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

A Proposed Diplomatic Agreement with the Gamecatcher Alliance

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Multi-site Demo Game: High Council' started by Octavian X, Mar 27, 2003.

  1. Gingerbread Man

    Gingerbread Man Dark Magus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,078
    Location:
    Ooorstrailier!
    Oh, stop thinking about backstabbing, lying, and dealing dirty this early on!

    Early game is the worst time to wage war. Here is my proposal:

    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 our units interfere with the travel and movement of each other outside of these borders. This shall be considered a Non-Aggression Pact. CFC may send one warrior to explore, and GC may send one scout (or warrior If they cannot get scouts) ON THE CONDITION that the warrior/scouts will never be beyond sight from GC's borders.

    This deal will be passed ONLY when the requested tech trade is made.

    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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And a message to all those who are demanding that we go to war, currently we have NO proof that it will benefit us, or that we will succeed. I ask that we dont backstab other teams until

    a)we know that it would make us the most powerful nation,
    b)that the backstabbee does not have any alliances, or at least very weak allies,
    c)we will definitely succeed in the stabbing, and
    d)our perceived reliability will not be damaged.

    currently neither a, b, c, or d have been proven.

    But lets say we want to go to war cleanly ('frontstabbing'). we must first
    a)know that the enemy has something we need, or something we dont want them to have.
    b)decide our objectives, exactly how we will acheive those
    c)know when to stop, and what do we want of the enemy when they go begging for peace.

    And for trade:
    a)the deal will benefit us
    b)the other team will accept our offer, that it isn't outrageous
    c)the other team will not view us as demanding. They are less likely to trade that way
    d)do not over-negotiate. The other teams will not want to trade, because they will find someone who gives a better deal.
    e)Never demand too much when there may be other teams with what our trading friend wants.

    Thats all I can think of for now.
     
  2. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    22,302
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    I want them to go no further then the Balance of Power Canal. Having that mountain range or border is UNACCEPTABLE. This should be made very clear to them.

    Though unlikely, is it possible the water north of the Balance of Power a huge lake? I have had games with continent sized lakes before...
     
  3. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    Under terms we discussed in a chat, Gamecatcher would be allowed to explore, but with one warrior only. That warrior could not leave a 5 tile radius of Balance of Power. This is advantageous to us because it will limit them. Remember, Balance of Power is at a chokepoint: WE CAN'T SEND UNITS PAST IT.

    Lucky said that no outright trade (warrior code for alphabet) would be acceptable.

    I feel this deal very advantageous. GC would be limited to one warrior on our side, and the warrior's range would be limited to grasslands. If nothing else, it ensures our backs will be safe while we build up our forces. Remember, this deal would end after 15 turns are up.

    This would be the final draft which we would know was acceptable to them:

    Please, remember, we need to have a final decision in three days. In two days, a new poll will be posted for final ratification.
     
  4. Gingerbread Man

    Gingerbread Man Dark Magus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,078
    Location:
    Ooorstrailier!
    That I fully agree with. We must aggresively send out settlers to build cities right next to their border after we sign a non-agression agreement. That way, they wont be able to explore our land, or attck our cities or settlers.

    We could turn this deal right around... By putting cities right next to Balance of Power, us and us only will be able to benefit with this agreement. We can backstab them by signing their own deals. This is a good opportunity. Too good to be missed.

    :D
     
  5. FortyJ

    FortyJ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,186
    Location:
    South Florida
    :rotfl:
    You're kidding right?

    Building cities that close to their border at this time will only make them that much easier for GameCatcher to take them from us.

    And with all due respect, declaring war this early on in an MP game can be the most effective way to permanently cripple your opposition.

    As far as letting them build cities on "our" side of the choke point, let 'em. I consider them gifts to our greatness, for they will be just that much easier to get to with our army of swordsmen that we should be building up right now.

    I am, however, quite disturbed by their outright refusal to trade techs. It is as I feared. While we can purchase techs from the idiotic computer all day long, acquiring them from our human adversaries will prove much more difficult. So be it. This is just more reason to switch immediately to a militaristically advantageous tech so that we can bring mighty weapons to bear against our so-called friends to the east.

    We should be stockpiling gold and warriors for a massive upgrade (approx. 20 units, if possible) to swordsmen and move them en masse to that chokepoint and take it by force.

    I still think that if they want us to sign this emasculating document, we should insist on receiving Alphabet from them. If they wish to take Warrior Code from us, we should gladly give it to them. Otherwise, let our warrior sit peacefully within striking distance of their city and let them stew for a few turns.
     
  6. Gingerbread Man

    Gingerbread Man Dark Magus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,078
    Location:
    Ooorstrailier!
    I'm not kidding, I'm saying that once we sign the deal, they WONT be able to attack our cities. That is, assuming they will stand by their deal.

    We should agree to some 'insurance', so if once of us breaks the deal, we they will have to pay for it. That will discourage them from resisting our 'aggressive settlers'
     
  7. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    22,302
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    Can we rename the allience to the "Balance Pact"?
     
  8. Goonie

    Goonie Lonely End of the Rink

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,312
    Location:
    Kingston
    Why do you guys want to sign it? So far, GC has made all the moves and it makes us look like little pansys. We dont need this pact, but for some reason, they feel they do. If we dont give it to them, they will be scared, and we will be happy watching them tremble.

    @40J
    Why give them warrior code if we will be going to war with them? Archers when attacking can take out spears and swordsmen. Why give them the ability to take back what was lost? This is the way I see it.

    GC doesn't have a militaristic tech, so they want one so that they can build better military units. They realize as well, that they will have to take us out, and lets not give them a way to do that. Let us not give them Warrior Code.

    PS 40J, I nominated you for prez...
     
  9. FortyJ

    FortyJ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,186
    Location:
    South Florida
    Gingerbread Man
    I hate to keep quoting your comments, but I fear that you are proceeding from false assumptions...

    What is it that convinces you that they won' t be able to break the deal? What force do we have available to bring to bear to make sure they remain honorable? In case you're wondering, the answer at the moment is "none".

    And don't kid yourself either, there is no benefit from insisting on a reparations clause in the agreement. Your so called insurance is completely unenforceable. The only way to make somebody "pay" for breaking a deal, is through force.

    Blind trust will get us all killed. Of that you can be certain.
     
  10. croxis

    croxis Chat room op

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2001
    Messages:
    3,277
    Location:
    Portland, OR, US
    I too say don't sign it. However that may be a sign to them that we will be attacking soon, which I feel we wont be able to do yet.

    I suggest we settle to thier direction (duh, its grassland too) so we can mount attacks better down the road.
     
  11. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    We should sign this deal because it is the only way we will be able to limit their exploration west of Balance of Power. We can't tell them not to explore any way else.
     
  12. Vander

    Vander Privateering in Idaho

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    396
    Location:
    Moscow, ID
    This treaty is binding to them as well as us. They won't break this treaty this early because it is their first one. If word gets out that they broke their own treaty, the other teams will be distrustful of them. It is better for them to keep this agreement; sticking to it like white on rice. Besides, in twenty turns, we can build a pretty kick- ass military.
     
  13. eyrei

    eyrei Chieftain Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    9,162
    Location:
    Cary, NC USA
    If they are unwilling to trade technology, I see no way that a non-aggression pact will serve us well. If they will not trade what they have, we will have to take it.
     
  14. FortyJ

    FortyJ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,186
    Location:
    South Florida
    This "deal" is nothing of the sorts. I am all in favor of harboring good will and developing a good relationship with our neighbors (until they get in our way...), but we should balance this out.

    Code:
    [b][u]We Give			They Give[/u][/b]
    No Attacks		No Attacks
    No Exploration		Limited Exploration
    No Techs		No Techs
    No Contacts		No Contacts
    As you can see, this deal is lopsided even in its most basic form. We should at least insist that they not leave their confines of their cultural borders.

    If they don't like it, tough... Let them worry about the possibility of attack. It'll be good for them.

    One more thing, if we do end up signing this thing, I'd like to see the duration changed to end on a specific turn # rather than lasting for a set number of turns. In other words, have the deal end on Turn #45 to coincide with the change of power in our government.
     
  15. Gingerbread Man

    Gingerbread Man Dark Magus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,078
    Location:
    Ooorstrailier!
    when you think about it, all this non-aggression pact is doing is limiting how far GC can explore. This would be a good way to block them going on any further.

    This isn't actually a non-aggression pact when you think of it, it is just a self-imposted border pact. So now the question isn't "do we want no agression?" but "do we want to limit GC's exploration"

    And by the way, if somebody has a good, reliable plan for a war, I will support it all the way. I just havent seen one yet, but I'm sure it can happen. Military advisor, if you can prove to me that we can conquer GC, I will support you.
     
  16. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Personally, I don't like the agreement either, but this discussion is kind of useless.

    If we dedicate ourselves to a military plan of attack on Balance of Power, we will get a spear and a warrior there in about the time the agreement ends (they're a long way from us...). It will take a lot longer to get reinforcements there.

    If we force them to limit their exploration to the 5 tile radius (which is just right for their city placement planners) then we will have accomplished something. If they break the treaty, then we have a justified "open season" on their tribe.

    40J is right, we can take any cities they place, all though they may place them in the wrong spots because of limited sight. This treaty will allow us to judge the competancy and honor of our nieghbors. It will also give a justifiable cause to wipe them from the face of the earth if the send something other than one warrior past Balance of Power.

    I voted YES.
     
  17. Gingerbread Man

    Gingerbread Man Dark Magus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,078
    Location:
    Ooorstrailier!
    Exactly my point!

    On another point, are we limiting the number of all units, all military units, or just warriors? They could make a loophole, and send half a dozen archers. We must scan the agreement for any flaws.
     
  18. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    The wording could be changed to " Gamecatcher may only send one warrior South or West of BoP." But it's pretty self-explanitory now. If they break the obvious proposals of the treaty...open season.
     
  19. Cheetah

    Cheetah Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,774
    Location:
    the relative oasis of CFC
    But we can't explore their lands!
    Why should they be allowed to explore our lands?

    Let them go no further than their cultural borders, and the deal seems good to me.
     
  20. eyrei

    eyrei Chieftain Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    9,162
    Location:
    Cary, NC USA
    I agree. This is absurd. How did they end up bargaining from a position of power?
     

Share This Page