1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

3-way alliance

Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by 2metraninja, Jun 7, 2013.

  1. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    So, we were playing with the idea for 3-way alliance for so long and finally I managed to catch the leaders of CP and Poly online and get them together to actually start discussing and plan together, because up to now the results from our cooperation were awful.


     
  2. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    And the afternoon part:

     
  3. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,456
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    To me it seems so far that the allies are all still on the same page that RB will be dogpiled. Hopefully we can avoid making CivFr into a free ally for RB :(
     
  4. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    This is the result from today chat:

    Such vague wording from MZ makes my neck goosebumps.
     
  5. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    OT4E said what I am thinking. It is only natural for CivFr to become allies with RB. Our war with CivFr is a public knowledge, RB are not fools, CivFr do not seem to be fools, either :(I see no way of avoiding it other than having NAP with RB - unless we will be extremely lucky and this alliance will not happen for personal reasons.

    And as before, the only party truely committed to anti-RB alliance seems to be CP. And they have good reasons - they think they will be RB's next target and based on OT4E explanation it seems to make sense.
     
  6. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    When discussing about our NAP expiring soon OT4E says "yes, we need to extend it, but I hoped we would come to more detailed deal". To me this sounds like he would like to have a firmer alliance. We should start informal discussion to try fish out as much from him as possible. 2metra, next time you chat with OT4E, may I ask you to probe on the subject?

    BTW, do we want to help CP and Poly in their espionage endeavours? If we do, they could just gift us the missionaries and we'll plant the religion to the cities they want.
     
  7. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    Yeah, I completely agree with Aivoturso. I think we should push NAP extensions now, not talking about units.

    Wrt missionaries, it would be better if our allies send them to CivFr cities, as they are not at war. Of course, if they would agree to do this for us.
     
  8. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    And how our chat with Ot4e continues:

     
  9. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,456
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    I read this whole chat. Here are my opinions/observations:

    1. Ot4e wants a formalized alliance with the following:
    a. We will consider him in an alliance with us and commit to treat him as our main ally, putting CP before any others - like marriage:).
    b. We give him a promise to defend him to the last man like defending our own lands if anyone attacks him, including/especially that if RB attacks CP, we will DoW RB, enter the War zone and coordinate all attacks with CP like a team.
    c. We will end all trade with RB when the NAP ends and not make any new deals with them. No OB, no resources, no nothing.
    d. We will share with him all our plans, trades, NAPs, espy infos, Wonders plans, tech plans etc, just as you would share with a teammate in a team game.

    We should send that to CP right away and ask Ot4e to agree to do the same for us, to put that issue aside and get our alliance locked in for the end of the NAP.

    2. MZ is not going to commit. He is doing two things:
    a. He is keeping in the discussion so that if Poly gets attacked, he has allies to call to for help.
    b. He has no intention of building many soldiers to put on the RB border. He only intends to use the alliance to help himself if/when Poly is attacked. So we must leave it at that. MZ will cut off trade with RB and close borders... Nothing more. If we expect more we will just be disappointed.

    3. Ot4e has a friendship with CivFr. He will not help us against them. So our alliance with CP must take that into account.

    4. CivFr is not allies with RB just yet, in fact they act against them in some ways, so there is still hope that we can neutralize the CivFr threat without eliminating them, but it will take Ot4e's help, and he is not willing to help us do that until we have a set-in-stone clear alliance pact with him... So let's get that done first.
     
  10. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    :) All of your observations tonight are straight to the point. Some of them I was sure all the time, while some I knew, but preferred to not believe. Point stays that this is the situation as it is.

    We have no other choice than to ally close with Ot4e, right?
     
  11. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    OT4E seems very reliable and honest ally so far. But defending his own lands as our own - does it not go to far? Are we honestly saying that when it will come to choosing between our cities being taken by CivFr or his by RB we will forget which city is whose?

    If we are going to commit to CP like that they *have to* promise us to help us against CivFr. All deals can be renegotiated, if CP is serious about our alliance and want marriage type commitment, they should do it.

    Otherwise, our agreement would be: If CP gets attacked by RB, we will endanger our own cities to help them. If there will be risk of CivFr taking our own cities, CP would do nothing :(
     
  12. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    This is how real allies act. I've been in such alliances and seen that myself. We choose based on what serves best the alliance's power and not individual nations.

    I cant tell if we can have such alliance with ot4e right now though.
     
  13. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Hmm.. very good point...
     
  14. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    IMO, we should push towards real alliance with CP. Maga is right, though. For that to happen, alliance cannot happen to full extent without CP acting against CivFr. We cannot be full allies if we only share half of the enemies.
     
  15. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    I agree that such an alliance would be very desirable, if possible. But OT4E cannot commit to us that way before turn 190. That is why I think it would be best for us to get a NAP with RB until then - or for OT4E to try to renegotiate his agreement with CivFr, if possible.

    Marriage is great, I agree. But acting as a wife when other party consider themselves not married yet - a bit less appealing ;), although sometimes leads to a happy marriage, too :)

    EDIT: Cross post with 2metra and Aivo.

    Do not get me wrong, I have nothing against OT4E - he seems like a great ally-material, actually: honest, reliable and one of the best ladder players in the world :D. If we will be honest with him, I think chances are he will see we have a fair point. And unsuccessful RB dogpile is in nobody's interest, better to wait for a more opportune moment.
     
  16. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    LOL, you are in the right mood tonight :D

    Hahaahhhh.. oh, this was the best part...
     
  17. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    Yeah, "things we do for love" ;)

    But I hope we are not in love with OT4E, are we? So let us negotiate it as a business deal it is!
     
  18. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,456
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    Another thought I had as I was at work... If we and CP show our teeth to RB while MZ chooses to just develop and not build any real army to oppose RB, what will happen? Thinking about this logically...

    RB will sense that CP and CFC are allied at least. Sothere is at least a good possibility that they will not want to jeopardize their lead by attacking either of us, or provoking either of us.

    On the other hand, if Poly tries to develop without building the large standing Army on the RB border, there is a good possibility that RB will just continue to expand in Poly's direction, reasoning that Poly is too weak to do anything about it while they stay away from the large hostile Armies that we put on their border. So essentially, by refusing (or delaying building their army, Poly will make themselves a "cold" target for RB... Not for attacking maybe, but for pushing around with Pink-dots and such.

    Maybe ultimately, this will get Poly to build an Army and DEMAND that the alliance invade RB to keep RB from cornering them.
     
  19. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,456
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    Yes, I think this is correct, but there is something else... I guess this can also be directed @ Maga, and also @ Aivo too...

    2metra knows this already very well but as a reminder... To be the "Leader" of an alliance, you must be MORE generous in your commitments and promises than your partners. To gain confidence and trust, you must be willing to give more than the others do. I have seen more alliances and friendly neighbors fall apart over this principle...

    When everyone is obsessed that he must get "equal" contributions from the other guy, everyone just ends up counting each others' jellybeans and yelling "Hey! This deal give you 3 or 4 more jellybean than I got! We MUST HAVE THE SAME OR NO DEAL!!" Then the other accuses that he is really the one who gets the poor deal because he has more yellow and orange, while you get the red and pink ones which taste better... and so-on... In the end there is no deal, no alliance.

    We must be ready to promise more than what we get back. In this way we get a devoted ally, which in the end is worth more than anything else. Let me ask you all which of these sounds more like someone you would want on your side...

    1. "I will walk and fight side by side with you. Our destiny will be intertwined. My victory will be be yours, and your loss will be mine, and if you must die, we will die together, because I will never stop fighting for you until you are safe or we are both dead. Side by side we will be brothers until all the other enemies are defeated."

    2. "I will be your ally and partner. We will share in all things equally. I will always insist that I get the same as you, and I expect you to do the same with me. Not only will we be equal in all things, but we will fight to protect each other. Of course, neither of us will be expected to sacrifice his own welfare to save the other but all I ask you to promise, and all I promise in return, is that we will do our absoulute best to protect each other."
     
  20. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    I agree, but I see no reason why we would like an anti-RB alliance, and even less why we would like to lead it? :confused: The only reason why we desperately need allies against RB is that we refuse to make NAP with them. And Bistrita, whose judgement proved to be excellent so far :goodjob:, says that he would rather be left at the end the competing against RB, than CivFr. At the same time, all our diplomatic efforts are geared towards peace with CivFr and war with RB - that is towards endgame with a civ we are not confident we can outtech and actually consider a more dangerous opponent :( Still seems rather mysterious to me :confused:
     

Share This Page