Diplomacy with the Anarchos

[Lanzelot]

First of all, thanks a lot, templar, for the huge effort in time and nerves that you have sacrificed for our team in the last days!

Edit: if they start to act like total morons again after we post our counter-proposal, which is not too unlikely , i am going to demand another vote!

templar_x

And in this case you have my word, that I will be the first to vote for an Eagles alliance!

Edit: but you should better define the term "total moron", before we vote...

 

[Lanzelot]

d7 asks for free passage of their curragh on its way home. No problem, I would say, right?

 

[templar_x]

i would say, of course. t_x

 

[templar_x]

you remember me talking about my expectation that the Anarchos will start to act like Morons again?

well, for those who do not understand the German over @ Civforum: d7 (assisted by PaGe) complained over a totally harmless post of Lanzelot that we are always showing off and stressing how great our contributions to the alliance are... blablabla

but i have no idea what they would have to say so that he himself would finally see that they are not fit for a partnership.

no word about our proposal, btw.

templar_x

 

[templar_x]

And in this case you have my word, that I will be the first to vote for an Eagles alliance!

Edit: but you should better define the term "total moron", before we vote...

take just any of the past posts of d7, that tone would be my definition.

the problem is to some extent, that Memento and you are regular PBEM players over at civforum. My perception is that your will to stay true to the Anarchie deals we have got so far (the NAP), and even to step into a more binding alliance, is strongly directed by the wish to keep a clean reputation for your single player games.

i do not hold that against you. but there is an obvious conflict potential between this personal goal of yours, and the team goal to win this game.

having led the Eagles negotiations, there is nothing comparable to what the Anarchos do to us. no insults, no craziness, no diplo flaws... they are straightforward and reasonable. i really do not see why your arguments pro and contra the alliances can leave this aspect out.

templar_x

 

[I. Larkin]

Simple question: are we going to give Republic to Anarhos?
Will they give us Lit for CoL? What they going to give us for Masonry?
Will we return Phylo for IW? What about 8 coins?

I try to make numerical justification of Eagles Rep MM deal...

 

[templar_x]

Currently you can Count everything by the Deals made until now, and for the Future Deals, including mas, we suggested the Account Solution of my latest proposal.

T_x

 

[Lanzelot]

Update of the latest "talks" in German:

1. They want to postpone the "settling plan" until we have a better map of our continent.
2. They want to postpone the decision of who will fight against whom. They could imagine other scenarios like we first lead a war only against one nation or that we build units/ships, while they only builds catapults and "gift" them to us. (Though that seemed like a mistake of d7: he thought that catapults can be "gifted" like workers, but they can't...)
3. They would in general agree to a spaceship race (but have the doubt that that would take 2.5 years...)

 

[I. Larkin]

we have the agreement with the Anarchos that Republic must not be traded to anyone else by any of us.

moreover, we have already made the Rep-MA tech deal long ago. still we are trying, and we must try, to tie it to the alliance.

Have no idea how... Theoretically Eagles (and now DK) may have Rep in 13-15 turns. They may trade (2 Techs will appear, with agreed delay, say) and we will suspect each other...

 

[templar_x]

Didn´t we agree that we should for something else have one (or two) extra city places on our continent? What was that for? Is that still valid? d7 either does not remember it or knowingly ignores it in his most recent post.

I am really mad at d7, again. He deliberately and repeatedly counts tiles and tile values WITHOUT THEM EVEN KNOWING ALL THEIR TILES!!! Usually I would declare war on someone who did that twice. I am serious.

templar_x

 

[Lanzelot]

Didn´t we agree that we should for something else have one (or two) extra city places on our continent? What was that for? Is that still valid? d7 either does not remember it or knowingly ignores it in his most recent post.

Yes we did. I have just reminded d7 of this fact.

I am really mad at d7, again. He deliberately and repeatedly counts tiles and tile values WITHOUT THEM EVEN KNOWING ALL THEIR TILES!!! Usually I would declare war on someone who did that twice. I am serious.

templar_x

Yes, d7's calculations are completely worthless. But a) I don't have the time to counter them with a "counter-calculation", and b) declaring war doesn't help us neither, it would probably loose us the game. So in this case "patience" (and getting MM asap.) are our best chance...

I've done some "trust-building" and "calm-down" measures in the Anarchos embassy now, and I would like to post the Eagle's latest reply there (like d7 has done). This would serve several purposes:
- show them a sign of trust
- show them that the Eagles broke a deal they had agreed to!
- show them that our negotiations with the Eagles have at least delayed the Küche-Eagles cooperation a bit but that now they are very obviously in an alliance. This will hopefully a) prevent that the Anarchos "fall for some trap/offer they might get from the Eagles" and b) speed up their signature under our alliance treaty.

As this is a major step, I thought I ask the team before I do it. Ok with everyone?

 

[templar_x]

did you see my post? if you think the Eagles´ reply should in addition get posted, ok from my side.
t_x

 

[templar_x]

Yes we did. I have just reminded d7 of this fact.

did you do this by email? i cannot see it.

 

[Lanzelot]

No, in my latest Alliance post. (We shouldn't do anything be email anymore.)

 

[TheOverseer714]

I'm good with doing what it takes to soothe ruffled feathers, for now.

 

[templar_x]

Yes we did. I have just reminded d7 of this fact.

i cannot find anything in your posts that sounds even the slightest like a reminder of that we should have 1-2 more towns. could you please indicate it to me.

t_x

 

[templar_x]

I once again state that I do not shares Lanzelot trust in d7. I absolutely distrust him. This does not necessarily mean that he will break a deal immediately, but he is too strange in his views of what is correct, like a "radical" in some regards.

He has for several times already now objected ideas that HE HIMSELF had raised, like right now the Lit-MM deal. Now he refuses the seriousness of the whole idea, practically calling everyone a fool who did believe it ever could be successful.

He is doing that all the time. Maybe he even suffers some kind of a psychological disorder here, or he does it on purpose. It definitely is not simply "bad memory", because his behaviour indicates that he very well "builds" those traps, where others follow one of his thoughts which he later calls stupid.

If we played option 4, i would not object. of course we would lose. but we already could have started to build up a military by the end of the AA and continued diplomacy with other means...

templar_x

 

[Lanzelot]

I don't trust him completely either, but I think for now we have nothing to fear.

I read his comment about the MM-Lit deal, but I don't read what you seem to be reading?! He didn't say he objected to the idea or that he finds it stupid, did he?? He only said he never believed it would work, anyway. Well, good for him if he can predict the future so well, but I don't see any offense.

@Overseer: very good, we need every helping hand now! I will try to switch the language back to English over in the embassy forum. (Guess neither me nor templar have the time for translating everything there.) Can you check, whether you are able to login there with the KnightsBrothers user account?

Lanzelot

 

[templar_x]

I read his comment about the MM-Lit deal, but I don't read what you seem to be reading?! He didn't say he objected to the idea or that he finds it stupid, did he??

This is what he means, and he repeatedly has done it. He acts like children do, they suggest something to their comrades, and "test" them, and when they agree or act in agreement, they are telling them how stupid they are/were to believe that.

I do not expect to see such a behaviour, since lately I used to bother with so called "adults" mainly.

t_x

 

[I. Larkin]

I don't trust him completely either, but I think for now we have nothing to fear.

Mood of d7 may indicate that their cooperation with Eagles closer, that we want and Callis reject "MM-Lit" deal due to agreement with Anarhos. (30% probability, I think). Or Callis let Anarhos know, that there is no cooperation with us. Callis "honest letter" may be just "trial balloon" to see our reaction.
It is not really important. Now more important
to finalize agreement about Rep-Ma Tech deal by all means. Since this long term deal we at least must consider basic clauses that may affect our interaction during AA.
Or we have to reconsider it by shifting time of "gift" to interval when Eagles will lose beakers.
Also:

Together with the last Ancient Age tech trades, proper conditions will be found to ensure the agreed upon delivery of the first Middle Age tech.