Classified Addendum I - CavKaz Treaty

Provolution

Sage of Quatronia
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
10,102
Location
London
Classified Addendum I - Cavkaz Treaty

I have the following extension of the CavKaz Treaty, after due deliberation. It will cost us the price of one scout (15 hammers), but will leave us an immeasurable degree of security and predictability.

1A)
Cavaleiros will have a scout inside our borders, to move freely at will in our Western Sector, West of the Dar River.

1B)
Kazakhstan will have a scout inside their borders, to move freely at will in their Eastern Sector, likely East of their main river.

2
A Provision will state that we should only develop espionage towards each other to the point we can read each others technology research, but no further.

3. We should have a common Intelligence Advisory Board agreeing on the external application of joint espionage points, providing the other teams with information at our discretion, as well as sanctioning technology trades and trade in goods based on our policies. The Intelligence Advisory Board should also decide on matters of espionage missions. Finally, the Intelligence Advisory Board should develop joint reports on the GDP analysis, compiling our two sets of GDP screens.

4. The Intelligence Advisory Board should also produce long term forecasts on the availability of strategic resources and explain their relative relevance related to the time of their discovery, and present this for the teams to consider in full.


5. The third alliance member should not know of the existence of this joint intelligence treaty, its participants, its objectives, names, actions and so on.
 
I have many questions... but to avoid an extremely long post I will pose them a couple at a time.;)
1A)
Cavaleiros will have a scout inside our borders, to move freely at will in our Western Sector, West of the Dar River.
How many turns will it take from the current turn for Cavalieros' scout to arrive at our Border?

1B)
Kazakhstan will have a scout inside their borders, to move freely at will in their Eastern Sector, likely East of their main river.
Do we have information on an exact path to Cavlieros border so that we do not have to wander looking for it?

Since it would be impossible for an unescorted scout to make it through the pass alive. Does this proposal contemplate:
1. Escorting the scout with a chariot? Or;
2. Will we sail the scout to them in a Galley?

If we we are Sailing,
1. Who is going to tech Sailing, and when?
2. If it is MS, who will tech it if MS refuse to tech it right away?
3. Since we are not including MS in the secret treaty, what justification will we use to get MS to agree to tech Sailing?

I will wait patiently for answers to these questions before asking any others:D
 
I'm opposed to this. A secret alliance inside the True Triple Alliance is a recipe for disaster. If MS even suspects they are the 3rd wheel to be used and then discarded they will immediately flip to S&S. This would also give CAV some "evidence" when they eventually try to get MS to joint backstab us- "Dear MS, KAZ was trying to form a secret alliance with us against you and that's when we realized they were evil. We are your true friends, let's gang up against KAZ and be the final two teams standing."
 
No, the plan is to bring in MS, but in stages. We will discuss this with Cav first, then expand the trust level to MS in three stages. Hey, we havent even met MS yet.
 
We already have open borders with Team Cav, don't we? If we do then scouts can come and go already. There may be some merit to keeping our espionage low towards each other. Not sure we're ready to put that into a treaty yet though.
 
I'm not sure if this will work but I was thinking the quickest way for us to get contact with MS would be:

We gift Cav Oskemen, they gift us one of their cities. We move a warrior into the borders of the gifted city and Cav do likewise. We gift the warrior to Cav and they do likewise. We gift the cities back to the original owners. Hey presto, we have warriors in each other's territory to go about scouting.

Cav gift a city to MS and maybe do the same exchange with them. Whilst MS have a Cav's gifted city we move our warrior next to it and, taa daa, we have contact with MS! We also agree on open borders with MS and maybe then do the same exchange directly with them. So we all have a warrior in the other two allies' territories.

Magic
 
I'm opposed to this. A secret alliance inside the True Triple Alliance is a recipe for disaster. If MS even suspects they are the 3rd wheel to be used and then discarded they will immediately flip to S&S. This would also give CAV some "evidence" when they eventually try to get MS to joint backstab us- "Dear MS, KAZ was trying to form a secret alliance with us against you and that's when we realized they were evil. We are your true friends, let's gang up against KAZ and be the final two teams standing."


Its not like that, this is more as a staged process to get MS involved later. If MS does not live up to the first contract, we can always keep them out of the loop until they have fully earned our trust. MS has a history of weird governance, so I think we can gradually get them first through #1, then after a little bit to #2, and when we fully trust them #3 and #4, as we scrap #5. This is more a traction to the first contract, so no need for a gut reaction to this. The Triple Alliance has to be built in stages, as our internal disagreements is a very solid evidence for. Not all EU members are members of Euro or Schengen, for that matter.
 
Have you already approached CAV with this?

As an individual, backchannel I discussed this with Niklas, and they are considering something along those lines, to better organize our relationship along more predictable lines. I firmly stated this was my personal input, and not our official team position. They agree to the core sentiment of this, as all these elements are already half-hearted practices we gradually tamper with, but to make this more effectful, we can as well organize it in a better manner.

#5 is something we may need to look closer at, we need to balance out the trust with MS in stages, and not try to teach them everything in one go, as these relationships are by themselves incremental in nature. We just have a longer history with Cav, so its easier to start there.
 
I'm not sure if this will work but I was thinking the quickest way for us to get contact with MS would be:

We gift Cav Oskemen, they gift us one of their cities. We move a warrior into the borders of the gifted city and Cav do likewise. We gift the warrior to Cav and they do likewise. We gift the cities back to the original owners. Hey presto, we have warriors in each other's territory to go about scouting.

Cav gift a city to MS and maybe do the same exchange with them. Whilst MS have a Cav's gifted city we move our warrior next to it and, taa daa, we have contact with MS! We also agree on open borders with MS and maybe then do the same exchange directly with them. So we all have a warrior in the other two allies' territories.

Magic

I think we should do it the conventional way, or the Sancta crowd will cause problems in the UN, simply because Sancta is a troublesome bunch that seeks to aggravate as much as they can in the metagame, knowing the nature of several of their key players. By itself, a good idea, but they are very jealous about "creative" approaches in the game, something me and Donsig experienced firsthand in a Civ3 demogame, where they tricked the game mods to leak national security data, something they later admitted was a mistake.
 
I have many questions... but to avoid an extremely long post I will pose them a couple at a time.;)
How many turns will it take from the current turn for Cavalieros' scout to arrive at our Border?

Do we have information on an exact path to Cavlieros border so that we do not have to wander looking for it?

Since it would be impossible for an unescorted scout to make it through the pass alive. Does this proposal contemplate:
1. Escorting the scout with a chariot? Or;
2. Will we sail the scout to them in a Galley?

If we we are Sailing,
1. Who is going to tech Sailing, and when?
2. If it is MS, who will tech it if MS refuse to tech it right away?
3. Since we are not including MS in the secret treaty, what justification will we use to get MS to agree to tech Sailing?

I will wait patiently for answers to these questions before asking any others:D

1/2
I think we should sail it to them in a galley, we need to scout the Western lands as well via boat, also considering islands.Good question, and I think this is a decent answer.

MS is already teching sailing

The intelligence agreement is a separate agreement we make bilaterally with Team Cav, where we plan to introduce MS in stages, as trust is developed.
 
Too many complicated things with city swapping. Plus it does kinda go against the spirit of the game. We don't want to get in an argument about an exploit around the Paper rule.
 
Even though I'm not a senior member, must say that i'm not very fond of city swapping. Too articulated of a trade for me to be comfortable in a context were I do not really know what is the risk aversion of the partner. If risk aversion, as a quantitative variable, was known it would be a completly other discusion.
 
2. A Provision will state that we should only develop espionage towards each other to the point we can read each others technology research, but no further.
I don't really see the point of this. Why would we need to have espionage on each other at all? We should be investing all espionage against S&S

3. We should have a common Intelligence Advisory Board agreeing on the external application of joint espionage points, providing the other teams with information at our discretion, as well as sanctioning technology trades and trade in goods based on our policies. The Intelligence Advisory Board should also decide on matters of espionage missions. Finally, the Intelligence Advisory Board should develop joint reports on the GDP analysis, compiling our two sets of GDP screens.
We've already working on sharing demog analysis, I just need help getting the dang things into a spreadsheet.
4. The Intelligence Advisory Board should also produce long term forecasts on the availability of strategic resources and explain their relative relevance related to the time of their discovery, and present this for the teams to consider in full.


5. The third alliance member should not know of the existence of this joint intelligence treaty, its participants, its objectives, names, actions and so on.
Hmm, I'm just not really sure what all of this adds :rolleyes:
 
Top Bottom