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

Cavaleiros Embassy & Intelligence

Discussion in 'Team Kazakhstan' started by Provolution, Jan 14, 2009.

  1. mikotian

    mikotian Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    211
    Location:
    Chicago
    I do understand your point Donsig. But I really don't see how this can work in real life. Let me reply using your analogy. What happens when a marriage only stays together because of the child? A lot of marriages actually end up like this, and it usually looks like a pretty good idea in the beginning... But the marriage is loveless, distrustful, and bitter. The respective partners may hide things from each other, and secretly undermine each other. And you may end up in a situation where as soon as the kid turns 18, one spouse secretly flies over to the most favorable jurisdiction available (call it London :) ) and "preemptively" starts divorce proceedings. Especially as the kid gets older, and the day of separation comes nearer, the relationship becomes ever more strained.

    Obviously not. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have methods for resolving conflicts fairly and expeditiously, to minimize resentment and feelings of unfairness. And, if the other partner doesn't act in good faith with the guidelines we set out at the beginning, maybe that tells us something too. What I don't want is for the alliance to either degenerate into chaos and recrimination; or have resentment build up; because of issues we can easily foresee today and defuse today.

    Yes precisely, we have a very very conflicting set of interests here! That's why we need to craft a strong treaty (ahem, contract) at the beginning so we can resolve and at least control these conflicts, which perpetuates and strengthens our relationship. I do not believe it's feasible to let these conflicting interests lie and fester (i.e. saying: oh it's okay we'll deal with the issue when we get there... It'll all work out fine as long as there is trust... wait, you DO trust me right, honey?). It's much better to acknowledge these conflicts and have them in the open, where they can be dealt with properly.



    ***

    Lastly, look at how this alliance have already progressed. We have had recriminations, mutual suspicion, chaos, and inaction. Do you, or in fact ANYONE, really believe we can flip a switch and leave that all behind? Are we just going to hug, kiss, and be best friends with the best of mutual intentions for the next 100 turns? I consider myself an optimist, but I don't think this is set to happen...

    But with a well crafted agreement, we can clear out a lot of this bad blood and resolve future conflicts quickly, which prevents or mitigates a repeat of the above. I don't see why you are so resistant to that.
     
  2. mikotian

    mikotian Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    211
    Location:
    Chicago
    No. Damnrunner is absolutely right.
    The key to a successful alliance is to have its existence be mutually beneficial, and for leaving the alliance to be harmful and unprofitable.

    Let's not kid ourselves. An imbalance of power does not develop over night. We will be able to see a gradual build up of GDP, solders, MFG, or whatever, many turns in advance in almost any foreseeable situation. So, the moment power crosses over from "balanced" to "imbalanced" we are not really that far apart. As long as the imbalance is resolved quickly, the alliance is preserved because it would not be worth it for the stronger member to leave the alliance for some small gain over the weaker member.

    However, if you end up in a situation where there is an imbalance of power, and it takes 20 turns to resolve it, then maybe the imbalance grows to a point where it IS profitable for the strong member to screw the weak member.

    Even if the alliance survives in this scenario, it would be through hours and days of frustrating and tedious negotiations, with all sorts of unsavory messages flying around both in these forums and through our diplomats. The alliance is dramatically weakened regardless.
     
  3. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd Rest in Peace Black Panther

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    18,113
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    Exactly... You and I are in total agreement on this Don, except that I would ask why dosent Cavalieros just go ahead and ask for hunting, since they set up the precedent of asking for tech rather than gifting tech as soon as it is discovered. You should send Cavalieros a note saying we want to gift Aesthetics and Hunting to them if that is OK... Be sure to mention how silly it is to try to hide the alliance from SANCTA.

    Exactly right Don, I thought about having MS be the mediator as I was writing my previous message, but I soon realized how stupid that was... and so I did not mention it in my post. We CAN'T enforce, except by leaving the alliance, period... Let this issue (enforcement) die a quick death, please! :please:

    Wow:eek:...I am saving this quote purely for reference purposes later.;)

    This is exactlty what Donsig is saying... and Donsig is right. This is the situation. We MUST kill each other in the end. We are "married" to each other for one reason only... to destroy the other civs as efficiently as possible. That is why we are co-operating. We are a family for now... The closer the maturity of our child (the destruction of the other civs), the more strained the alliance will be. that is why "balance of power" is an ENDGAME issue, NOT a right now issue. We should both be doing All we can to get rid of the other civs...

    Which brings me to my penultimate point. If Cavalieros want a marriage, why are they letting SANCTA attack their spouse? Carrying the "marriage" analogy further, why are they even letting SANCTA beat their girlfriend? Who would let someone beat-up their girlfriend? If they care about us, they will send units... If they don't they are d!@&less p@$$!#$ and we should not be married to them anyway.

    Let the responses roll:)
     
  4. Indiansmoke

    Indiansmoke Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,124
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    Cavaleiros do not want hunting..they want to keep building cheap warriors for hapiness ;)
     
  5. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Good point Smokey. Is anyone opposed to us asking whether they'd like hunting? How about aesthetics? Are we close enough to the great library to give that up if they want it?

    This is exactly why the balance of power idea was suggested. We both know we will both have an incentive to make a preemptive strike. We both know we'll both be jockeying for position to make such a strike and to have the endgame advantage. It would all come down to which team is better at this. I think we have a very good core group who understands how to win a war and can guide us in developing the balance of power in such a way that we end up at least on an equal footing with Team Cav. I don't see these players letting us fall dangerously behind Team Cav without alot of warnings being given. I have faith in our players.

    We got off on the wrong foot diplomatically with quite a bit of communication going on early between our two teams that was not documented in our forums. Niklas maintains that his team was led to believe our team did in fact accept and embrace the kind of alliance Team Cav envisioned. Once we put our diplomatic house in order (by having one spokesperson who put all negotiations in the forums) and our actual position was relayed to Team Cav they were quite taken aback. Since we're now speaking to them with our true voice we can look forward to much better relations with them if we want. The trouble now is we still haven't decided how close of a relationship we want.

    I am not opposed to doing what we can now to define balance of power and mechanisms for correcting imbalances. I just haven't seen anything yet that can go into a treaty / contract. Do you have some specific suggestions? If so, please take them and insert them into Team Cav's proposed treaty so we can see how they look.
     
  6. Indiansmoke

    Indiansmoke Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,124
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    I would suggest we ask them if they feel that the 20.000 free beacker is still needed in the treaty, as it seems that they will be teching as fast and even faster than us.

    I also suggest we ask that in the the light of our war with Sancta how do they feel will this influence the balance of power? As it is obvious that they will get much more land and cities than us because we are at war while they expand freely.

    Do they feel that the balance of power will mean that they will help us gain as much land and cities as they will have? propably by helping us conquer some of Sancta land?

    These are straight forward questioons I think and real issues with our situation.

    As far as I am concerened if they drop the free 20.000 and say that yes we will help you getting as much land and cities as we will have by conquering Sancta to retain the balance of power..then I will agree to the treaty right now!
     
  7. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Smokey, are you suggesting we ask them to drop the 20k discount while keeping the compensation for excess beakers? Or are you suggesting we ask them about dropping both the 20k discount and the idea of compensation for excess beakers?
     
  8. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd Rest in Peace Black Panther

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    18,113
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    I don't think so. Everyone who has posted recently has had an oppotunity to object, and no one has. So unless you are waiting for a particular person to give you their blessing, I would say go ahead and offer Hunting and Aesthetics via a diplomatic note. Let them (Cavalieros) say why they don't want it or accept it.

    If this is an attempt to blame Cavalieros utter failure to come to their ally's aid on Provolution or :king:, I reject it out of hand. Yes we got off to a rocky start diplomatically, but Cavalieros know as well as we do, that we are supposed to be allies... both members of the CavKaz nation. If they do not send us units to aid in the war, then they are betraying our trust, pure and simple. They have no legitimate excuse for staying out of this war, and if they continue to do so, then we know that they only allied with us to get a tech advantage.

    Niklas was not misled... any attempt to suggest that he was is dishonest. Our team's actions have clearly indicated our desire to be in close partnership with team Cavalieros, at very least in the short term. If Cavalieros want to remain allied until the Space Race as Smoke suggested, why have they not mentioned it? I'm sure our tem would be willing to debate that as well. For right now which is what matters now (as you have stresseed many times), Cavalieros need to respond to us what kind of alliance we have. If they want to be just friends, then fine... Don't send any units, and we can start discussing a payment plan for tech imbalances. If they want to be spouses, they tell us how many units they will send and when. Can you please communicate this to Niklas?

    Wrong. We have already demonstrated our intent to be married (by gifting all tech on request). Any fake confusion on the nature of our alliance is just an attempt on their part to avoid helping us fight the war against SANCTA. You are buying into their (Cavalieros) excuse that "Oh, Provo tricked us into thinking we are allies so we don't have to help you guys because we are still confused about whether we are allied or not... Rubbish, Kool-Aid, Nonsense, etc.

    We have already decided what kind of relationship we want. WE want a relationship that is close enough for us to gift tech on request, and for them to send units to help destroy SANCTA. Is that clear enough for them to understand?;)
     
  9. Indiansmoke

    Indiansmoke Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,124
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    I am saying the drop the 20K agree to help us maintain balance in land, cities and conquer Sancta..and then we can give them/exchange techs freely IMO, no keeping a beacker track.

    It is to their benefit as well because we will use the scientists to buld our way to liberialism which we can share with them.
     
  10. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    PM from Niklas:
    Well, we certainly don't want SANCTA getting math (let alone construction!) for free, do we? We should reply to this note this weekend. We can include something about their proposed treaty as well as asking about hunting and aesthetics. We also need to tell them we will have metal casting soon.

    EDIT: Sommers, Niklas and Team Cav are not trying to use our original diplomatic snafu to avoid helping us in this war. Niklas brought that up long before this war. Also, Team Cav are not bound by our current treaty / contract to aid our war effort. They wanted the kind of alliance that would have morally obligated them to come to our aid but we turned them down. We said we did not want an alliance where we gave techs and got nothing in return. We were adamant that we be compensated for excess beakers. We cannot blame them now if they do not rush to help us. This does not mean they will not help us if we ask. Perhaps that is what they are waiting for, just as we make them ask for techs. Or perhaps they are debating what we must give them in return for their help, just as we have been discussing what we should get for the extra beakers.
     
  11. mikotian

    mikotian Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    211
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ok, so your argument is that A) There is a conflict of interest. B) It's all okay because we will not be behind Cav (i.e. a balance of power will not develop) because we have superior players.

    A little contradictory... Obviously if it's certain that we will always be balanced, then it's quite stupid to be having this discussion. I don't think this is the case, sadly.


    I have in fact put forth a proposal already, which nobody has said anything about. Too lazy to find it now... I'll refine the proposal and put it forth later.







    As for the Sancta proposal:

    Obviously we reject all three and tell Sancta to go to hell!
     
  12. Indiansmoke

    Indiansmoke Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,124
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    Of course reject all 3 Sancta proposals!

    @ Micotian..in case you haven't noticed Cav have 3 cities more than us! There is no way we can keep up with them and fight Sancta at the same time.
     
  13. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    A) is correct. We want to win. They want to win. We cannot both win. Can't have a bigger conflict of interest than that. But as we each pursue our own victory we will have some mutual interests, the biggest being eliminated the chances the other three teams can win. The trick is to work together towards the mutual interest without giving ground where the conflict of interest is concerned. In game terms we ally and take down SANCTA, Saturn and MS while KazCav preserve their own chances of winning.

    I don't quite understand your point B). Perhaps I've done another poor job of communicating. I'm not saying we have better players than Team Cav. Maybe we do, maybe we don't. :dunno: I have no data on their players. I've seen ours here though and have great confidence that our team isn't going to be suckered. I'm also not saying we will never be behind Team Cav. I simply don't know how things are going to develop. I am confident that if we enter into a long term alliance with Team Cav they will honor any agreements we make. I'm confident that our team will be able to define balance of power to extract whatever consessions are needed from Team Cav.

    We need to get a note out to Team Cav this weekend. I'm off to work now. If anyone wants to start on a note please do so.
     
  14. mikotian

    mikotian Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    211
    Location:
    Chicago
    yes exactly. I pointed out the exact same thing a few forum pages ago.
    Cav, due to their size, WILL start to pull ahead.

    And it's not just about the war with Sancta. If we cede the valley, we are going to be stuck inside for 40 turns and Cav will pull further and further ahead.

    That's what I was saying to Donsig.
    Judging by
    Summary: "our players will make sure we won't too far behind because we are skillful." This is definitely not true, because balance of power is as much decided by geography as by skill.

    Then:
    That is two HUGE if's. I don't see where your faith comes from. And as we come closer to the date of separation, that faith will be hard to sustain. In fact, the point of separation may not even be that far off. IF we do successfully neuter Sancta and we take enough of their land to grow substantially in power, the equation completely changes. Cav and Kaz will be two very strong nations versus two smaller and weaker ones. The jockeying and infighting will begin then.
     
  15. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd Rest in Peace Black Panther

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    18,113
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    My response:
    Spoiler :


    My response:
    Spoiler :


    As you can see from the spoilers, I have already responded to/ refuted/ rejected your (Niklas') assertions (excuses) about Cavalieros failure to enter the war. We were not "adamant that we be compensated for excess beakers," maybe you told Niklas that we were, but if you did, that was a miscommunication. Some of us were rigid about compensation, some of us were very flexible about it, and some of us were willing to forgoe a compensation system altogether and accept Cavalieros vision of the treaty. But through our actions (gifting tech), we indicated that we accepted Cavalieros vision. It seems (from your constant refernces to "what Niklas said" and "what Niklas thinks") that Niklas disagrees, but that does not matter. Niklas interpretation of our actions is wrong. We "acted" like allies to them. Now they need to act like allies to us.

    At this point, all we are doing is going back and forth saying "Yes we did," "No we didn't," "Yes we did," "No we didn't" etc, etc... That seems pointless.

    If you say that Kazakhs told Cavalieros that we did not intend to be allies, but instead just business-relationship trading partners... when did we say this? Maybe it would help me accept your (Niklas) position if I saw an official comunique where we told them we did not want to be allies. Did we ever send such a thing? As I have already stated, I consider our in game action of gifting tech to be an official demonstation of our intention to be allies especially given their prior assertions that tech gifting was the act of an ally.

    Huh?!? Look carefully at your statement... Of course we don't want an alliance where we give tech and get nothing in return...!:confused: Why would anyone want an alliance where they get nothing in return?:confused:

    If this is your basis for agreeing with Niklas (about Cavalieros obligations to aid us in the war) then this is very enlightening... You seem to be saying that since we want to get something out of the alliance rather than nothing, we have rejected the concept of alliance :dubious:. That does not make any sense.

    If you are conceding this point to Niklas, I would disagree. We don't need to concede this, just as Cavalieros did not concede the issue of :science: compensation. There is language in the treaty that supports our claim that they are obligated to help us.

    Section 3 of the CavKaz reads in relevant part:
    To me this should be construed to mean that we have an alliance, and that they have an obligation to show a co-operative spirit by helping us in the war. They have no right to seek any minute advantage by haggling over the price of war-time aid.

    Of course Cavalieros will argue for an interpretion that favors them (ie "the treaty only applies to tech," etc.) We should argue for an interpretation that favors us rather than just accepting their interpretation.
     
  16. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Sommers, I suggest you stop trying to convince me of your points and start trying to convince Team Cav.
     
  17. Indiansmoke

    Indiansmoke Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,124
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    I strongly suggest we straight forward ask team Cav if they plan to start making units to help us in the war.

    simple note "Dear brothers we need to know if you plan to help us in the war against Sancta by sending us military units. In 5 turns MS will have HBR, would you consider sending us a stack of HA's?"

    Lets see what they say..
     
  18. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,608
    I agree with Indiansmoke's note.
     
  19. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    I'd be happy to send Smokey's note. Let's give it a few more hours to see if anyone objects to the note.
     
  20. mikotian

    mikotian Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    211
    Location:
    Chicago
    no objections from me.
     

Share This Page