Dealing with Demands from other nations

[KCCrusader]

My apologies on my false remembrance I went back and DAve shack is right, the immediate close of the game applied to peace negotiations only.

With my previous option unable to be used, I think the members present in the Turn Chat should decide what is the best action to take. While this may seem oligarchist, each situtation will be different as far as demands, strength of the enemy and distance from the enemy. If an enemy is on the other side of the world, we can more justifiably risk war with the nation no matter how powerful (as long as we arent on the same continent and everyone has steam power already )

 

[Provolution]

Modern Governments use policy briefs to develop foreign policy.
FA wil write a policy brief on each CIV we meet, and have one thread for each CIV.
People with arguments are valid to come with their input, and if there is reasonable doubt on a foreign policy, I will poll it. I will consult with all ministries in making the report, sp it will stand strong against unsubstantiated criticism and populist winds.

 

[Comnenus]

What I found by attending tc was that the DP, Judiciary, and Ministers consulted the forums for what they could determine to be the WOTP (Will of the People). That is why it is important to post. Polls can't be conducted on everything, but the posts will give the leadership an idea of what the people want to do in a given situation.

For my part, I don't give in to an Ai's demands if I believe I am strong enough to hold off an attack. If it is something minor, like gold or a lux, I will usually do it though.

 

[Bobby Lee]

Giving in to a demand is a concession of weakness and a de facto declaration that we are vassals of the other nation. We cannot give in to any demands! We have good easily defensible terrain around us. There is no reason why we should not hold off an attack.

 

[blackheart]

Giving in to a demand is a concession of weakness and a de facto declaration that we are vassals of the other nation. We cannot give in to any demands! We have good easily defensible terrain around us. There is no reason why we should not hold off an attack.

I agree 100% with Bobby Lee on this. We should never give into demands, other nations will view this as a "weak" action and will be more tempted to make demands of us. Demands should be perceived as a threat and a possible act of war. Why should we give in to aggression from other civs? We are a strong and noble people and can hold our own. Once we give in we will never be able to raise our heads up again.

On a more historical note, look at pre WW2. European countries kept giving in to demands by Hitler to avoid war, and where did that lead them?

 

[Isabelle]

On a more historical note, look at pre WW2. European countries kept giving in to demands by Hitler to avoid war, and where did that lead them?

One word : Poland.

You have to take this on a case by case basis. Basically, just be sensible. If a civ which could really crush us, or cause us some serious hassle, demands 10 gold and a world map from us, it would be much, much more sensible to give into their demands than spark a war which could be our downfall, after all, there's always vengeance. But applying the same policy to everything without taking situational specifics into account would be silly.

 

[Provolution]

I agree Isabelle, that is why we will make national briefs on each civ, and post them in threads for comments. This is more a question of meritocracy than democracy.
Those who makes comments will be heard.

 

[blackheart]

One word : Poland.

You have to take this on a case by case basis. Basically, just be sensible. If a civ which could really crush us, or cause us some serious hassle, demands 10 gold and a world map from us, it would be much, much more sensible to give into their demands than spark a war which could be our downfall, after all, there's always vengeance. But applying the same policy to everything without taking situational specifics into account would be silly.

Either way Poland would have been annexed sooner or later.

We really shouldn't be at a point where another civ could easily crush us in a monarch game. What I'm saying is it is a matter of principle. Once we start giving in to demands, where do are we going to stop?

But on the other hand I do agree with you in that kind of scenario, if we're absolutely gonna lose if we fight them and their demands aren't ridiculous, then yes appease them, for now.

 

[Bobby Lee]

If they are only "demands 10 gold and a world map from us" (Isabelle) then they aren't going to declare war anyways unless our world map has something they really need to know about. If they really need to know about it then we shouldn't give it to them, simple as that.

Demands are hostile acts and should viewed as proposals of vassalage from another nation. Case by case basis reasoning sounds well and good but the principle still applies. Case by case is only truly useful for other treaties, like trade agreements, RoP's, and MPP's.

 

[MSTK]

BTW, in other demogames, how did they determine when to make peace and whatnot?

 

[Black_Hole]

BTW, in other demogames, how did they determine when to make peace and whatnot?

basically last game, we never got peace... after our first war we just mowed throught the nations
usually it will be a poll

Never give into demands!

 

[ravensfire]

BTW, in other demogames, how did they determine when to make peace and whatnot?

Generally, the FA leader would determine under what criteria tribute could be paid, or ignored on a civ by civ basis. Comments about this policy were made in the FA government thread, or in a discussion thread. The leader would create the criteria based on these discussions.

For war/peace, this was done via poll when possible.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Comnenus]

If they are only "demands 10 gold and a world map from us" (Isabelle) then they aren't going to declare war anyways unless our world map has something they really need to know about. If they really need to know about it then we shouldn't give it to them, simple as that.

Demands are hostile acts and should viewed as proposals of vassalage from another nation. Case by case basis reasoning sounds well and good but the principle still applies. Case by case is only truly useful for other treaties, like trade agreements, RoP's, and MPP's.

I believe the FA has stated that we will not give up world maps, have to check this. Also, the FA plans on having a plan in place for each nation we have relations with, so we will know what to do in each case.

 

[GenMarshall]

Once I return from my karate class tonight, Ill set up the poll regarding with Dealing with Demands from other nations. I intend to create a multi-choice poll. Here is the preview of what the options would look like.

What demand should we give into
Gold Demand (Under or exactly 15g)
Gold Demand (Over 15g)
Tech Demand
Map Demand (World Map)
Map Demand (Territory Map)
Resource Demand (Luxuries)
Resource Demand (Stratigic)
Communications Demand
Abstain

 

[Black_Hole]

What demand should we give into
Gold Demand (Under or exactly 15g) Yes
Gold Demand (Over 15g) Please be a bit more specific in the poll(add more options)
Tech Demand
Map Demand (World Map)
Map Demand (Territory Map)
Resource Demand (Luxuries)
Resource Demand (Stratigic)
Communications Demand

 

[Provolution]

We got an almost identical question in the elections for FA, and a poll on this makes equally little sense here as there. What we can poll, is the relationship to each Civ. To a superpower, we may give everything away just to survive, to a smaller nation, we would give nothing away, maybe even demand a city in return for the audience.

 

[KCCrusader]

I agree 100% with Bobby Lee on this. We should never give into demands, other nations will view this as a "weak" action and will be more tempted to make demands of us. Demands should be perceived as a threat and a possible act of war. Why should we give in to aggression from other civs? We are a strong and noble people and can hold our own. Once we give in we will never be able to raise our heads up again.

On a more historical note, look at pre WW2. European countries kept giving in to demands by Hitler to avoid war, and where did that lead them?

I don't think roleplaying should influence our decisions. When speaking of actions to take within the game I believe we should think only of the game situation, not a real life theory. In the GAME that we are trying to do the best at, the AI has no emotion. They also have no preception of our country except a simple scale ranging from FURIOUS to GRACIOUS. They calculate our strength based upon the number of units, wonders and other power things we have. Not our actions. Therefore I would consider this matter only on a level of gameplay rather than roleplay. And roleplaying can come later.

 

[invy]

No limits. If we dont want war we should give 'stupid' map and 10-20 gold, but if we are ready than simply reject demand. I wouldn't like getting into war unprepared for teritory map and gold. To add, if AI wants resources, techs or luxuries than reject is a must unless we can't defend. Everything depends on situation so making limits like 'we dont wanna give 15+gold' aren't really useful.
I noticed in my game that AI is bluffing when we have the same army (military advisor says we have average army compared to that nation), if AI is stronger then they declare a war.

 

[Black_Hole]

We got an almost identical question in the elections for FA, and a poll on this makes equally little sense here as there. What we can poll, is the relationship to each Civ. To a superpower, we may give everything away just to survive, to a smaller nation, we would give nothing away, maybe even demand a city in return for the audience.

this willl work, but what happens if we meet someone in a chat? and they demand something... then the dp would decide what to do, i believe its more democratic if we have a base set up(like this) and then have exceptions for certain civs we know about

 

[blackheart]

No limits. If we dont want war we should give 'stupid' map and 10-20 gold, but if we are ready than simply reject demand. I wouldn't like getting into war unprepared for teritory map and gold. To add, if AI wants resources, techs or luxuries than reject is a must unless we can't defend. Everything depends on situation so making limits like 'we dont wanna give 15+gold' aren't really useful. I noticed in my game that AI is bluffing when we have the same army (military advisor says we have average army compared to that nation), if AI is stronger then they declare a war.

The AI doesn't declare war for not giving them 10 gold. I've never had this happen to me. Most of the time it is some far away civ that declares war on me for not giving in to their demands. At no point in time should we have such a weak military that we can't properly defend ourselves.

This isn't a matter of roleplay, it is a matter of playing style. If they are demanding something from us it is obvious that they intend hostile moves towards us, even if it is the comp. Roleplaying is part of what makes the demogame fun.