've added this langue to the treaty to help clear that up.
  • The question about when to revolt to Republic is a question for better players than I, but I'd argue that we should get it sooner rather than later – as indicated in the current tech plan.
  • I've left the cheaper techs at the end in my proposal for 2 reasons. A) Better chance for either of us to a SGL, and B) None of those techs (WC, TW, HBR) really add anything to our growth and development. I'd much rather get Currency and Construction sooner for the great benefits than gamble on huts and just end up getting a map and a couple more units. Just my 2 cents.
  • Finally, I think Hut Popping must be covered in the treaty, otherwise it potentially destroys our carefully crafted MAAP, and it could be tense renegotiating it without pre-agreed guidelines.

And here's version 2.1 with edits from comments above and other misc moves and additions for clarity!
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 15 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.

III. Hut, Hut, Adjust!
  • If either team manages to pop a technology from a hut, the free tech is immediately shared to ensure no double-popping of the same tech.
  • The tech plan will then be adjusted by mutual agreement to give the hut popper credit for "researching" just 50% of the value of the free tech.
  • This gives the hut popper credit for advancing both teams and taking the risk, but prevents things from becoming too unbalanced due to a string of luck.
  • Any beaker imbalance between the teams at the end of the AA will be paid by a ratio of 1-gold-for-every-2-beakers in base cost. (For example, if due to popping huts The Council falls short 60 beakers from team FREE - then The Council would pay team FREE 30 gold at the end of the AA, or vice-versa)

IV. 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).

How's that looking?
 
In the final clause of section III (the gold for beakers clause) how are we calculating beakers? Base beaker value or actual beakers? The latter may vary as we make new contacts. I don't care either way, I just think it should be made clear in the document.
 
Good call. I've now made that edit above (just went with base beakers, like everything else in the deal)

Like the rest of it I hope?
 
Well... let me get this straight. Let's say we get lucky and pop a hut for warrior code. We give it to them and then get credit for researching 45 beakers and they lose credit for 90 beakers since they aren't researching it. SO they end up owing us 22 gold (assuming no adjustments are made). If we pop the wheel then we get credit for only 60 beakers, we give them the wheel and owe them 30 gold. :hmm: Do we really want to do that? I guess we'd get our share of the research done faster in the latter case and could make up the gold by turning off research. Am I getting to picky about this?
 
No – you’ve pretty much got the right of it.

Frankly, I wrestled over that part the longest of any of these points. It’s a sticky issue, and if you have any other good solutions to the problem of what to do if someone pops a hut – I’d be delighted to hear something I didn’t think of.

My logic went like this… whoever pops a tech is suddenly ahead of the other team in tech.
If the tech popped is one they were supposed to get anyway, then at the end of the deal they just get to stockpile gold and get ahead.
If the tech popped belongs to the other team’s side of the deal, then either the deal has to modified from its current balance into being unbalanced, or else the other team just straight benefits from the others work in hut popping.

The way I wrote it, assuming that the person getting the free tech spends their extra time gathering gold, makes sure that both teams benefit about the same from a lucky tech pop. Seemed the fairest (without being super complicated) way to me.

As I mentioned… would love to hear someone’s “out of the box” idea.
 
The best I can do is suggest we divide the techs and stick with that. If one team pops a tech on their list they just get their side done faster. If one pops a tech on the other team's list they can just keep it let the other team research it. This might slow both of us leaving the AA, and so is not optimal for MAAP.

Here's the thing though. Maybe we are willing to give them a free tech and gold if we pop a tech but they might see that as us asking for a bit much of them if they pop a tech. Even if the chances of popping a tech are slight the suggestion may lose us some of that valuable goodwill we're trying so hard to develop. I would at least include the logic you just outlined in a letter to accompany the proposed treaty.
 
I think value is value. We are getting curraghs out. We have a plan for popping huts which they may or may not have.

I am not really sure why we need to compensate them if we pop a hut and get a tech. We just got a tech faster, is all.
 
General_W made mention of being compensated for the 'work' of popping a tech. It's not work, it's risk. And if we're not willing to take the risk without insurance, then we don't deserve compensation beyond the tech we may or may not pop. Same thing with them.

If one team pops a hut, they are obligated to share the tech promptly unless there is a compelling reason to wait till the end of the Era (e.g. to keep the cost high for other teams to research, or something like that).

If we pop a tech on their path, we share it immediately, to speed them up. If we pop a tech on our path, all the better. If we pop an optional tech, we can share it immediately. If we wind up running pure cash and no research for a few turns towards the end, that's all the better. If they wind up running pure gold for a few turns, hats off!

Gold trades will just make things messy, and we really just want to get to Republic as fast as possible, and get out of the Ancient Age as fast as possible. Let's not remove those incentives by complicating things.
 
Gold trades will just make things messy, and we really just want to get to Republic as fast as possible, and get out of the Ancient Age as fast as possible. Let's not remove those incentives by complicating things.
:agree: Keep it easy.
 
Ok… this appears to be the will of the council… but as my last ditch effort, let me ask just 2 questions.

1) Are you ok with us popping a tech on FREE's side of the chart, giving it to them for free, and then watching them stockpile gold while waiting for us to finish our side of the deal? (ie, they benefit twice, we benefit not at all)

2) Do you think FREE would be ok with the above situation, if it were reversed?

That's basically how we're writing the treaty now. It may not matter – but the potential is there.
I don't think we'd squander any goodwill be writing a deal that works both ways… that's practically the definition of "fair." If we're worried about squandering good will, situation #2 is what I'd worry about.
Personally, I'm ok with us getting the short end of the stick (ala situation #1) – because it helps the alliance and ultimately helps us… I'm more worried about the reaction if FREE gets the raw deal.

Anyway, bowing to the will of the council on this point, Here's Version 3:
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 15 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.


III. Hut, Hut, Tech!
  • If either team manages to pop a technology from a hut, the free tech is immediately shared to ensure no double-popping of the same tech.
  • Both teams agree that no matter who was assigned to research the popped tech, a lucky pop of a free technology helps the alliance, it ultimately helps both teams. Therefore the lucky tech will be shared with both sides, and no further adjustment to the MAAP must be made.
  • If the lucky hut pop does present an obvious way to adjust the MAAP to mutual benefit, it (of course) may be changed only by mutual agreement of both teams.

IV. 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).

Hopefully I captured what you all want in the revised section III.
Just for the record: I hope this works, but it makes me nervous.

Any further edits?
On the whole, I REALLY like what we've got here. Go team effort! :rockon:
 
I'm confused.

I have no problem with them compensating us if we pop a tech on *their* side of the path - for one thing, that's just not going to happen - there is no way we pop CoL before WC/the wheel/mysticism, and if we pop republic... well, everyone wins big time... and that aint' gonna happen, anyway.

but why dont' we just say "if a tech is popped, then it gets shared and another is substituted?" Or am I missing something fundamental here?
 
Well, I understand General_W's worry more clearly now. However, I still think we should send this to them as soon as is reasonable, even if it's not the most perfect document we can achieve. They may request rewrites of certain lines, so these things can all get worked out together.

It doesn't make sense for us to delay much longer, as we want to spell out this Alliance ASAP.
 
Hm, good discussion! Let's keep it going! EDIT: let's not rush this, please. Plenty of time to hammer this out, as FREE seem perfectly happy to go for republic and do a share. Once we send a draft, we cannot get out of it without damage.

To me the treaty should accomplish two things: leave the other hree teams in the dust, and establish FREE as the junior research partner. We are already ahead of them in research: currently we have Lit (base cost = 10), while they have CB (base cost = 2) and arrived at Masonry 1 turn earlier (at present research speed that corresponds to a base cost difference of about 1). Our starting techs were more expensive by 3 units, which means the total difference in research speed is 10-2-3-1 = 4 units, of 30 gold each. This is quite considerable compared to our total research effort of 30 units sofar. If FREE popped CB (quite likely as it is the cheapest tech and rather useless) the difference is even larger: 5 or 6 units. Our early libs and commerce bonus are further arguments that our research speed will probably be higher than FREE's. For example, I think we'll get to construction at about the same time they get to republic.

All in all I wouldn't mind if we take the heavier research load and FREE pays for it in gold. It would essentially accomplish the second goal. In any case, 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.

One suggestion would be to put Myst and Poly on our side, and WC, Wheel and HBR on their side, for a difference of 210 beakers. That puts 105 gold on FREE's side. But I would not like to fix this yet (and it could be unbalanced the other way).

Concerning the hut popping - luck is part of the game. It doesn't feel right that the team that pops the hut should compensate the other team. It seems totally wrong that the other team would benefit even more from it than the hut poppers. Now, we will be researching some of the cheaper techs last, so the advantage of a free tech will be small. Probably each team has only 3 huts. We already used 1, perhaps FREE already used all of them (to pop CB? If their huts are in the same place, then they at least popped the one near the town that we can see). All in all, I think hut popping should just be left out, except that if one team pops a tech on the other team's tech path, then this would lead to an adjustment of the treaty (at least to the extent that the popped tech cannot be traded, but preferably the tech division would be adjusted). The hut popper gets full credit for popping - that's what we do with CB, after all (if they popped it).

If hut popping is left in the treaty as it is now, then I would suggest we pop all our huts before signing or proposing the treaty (and preferably after getting CB). There's no point in handing out freebies...

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?

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 :).

Does Article IV hold indefinitely?

Can we share in-game contacts already?
 
:lol: - 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?
:salute:

EDIT: Sent to FREE gmail and CommandoBob via PM... title: "Proposed Treaty"
 
Top Bottom