A Proposed Diplomatic Agreement with the Gamecatcher Alliance

Octavian X · Mar 27, 2003

I recieved communication from Gamecatcher's Ambassador to Fanatikou, Eklektikos. They propose a non-agression pact. This is the official wording.

Non-Aggression Pact between the Gamecatcher Alliance & Fanatikou:

In the interests of peace and future cooperation, to ensure our security and friendship, the nations of Fanatikou and The Gamecatcher Alliance hereby agree to the following:

There shall be no war or conflict between us. Our units shall not attack each other, nor shall they enter or come within 1 tile of the cultural borders of the other party without permission. Nor shall our units interfere with the travel and movement of each other outside of these borders. This shall be considered a Non-Aggression Pact.

This agreement shall last 20 turns after it is ratified by both parties. This agreement shall be open for renegotiation after 15 turns have passed.

Just to be sure that you are clear on the way in which official agreements between teams are to be handled, here's a brief guide:

One team writes a draft agreement and sends it to the other team.
This second team make any changes that they want to the agreement, and then send it back to the first team stating that they agree to be bound by its terms. A copy of this should also be sent to Mongoose for record keeping.
Once this has been done, the first team will either reject the modified agreement or also agree to be bound by its terms.
They must then inform both the second team and Mongoose to make the agreement fully official and binding.

Let it be known that I am in favor of accepting this treaty in it's current state.

Do we wish to sign this treaty? Should we change the wording?

Hygro · Mar 27, 2003

sounds good as we don't have either horsemen or swordsmen to fight them with.

however is they send lotsa settlers unguarded towards us... what should we do then?

WildFire · Mar 27, 2003

Sign it and backstab. We gotta win. :die:

Octavian X · Mar 27, 2003

As a note, there will be a chat with GC officials tonight at around 6:00 PM EST. Go to www.gamecatcher.com for the java chat, or connect to irc.starchat.net with mIRC. It will be in the #GC_Lounge.

FortyJ · Mar 27, 2003

I would flat out refuse it.

There's no need to sign an agreement of this magnitude at this time.

I would also say that we should not attack them for at least 20 turns, but I wouldn't be signing anything. Let them be concerned for a bit.

Oh... and I'd fortify that warrior right outside their borders indefinitely.

EDIT: The only reason I would agree to signing this document would be if it would secure the Warrior Code for Alphabet trade. And even then, I'd insist that the 1 tile buffer zone around borders be stricken from the blasted thing.

Octavian X · Mar 27, 2003

Note: chat time changed to 6:00 PM EST (23:00 GMT), moved an hour up per request.

Octavian X · Mar 27, 2003

FortyJ, as a sign of friendship, I would sign it. Remember, we are not ready to embark on conquest yet. The deal will be up in 20 turns, when we'll have a hopefully more sizable military force.

If we can get them to trust us, they may be more open to a trade.

FortyJ · Mar 27, 2003

Originally posted by Hygro
however is [SIC] they send lotsa settlers unguarded towards us... what should we do then?

Then we take them with our Swordsmen after the deal expires... :evil:

FortyJ · Mar 27, 2003

Originally posted by Octavian X
FortyJ, as a sign of friendship, I would sign it. Remember, we are not ready to embark on conquest yet. The deal will be up in 20 turns, when we'll have a hopefully more sizable military force.

If we can get them to trust us, they may be more open to a trade.

I agree with your logic, but I'd make the deal contingent upon trading Alphabet for Warrior Code.

Tell them there's some stiff opposition to signing any type of agreement this early in the game, but you could possible appease the masses if there was a tech trade included with it.

But, I'd still insist on removing the 1 tile buffer zone. That's just ludicrous. As it's written, this deal is totally advantageous to them. There's nothing in it for us.

WildFire · Mar 27, 2003

Isnt it www.gamecatcher.net ? not .com?

Chieftess · Mar 27, 2003

Such visciousness.

I would sign it if they agreed not to step past that chokehold.

WildFire · Mar 27, 2003

We're warmongers

Octavian X · Mar 27, 2003

After some discussion with Lucky (GC's Prez), they would agree to some changes in the proposed terms...

Removal of the border restriction
Added term that would limit GC to one exploring warrior, to an area of 5 tiles in all directions from Balance of Power.

WildFire · Mar 27, 2003

But they would know where our cities would be if we told them they wouldnt be able to go in a certain direction. How bout this proposal:

DONT ACCEPT ANYTHING UNLESS WE GET TO EXPLORE THEIR LAND TOO!

Noldodan · Mar 27, 2003

We did something else too. We made ourselves look REALLY demanding of others, thus ensuring... mistrust.

Goonie · Mar 27, 2003

If we sign this, I will shoot myself! I cant believe you guys are considering this! This is giving them ALL the benefits, without giving us any!

As per this document, they will be able to walk into our lands and our units cant even stand in the way or attack. They will be able to settle lots of our land, and we wouldn't be able to settle anything on their part of the continent! I dont think we will be able to attack within 20 turns, but this deal HAS enourmous consequences. And Noldodan, I want to look demanding, because Damn it, I AM! Do you think we are going to win this game by being nice little school boys and girls? No, we are going to win by being cold-hearted ruthless bastards! Let us throw this proposal out of the window!

Foreign Affairs Minister Goonie(Quite Angry)

PS. Dont proposing ridiculous trades!

Noldodan · Mar 27, 2003

Seriously Goonie, I thought that diplomats were more... cultured than you seem to be. I agree that the only way we are going to win is by being ruthless, but think about this rationally. If we attack them, all they have to do is defend ONE CITY. We have to defend much more. Besides, do you REALLY want to ruin our reputation before we are anywhere close to our UU?

Goonie · Mar 27, 2003

"We have to defend much more"

There is the key! You said it! By signing this document we are giving them cities in our land that they may stage attacks from. I am not going to be this rude to them, I am just trying to convey(hard when others only read) my anger at this proposal. That one city Noldodan, but be what stops us from winning this game. If we dont give these guys any of these techs we are proposing, taking that city will be very easy.

Why do you think they want us to sign this so badly? They realize that their bacaks are up against a wall, and they have to do something to save their skin!

Chieftess · Mar 27, 2003

Think about it though, they may very well have contacts to the north that we don't know about. Refuse to trade, and they may refuse contacts. Sure we'll build Riders - when Gamecatchers has RIFLES!

Noldodan · Mar 27, 2003

Goonie, the anger came across in the first post. Yes, we DO have to defend much more. I say we move enough warriors in to protect the landbridge (3) and settle in peace. Just sign the nonagression pact and move only defensive units in there. Warriors, then spearmen as soon as we can. Keep moving them in until we get enough swordsmen/horsemen built up behind our lines to attack when the treaty runs out.

A Proposed Diplomatic Agreement with the Gamecatcher Alliance

is not a pipe.

soundcloud.com/hygro/

amour

is not a pipe.

Deity

is not a pipe.

is not a pipe.

Deity

Deity

amour

Moderator

amour

is not a pipe.

amour

2 years of waiting...

Lonely End of the Rink

2 years of waiting...

Lonely End of the Rink

Moderator

2 years of waiting...

Similar threads