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

Apolyton's Proposal

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Multi-site Demo Game: High Council' started by GenMarshall, Dec 23, 2003.

  1. GenMarshall

    GenMarshall Ghost Agent

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    42,734
    Location:
    Versailles City, Vekta, United Terran Systems
     
  2. Ankka

    Ankka Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    7,299
    It doesn't look too bad, except that I didn't see anything about BoP...


    BTW, they should try and learn to write our nations name correctly: It's Fanatikou not Fanatiku! :mad:
     
  3. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,391
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    I didn't expect them to include anything about BoP, and I think we're going to have to compromise and take Equilibrium, letting them have BoP. However, it looks like a good proposal. Perhaps we could change it a bit to forbid one party from declaring war without the consent of the other. Also, we may want to consider a clause that would require each nation to gift the other technologies that it researched.
     
  4. Fier Canadien

    Fier Canadien Citizen

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    807
    Location:
    Québec, Québec, Canada
    Yea, it looks good.

    And forget about PoV, they're never going to give it to us. After all, we wouldn't give it to them either. So, get a few cities close to it and forget it.
     
  5. Ankka

    Ankka Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    7,299
    Yes, well, I would be happy if we did gt Equilibrium and then got our side of the island settled, then we could think of hat to do next.
     
  6. croxis

    croxis Chat room op

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2001
    Messages:
    3,277
    Location:
    Portland, OR, US
    We should both get one choke point, if they want PoV, we get the one up north
     
  7. Veera Anlai

    Veera Anlai Southern Belle

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Messages:
    497
    Location:
    Ye Olde Florida
    Yes, I suggest we append a clause determining the borders of our country so that we won't have any land disputes in the future. Or do we have a land agreement already?

    Other than that, it looks good.
     
  8. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    Apolyton suggested that we keep border agreements and alliances seperate.

    I'm not a fan of the tech-sharing clause, either. It should be more open, a full tech parity agreement without restrictions.
     
  9. Ankka

    Ankka Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    7,299
    Yes, I think so too. ..
     
  10. Noldodan

    Noldodan 2 years of waiting...

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,747
    Location:
    Gondolin!
    Nitpicking: Under Tech Cooperation it states that "Neither nation will resell technology aquired from the other without express
    permission from the nation who first aquired the technology." Later, however, in Separation of Agreement it states that "This alliance agreement does not preclude both nations from making additional deals, agreements, or pledges outside this agreement."
    Is it just me, or is that a contradiction?
     
  11. Fier Canadien

    Fier Canadien Citizen

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    807
    Location:
    Québec, Québec, Canada
    They mean that other deals are not subject to it.
     
  12. Cheetah

    Cheetah Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,777
    Location:
    the relative oasis of CFC
    Um... shouldn't we give money to Apolyton to boost their research? If they will have "copyright" on the techs, it will be unfair.
     
  13. Micaelis Rex

    Micaelis Rex Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2002
    Messages:
    360
    Location:
    Rockland County, NY
    OK, a couple observations I've made upon reading this...

    III ROP: For naval units traveling in packs of more than 1, it says that permission must be asked of the nation whose border is being entered. It would be better for permission to be granted as well.

    V NAP: It says neither nation may enter the borders of the other. This should be clarified to neither nation may enter any land within the other's borders. Otherwise #III is redundant.

    V NAP: I don't like the clause about not attacking the other's units. Ever hear of cheap leaders? :D

    VI Shared Intel: If one of the nations has agreed not to reveal info it knows about another nation to anyone, than it shouldn't have to reveal it to its ally. Being forced to break an agreement isn't a good idea.

    VII Military Denfense Pact: "Once at war, each nation pledges to fully commit itself to the cause of war and to use all means at their disposal to promptly prosecute the war." I don't like the 'all means at their disposal' part. That could imply that every military unit we own must be sent towards the fight, and that all production be switched to military. Should be changed to: "Once at war, each nation pledges to fully commit itself to the cause of war in order to promptly prosecute the war."

    VIII Separation of Agreements: A sentense should be added to this saying that any deals signed before the start of the alliance are still viable over the alliance, so long as they are disclosed to the other nation before the signing of the alliance.

    IX Termination of the Agreement: This is worded so that it is very easy to terminate the agreement, as only one of the nations needs to pass the vote of "No Confidence". At the very least, a clause should be added stating that following the termination of the agreement, aggressive action may not be taken be either nation against the other for a minimum of 20 turns. This way we won't have any "Shock and Awe" scenarios.

    OK, thats all. Hope it helped. :)

    /MRex
     
  14. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images

Share This Page