Background for the Tripartite Alliance

[Provolution]

Background for the Tripartite Alliance

I chatted with Micco from Catagonia, we are still on good terms personally and he could tell us the following.

FACTS ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY

The invasion was launched around turn 117 (polling) and turn 118 (launching invasion). The deciding factor in taking out C3B was the poor diplomacy and begging style negotiations between CDZ and CFC, and all the material for the decision was provided from CDZ to CGN.

The strong economy of CGN bankrolled 1600 gold into city investigations alone, funding up CDZ espionage and fleet development.

CGN and CDZ had 7 luxuries each. CFC and C3B had one each

C3B was picked as ally, as we were weaker at that point, and the Joker Scandal was abused in the negotiations with CDZ by CFC

C3Bs mission was to attract our forces north

CGN Micco revealed that our military force assessment was pretty accurate (Pie chart on Brazucan military, Military Intel) upon presentation to the C3B team.

CDZ did not take into account IRL friendships when making the decision

It was my personal chats with Micco, leaked to them, that enfuriated CDZ, not the bilateral chats with CDZ. Micco Florida is indeed Bush-land/Republican (check their website, I can PM you), so I chatted with him on IRL issues I had no idea would be forwarded and abused for in game purposes.

CDZ and CGN stated that only good relations between CFC and C3B could have saved us, but with the luxury imbalance and different quality of land, as well as the Warrior Issue (we sent a warrior to far north) and the Joker Issue,
the relations was ended severely. When MM became C3B Ambassador, we were already death sentenced (Turn 118).

The personal attacks by Akots on me in the UN threads are irrelevant, as they already launched invasion turn 118 based on his regimes negotiations.

On a personal end note, I became elected official and governor in a nation doomed 7 turns prior to my inaugeration, and my desperate attempt to figure out a CGN deal was predetermined. Bilaterally, the diplomacy could have been good, but multilaterally, it had no impact as we were earmarked for destruction.

CGN and CDZ recognize that the micromanagement of Akots, as well as the new leadership of EMP/Rik lifted CFC somewhat up, but too little too late.

Personally, I think our regime had its greatest time in the last term, culturewise, entertainmentwise and gameplaywise. What took place turn 118 and before is beyond many of ours control. 7 to 1 luxury happens to be the same ratio with which we beat Brazucan troops in battle, 7-1.
We got Golden Age too, and what is a better way to end the game, in the Golden Age.

Finally, I am not the scapegoat or the whipping boy for Akots, as the majority of the nation has pointed out. Our diplomacy was not poor only based on personal preformance, but also due to the fact they already sent a force our way. I prefer us to go down as a single team that fought well to the end against impossible odds and be good sports. If CDZ and C3B are bad winners (CGN actually shows some temperance), we should as well take this with honor.

 

[Provolution]

Please check on this thread

 

[Emp.Napoleon]

CDZ and CGN stated that only good relations between CFC and C3B could have saved us, but with the luxury imbalance and different quality of land, as well as the Warrior Issue (we sent a warrior to far north) and the Joker Issue,
the relations was ended severely.

Hm? What was that?

CDZ and CGN stated that only good relations between CFC and C3B could have saved us…

I think this bears repeating:

CDZ and CGN stated that only good relations between CFC and C3B could have saved us…

Now I wonder who was saying this since day one and kept that stance until war was finally declared. Hmmmmm? O wait, I know, it was EMP who was saying since day one that an alliance was need. It was EMP who kept saying that we should move our warrior out, regardless of sovereignty or if the land was claimed. Was it not EMP who wanted to let the Brazilian warrior in our lands, he would not have caused any damage anyways. If we had done these pro-alliance things, they would let us do the same. So, in essence I am saying:


I TOLD YOU SO!






Ok I feel better now.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Don't give yourself too much credit, dude. As President, it was I who unsuccessfully championed that peace. It was also I who sang the praises of a Feudalistic government that would allow us to bunker down in times exactly like the one currently facing us.

I do appreciate you standing beside me on the peace issue, however. We just weren't persuasive enough.

 

[Provolution]

I think the war movement had a point in taking the war to Brazuca after the Joker Incident, as the political damages were irrepairable. I was advocating the Conquest of Rio, which could have altered the diplomacy somewhat.

Another note, always settle one tile islands if you can. They are priceless bargaining tools in multiplayer games.

 

[akots]

... as they already launched invasion turn 118 based on his regimes negotiations. ...

Hey, the game has been a lost cause from the start considering the horrible starting position (compared to other teams, even C3B) and first 50 turns of gameplay.

The point of diplomacy with CDZ was to offer them anything they want in exchange for the alliance against C3B (all cities, all gold, any arrangement for the finals, anything they ask for) and be very cooperative yet the team was not understanding this. Hence is the outcome.

When you are weak, you have to bend to the strong or you die. This is the basic multi-human diplomacy rule.

Whatever name you have chosen for turns 75-124 is your choice of words but the government always acted according to the poll results and will of people. Except a few instances when the moderator of the forum interfered. (Note: this is not a public discussion of moderator actions.)

 

[RegentMan]

Emp., no need for "I told ya so!" No one knew that this would have been the outcome. You were merely going after what you thought was right, as was the rest of Fanatica.

akots, I honestly don't seem to recall you telling us to bend over and do everything CDZ said. Can you site the thread you did so in?

 

[Provolution]

I agree, I can remember a very demanding negotiation position there, when I read the chatlog. Mixed signals of begging and demanding. Too many conditionalities and no discussions on the grand strategy on how to make it happen.

Long term planning was our main weakness and attempts to come up with long term proposals was filibustered with "harsh realism". A long term plan could have won CDZ.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

@akots- I am sick and tired of hearing about "the first 50 turns of gameplay." Your friends at CDZ seem to be chanting the same mantra at the UN forums and it's dead wrong. Since you have been noticably absent from CFC lately, it makes me wonder what else was discussed with our enemy.

I know that Histograph points aren't everything, but we were second in points throughout my entire tenure. Only after I left was our team able to settle the food rich locations that allowed us to expand our empire. Yet our point total dropped from second to fourth. That can only be blamed on one thing: location, location, location.

Perhaps if we would have thought outside the box and planned for an entry to Feudalism instead of approaching our situation as a builder's paradise, we would be in better shape. I blame myself for losing interest in the game, but that happens when you are second-guessed at every turn by an outspoken GOTM level player. If I had my way we would have been bunkered down and strong under Feudalism (our no-lux situation required it), not chasing a rotten carrot on the way north and leaving our backside defended by warriors. A lot of good martial law does us now.

Well, you duped the masses and you left. I suppose the same could said for me. Enjoy your transition to the CDZ team; it seems to already be in motion.

 

[Provolution]

Representing the third political faction of Fanatica, or at least I am one of us, we wanted an early daring all out assault on Brauza with a naval attack, and it may have worked if we sent all we got as soon as possible. CDZ population rushed units to take out GCA and so on. It was this "harsh realism" and lack of vision and dedication that killed us.

If you run a war half heartedly you are bound to lose.
Diplomacywise, it was a close call, Micco voted for taking out C3B. That diplomacy session lacked a long term strategic vision.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Emp., no need for "I told ya so!" No one knew that this would have been the outcome.

Actually, I somewhat did.

Provo, I will admit that I left at the wrong time. I am also guilty of not voicing my concerns during many of my lurk sessions of this game. To me, it was quite obvious after the demise of GCA that a CDZ/CGN allaince would remain strong. And that they would try to play our continent for puppets.

I also voted abstain on the war effort and stated that our troops would be better served at home. My call for Feudalism was too little too late, but it was the best way to combat the hypothical situation that happens to exist right now. We should have stayed home until we knew with certainty that we would be backed by the Western Alliance. If we lost the coin flip, we would at least have been in a better position, defending our homeland with something better than Warriors.

 

[Provolution]

I believed in the Pirhana theory, I agree on that they sought for a third puppet.
However, you do not negotiate anally, or bending over like they said was wise.
You negotiate from force and incur heavy losses.
A major naval invasion would have worked out to some extent, letting out Brazucan blood for sharks to follow. It was safest to invade in the late twenties (125-130), and we should have factored that into the negotitiations. They would have liked us for having balls, and joined in. Sulking over Joker and asking for alimonies was outright pathetic and unworthy, and spelled our doom.

 

[akots]

It could have been all circumstantial. Turns 117-118 seem to be critical then. Here is the circumstance:

Turn 116 played and sent on December 10th: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=106985

This post has been posted December 10th:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2401646&postcount=34

in this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=106768&page=2&pp=20

 

[Emp.Napoleon]

Don't give yourself too much credit, dude. As President, it was I who unsuccessfully championed that peace...

I do appreciate you standing beside me on the peace issue, however. We just weren't persuasive enough.

I know you and Cheetah did in the beginning and for much of the game, I just did not know if you wanted to be known for the “political suicide” that was involved with being pro alliance.

Emp., no need for "I told ya so!" No one knew that this would have been the outcome. You were merely going after what you thought was right, as was the rest of Fanatica.

But I did have a small idea of what was to come. Look in the old embassy threads; there are hints of it. I knew that if we had allied with C3B, there would be a trans-continental war, unless we got one of the other continental powers to betray the other. When they reached us, it was either unity, or destruction of one of us. It is all there.

 

[Provolution]

I talked with Micco, and not that it matters anymore, but we could have turned the diplomacy around turn 125-130 with the City of God Plan, since that would have impacted the diplomatic relations CDZ-CGN to C3B. These teams respect courage, not digging in.

 

[rcoutme]

Although it may have been "unity or destruction of one of us" in your mind, Emp, it was destruction of one of us regardless of unity. Our continent could never have resisted theirs. They had the UU's and resources to destroy us regardless of our preparations (allied with C3B or not). As for the sending of our military north, I believe that I had mentioned back when I was elected as CoMA (as opposed to appointed/drafted) that I would be fighting the war on the assumption that CGN & CDZ would either not ally with either of us or would ally with us. The 'backdoor open' policy was done because, no matter how good a general I proved to be (or anyone else for that matter), there was no possible way that CFC could have beaten two civilizations (unless they had either CDZ or CGN as one of their allies).

In short, we had to plan according to the (now proved incorrect) assumption that CDZ (keep in mind that CGN were late-comers to our continent) would not be actively helping C3B. Our troop movements, fleet movements, etc. were all based that way because, imho, we would lose any engagement that consisted of fighting CDZ & C3B w/o CDZ having another enemy. Since I had (correctly this time ) assumed that the CGN/CDZ alliance would hold strong, that meant that we had to have either neutrality or participation supporting us in order to win the war.

I believe, quite strongly in fact, that C3B did NOT want to have a truly active alliance with us. If they had, why did they withhold the fact that we had horses from us? Why did they not complete a tech agreement which consisted of them getting Currency (very expensive) in return for Wheel? There was only one reason that I could think of... we had horses, and they didn't want us to know that. Well...if we are allies, then why not?

So...as I have stated before, and several times in this post, we could not win a war if we had to fight two or more Civs. If anyone knows how to survive an attack from three allied civ's, all of them with stronger UU's than us (which can concurrently be built) and access to 7 luxuries when we have 1, please send me an email or pm me to let me know how. I would love to know this for all my future games of Civ III.

 

[Provolution]

Let us put up an inspired last defense, and I found a job for some of you somewhere else.

 

[Ratatomik]

Let us put up an inspired last defense, and I found a job for some of you somewhere else.

Wath are you talking about?

 

[Hygro]

It could have been all circumstantial. Turns 117-118 seem to be critical then. Here is the circumstance:

Turn 116 played and sent on December 10th: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=106985

This post has been posted December 10th:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2401646&postcount=34

in this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=106768&page=2&pp=20

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2401685&postcount=5 I think is pretty telling.

 

[akots]

Yes, this also was a very important thing but there were a few hints from CDZ that they were going to try to trade with C3B. They tried both imho and chose one in the end.