KISS 2 Teams by Continent Proposal

Should we agree to KISS Proposal

  • YES - Total Agreement as stands

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • Yes BUT - We need to change some things

    Votes: 6 60.0%

  • NO - Too Restrictive

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • Don't Care

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .
fe3333au

fe3333au

Deity
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
6,979
Location
Fern Tree, Tassie
We recived this from KISS

Proposal


Esteemed citizens of M.I.A.

We have developed a proposal for the future we see with your great people, as well, I'm sure you have developed one for us.

At the minimum, we would like to have either a response to the affirmative or your counterproposal before your next turn. We expect a "yay" or "nay" before our turn so we can send you pottery before your following turn.


Spoiler :

The proposed 1 + 1 = 3 treaty for MIA and K.I.S.S.

The teams could agree to:
- be allied until MIA and K.I.S.S are the only two remaining teams in the game, and to act in cooperation and unison to ensure that they will become the only two remaining teams in the game.
- share all technologies until M.I.A. and K.I.S.S are the only two remaining teams in the game.
- share luxuries (when possible, due to extra sources) until MIA and K.I.S.S are the only two remaining teams in the game.
- share strategic resources, if needed, (when possible, due to extra sources) until M.I.A. and K.I.S.S are the only two remaining teams in the game.
- give a 10-turn notification before ending the alliance (only possible if M.I.A.and K.I.S.S are the only two remaining teams in the game).
- consult and agree with the other party in the alliance on any deals and diplomacy with the other teams, before meeting with other teams and signing agreements with said other teams.
- grant first strike on end-of-deal turn given to party undergoing end of deal (only possible if M.I.A. and K.I.S.S are the only two remaining teams in the game).


----------------------------------------------------


Plans for the immediate future:
1. K.I.S.S. gives Pottery now, M.I.A. gives wheel upon completion.
2. K.I.S.S. continues to research Writing and gives it upon discovery.
3. M.I.A. start on monotheism and masonry, and give it upon discovery. We wish M.I.A. great luck creating a SGL researching these techs.
4. K.I.S.S. researches Code of Laws, immediately after writing, and gives it upon discovery.
5. M.I.A. researches Philosophy, immediately after receiving writing, and they will discover it only after Code of Laws is shared, choose Republic as a free tech if possible, and give both techs upon discovery.
6. Send a copy of this treaty to Ginger Ale and RegentMan if we are agreed.
----------------------------------------------------
Other things up for discussion.
--Mutual support against potential enemies.
--Number of units allowed near each others borders.
--Type and number of units allowed exploration.
--Intelligence sharing.



Yours in bond.

Major Idiot Whomp
Click to expand...
 
give a 10-turn notification before ending the alliance (only possible if M.I.A.and K.I.S.S are the only two remaining teams in the game). This bit i do not like. This is way to restrictive because it does not allow us to backstab if we want. This bit should be scrapped. Obviously they cannot count. ;) 1+1 does not =3. :shakehead We should add that once we are the only two teams, all bets are off.
 
Do we want a continental alliance ??? ... I will not vote yet untill discussion has occured

Benefits
>we can start exploring the new continent ... get that info from D-Nuts.
>expand our cities in a resource grab.
>freedom to explore our continent.
>use curraghs to transport warriors for swifter exploration.

CHANGES TO PROPOSED
>If we pay for tech with cash then KISS must reimburse half
>They must move their warrior off the coast until the D-Nut finds their city
>1 continent vs 2 potentially un-unified teams is exceedingly a good scenario ...

AGAINST
Too Restrictive and we have not yet spoken to D-Nut
 
fe3333au said:
AGAINST
Too Restrictive and we have not yet spoken to D-Nut
Click to expand...
We should really wait until we have discussed with the doughies before we agree with anything put fooward, but this agreement does look good.
 
I haven't voted yet.
This is too momentous. I'm still thinking about it. Would love to hear how things go with D'nuts first.

Had a good AIM chat with Fe, wanted to share a couple comments from that:
(just thinking out-loud. My mind isn't yet made up)

Down Sides:
This proposal makes me a little nervous. Why are they so eager to waste their Gallic Swordsman advantage?

The total openess and sharing of tech worries me a lot.
When it does become "go time" between us - what will our edge be? They'll probably be bigger (agricultural) - if we're freely sharing all tech - we'll be in a weaker position once the war is on.

And what happens when some of those KISS hotheads end up in power? Even though they apologized - I still worry about who will be running the show at KISS in 50 turns. I like Whomp – but worry about his team.

Positives:
Our alliance could be very powerful - it's hard to imagine D'nuts and TNT getting along. So there will most likely be war on the other continent. That makes 2 united against 1 against 1 both fractured and fighting themselves.

If we don't do this alliance – we could be looking at a KISS-D'nuts alliance – this would be TERRIBLE. Almost guarantee that KISS swordsmen come for our cities.



Conclusion:
We probably need to do something formal and binding with them – we almost can't afford not too. But I would prefer to see more limitations… if it's diplomatically possible.
I'd be much more comfortable with a Non-Aggression/Insider trading agreement.
Maybe dangle the "full alliance" option for them once we've both had a chance to prove ourselves loyal?
 
I like General W's conclusion. We write back to them expressing eagerness and excitement, and tell them we agree with the spirit of the proposal. But we let them know that at this moment, polls are failry evenly split between full yea and full nay. But when we split the agreement into components, there are more elements that will pass than fail:

We think it important and mutually benficial for each team to retain Diplomatic freedom concerning other teams (allows both of us to use a good cop/ bad cop approach with TNT and DNUT)

Coordinate research in the Most Profitable way: This will prevent a potentially difficult problem of conflict in research down the road.

Agree to revisit Full Alliance discussions after some time, so that we can see how each team goes about its business and tailor the agreement to those realities.

Those are my first thoughts. I guess I'm coming down on the side of Yes-But.

I also don't like that First Strike clause. It's moot the moment it goes into action. You can't be legally bound by a document that has just become invalid.

How do people feel about amending it so that we agree to this treaty if all of that "until we're the only 2 teams left" is replaced with "until we're both out of the ancient age"?
 
Hmmm ... big thinking time ... another thing is that we with our science advantage will be giving more than receiving ... therefore I would suggest that if we went with it I would add a clause where each team buy the tech from the other ...

and what happens when we buy tech from other teams or pop a tech from a hut ... I do not want to give to automatically to them ... especially with a D-Nut talk on Saturday ...

D-Nuts are hinting at a similar deal ... is it just too early to concrete such a restrictive contract so early in the game??

D-Nuts are another science team ... auto and mutual tech trading makes more sense with them ...

But peacefull Full Steam Ahead expansion to grab choice sites and resources is a great opportunity as well

And then again ... they will meet D-Nuts very soon and what is to stop this deal being offered to them by KISS ...

We are lucky to be in this situation ... and would love to play one against the other ... but risky ...
 
Another thing to consider: I'm not sure I really understand the whole Library of Congress aspect of the game admins. They are really just there to arbitrate if there is a he said/she said dispute, right?

If we signed the KISS proposal as is, and they break the 'law' ten turns from now and sack our poor little cities, we'll cry foul, the admins will say 'yep - MIA is right, KISS broke a treaty'. But would the admins actually make everyone rewind the game? That doesn't realyl make sense to me.

I guess I'm saying that I'm not sure this agreement is worth the electronic paper it's presented on. I'm going to check the rules... maybe there's a red penalty or something that would serve as a tremendous disincentive for breaking treaties.
 
There's no penalty for breaking a treaty.
(Admins are just there to make sure you can't smooth-talk your way out of the much deserved reputation hit)
ie... the treaty is only as good as the word of the KISSers.

Which begs the question - how far can we trust them?
 
4.1 - Official Treaties

All in-game treaties can be submitted to the game staff for an official record. All teams in the treaty must confirm the exact wording with the game staff for the treaty to be officially recorded.


4.2 - Distribution of Treaties

All official treaties will be kept private. The only exception to this is where a team in a treaty asks the game staff to send a copy of the treaty to another team.

Example:
• Team A and Team B have a treaty, which they submit to the game staff for the official record.
• Team A believes that Team B has broken their treaty, and tell Team C of this.
• Team B believes they did nothing wrong and tells Team C this.
• Team A or Team B can ask the game staff to send a copy of the official treaty to Team C.
• Team C can now make an informed decision on who they believe.

4.3 - Fairness Pledge

Every team must agree to the fairness pledge before the game starts:

“I pledge to compete fairly and within the rules of the game. I pledge to adhere not only to the written rules, but also to the unwritten, spirit of the rules. I understand that failure to live up to this pledge may result in penalties for me and my team.”
Click to expand...

From the Rules. I think my above is therefore correct: The Treaties are only worth the value of the intent behind them, and any team that breaks them will only suffer the ill-repute of a liar and a cheat.

Small price to pay to eliminate your continental neighbor! [that's us]
 
Its a pity this cannot be discussed at UN level ... in pbem games the AI is treated with respecting deals ... ie every deal must last 20 turns ... I have played my pbems using this for other players ... and have had them broken as well :sad: ...

I don't know ... my spirit of the game is different than others ... I'd prefer to have something added to this effect ... then at least you would be safe for at least 20 turns ... and for those that like double crossing ... well they can spend 20 turns building an army ... A fun game to me is strategy and diplomacy is where double dealing happens ... every agreement is honoured ... how boring is a game where everyhandshake hides a knife in the back ...

My idea of Civ is not a free for all ... I will get frustrated playing (and probably leave) if any hotheaded kid attacks ... and dishonours a deal ... I see us battling wits with 3 other teams ... not lets sucker 'em in and blitzkrieg ...

I mean it is a rare thing that any country has been taken completely by surprise ... even Pearl Harbour had political ripples that went ignored ...

I'd get no fun in moving units next to enemy cities and then mass attack all at once ...

Just musings ... sorry ...

Maybe administrators couls open discussion on the premise that they think that contacts will be happening soon ... so what does everyone think is kosha typr of thread discussion ...
 
even though as the KISS diplomat i would jump at this proposal but i must wait for the meeting with D-nut to finish first, see how that goes... just say we have split polls and/or many of our members are not present
 
You cannot agree to "- be allied until MIA and K.I.S.S are the only two remaining teams in the game, and to act in cooperation and unison to ensure that they will become the only two remaining teams in the game." and then backstab them when there are other teams left. All treaties that are submitted to the admins have to be followed, it is the spirit of the game. Trying to deceive, lie, and talk your way to victory isn't allowed.
 
All treaties that are submitted to the admins have to be followed, it is the spirit of the game.
Click to expand...

Really?!?
This adds a whole new dimension to the game.

Thanks Ginger Ale! (Maybe this should be clarified for every team? I don't think I ever would have interpreted the rule (as-written) to say that.)

What would the punishment be for backstabbing? I didn't notice an offence level for this one.

Thanks again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Expanded comments:

Even with this new understanding – the proposed treaty is not much more appealing!

Someone needs to answer this question: How will we get ahead and win?
If war is off the table…
And we've agreed to stay technologically equal…

Only thing we've got left is to out-expand them… and that could be very tough.

I'm all for taking war off the table. Let's get the Non-Aggression pact signed ASAP. And It's best to say on the inside of any trading loops. But let's leave it there!

P.S.
Trying to deceive, lie, and talk your way to victory isn't allowed.
Click to expand...
- If only this rule was enforced in politics! :lol:
 
well, I definitly like the idea, and once we get navigation, and can trade maps, want to become virtually one unified country, signing every agreeement in the game available, etc. (although I probably have my head in the clouds). But there are two parts I don't want. Luxuries (both strategic and luxury). The idea of trading luxuries for no profit seems ridiculous. but aside from that i think most fears are unfounded. I'll post more later (and probably go over the draft changing a few things
 
First reaction - I like the idea. An agricultural civ's strength is the beginning of the game, and scientific and commercial traits are better later in the game so being peaceful until late seems to be to our advantage, but it certainly needs a lot of thought - I think they have to understand that an agreement of this magnitude may need a little more time to consider than "before their next turn".

Edit - I saw we may request an extension on turn play, so we may be able to respond by their deadline - good idea. Also, there is a clear typo where we agree to research "monotheism" - I'm sure they meant Mysticism.
 
agricultural civ's strength is the beginning of the game, and scientific and commercial traits are better later in the game so being peaceful until late seems to be to our advantage,
Click to expand...
I totally agree with this - which is why we should try to lock them down into something peaceful ASAP - but if the tech sharing continues too far into the future - we've lost our edge!

Signing this treaty as-is basically guarantees we will have to go to war with D'nuts and TNT. (which is ok – just as long as we all realize that that's what we're doing).
Overseas wars heavily favor the defender. So it's seems like we're signing ourselves up for the most difficult way possible for us to win.

Much easier to be able to go to war on our own continent later in the game – once we have technological superiority… which will be impossible with this treaty.
(still just thinking out-loud…. Looking forward to Ybbors and Chamnix's expanded commentary)
 
General_W said:
Signing this treaty as-is basically guarantees we will have to go to war with D'nuts and TNT. (which is ok – just as long as we all realize that that's what we're doing).
Overseas wars heavily favor the defender. So it's seems like we're signing ourselves up for the most difficult way possible for us to win.

Much easier to be able to go to war on our own continent later in the game – once we have technological superiority… which will be impossible with this treaty.
Click to expand...

It will be just as hard for them to strike us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Recursive
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Vote] (7-26 & 7-27) Tradition & Fealty Scaler Proposals + Fealty Policy Rework Proposals
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Recursive
Recursive
S
  • Locked
(6-36a) KISS Espionage System
Replies
13
Views
2K
Recursive
Recursive
Recursive
Session #6: Recursive's Voting Record
Replies
0
Views
1K
Recursive
Recursive
pineappledan
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Vote] (5-55) Re-Proposal: Rework Order Ideology & Integrate Tourism Process
Replies
17
Views
2K
Recursive
Recursive
Recursive
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Vote] (4-VT) Espionage Rework Proposals
Replies
5
Views
2K
Recursive
Recursive
Back
Top Bottom