War between BABE and The Council

[Elephantium]

Looking at the events factually (please point out any errors or omissions if you spot them!):

BABE landed a few units in territory owned by the Council.
BABE did not declare war.
BABE did not have a ROP agreement with the Council.

The Council attacked and killed the units that BABE landed in their territory.

I'm curious about what each team has as its official position on this war.

 

[General_W]

The Council's position is as follows:

General_W, chairman of Council Foreign Relations, who does not speak about himself in the 3rd person, saw the massive fleet of BABE "peace galleys" sailing off our coast and promptly decided that it was a very good time to take an extended vacation. Certainly no harm could come to our shores now that they were being so expertly guarded by the BABE peace galleys.

However, upon his return, General_W discovered that some warmongering megalomaniacal elements of The Council government had seized power and brutally slaughtered the clearly tourist BABE Mounted Warriors-for-Peace.

As The Council and BABE nations have had a long standing, and not yet expired, treaty that clearly stated we would both "live in peace" General_W was naturally appalled to find that his government had so flagrantly violated the treaty by attacking the defenseless MW's who could have had no possible reason for showing up unannounced on our shores other than their very obvious sightseeing tour.

Read the treaty for yourself.
It's painfully clear who is to blame here…

Spoiler :

I will do everything I can to repair the badly damaged reputation of my government.

 

[General_W]

Oh, and just for the record, here are our last 2 letters to BABE:

Spoiler :

Sent on 8/21/07
Title: "Peace and Love"

Dear Bodacious Babes,

Greetings from The Council!

Time moves on, and our "future-prediction-peoples" tell us that the dawning of the "Age of Astronomy" is fast approaching the world. This new epoch, or so they tell us, will witness the rise of all nations sailing the high seas… seas that have thus far been the sole domain of the Great Lighthouse Babes.

While exciting, these are troubling times for all… and friends are even more welcome.
Our long standing peace treaty with you is up for renewal on turn 129 – and we are indeed interested in renewing it for another 30 turns.

Let us know what you think! Shall we continue the goodwill between our peoples?

All the best,
Your friends,

General_W, speaking with the voice of The Council

<no response>


Sent on 8/27/07
Title: "Peace in Our Time?"

Dear BABEs,

We see you've reached our shores in your never-ending quest for an open beach party.

We assume that your lack of response to our previous request for an extension of our peace treaty is answer enough&#8230;

But on the off chance that our letter got lost in the mail, we thought we'd try one more time to see if you'd like to agree to more peace.
Currently, our treaty lasts till the end of turn 129, and we're 100% confident you wouldn't even dream of attacking us before then &#8230; so how about we use these remaining turns to agree to something even longer&#8230; before you face competition on the high-seas when Astronomy starts changing hands?

Yours Truly,
General_W, speaking with the Voice of The Council

<no response>
...
<Tourists Land>

 

[cubsfan6506]

The council would here by like to formally offer a peace treaty to babe. Were sure that two peace loving nations like us could work something out. (And lets not land explorers in each others territory.)

 

[BCLG100]

We already had a peace treaty that you guys broke, it seems that a treaty with council is not worth the invisible paper its written on.

About the Diplomacy- I think the majority of us have been busy this summer so getting back to a peace treaty which benefits us in no way im sure would be at the botton of our 'to do lists'

 

[donsig]

Is that BABE's official response BCLG? We on The Council want to be sure we don't mistake any more mounted warrior explorers for mounted warrior warriors.

 

[Daghdha]

BABE landed a few units in territory owned by the Council.
BABE did not declare war.
BABE did not have a ROP agreement with the Council.

What about an old fashioned boot order? The treaty says nothing on units placement so Babes violation is not one of the treaty, although you might be right in seeing it as a violation of good manners or "spirit of the treaty".
A possible response to the landing could have been "leave our shore asap or we will wring your delicate necks, blonde curls and all".
I see a similar situation here as when MIA jumped Doughnuts because they established an embassy. I think it was wrong then and I think it is wrong now.
Anyways, on with the show lads. Gongers luuuurv entertainment

 

[Paul#42]

What about an old fashioned boot order?

Well, the old fashioned boot order does not work in multiplayer...

We would need instant and relyable feedback for such an order, otherwise - and that was our concern - we would just lose a turn and give the invaders time to land another 12 combat units ehm explorers.

 

[Robi D]

The Council's position is as follows:

General_W, chairman of Council Foreign Relations, who does not speak about himself in the 3rd person, saw the massive fleet of BABE "peace galleys" sailing off our coast and promptly decided that it was a very good time to take an extended vacation. Certainly no harm could come to our shores now that they were being so expertly guarded by the BABE peace galleys.

However, upon his return, General_W discovered that some warmongering megalomaniacal elements of The Council government had seized power and brutally slaughtered the clearly tourist BABE Mounted Warriors-for-Peace.

As The Council and BABE nations have had a long standing, and not yet expired, treaty that clearly stated we would both "live in peace" General_W was naturally appalled to find that his government had so flagrantly violated the treaty by attacking the defenseless MW's who could have had no possible reason for showing up unannounced on our shores other than their very obvious sightseeing tour.

Read the treaty for yourself.
It's painfully clear who is to blame here…

Spoiler :

I will do everything I can to repair the badly damaged reputation of my government.

First off they are exploration galley's not peace galley's. Second there is nothing in the treaty that says we could not explore your land and thirdly there is nothing in the treaty that says we had to announce our arrival so to sum it up

 

[BCLG100]

Is that BABE's official response BCLG? We on The Council want to be sure we don't mistake any more mounted warrior explorers for mounted warrior warriors.

Easy mistake to make.

I don't think BABE has had an official response ever- about anything, with the exception of peace treaties signed we're generally an unnoficial type of team.

 

[Daghdha]

Well, the old fashioned boot order does not work in multiplayer...

We would need instant and relyable feedback for such an order, otherwise - and that was our concern - we would just lose a turn and give the invaders time to land another 12 combat units ehm explorers.

I was referring to "leave our shore asap or we will wring your delicate necks, blonde curls and all" as the boot, and yes, you would've needed a response to that before you played your turn. You could have requested a response to be sent before your deadline otherwise you'd interpret the scilence as a negative. That's all in hindsight though...

EDIT: "Team Babe, now officially unofficial"

 

[peter grimes]

Daghdha, Babe's response to two separate requests for a Peace Treaty extension was landing two military units on the one tile we hadn't blocked off.

Their message was clear: We Demand War Happiness

So we happily obliged

 

[Paul#42]

Their message was clear: We Demand War Happiness

That of course is our unnofficial interpretation of their unnofficial answer to our official messages.

So we happily obliged

I don't want to arouse the suspicion we enjoyed to do this.
We did not make this decision an easy one and had a long debate on this.
We love peace and want to live in peace again.

 

[peter grimes]

Of course you are right, Paul. I should have worded that better

I intended only to suggest that The Council read the writing on the wall, and reach a rational decision after debating for a couple of days how to proceed with this pickle.

 

[sirdanilot]

A possible response to the landing could have been "leave our shore asap or we will wring your delicate necks, blonde curls and all".

And while we'd be trying to talk to them, they would simply unload more 'explorers' into our territory.

We already sent them two requests to extend the peace treaty and they didn't reply. So when they landed their 'explorers', we surely did suspect something! Especially with 12 other boats within range to land more 'explorers'.

As cubsfan said, we'd like to offer a new peace treaty (including that we don't want 'explorers' in each other's territory). We'll also pay back the cost of the two defeated 'explorers'.

What does Babe think?

edit: I spent my 350th post on this... !

 

[Whomp]

I doubt you would compensate us for the war happiness so unoffically in typical Babe and Whomp fashion "thanks but no thanks".
See you at bombers and marines.

 

[donsig]

I doubt you would compensate us for the war happiness so unoffically in typical Babe and Whomp fashion "thanks but no thanks".
See you at bombers and marines.

Oh, we intend to compensate you for that.

 

[Daghdha]

That of course is our unnofficial interpretation of their unnofficial answer to our official messages.

..........

 

[General_W]

Well – I can only hope that this turn will finally put a stop to the endless whining of the BABEs about contractual obligations and sour comments about nothing to do till bombers.

Well played.