After some rather heated discussion in the warmup game, I'm concerned that some of our allies might reconsider their treaty positions. Any ideas on how we can feel that out without making it worse?
Check relations with our allies
- Thread starter DaveShack
- Start date
Hmm, I just read that thread, and it doesn't look good. However, for what it's worth, CDZ seem unlikely to backstab us before any treaty we have expires, as that was what started the whole mess in the first place. What does worry me though, is the attack that will come ~3 turns after.
What I would do as CDZ, if I was fully intent on attacking us, would be to have a fleet parked up behind our island, hidden in the fog. Thus, when the treaty runs out, instant army. If the world fully wraps (not sure about this) then it is even worse, because we won't see it coming.
I'm not sure how we can sound them out, because the question we are basically trying to ask is "Are you going to attack us as soon as our treaty expires?", which is not an easy one to ask subtly.
So my thoughts would be to prepare for the fact that they will attack us, and pretty soon after our treaty lapses.
By the way, does anyone know when that will be?
Another thought, we should DEFFINATELY try for circumnavigation bonus, so we can counter the CDZ UB. If they get it, their fleets will probably rule the seas.
What I would do as CDZ, if I was fully intent on attacking us, would be to have a fleet parked up behind our island, hidden in the fog. Thus, when the treaty runs out, instant army. If the world fully wraps (not sure about this) then it is even worse, because we won't see it coming.
I'm not sure how we can sound them out, because the question we are basically trying to ask is "Are you going to attack us as soon as our treaty expires?", which is not an easy one to ask subtly.
So my thoughts would be to prepare for the fact that they will attack us, and pretty soon after our treaty lapses.
By the way, does anyone know when that will be?
Another thought, we should DEFFINATELY try for circumnavigation bonus, so we can counter the CDZ UB. If they get it, their fleets will probably rule the seas.
BLubmuz
HoF Quattromaster
That's a focus on one of the problems we can face.
I posted something about our mid-long term strategy in the "Turn discussion thread".
At present we're doing darn good in MM (micromanagement) and in choosing our settling locations.
But i raised some question which need an aswer. Soon, poosibly. Imean, not in 24 hours, but in a week or so. We must try to have the "big picture" of our game and of our alliances.
I agree on the navigation bonus. We have a great UU for this map, it's worth let it becoming even better. And the vikings already have that bonus with their UB.
BLubmuz
HoF Quattromaster
If i missed nothing (and i'm not sure), currently we have an alliance only with one team: Amazon. To be accurate, more than a true alliance is just a NAP.
With the two other members of the ETTT we have nothing in terms of NAP or anything else. They have nothing to break to attack us.
I've read all the diplo messages with them and they are not much different from the ones of Mavericks and Merlot. The only difference is that we acknowledge ourseves reciprocally as Members of the ETTT. period.
Beside OB we have any other agreement with them. I repeat: They (CDZ and Quatronia) won't need to break anything to attack us at any moment. The ETTT does not mention any condition outside the terms of tech trading. Implicitly or explicitly.
With the two other members of the ETTT we have nothing in terms of NAP or anything else. They have nothing to break to attack us.
I've read all the diplo messages with them and they are not much different from the ones of Mavericks and Merlot. The only difference is that we acknowledge ourseves reciprocally as Members of the ETTT. period.
Beside OB we have any other agreement with them. I repeat: They (CDZ and Quatronia) won't need to break anything to attack us at any moment. The ETTT does not mention any condition outside the terms of tech trading. Implicitly or explicitly.
AlphaShard
Emperor
I really hope that they are all sensible enough to keep seperate the things in that game and this one. Darkness seemed to be the only one that seemed to relate the two games together.
pindicator
Emperor
Yeah, but strong emotions are never sensible -- if they feel slighted or offended it will show up in this game, the question is just how much will it show.
Trystero
Deity
Sorry, my current vacation has me out of the loop. Could someone summarize what's happened between us and CDZ? I'm the CDZ diplomat, and I haven't heard anything from them.
azzaman333
meh
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Trystero: Basically BCLG made a grumbling/aggressive comment about my present position in the Test Pitboss game (entirely separate to this game), and I made the mistake of joking back to him without realising that he and at least one other member of CDZ were... somewhat unable to understand my sense of humour, to put it mildly. (One particular member seemed to think I was practically the antichrist for daring to respond with what he interpreted as aggression towards his friend's aggressive comment. He seemed to miss the irony.) Anyway, the resulting complete overreaction included a comment by one member of the CDZ team along the lines of "we should backstab team Sirius to get back at him".
Now, it's probable that it was a spur of the moment thing, and wasn't serious. Logically there should be no reason for the argument from that game to have any fallout in this game. I haven't even been involved here for quite a while, and I mentioned that in the thread. However, I'm not convinced that the all of the CDZ team members are entirely logical. So I do apologise if there's any fallout in this game from the unrelated other game. I'd never have bothered to write that response in the first place if I'd realised what a ridiculously out-of-proportion reaction it would have recieved.
Anyway, I just wanted to apologise to you guys about that. With any luck the separate issues should be constrained to the separate games, and we can keep going about our daily business as usual here. Something tells me we should just steer clear of signing my name to any CDZ diplomacy for the moment.
Now, it's probable that it was a spur of the moment thing, and wasn't serious. Logically there should be no reason for the argument from that game to have any fallout in this game. I haven't even been involved here for quite a while, and I mentioned that in the thread. However, I'm not convinced that the all of the CDZ team members are entirely logical. So I do apologise if there's any fallout in this game from the unrelated other game. I'd never have bothered to write that response in the first place if I'd realised what a ridiculously out-of-proportion reaction it would have recieved.
Anyway, I just wanted to apologise to you guys about that. With any luck the separate issues should be constrained to the separate games, and we can keep going about our daily business as usual here. Something tells me we should just steer clear of signing my name to any CDZ diplomacy for the moment.
Trystero
Deity
Thanks LP and azzaman. Looking over some of the posts, I agree it seems like things got unnecessarily heated, and that it should not impact this game. I am hoping cooler heads will prevail. I have had limited but positive interactions with Robi on CDZ through our diplomacy (we did offer them a warning about barbs as a gesture of goodwill early on). Regardless, it would be hard for them to "backstab" us, since we don't have any non-aggression agreements with them. Also, they are currently benefiting from our tech trading alliance. I think/hope this will all blow over.
Similar threads
