Cruise
Warlord
Now it's getting interesting.
Is there finally going to be a blood spill between the Persians and Chinese people?
Is there finally going to be a blood spill between the Persians and Chinese people?
anarres vs. ERIKK game 2 Deity level
- Thread starter ERIKK
- Start date
ERIKK
multiplayer
Well if you see it that way I guess I am just very unlucky here: 
- The gracious Ottomans demand stuff
- I refuse because I know they will be attacked and destroyed any turn after this demand (you wanted to be fast before they got Rep Parts, remember)
- They attack me for refusing
- They lose their forces
- For you no need to attack them anymore
result:
- I lose half my army and lose 7 turns of building factories etc...
- Ottomans hate me now as much as they hate you
- You stayed on the sidelines riding all those cavalry you already build and desperately wanted to throw in a war that never came... Maybe you should quote that part of that discussion too; the part were you felt so bad about having all those cavalry build for nothing if you werent allowed to attack the Ottomans...
Maybe your actions are reasonable and legitime but I still feel very unlucky here: if I knew they would stay in the game I would have given the tech to them (100% sure)... I was acting based on our deal (and on your arguments for getting that deal)...
So, it is not that I want them in or out of the game or to have a non agression pact or not...: it is about the fact that I was acting upon our treaty here...
For me it sucks very much now: the Ottomans are as big as a threat for me as for you. They used to be my biggest friends and were almost the entire game gracious to me. The one that has the Ottomans as a friend at a moment of war is the lucky one. We both know how to manipulate a MPP...
I hope you see my overall picture now? It looked like you didn't see it last post...
- The gracious Ottomans demand stuff
- I refuse because I know they will be attacked and destroyed any turn after this demand (you wanted to be fast before they got Rep Parts, remember)
- They attack me for refusing
- They lose their forces
- For you no need to attack them anymore
result:
- I lose half my army and lose 7 turns of building factories etc...
- Ottomans hate me now as much as they hate you
- You stayed on the sidelines riding all those cavalry you already build and desperately wanted to throw in a war that never came... Maybe you should quote that part of that discussion too; the part were you felt so bad about having all those cavalry build for nothing if you werent allowed to attack the Ottomans...
Maybe your actions are reasonable and legitime but I still feel very unlucky here: if I knew they would stay in the game I would have given the tech to them (100% sure)... I was acting based on our deal (and on your arguments for getting that deal)...
So, it is not that I want them in or out of the game or to have a non agression pact or not...: it is about the fact that I was acting upon our treaty here...
For me it sucks very much now: the Ottomans are as big as a threat for me as for you. They used to be my biggest friends and were almost the entire game gracious to me. The one that has the Ottomans as a friend at a moment of war is the lucky one. We both know how to manipulate a MPP...
I hope you see my overall picture now? It looked like you didn't see it last post...
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Bottom line:
You refused an AI demand, the AI attacked. You shouldn't have done it.
On MSM that you said nothing about 'I'm doing this for you anarres' at the time. You did it in fact do it to stop me getting the tech, so WTH? Why is it my fault that your 'tech denial' plan failed? In a way it was a catch 22 situation: Say no, and be where you are now, or say yes, and I get the tech. Bad luck for you to get hassle from the AI just as I was going to attack, but sh!t happens to everyone.
You got bad luck, but saying no to an AI is just plain crazy if you don't want a war. As I mentioned before, I've been getting bumped for cash by the Ottomans every 20 turns since the start of the game, and I've said yes every time, without fail.
I'm sorry if you saw the agreement as a promise of me going to war, I saw it as me having to pressure you to get even a little Ottoman war going at the same time as keeping our peace, so I felt no obligation to actually go through with it. If you reverse the positions, would you still go to war, when:
1) The civ you were going to fight is now fighting your human opponent.
2) You never promised to fight, in fact you had to 'haggle' for the right to fight them in the first place, as your human opponent didn't want any war.
3) You will not benefit from the war, in fact it will do more harm than good.
I don't think you would go to war in my shoes, it wouldn't make sense. You should have thought about what would happen if the Ottomans declared war on you before I declared war on them. If they had declared war on you independantly of demands, would you still feel so hard done by? Would you still have expected me to go to war?
At the end of the day, I can feel sorry for you, but I am not going to go beyond an agreement just 'cos the AI screwed you. Sorry.
You refused an AI demand, the AI attacked. You shouldn't have done it.
On MSM that you said nothing about 'I'm doing this for you anarres' at the time. You did it in fact do it to stop me getting the tech, so WTH? Why is it my fault that your 'tech denial' plan failed? In a way it was a catch 22 situation: Say no, and be where you are now, or say yes, and I get the tech. Bad luck for you to get hassle from the AI just as I was going to attack, but sh!t happens to everyone.
You got bad luck, but saying no to an AI is just plain crazy if you don't want a war. As I mentioned before, I've been getting bumped for cash by the Ottomans every 20 turns since the start of the game, and I've said yes every time, without fail.
I'm sorry if you saw the agreement as a promise of me going to war, I saw it as me having to pressure you to get even a little Ottoman war going at the same time as keeping our peace, so I felt no obligation to actually go through with it. If you reverse the positions, would you still go to war, when:
1) The civ you were going to fight is now fighting your human opponent.
2) You never promised to fight, in fact you had to 'haggle' for the right to fight them in the first place, as your human opponent didn't want any war.
3) You will not benefit from the war, in fact it will do more harm than good.
I don't think you would go to war in my shoes, it wouldn't make sense. You should have thought about what would happen if the Ottomans declared war on you before I declared war on them. If they had declared war on you independantly of demands, would you still feel so hard done by? Would you still have expected me to go to war?
At the end of the day, I can feel sorry for you, but I am not going to go beyond an agreement just 'cos the AI screwed you. Sorry.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
FWIW, luck is what made the Ottomans come to you demanding techs.Originally posted by ERIKK
Well if you see it that way I guess I am just very unlucky here:
- The gracious Ottomans demand stuff
- I refuse because I know they will be attacked and destroyed any turn after this demand (you wanted to be fast before they got Rep Parts, remember)
- They attack me for refusing
- They lose their forces
- For you no need to attack them anymore
There was no luck involved when you said no to them. You were trying to use our agreement so I wouldn't get the Ottoman tech. You took the risk of war, and lost.
If you feel hard done by, lets fight. You may get tanks before me, but not that much before.
:tank: :tank: :tank: :tank: :tank: :tank:
Or shall we be friends?
Hehe - the temperature is rising ...
I think part of the problem is the incredible difficulty of conducting diplomacy between two people who speak different native tongues.
"may" is an ambiguous word in English - it has two quite distinct meanings in this context.
"I may do this or I may not" expresses doubt. (I may = I might)
"You may do that" is an expression of permission.
It can be ambiguous as to which meaning applies.
This is quite subtle and difficult for a non native english speaker to appreciate
Erikk interpreted the 'agreement' one way and Anarres another.
I say "get stuck in"
I think part of the problem is the incredible difficulty of conducting diplomacy between two people who speak different native tongues.
"may" is an ambiguous word in English - it has two quite distinct meanings in this context.
"I may do this or I may not" expresses doubt. (I may = I might)
"You may do that" is an expression of permission.
It can be ambiguous as to which meaning applies.
This is quite subtle and difficult for a non native english speaker to appreciate
Erikk interpreted the 'agreement' one way and Anarres another.
I say "get stuck in"
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Now the real question is exactly what col means by that statement, and who he is saying it to.
ERIKK
multiplayer
I just explained to you why!
ERIKK
multiplayer
Of course! We are still friends. We are having a little dispute here. I am just not convinced that I am such an idiot that misinterpretes negotiations in such a stupid way. Neither do I think that I live on a purple cloud or so...Originally posted by anarres
Or shall we be friends?
And I am absolutely not waiting for another war. I am in for another peace treaty.
Going to read our diplo again...
ERIKK
multiplayer
Col, you can reread the diplo, it is in the thread. Was I realy that wrong? Anarres was prepped and gearing up for a war 3 turns before the Ottomans attacked me.
What borders me now is that:
first: anarres has a hugh army while mine is halved
second: and far more important: the AI attitude shifted from gracious to furious
Both didn't have to happen. I just denied the tech so that anarres couldn't extort them form the AI. I consider that a sane and reasonable act in this game.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
ERIKK, I never promised to go to war, at least I never thought I did. 
BTW, I would never have knowingly have said that I would attack them. I always saw the agreement coming from your desire for me not to attack them.
Most importantly, what difference does it make anyway? I can't see what real difference it makes whether I attacked them or not to our current positions. Edit: I suppose the point is that you wouldn't have refused them if you knew I would not attack. Sorry.
If I did go to war with the Ottomans you would be in the same position. I would have some more cities, and a few less Cavalry, but not too few less, since you took the brunt of the assault.
One other thing: I didn't have really silly amounts of Cav anyway (I had 'some' that I was going to use), and my city build/research plans had been updated accordingly. Cavalry are almost useless now with all this infantry around, so my offensive army size (= Cavs) is not a factor anymore in anything.
I suppose this escapade shows the need for formalising agreements and being very careful with the english and the interpretation of it.
BTW, I would never have knowingly have said that I would attack them. I always saw the agreement coming from your desire for me not to attack them.Most importantly, what difference does it make anyway? I can't see what real difference it makes whether I attacked them or not to our current positions. Edit: I suppose the point is that you wouldn't have refused them if you knew I would not attack. Sorry.
If I did go to war with the Ottomans you would be in the same position. I would have some more cities, and a few less Cavalry, but not too few less, since you took the brunt of the assault.
One other thing: I didn't have really silly amounts of Cav anyway (I had 'some' that I was going to use), and my city build/research plans had been updated accordingly. Cavalry are almost useless now with all this infantry around, so my offensive army size (= Cavs) is not a factor anymore in anything.
I suppose this escapade shows the need for formalising agreements and being very careful with the english and the interpretation of it.
The way I read it is that Anarres essentially got permission from Erikk to go to war. Erikk expected Anaress to then declare war on the Ottomans. Unfortunate timing meant that the Ottomans demanded a tech from Erikk that he didnt want to give. The prudent thing for Erikk would have been to wait until he saw a war between Anarres and the Ottomans start before refusing a demand - ideally he could have offerd the ottomans some money if he wanted to hang on to the tech. A refusal meant that the Ottomans declared on him.
When the Ottomans declared war on Erikk the global situation had changed and Anarres was free to declare war or not as he chose. He judged that he gained more from staying out than fighting at that moment so although he had intended to fight he changed his mind. The agreement gave him the opportunity to declare war but didnt compel him to do so.
When the Ottomans declared war on Erikk the global situation had changed and Anarres was free to declare war or not as he chose. He judged that he gained more from staying out than fighting at that moment so although he had intended to fight he changed his mind. The agreement gave him the opportunity to declare war but didnt compel him to do so.
ERIKK
multiplayer
Well, in the next deal like this one it should be stated that "team # will attack at the beginning of turn ### and is allowed to capture city A to Z. The war lasts for the dureation of # turns.
I know anarres would have signed this treaty too, back in turn 198. He now had an easy way out. We godd*mned had already devided the Ottoman cities among us!!!!
What he did might be legitime and reasonable but it still has a bad smell hanging around it...
I know anarres would have signed this treaty too, back in turn 198. He now had an easy way out. We godd*mned had already devided the Ottoman cities among us!!!!
What he did might be legitime and reasonable but it still has a bad smell hanging around it...
hehe - I'm getting back into the ways of "diplomacy" after agreeing to take over a terrible position for the CivFanatics team in the World Tournament.
Ambiguous bargaining is what THAT game is about.
Never mind Erikk. Just lookat your factories and hydro plants and plan your revenge ......
Ambiguous bargaining is what THAT game is about.
Never mind Erikk. Just lookat your factories and hydro plants and plan your revenge ......
ERIKK
multiplayer
I have updated my again with the latest events (few turns)!
FWIW: the issue above is not an issue anymore. We agreed to let it rest. It was an misunderstanding between us which did much damage to me.
FWIW: the issue above is not an issue anymore. We agreed to let it rest. It was an misunderstanding between us which did much damage to me.
ERIKK
multiplayer
I have updated my again with turns 227 to 236! This weekend we will not play much as I hardly will have any free time. Maybe I will write a new strategy alinea sunday evening and add some pictures again. The power, culture and score histographs have much changed the last 50 turns!
News:
In turn 234 Persia and China have prolonged their peace agreement till turn 245. No heavy negotiations were conducted as the diplomats were very bussy and tired at the time.
This game keeps going strong. So, who is still reading this thread?
News:
In turn 234 Persia and China have prolonged their peace agreement till turn 245. No heavy negotiations were conducted as the diplomats were very bussy and tired at the time.
This game keeps going strong. So, who is still reading this thread?
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
BTW, apologies for my website being so out-of-date.
It is very lame of me as I have *much* to report.
This weekend I will get the time to update since ERIKK will be giving me a rest.
It is very lame of me as I have *much* to report.
This weekend I will get the time to update since ERIKK will be giving me a rest.
Me me me.
ProPain
King
Me too!!!!
