Amazon NAP

[Irgy]

Worth having a poll to ensure we're all agreed before we enter something binding. For reference, the options they have proposed are:

Diana's plan: Immediate Permanent NAP, subject to cancellation at any time with 15 turns notice.

Hera's vision: Irrevocable NAP until 1AD, at which time we may negotiate a new NAP with new terms to fit the changed situation or we may part ways.

 

[T. Claudius]

As I've stated before, I think we should take all opportunities to avoid potential AMAZON aggression unless we are looking to pick a fight with them. I therefor am voting for the Diana Plan, a permanent NAP, which will also discourage any arms race waiting for a date to DOW and help strengthen our alliance in the long and short term.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I'll go with the majority here, but I'm a bit dubious about this so-called "permanent" non-aggression pact. They're messing around with words here, so don't let it catch you out. The way I view it, the "permanent" arrangement instead puts us a constant 15 turns away from potential war at any given moment. I'd much rather have a longer guarantee of peace (until 1 AD would be something like 70 turns from now), and renegotiate it ~20 turns before its expiration for another ~50 turn increase of the pact length. To me, a non-aggression pact should be about long-term safety and security. Not constantly being 15 turns from potential war at any given time. That's not enough security to me.

The short version: I vote for the second option, the one named "Hera's vision". We should think about setting a re-evaluation date in the terms, say 500 BC, for deciding whether the treaty will be extended or cancelled at 1 AD. That way we have some guaranteed advance warning of any attack.

 

[BLubmuz]

Before to vote, i'd like to express some opinion and to ask some light.

Amazon were the first to talk about a NAP, in their very first message.
Then we sent them our draft for a proposal, and now they come with another proposal, in some way similar to ours.

My doubts are mainly in the 15 turns to break the NAP. It's a lot of time at Normal Speed.
Even if they have a ridicoulus military, they have a lot of time to build their army.
Same applies to us, of course.

We must weight the benefits to have a sort of permanent alliance with our closest neighbour and possibly our only target before Astro opposed to the chance to wipe them if we decide to -at least- try to do so.

Also, this NAP will be published somewhere in a way that we both are bounded to that?
At the cost of our/their reputation with other possible allies, of course.

 

[Lord Parkin]

No, it will not be published publically. I don't know what gave you that idea. That's never been done for any agreement in any game here, as far as I know. It's because that would instantly tell all of the other teams that (a) you've met and (b) you're on friendly terms. Not exactly the kind of information you hand out freely to your rivals.

Trust me that a team's reputation will be tarnished if they break a deal, and it does not have anything at all to do with any deals being "published" publically. You don't need to worry about that.

Either way, we should definitely accept a NAP in whatever form. It's a very standard gesture of comradery between newly-met civs in multiplayer games. The benefits of mutual goodwill in the present far outweigh any possibility of future backstabbing. So while I understand your caution, this is really not something we need to worry about. A NAP will do us a great deal of good and no real harm.

 

[azzaman333]

Can we get both combined?

 

[Lord Parkin]

Can we get both combined?

That would make sense. I don't see why not.

Or an alternative version that combines the two but offers even more security:

- Peace guaranteed until 1AD.
- At 500 BC, decide whether to extend 1 AD to 500 AD or cancel at 1 AD.
- Assuming extended, at 1 AD, decide whether to extend 500 AD to 1000 AD or cancel at 500 AD.
- Assuming extended, at 500 AD, decide whether to extend 1000 AD to 1500 AD or cancel at 1000 AD.

This gives both parties large advance notice of any possible cancellations or second thoughts about the NAP, so offers a lot of security/permanence.

Alternatively, we could also state that we'd be happy to agree to a flat-out non-aggression treaty straight to 1000 AD right now, if they're really interested in permanence. After all, no-one will be arriving at Astronomy until around that time, so the only possible battles will be minor mainland skirmishes.

 

[BLubmuz]

That would make sense. I don't see why not.

Or an alternative version that combines the two but offers even more security:

(...)

Thanks for the explanations.
I really think that the proposal i quoted is a good option and i will vote accordingly.

The only hole is the time: in terms of turns, 500 BC until 1 AD is far less than 500 AD to 1000 AD. Does anyone have a table with dates/turns for BTS?

 

[Lord Parkin]

Yeah, it might be better to define it in terms of turns rather than dates, you're right.

Here's the data for normal speed:

75 turns of 40 years (to 1000 BC)
60 turns of 25 years (to 500 AD)
25 turns of 20 years (to 1000 AD)
50 turns of 10 years (to 1500 AD)
60 turns of 5 years (to 1800 AD)
60 turns of 2 years (to 1920 AD)
130 turns of 1 year (to 2050 AD)

So there's 20 turns between 500 BC and 1 AD, and also between 1 AD and 500 AD; 25 turns between 500 AD and 1000 AD; and 50 turns between 1000 AD and 1500 AD.

So maybe make the discussion points 500 BC, 1 AD, 600 AD, and 1250 AD (20 turns before deal expirations in each case)?

 

[BLubmuz]

Yeah, it might be better to define it in terms of turns rather than dates, you're right.

Here's the data for normal speed:

So there's 20 turns between 500 BC and 1 AD, and also between 1 AD and 500 AD; 25 turns between 500 AD and 1000 AD; and 50 turns between 1000 AD and 1500 AD.

So maybe make the discussion points 500 BC, 1 AD, 600 AD, and 1250 AD (20 turns before deal expirations in each case)?

Great, now we got the reference in terms of turn/date.

I'd like to propose to Amazon 10 turns for the NAP renegotiation(s). At normal speed this is more than enough to react.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I'm just inclined to offer at least 15 turns because they responded to our earlier "10 turn warning" proposal with a "15 turn warning" counter-proposal. This seems to hint to me that they want more security.