Dealing with Demands from other nations

[GenMarshall]

Since we have not met up with another civ yet. I beleve now is the good time to start discussing on what to do when another civ demands something from us from out of the blue. Most of the time, the opposing civ would demand eather gold or tech from us. Sometimes refusal of the demand would result in a declration of war against us depending on the agression and the military strength of the opposing civ.

I beleve that we should not give into demands that involve techs that would enable the construction of powerfull military units and wonders.

On the terms of demanding gold, anything that is 10g (Or what ever value the domestic advisor specify for the budget) or less should be used to appease the agressive civ. Anything that is above 10g (Or what ever value the domestic advisor specify for the budget) should be an automadic refusal.

 

[MSTK]

Sounds good to me.

 

[blackheart]

No. I don't believe in appeasement of ANY kind. Once we give in to demands they will always come back for more demands.

 

[Provolution]

Do not worry about this. In my campaign for FA, which was won by a very clear margin, I
was posed the question on how I would avoid situations like the Domino War, and how to deal with Foreign Civilization making demands. As far as I know, this is the table of the Foreign Affairs Office. I agree with CivGeneral that we should not, under any circumstance, give away Iron to any Civ. Regarding demands from each and every Civilization these will not be polled piecemeal, which also was one of the campaign issues. The FA will in place develop doctrinal approaches to each neighboring civ, like a policy memo, to be reviewed by the public. Again, all ministries involved in foreign demands will be involved, science dept for tech, trade dep for luxuries and so on where it is appropriate. Regarding the gold issue, I would not bind Japanaticas government to a specific gold level on dealing with demands, that failure was donw in DG1 and other places, and many questions I abided by in the same campaign, forbade
explicitly to develop fixed principles on predetermined responses on certain demands.

Iron is the exception that confirms the rule, for 4500 years or more we will be stuck with iron as THE strategic commodity. What will be conducted in referendums, will be the following: DoW, Peace treaties, alliances and the other things I promised in the campaign, nothing more, nothing less. The difference of this Ministry to many other historical ministries, is that we present a doctrinal approach worked out with the other departments, develop a set of viable, that means not every single direction on the compass as you already know, options that will be polled publicly in advance of the turnchats. There is no question that this will be both democratic, but also procedurally
thoroughly with no room for confusion on accountability.

Automatic refusal is not an option, that will be an interdepartmental decision caucassed with the people democratically. This is not autocracy, but democracy.

 

[TimBentley]

This is monarch level; therefore, refusing demands isn't quite as bad. I think we generally should only give in to demands for gold or our world map (exceptions are of course possible).

 

[Bobby Lee]

I'm afraid I would have to campaign vigorously against giving in to any sort of demands at all. Such demands are a violation of the sovereignty of our nation and should be regarded as no less than hostile action against our great state.

 

[superpelon]

My opinion:

Tech Demands: NO. Sorry, but techs are too valuable.
Gold: Anything under 15 gold is ok. That will keep them off our backs.
Map: Ok by me.... trade would be much better.
Resources: NO to iron, NO to horses... luxs... dont know.

 

[GenMarshall]

In the regards of map demands, We should not give into the demands if they want our territory maps.

On the subject on Stratigic resources like Iron, They should not be traded. Again, they would use that iron against us in the form of swordsmen (or equivlent UU).

IMO, gold that is less than 15g (So long as it is approved by the domestic department in advance) should be use to keep them at bay.

The Primary conserns for me on refusing demands is the possibility of war.

 

[Bobby Lee]

I hold out on a regular basis agaist vastly superior AI armies, I see no reason why our generals could not do the same.

 

[Comnenus]

I hold out on a regular basis agaist vastly superior AI armies, I see no reason why our generals could not do the same.

The AI is generally pretty stupid, isn't it? Once in a while he'll throw you a sucker punch, though.

 

[Bobby Lee]

Yes, but if it isn't now it WILL be later...

 

[KCCrusader]

Thankfully the President is allowed to stop the game without saving when approached with a demand, and can even see if refusal will cause war or not before closing. For these reasons, I think that Each case of demands by other nations should be discussed on a case by case basis in my opinion.

 

[DaveShack]

Thankfully the President is allowed to stop the game without saving when approached with a demand, and can even see if refusal will cause war or not before closing. For these reasons, I think that Each case of demands by other nations should be discussed on a case by case basis in my opinion.

Actually, stopping without saving in this circumstance has never been considered permissible, at least as far as I can tell. The only non-reversible action which is allowed is to start peace renegotiations, and then typically not during the actual play session.

 

[KCCrusader]

Hmmmm. Perhaps I have misread or misinterpreted something. I'll get back to you on that one, you would probably know better than me heh.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Actually, stopping without saving in this circumstance has never been considered permissible, at least as far as I can tell. The only non-reversible action which is allowed is to start peace renegotiations, and then typically not during the actual play session.

Dave is right, which is precisely the reason why these things need to be determined in advance. Hats off to CG for bringing it up.

Once Montezuma taps us on the shoulder for something, the game is in play and cannot be stopped or saved. Doing so would be negating an irreversible action, and is prohibited under Article M of our Constitution.

 

[MSTK]

Actually, I change my mind. Demands should be judged by those present in the turnchat.

 

[gert-janl]

Actually, I change my mind. Demands should be judged by those present in the turnchat.

NO!! Demands should be judged by the people of the forums! That where this discussion is for. This democracy game is a forumbased game, and to let the attendants of the turnchat decide is more like an aristocracy game. All decisions should be made on the forums, and all actions should be done by the Designated Player during Turnchats.

On the topic: some money should be fine, if the civ really poses a threat to Japanatica. This thread should be determined by the president during the chat. Of course, the turnchat attendants can give their opinion, but it's the president who decides, based on what he knows from the FA/MA, and knowing the financial possibilities from the DA.

 

[GenMarshall]

NO!! Demands should be judged by the people of the forums! That where this discussion is for. This democracy game is a forumbased game, and to let the attendants of the turnchat decide is more like an aristocracy game. All decisions should be made on the forums, and all actions should be done by the Designated Player during Turnchats.

Hense why I started this thread to discuss plans to deal with the demands when they come out of the blue .

 

[Provolution]

Gert Jani

I agree, the arguments from the forums will be used, and developing objective crteria cannot be done piecemeal, but systemic thougt.

 

[Lecky]

Hmmm - this is more difficult than it might seem. There are competing demands here, between (slow, even tedious) democracy and (speedy, more efficient) oligarchy. We have to balance these two elements: we need to recognise that both elements have a part to play. The forum, with its full discussion, acts best when it establishes a policy. The turn chat needs to guided in decisions, but there is also a need for the DP, in consultation with the t/c, to make decisions and keep the game moving.

The policy needs to be clear, but not so specific as to constrain the necessarily pragmatic demands of decion making. It's about policy, not about laws or rules. Let's not turn this into a Constitutional debate. Accordingly we need to debate (in the forum) and establish (by poll) a set of general principles for dealing with demands. Such policies/principles must not, however, be binding.

Let's keep it general, keep it flexible and keep it sensible.