We are very happy to see Cavalieros' exponential growth. However, our team has become increasingly worried that the fundamental premise of balance of power that has been the backbone of our alliance is becoming irreversibly skewed. As the western end of the CavKaz alliance grows, unfettered by SANCTA, the eastern side is threatened.
Our CavKaz alliance has recently been placed in jeopardy by the recent SANCTA attacks. We are therefore desperately in need of action to be taken to re-establish the balance-of-power between us. This will help the entire CavKaz alliance by enabling us to push SANCTA out of CavKaz land.
Towards this end, we propose that you gift us the four (4) closest cities to our borders so that we have enough cities to build an army and press the conflict with SANCTA. Once we have cleared the SANCTA dogs from our lands, we can re-asses the balance of power and re-divide our CavKaz cities as appropriate.
We also request that you gift us a battle group of units to fight SANCTA. This can be accomplished by moving the units into the territory of the gifted cities. We are happy to return your forces to you, once SANCTA has been sufficiently beaten back.
We hope that Cavalieros is willing to continue maintaining a balance of power in the CavKaz. We hope that we have performed as true friends to our West CavKaz brothers in the past, and that we will continue to support each other in the future. As you are aware, our alliance has lasted well beyond the original agreed obligatory period (Turn 115), a true testament to our commitment to each other.
We are happy to formally accept your proposal for a balance-of-power alliance, if that is the primary obstacle to your full co-operation to destroy SANCTA. We are therefore willing to sign your proposed treaty with the sole addition of a clause preventing either of us from declaring war on a third party without the other's consent. Please be advised that we have always felt that our conduct (ie. tech gifting) was a constructive acceptance of the balance of power arrangement, so we did not feel that a formal agreement was needed. However, if ink on the page puts our CavKaz brothers at ease, we are most pleased to oblige, as always.
We are confident that you will aid us as requsted, so that our glorious alliance can continue forward, even stronger than before. We look forward to your response, and will wait to hear from you, prior to further alliance-related action on our part.
It is true, but what exactly is that concrete request? 4 cities? Is that what we want?
What we want is them getting involved in the war and together eliminating Sancta, then taking all of Sancta land for ourselves. That is what we really want.
So now it is a question of faith....do we trust Cav to hold their promise to build up military and attack or not? If they formally say they will, I would trust them...if they reply with vague statements then I would start thinking to talk with Sancta.
I like Donsig's note better, it is a bit apologetic and maybe we need to tone down the apologies abit, but it is more friendly and that is how it needs to be IMO.
It is true, but what exactly is that concrete request? 4 cities? Is that what we want?
What we want is them getting involved in the war and together eliminating Sancta, then taking all of Sancta land for ourselves. That is what we really want.
I know you said you like Donsig's note so I am not trying to convince you otherwise... I just wanted to respond to your point about 'concreteness.'
What is 'concrete' in the note:
Towards this end, we propose that you gift us the four (4) closest cities to our borders so that we have enough cities to build an army and press the conflict with SANCTA. Once we have cleared the SANCTA dogs from our lands, we can re-asses the balance of power and re-divide our CavKaz cities as appropriate.
We also request that you gift us a battle group of units to fight SANCTA. This can be accomplished by moving the units into the territory of the gifted cities. We are happy to return your forces to you, once SANCTA has been sufficiently beaten back.
As you are aware, our alliance has lasted well beyond the original agreed obligatory period (Turn 115), a true testament to our commitment to each other.
We are happy to formally accept your proposal for a balance-of-power alliance, if that is the primary obstacle to your full co-operation to destroy SANCTA.
We will sign the Cavalieros alliance agreement addendum.
We are therefore willing to sign your proposed treaty with the sole addition of a clause preventing either of us from declaring war on a third party without the other's consent.
All I am saying is that the 4 cities gifting which might be a bit too much for Cav to swallow, is not needed necessarilly. If Cav build up an army and we take Sancta land with their help that would be enough.
Also I said I liked Donsig's note because it is more friendly and less authoritative, not because of the content.
Sommers, let's not start counting votes yet since both proposals need work. Also, 3 of the votes you count for your version have yet to endorse your revised version nor have they been given much chance to comment on my version. I do not have time to revise my note but if anyone else wants to do that or propose a third note then please do so. Also, you don't have to like Team Cav but you do have to hide your dislike of them if you want to convince them to give us 4 cities and a battle group.
I would like to make some quick points about Sommer's note.
Adding very to the first sentence doesn't make the note more friendly, it just begins on a sarcastic note and I'm quite sure someone on Team Cav will pick that up. Perhaps you should consider pointing out our lack of growth potential after the first sentence.
The current second sentence will be seen as total BS. They offered us a balance of power alliance and we never replied. Now we're gonna talk like that was a done deal?
The second paragraph (and the note as a whole) lacks the implication that we'll join SANCTA. This is of course the most difficult part of the letter to craft. We want to get that point across without seeming to be threatening to do so.
I do not like paragraphs 3 and 4. As pointed out gifting 4 cities might be too much for Team Cav to swallow - and would that really help us defeat SANCTA anyway? Asking for a battle group is great but we'd probably be asking for something they do not have right now. I'd be more comforatable if these paragraphs were later in the letter (after we say we're willing to sign their treaty) and offered as suggestions for restoring a balance of power. We should also solicit Team Cav's ideas on bringing about the balance.
The fifth paragraph is good though I would change maintaining to restore or something similar. This paragraph should be second.
I can't find anything wrong with the last two paragraphs.
I'll be offline most of the day so I won't be able to contribute more for awhile. I do hope we can take our time on this important letter.
Im counting votes, because this issue is time sensitive... We need to send our note to team Cav ASAP. Cavalieros are waiting for us to take their turn.
The revisions are just what was requested by the folks who support the note, so there is no reason they would make supporters completely change their mind to your note. You are obviously just trying to stall to maintain the status quo... nice try.
Also, Forgive me, but since you have already stated your complete opposition to the note, your laundry list of reasons the note is insufficient are just a lengthy re-statement of your prior position, ie., "I don't like Sommers note." We already know that, thanks.
Furthermore, It is ironic that you claim that I'm not credible to craft a note to team Cavalieros because I obviously dislike Cavalieros... while you simultaneously ignore what that statement also implies... You are not credible to critique my note because you obviously dislike me (or at least my note).
Finally, it is especially dubious that you had time to write such a loooong-winded critique, and paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of my note, but you "didn't have time" to revise your own note.
My note is fine, and the majority of the team have endorsed it. Your note has already been rejected, and as you say... you dont have time to revise it... AND you will conveniently be out of contact for "awhile." I think you have answered your own question here. We won't be sending your note.
Sommer if you are going to send this note, how about adding a paragraph that says that we will eventually return their cities when we capture Sancta cities and Sancta is sufficiently beaten back?
And also how about leaving it for them to decide whether they gift the units or they join the war?
OK Smoke, what about the following additions to paragraphs 3 and 4? If you are willing to endorse my note, I will make these changes and go ahead and send the note. We need to make bold demands... Let Cavalieros make a counteroffer stating their intent to enter the war rather than gift units.
Towards this end, we propose that you gift us the four (4) closest cities to our borders so that we have enough cities to build an army and press the conflict with SANCTA. Once we have cleared the SANCTA dogs from our lands, we can re-asses the balance of power and re-divide our CavKaz cities as appropriate. We are also willing to return your gifted cities to you outright, once the SANCTA threat has been beaten back.
We also request that you gift us a battle group of units to fight SANCTA. This can be accomplished by moving the units into the territory of the gifted cities. We are happy to return your forces to you, once SANCTA has been sufficiently beaten back. We further request that you immediately declare war on the SANCTA enemies.
I say the above comment because, I have learned from experience (the hard way) that any changes to placate Donsig are pointless. Once Donsig has taken a stance against something I want to do, any "suggestions" by Donsig, about what I can do differently are illusory... Donsig will never change his opposition, no matter what I change...
If we seriously want to try for a balance of power agreement with Team Cav then I suggest Sommers is not the one we should have drafting a message to them.
Donsig's critique of my note started, NOT with any constructive criticism of the note itself, but with an objection to Sommers being the one to write it... That was the first and most important objection that Donsig has to my note... The fact that I drafted it.
Donsig's real problem with the note is not really anything that the note says. Donsig's real problem is with Sommers in general. As a result, Donsig will be against the note as long as Sommers has anything to do with it. That is obvious IMO.
No worries, no hard feelings, its just a fact, and what I have seen happen time and time again.
It is a little humorous to me that the last time we had a dispute between two notes... One written by Sommers and one written by Donsig... Donsig criticized the Sommers note, claiming that it wasn't "strong" or "forceful" enough... Remember that?
Now Donsig is criticizing the Sommers note to Cavalieros, by saying it is not "nice" or "friendly" enough. This inconsistency makes it obvious that Donsig's opposition is less about content, or tone, and more about personal beefs. That is my analysis.
Another thing to mention in the letter could be to say that we would like to build universities and oxford (we get a production bonus on this) but unless we get military help we cannot continue to be the tech workhorse of the alliance.
I probably like donsig's proposal a bit more than Sommers after having read both of them. I think it better frames our position, but it would make sense to also include a specif ask (gift of cities or military aid in x number of turns).
We can also point out that Team Cav has a trait bonus for building settlers and that they also have plenty of room to expand into the senter of the map. Another pootential point to bring up is that previously Team Cav said they were too far away to provide aid vs. Sancta. That no longer holds up as they now have cities that practically border Sancata and have increased road movement.
Gifting cities (and DoW on SANCTA) is something that Cavalieros can do right now. Gifting military or joining the war is something that they would be doing later (after we gift them the tech).
Our only leverage to pressure them to enter the war AFTER we gift the tech, is the gifted cities. If they want the cities back, they will have to help us take the SANCTA cities.
Otherwise, they can just claim to intend to send units, join the war etc., in order to take our tech, and then endlessly stall and ultimately do nothing.
Damnrunners above post "probably" creates a tie. Without 's vote we probably can not break the tie, and he has not posted in a few days...
The way I have ordinarily approached breaking ties, is to give the turnplayer king the tie-breaker vote.
However, since has not posted for a couple days, and we need to respond to Cavalieros tech request ASAP, I would say that the current turnplayer (Cavscout) gets the tie-breaker vote.
This means that the Sommers note will be sent, given our current situation. I have sent the note (with Smoke's additions above) to Oyzar, via PM. I will send via email in 6 hours.
Here is what was sent:
Spoiler:
Dear CavKaz brothers:
We are very happy to see Cavalieros' exponential growth. However, our team has become increasingly worried that the fundamental premise of balance of power that has been the backbone of our alliance is becoming irreversibly skewed. As the western end of the CavKaz alliance grows, unfettered by SANCTA, the eastern side is threatened.
Our CavKaz alliance has recently been placed in jeopardy by the recent SANCTA attacks. We are therefore desperately in need of action to be taken to re-establish the balance-of-power between us. This will help the entire CavKaz alliance by enabling us to push SANCTA out of CavKaz land.
Towards this end, we propose that you gift us the four (4) closest cities to our borders so that we have enough cities to build an army and press the conflict with SANCTA. Once we have cleared the SANCTA dogs from our lands, we can re-asses the balance of power and re-divide our CavKaz cities as appropriate. We are also willing to return your gifted cities to you outright, once the SANCTA threat has been beaten back.
We also request that you gift us a battle group of units to fight SANCTA. This can be accomplished by moving the units into the territory of the gifted cities. We are happy to return your forces to you, once SANCTA has been sufficiently beaten back. We further request that you immediately declare war on the SANCTA enemies.
We hope that Cavalieros is willing to continue maintaining a balance of power in the CavKaz. We hope that we have performed as true friends to our West CavKaz brothers in the past, and that we will continue to support each other in the future. As you are aware, our alliance has lasted well beyond the original agreed obligatory period (Turn 115), a true testament to our commitment to each other.
We are happy to formally accept your proposal for a balance-of-power alliance, if that is the primary obstacle to your full co-operation to destroy SANCTA. We are therefore willing to sign your proposed treaty with the sole addition of a clause preventing either of us from declaring war on a third party without the other's consent. Please be advised that we have always felt that our conduct (ie. tech gifting) was a constructive acceptance of the balance of power arrangement, so we did not feel that a formal agreement was needed. However, if ink on the page puts our CavKaz brothers at ease, we are most pleased to oblige, as always.
We are confident that you will aid us as requsted, so that our glorious alliance can continue forward, even stronger than before. We look forward to your response, and will wait to hear from you, prior to further alliance-related action on our part.
I think the most recent version of Sommers' note is a good one. We need to be politely firm- if we aren't firm now then we can forget ever asserting ourselves to CAV again.
You know you guys rush things way too much. Anyone ever consider asking for a pause in the game? That in itself would have said alot to both SANCTA and Team Cav.
I'm not going to bother responding to all your comments Sommers. I will only say that I responded to your revised note by explaining what changes would have helped me to endorse your note and why I thought they were needed. I had hoped you'd make some further revisions and we'd end up with a note we all liked. I thought this was a more promising use of my limited time this morning (rather than revising my own proposal). I guess I was wrong.
BTW, did we really ask Team Cav to declare war on SANCTA immediately - even though we aren't even at war with them now?
Donsig is wrong, we need to get a response to Cavalieros quickly, so that they have time to respond/negotiate with us.
Also, game is already paused. Oyzar asked for a pause while waiting for us to gift the tech. Cavalieros are waiting for our response to finish the turn. I will send the note I PM'ed via email once I get home (about 1 hour from now).
As far as getting a note that pleases everyone , that is not possible IMO. We can't let our diplo be paralyzed by minute details/gripes. A good note now is better than a perfect note a week from now.
As for your "points" about the note Donsig, I did not ignore them. As I said above, I just regard your criticism in general as disingenuous... Sorry, but its based on honest experience... Just go back through the threads... Every time I try to accomodate your suggestions/revisions etc., it does no good whatsoever. You still oppose, oppose, oppose... period.
However, because I am a glutton for punishment, and to show you that I did read your so-called suggestions, here are my specific responses to why they were not included. I would also like to point out that you did not even bother to respond to my above points (probably because you know that I am right, and you have no response) Nevertheless I will again show you enough respect to respond to your points (why I'm not sure) while you refuse to do the same for me. I will use spoilers because there is alot to address.
I would like to make some quick points about Sommer's note.
Adding very to the first sentence doesn't make the note more friendly, it just begins on a sarcastic note and I'm quite sure someone on Team Cav will pick that up. Perhaps you should consider pointing out our lack of growth potential after the first sentence.
The current second sentence will be seen as total BS. They offered us a balance of power alliance and we never replied. Now we're gonna talk like that was a done deal?
The second paragraph (and the note as a whole) lacks the implication that we'll join SANCTA. This is of course the most difficult part of the letter to craft. We want to get that point across without seeming to be threatening to do so.
I do not like paragraphs 3 and 4. As pointed out gifting 4 cities might be too much for Team Cav to swallow - and would that really help us defeat SANCTA anyway? Asking for a battle group is great but we'd probably be asking for something they do not have right now. I'd be more comforatable if these paragraphs were later in the letter (after we say we're willing to sign their treaty) and offered as suggestions for restoring a balance of power. We should also solicit Team Cav's ideas on bringing about the balance.
The fifth paragraph is good though I would change maintaining to restore or something similar. This paragraph should be second.
I can't find anything wrong with the last two paragraphs.
Point 1 is flat out wrong, and is a petty criticism at best. That section is language Damnrunner suggested and Cavscout supported so it stays in the note... period.
Point 2 is flat out wrong, and an unqualified opinion (on your part) with no basis whatsoever. I have already, repeatedly offered an alternative interpretation of the balance-of-power obligation. This is carefully spelled out in the note. MY interpretation FAVORS US. The interpretation that you continue to push FAVORS THEM. I don't understand why you continue to push an interpretation that favors THEM OVER US, other than your love of
Point 3 - Read the following passages carefully Donsig... They are from the many paragraphs in the note (5,6 &7) that you approved of:
Spoiler:
1. We hope that Cavalieros is willing to continue maintaining a balance of power in the CavKaz.
2. We hope that we have performed as true friends to our West CavKaz brothers in the past, and that we will continue to support each other in the future.
3. As you are aware, our alliance has lasted well beyond the original agreed obligatory period (Turn 115), a true testament to our commitment to each other.
4. We are confident that you will aid us as requsted, so that our glorious alliance can continue forward, even stronger than before.
5. We look forward to your response, and will wait to hear from you, prior to further alliance-related action on our part.
My Translations - Point 3 + 4 (since you obviously missed the point):
Spoiler:
1. We are gently asking them whether they want to continue the CavKaz
2. We are reminding them of our past support and asking whether they want to be allies in the future.
3. We are reminding them that our treaty has expired, (ie we can dump them at any time-- Obviously for SANCTA) Cavalieros are not babies... they are experienced players, and they will understand what this means, loud and clear. If you don't think they can read between the lines, you can just send a PM to the North Pole and spell it out more clearly for them.
4. We are telling them that if they don't give us what we want, the alliance can not continue.
5. We are telling them that our alliance is on hold (including tech gifting) until they give us what we want.
I think Cavalieros can intuit that if we leave them, we go to SANCTA. That should be obvious. So as you can see, your point 3 is misguided and unnecessary.
Point 4 is self-contradicting. You complain (with zero evidence BTW) that we ask for something they don't have (units), while simultaneously complaining that we ask for something they have (cities). We can't ask for stuff they have, we can't ask for stuff they dont have yet... What can we ask for then?... Advice? Do you see why that complaint is ludicrous? I hope so.
And how do you know they don't have units anyway?
We need to ask for tangible concessions now, that we can leverage to get them to perform on their promises later. We keep the cities until after the war, then we give them back. Otherwise we can't be sure they will deliver.
As for your other complaints...like, "The paragraph is placed wrong" ?!?... I did not know you were a literature professor , AND "We need to solicit Cavalieros' ideas about balance-of-power" ?!? Hello??? We already did that, and just got a bunch of doubletalk and diplospeak.
I for one am through with letting them define balance-of-power. We (Kaz) define it as Cavalieros gifting us cities, to even-up our teams' city-totals and units to fight SANCTA... period.
The other points basically approve of the rest of the note... So as you can see, there was no reason to include any of your other suggestions because they were either wrong, misinformed or irelevant... Not to mention the fact that you can't be persuaded anyway... That is why your suggestions were left out.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)... I will simply say...
).
That was the first and most important objection that Donsig has to my note... The fact that I drafted it. 
Without 
's vote we probably can not break the tie, and he has not posted in a few days...
, that is not possible IMO. We can't let our diplo be paralyzed by minute details/gripes. A good note now is better than a perfect note a week from now.
Do you see why that complaint is ludicrous? I hope so.
