Diplomacy with the Anarchos

[Lanzelot]

But 40gpt is "nothing"... If they decide to "take Republic for free" and not give us their MA tech, then we are left with one single payment of 40g...

I thought, "huge" means something like 800gpt, so that if they break the deal, we have full compensation for our Republic (plus war happiness).

Regarding the other deal, the permanent peace treaty: this could perhaps be "secured" by exchanging screenshots of F3 like every 5 turns. Or define a "demilitarized zone" in which no military units are allowed?

But all of this is clumsy and does not really help creating an atmosphere of trust...

 

[I. Larkin]

But 40gpt is "nothing"... If they decide to "take Republic for free" and not give us their MA tech, then we are left with one single payment of 40g...

No, it will take some time (5-6 turns) before they can declare a war and quit out of deal.
Well, it may be 60-70 gpt. In many cases you are happy to get something for tech...
Anyhow, let's see how trade will go. If they trade Phylo for IW and MM for CoL I think we may take a risk and discuss my plan with Anarchie.

 

[Lanzelot]

Ok, I tried to incorporate your suggestions above:


Dear anarchic friends,
we begin to realize that our two nations think very similar and share the same views and ideas. Like you, we regard a better government based on free elections as top priority. Therefore we'll tell you our current achievements in research: the 3% increase in Literacy that your seers noticed, is due to us mastering the art of Philosophy. It was not easy to achieve this that early and involved some of us doing nothing but eating and thinking all day... However, we were given a big reward for our efforts: one of the new Philosophers had a brilliant idea while sleeping, and told us that having a set of laws would benefit our community a lot. After that, we felt a bit defenseless in a possibly hostile world (we did not yet know that we would meet so nice and peaceful neighbors) and therefore started investigating Bronze Working. However, we lost only one turn, and thanks to your help, we can now stop that duplicate effort and concentrate on finding a new way of government.

If you want to benefit from the new government as well, we could imagine a cooperation as follows:

• We trade Iron Working for Philosophy
• We trade Map Making for Code of Laws
• We know that your wise men have the capability to discover a new technology whenever a new era in the history of mankind starts. We would trade this tech - whatever it may be - for knowledge of Republic. We realize, that this yet unknown technology will be more expensive (in terms of research cost) than Republic. But we think this can be compensated as follows: you will get Republic as soon as we will discover it. Our scientists currently predict, that this will be in approximately 30 turns. We think that it will be very valuable for you getting out of Despotism at such an early point in time, and that this should probably more than compensate for the slightly higher price of a new era technology. Also you will see that it involves a certain amount of risk for us, if we give you a precious tech like Republic, when we can expect payment for it only many centuries later. Please take this as a sign of mutual trust.

In general we think that it will be beneficial for both of us, if both countries are given this early opportunity to develop a strong economy. This is one of the reasons why we are willing to agree to a deal like outlined above.

Further exchange of techs can then be worked out as we go along. At the moment we are quite a bit ahead in research, thanks to our philosophical achievement, but we expect that your scientific ability will soon enable you to catch up with us in that regard, and we hope that then you will let us participate in your advances in a similarly generous way.


Now we come to the next topic, the matter of mutual guarantee of security. We were pleasantly surprised by your offer of such a permanent peace agreement and accept it thankfully! Like you, we think that having to build only a minimum of military units necessary for protection against uncivilized barbarians will help our two countries develop a strong infrastructure and economy. Basically the details of such a treaty could look like this:

• Guarantee of non-aggression for an unlimited amount of time
• This deal needs to be canceled 30 turns in advance

However, there is one big problem with this: rule 4.1... If we understand this rule correctly, any deal can be broken without any consequences for the offender! This basically makes any agreement like the above "worthless", as either side could simply declare war and break the above treaty at the same time. We have been trying to find a way to secure such a treaty by some "game mechanic way", but didn't have a convincing idea yet. So basically it remains a "question of honor".


Like you, we are very surprised that up to recently we did not yet meet any barbarian tribes, neither friendly nor hostile ones. We had already started thinking that we are the only people inhabiting this world, however, just last turn we discovered a tribe of dangerous cannibals...
We agree to keep any friendly huts until the end of the ancient age. However, due to this being Emperor level, we don't expect to get much out of them... probably only maps and hostile barbarians...

Please take my Regards, Sir Lanzelot

 

[I. Larkin]

I think it is a good text. You may add, that we continue "non-duplicated research" in a future.

 

[TheOverseer714]

Sounds good, I can go with that.

 

[templar_x]

Like you, we regard a better government based on free elections as top priority.

Republic does not say anything about free elections, but only that laws are passed by a parliament.

thus:
"...a better government based on legislation by a parliament..."

templar_x

 

[I. Larkin]

d7 reply in Diplo where he has declared that he is honest man. This is reply about long term peace treaty.
Well. OK. But I think 30 turns is "infinity", therefore not realistic. Let put it in following way: while we carry out joint research we assume that "no war declaration until agreement goes". Obvious, but let state it. By default I think it may be 10-15 turns, not more.

Ask again, what about research plan? Also, big question, we need to find out in delicate manner: F11 shows that their gpt very low. How they plan to be a good research partner?

 

[Lanzelot]

This is reply about long term peace treaty.
Well. OK. But I think 30 turns is "infinity", therefore not realistic. Let put it in following way: while we carry out joint research we assume that "no war declaration until agreement goes". Obvious, but let state it. By default I think it may be 10-15 turns, not more.

Ask again, what about research plan? Also, big question, we need to find out in delicate manner: F11 shows that their gpt very low. How they plan to be a good research partner?

D7 just offered the peace contract. Ivan is right, this means "infinity", or very likely a peace treaty until the end of the game (unless one side gains such a big advantage that it can afford to declare war 30 turns in advance...) So we need to decide: do we want this? Please see also my long post from a minute ago in our long term strategy thread.
I say: let's go for it. We will gain a good tech lead over the other continent, and will most probably also gain a military partner, in case we get attacked (or in case we plan a combined campaign on the other continent).

Especially the clause about the "first strike" makes this pact pretty permanent... We could argue about it, but I would like to avoid it. If we argue about that, they will realize that sooner or later we do have plans of a war with them. Don't want to give that information. It is unlikely that we will ever go to war with them, so this point doesn't matter: if there will be a war with them, then either because they have attacked us (so the clause is good for us), or because we have such a huge advantage that it doesn't matter anyway.

Research plan: I think we already have a plan for the next 30-40 turns:
Iron for Philo
MM for CoL
WC/CB for Masonry

While they do MM and WC/CB, we do Republic. (Perhaps they can even send some gold to speed it up.)

More than that we cannot decide at this early point. Let's first see, how the situation on the other continent looks like and let's make a decision, whether we want to trade a bit over there as well. Probably the answer is "yes, but not too much"...

 

[templar_x]

since nobody said it, i will: d7´s post is nonsense and does not fit here.
involving his personal honour and being banned from the site appears ridiculous to me.

what will he include into our next deal? will he swear he is going to keep it by the life of his children???
this is going too far.

to put it straight: this game was set up in way where deals are relative. insofar it is like in a single player´s game. you can break a contract if you are ready to deal with the consequences. that is it.

furthermore, in a team game, a personal message like d7´s has no place. AND I THINK WE SHOULD VERBALIZE THAT IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. how should we see it as a serious act that he posted that without asking his teammates?

there could be one more way of how to see that: they are weak, and they are trying to dictate how we see them and our possibility to trade with them. we should not allow that. in a relaxed way we should be telling them that it is us who are ahead and formulate an idea of how we can live in a peaceful and thriving coalition on this continent.

this is my first thought for a proposal for an answer, somewhere within what you wanted to write to them anyway:
with regard to the words of the most honourable d7..., we discussed this proposed deal intensively and long. however, the majority of our knights´ community found that honour is something to have, and nothing to trade. about the actual content of the trade, we feel that this is not within the spirit of the set-up of this game. although we fully support the intentions of this deal, we feel that our two nations have to find different means of living and thriving together.
templar_x

 

[Memento]

Dear Knights,

we have sent you a couple of coins to pay for the upkeep of your granary. We have some more money left to spare without slowing down the invention of iron working. Please tell us how much you need in the future to keep research at the maximum.

Currently we are working on the details for a future research treaty and will get back to you soon.

Until then, dear friends

A voice of the free poeple

what is this???

 

[I. Larkin]

since nobody said it, i will: d7´s post is nonsense and does not fit here.
involving his personal honour and being banned from the site appears ridiculous to me.

We don't know whats going on in their team and therefor motivation of his text.
Better ignore, than argue about that. Or even better to find some rational part in this message.
Obviously they want to survive and use all resources. I think, nothing wrong if they want "notice, before aggression". It is also in our interests, but as I wrote 30 turns are not realistic.
Depending on circumstances it may be 10-15 turns. Or even 5.

 

[templar_x]

I understood that we clarified that there is nothing like a deal in this game, which could not be broken. None about advance notifications of aggression 30 turns ahead, and none about advance notifications of aggression 5 turns ahead. So what are we talking here about? A placebo deal?

I do not mean this aggressive, I really only do not understand it and want to.

We can ignore some things, but we should not ignore how diplomatic relationships work. Diplomacy is a lot about being pointless, and a lot about stating the one right point. Currently, in my eyes, this point is who is leading the deals here. We need not say that. But we need to have it "in our words", or between the lines, whatever you prefer.

templar_x

 

[I. Larkin]

I do not mean this aggressive, I really only do not understand it and want to.

We can ignore some things, but we should not ignore how diplomatic relationships work. Diplomacy is a lot about being pointless, and a lot about stating the one right point. Currently, in my eyes, this point is who is leading the deals here. We need not say that. But we need to have it "in our words", or between the lines, whatever you prefer.

We may try to solve this psychological problem, but I am not sure that it is very important.
Let's press them with our deals that good for us. If Lanzelot manage to write in between lines that if they do something that we don't like we destroy them that OK, but if he can't we will let them know explicitly "later". I think now we far away from conflict and may "wait and see" without any message to them.

 

[Lanzelot]

We don't know whats going on in their team and therefor motivation of his text.
Better ignore, than argue about that.

Exactly. I had some time to think about that now. Most probably there is tension in that team. (One of their players already left after only a handful of turns, remember?) I would respond with something like
Dear d7etc,
we accept your word of honor and trust that you personally would not break this deal. However,

• if your message is - as you say - not discussed with your team, then your team is not bound by your word.
• And if your team does break the deal, then it doesn't help us much, if you leave the team, after the damage has been done.

In order to "ratify" the above treaty, I suggest that three of the leading players of each team give their word of honor that this treaty will be observed in all circumstances. That should be sufficient and give us security, even if one or the other player drops out of a team during the next 4 years...

And then the three of us, who have a Civforum account, sign in the "Contracts" thread with a message like "I Lanzelot, give my word of honor that the Knights team will observe the above treaty."
I think we never need to go to war with them, so that should be ok.
Question is: do we want to argue about the length of that period? I think it's not significant and only shows we are not so sure about our peaceful feelings...


Next: their offer of gold. It can probably be explained like this:

• Like we they want to get Republic asap and help us to maintain 100% research as long as possible.
• They want to give back some of what we gave them in the good Writing deal.
• They want to give us a sign of trust as well.
• And finally, they don't think they are weaker than us. Why would they try to help us otherwise... And after thinking about it, I no longer think they are weaker. Probably their second town is size 1, because it already built a settler (after all, they have not been wasting food like we did!) and the capital might have built another one as well. So I guess we don't need to worry about having to "push" them.

So we just take the gold and finish Rep 2-3 turns earlier. (They said, they would give us more, if needed. So we can run 100% for the rest of Rep, even when we have two granaries.)

However, templar is right: we need to be the ones "calling the shots" (or leading the deals, as he said it). So instead of waiting for their suggested research plan, should we go ahead and post our idea of the deal? I.e.
Philo for Iron, CoL for MM and Rep for MA tech.
(Masonry can wait. Perhaps we get a first tier tech cheaply from the other continent.)

The above deal should be ok, while if they propose a deal, they might make a deal for most of the AA (as they won't be able to trade with the other continent as we are). I want to avoid that, as I want to keep the option open for us to trade overseas.

In any case, I think we should not hesitate too long now. Getting such a strong cooperation is a big stroke of luck! Together with the free CoL, it will probably boost us into the MA some 4-5 techs ahead of the other continent. (The free CoL and the free MA tech is not even the biggest factor here, much more powerful is our early Rep!!)

Lanzelot

Edit: I would suggest in the Contracts thread to replace "the other party" with "the attacked party".

 

[Memento]

Lanzelot, u read the long term thread?

 

[templar_x]

I am strongly against involving things like personal honor into this game.
Moreover, nobody even tried to explain to me why on earth the "no breach"-deal would be within the spirit of this game and its rules.
Even less I do understand why we should even CONSIDER to branch out into such a "personal honor" deal, when the rules for the game clearly say that such a deal could not be executed within the game.
Tieing one hand behind the back strategically that early in the game, while we have not even met anyone else, is something you would have to vote me down for.

templar_x

 

[Lanzelot]

Ok, but then in my opinion it does not make any sense at all to make any kind of treaty or agreement... Rule 4.1 is just plain stupid. I'm very mad at myself that I did not notice that, while the "Conference of the Four" was still ongoing...

But on the other hand: rules are made for us, not vice versa. So perhaps a solution would be to raise this point with the other team captains and the referees and see whether all want a modification to make rules "binding"?

But different point: nobody said anything yet regarding the proposed tech deal. So should we go ahead with it and keep the decision about a peace deal for later? In posts #43 - 46 everyone seemed to be in favor for it.

 

[I. Larkin]

Ok, but then in my opinion it does not make any sense at all to make any kind of treaty or agreement... Rule 4.1 is just plain stupid. I'm very mad at myself that I did not notice that, while the "Conference of the Four" was still ongoing...

But on the other hand: rules are made for us, not vice versa. So perhaps a solution would be to raise this point with the other team captains and the referees and see whether all want a modification to make rules "binding"?

But different point: nobody said anything yet regarding the proposed tech deal. So should we go ahead with it and keep the decision about a peace deal for later? In posts #43 - 46 everyone seemed to be in favor for it.

I think it is a good rule and in a spirit of the game team is allowed "misbehave".
I am against rule modification along the game.
I want win this game as soon as possible and will do anything that make this event close. But it is game, and I don't want to mix up human ethics to the Diplomacy process. But I am not going to argue about that with another teams. Here we can discuss everything but, I think, at http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?p=4048975#post4048975 we have to write only game related things.
As I see Lanzelot already made a proposal about IW-Phylo and MM-CoL trade.
Anarchie did not reply to it.
I think we may thank them for 4 g (valuable for us) , stress, that we are equal partners,
we are friends, but count any coin. So now they ow us 21 g.
Ask them will they agree to the proposed trade and if they agree long future deal Republic - MA tech.
Now we are not going to war, shall we return to discussion of 30 (or less) notice?

 

[templar_x]

i am all pro all the tech deals mentioned, i am pro the joint research program, pro the long lasting peace. even to agree on an "everlasting peace treaty" is ok to me.

especially i like the deals around the others´ new age tech, which should be traded for Republic, while we give Rep so much earlier. we will see the exact execution later, but i think the smartest thing said (whoever it was, i don´t remember) was that the last techs of the AA should be tied to a large gpt payment from them. of course this means we will stay far ahead of the Anarchie in research and actually have a big tech to give to them. next turn we should get their free tech.

but i am also the one who LIKES rule 4.1.. deals are open to be broken. that makes diplomacy so much more interesting. it remindes me so much of the gaming experience of the old days when my friends and i played the BOARD GAME civilization, diplomacy, fief2, and empires in arms.

so we could go ahead and even make a deal that we have to warn each other in advance before we get aggressive. but i feel this is a nonsense deal. and we should and could be able to break it, if we decide to. only because d7 or anyone else claims he never did, does not mean anything to me in this specific game, and does not mean we should adopt his views of the game, or forsake these legal strategic options of the game.

the one thing i discard is making deals involving anyone´s honor, health, membership of a site, or anything else from their real lives. it is, and has to stay, a game. "if you are breaking game deals, you should suffer game consequences."

templar_x

 

[Lanzelot]

Ok, if you say so. (Though personally I have a slightly different opinion: this is not only a game, but more like a "sports competition", where sportsmanship and fair play have a place as well. At least in my PBEM games I keep my word, no matter what, I'd rather loose a game than break my word. And I remember from game to game, which players do the same, and I find that games with the "honest" players are more fun in the long run. Or to put it another way: a game that I lost because another party cheated, gives me more pleasure and satisfaction than a game that I would win by cheating myself. Winning is not everything.

This here is a competition on a very high level. I'd even say, some of the world's best currently active Civ3 players are participating in all of the teams. So we should not only keep a high level of micro-management and game mechanics, but also of sportsmanship.)

But we can go that path as you suggested, you are right, it probably doesn't make sense to include the notion of honor in the deals.

The only point that I do not agree with:

So now they ow us 21 g.

We made a deal "Writing for BW & TW". That deal is history now, and no gold was mentioned at any time. So we should not add any condition to it in "retrospect", only because they were so nice to support our research with a voluntary gift.

I will post the tech deal. Shall I say that we are still discussing the exact wording and conditions of the peace deal?
And shall I give any response on d7's declaration of honor?

Lanzelot