Diplomacy with the Anarchos

[Memento]

do you ask anarchos?

 

[I. Larkin]

No, I thought Lancelot will write something

 

[Lanzelot]

No, I retired from diplomacy... And anyway, templar and myself are "burned" over there. But you are a "new voice" for them, your reputation is not yet tainted. Just keep going in the same style in which you made the Mathematics deal, it's very good. Short questions, short statements, anything else is just wasting time.

 

[Memento]

Wir haben die ständigen Provokationen satt. Wenn Eure Krieger weiter unsere Siedler behindern, wird es überhaupt keine Interaktionen mehr außer Krieg geben. Wenn ihr noch an irgendeinem Handel interessiert seid, bewegen sich Eure Krieger diese Runde nicht von der Stelle. Nach Gründung der Stadt werden wir Euch nach Regel 6.3 einen Weg aus unserem Territorium weisen.

Das freie Volk

--

We are fed up with the constant stream of provocations. If your warriors continue to impede our settlers' movement there will be no more interaction at all except war. If you are still interested in any trade, you will not move your warriors this turn. After the new city has been built, we will show you a way out of our territory according to rule 6.3.

The free people

Dear Knights, Dear Larkin,

d7s Post might sound a little harsh.
But in the general point he is fitting the position of the whole Team.

Your Ivan City on a position, originally(former discussions between us) meant to be ours is extremely annoying.

Your offer to trade workers is extremely rude. WE DON'T PAY ANY UPKEEP.
You know why. You didn't send us republic.

Your units still blocking our territory. Although you promised(twice) formerly - as i mentioned over 3 weeks ago(post 48) - to deduct your Troops from our borders.

I really don't understand your intentions.

Do you want to live in peace or do you want to harass us until we give you war happiness?

If you don't open up, our peace will end.
You do ask what we need to trust you.
We need to see that you are willing to fulfill your contracts and promises.
We do need to understand why you tricked on us.
We do need an ambience of/for fair contracts.

I do not understand how you can ask, what a cooperation is bringing to you.
It is quite obvious. Together we could take the lead on a battle between the continents.
Without us. You are alone and isolated. We may be isolated either. But this is worthless from your point of view. The other continent is doing the pace.

So DON't MOVE YOUR NORTHERN WARRIOR 2(South) or the other warrior to the same position.

Sincerely yours
Loki
P.S. I want to thank Larkin for keeping up the efforts in negotiating.

 

[Memento]

I post something, but i deleted it immediately

 

[I. Larkin]

Dear Loki,
Thank you for comments of our behavior. Believe me you did and said enough that our team doesn’t like. If I recall correctly we did not managed to make any agreement about settlement, so we settle where we want and going to grab as much land as possible. We indeed will benefit from war happiness but, taking into account our (and yours) UUs our GAs will be a little premature and unlikely that some of us will get more than that.
This is not a point, however. I just try to find if we can do something that both our teams will benefit. Initiative to trade luxuries came from you, however, as I can see, you decided to clean Jungle first. That mean that trade route will be 14 turns from now as earliest. Proposal of d7 that we build City with Harbor for you does not sound very realistic. Also it will take too many turns. In addition, if our only benefit from your “trust” will be just does not to hear d7’s impoliteness it is obviously “not enough”. Your proposal to fight together vs another continent also looks not very sound.
You did not reply about tech trade with us, as we can see, you trade with another continent but, as we can see they try to leave you backward. Probably we can offer you a better deals.

 

[Memento]

post it.

 

[Memento]

Lokis post

Dear Larkin,

we would like, that you honestly say to us, what it is, what we do and say, that you didn't like. If you don't like us to be honest to you, that is something we can't change.
I do have mementos edited Post in mind, when i hear your statement about your disliking team.
It is full of strange positions and assumptions.
I do not understand how not destroying our property is a thing to create a new trust. It is only not breaking a contract. For other player this is totally normal.
Our Mathdeal is professed to be a double game. Why?
To be honest I am not a friend of this deal, not because we get to much money. I can understand that the others didn't bother that, but because it is an abondoning of the strict policy of not dealing while you are threatening our borders.
You asked for further techtrades, for luxury and we need to answer as many times before clear our borders from your units.
Evidently you have all the spots you need, because you didn't asked for a setteling-contract any longer. Congratulation on this.
A partnership does not work without attending to the needs of the partner.
In spite of that, we believed your promises twice and haven't build the cities you couldn't prevent, now you have a city on the first position and you are blocking the second. Quite fair.

First of all we need security. So once again we insist in deducting your warriors in the area westside of the great lakes.

As you see ingame we still prepare possible contracts with benefits for us both.

Sincerely yours
Loki

 

[I. Larkin]

My reply: /Any correction - suggestions?/
Dear Loki,
Sorry for delay with replay. Thank you for you interest of “what we don’t like”. Honestly, it was so long time ago, that I really forgot particular examples. I only remember that you trade Literature to CoL instead of Map making to CoL as we asked and few other minor things, that was not very important but create negative background in general. What I did not like most of all was “command like” full of demands tone without any attending to the needs of the partner. You tried to dictate us to much what we should not do like “no contact, no trade with another continent”, no War happiness, no planed Golden age, what you will research first what next. All was done in very impolite manner without any proposal of what we will get “in return”. Lanzelot had an idea that “gifts” will improve your attitude, but it did not happened unfortunately.
In recent time discussion switch to German and I did not follow it, but templar-x interpretation of that looked terrible… And all that have happened before Republic gift. Even at short period when things looked like we got compromise variant d73070d0 came with new demands.
Clear, Republic deal was assumed that we stay during AA in some Alliance, otherwise it is nonsense. But we and you did not managed to make this agreement in time before you get this gift.
My experience showed that interest rate in Civ about 2.5%/turn. That mean, that 16 gold approximately is equal 1 gpt. (Sum 1.025^-n 20 times).
In another words inflation reduces price of everything in the future. For realistically close 35 turn after Republic gift MA tech costs 800*1.025^-35=337. Your gift with that deal will be 363 gold. If you decide not to give us MA tech our lost would be plain 700. And in addition no mechanism was have discussed how make this deal secure.
We have not heard anything positive from you that could convince us to give you Republic next turn, say. Instead, you made an agreement with Eagles, part of this agreement that you gave them Techs for low price. Exactly, you did what you does not want that we would do. Since Eagles already had Alliance with DK, where Eagles are Superiors you alliance practically mean that you decided to be second satellite. We always offer you equal partnership with unbiased trade of tech. Since we have not done any harm to each other yet it is still time to return back on track.
Sincerely yours,
I. Larkin.

 

[I. Larkin]

OK, sending thids way

 

[Lanzelot]

Nothing to be changed. I only brushed it up a bit:

Dear Loki,
Sorry for delay with reply. Thank you for your interest of “what we don’t like”. Honestly, it was so long time ago, that I really forgot particular examples. I only remember that you traded Literature for CoL instead of Map making for CoL as we asked and few other minor things, that were not very important but created a negative background in general. What I did not like most of all was the “command like” full of demands tone without any attending to the needs of the partner. You tried to dictate us too much what we should not do, like “no contact, no trade with the other continent, no War happiness, no planed Golden age, what you will research first what next". All was done in a very impolite manner without any proposal of what we will get “in return”. Lanzelot had an idea that “gifts” will improve your attitude, but it did not happen unfortunately.
In recent time discussion switch to German and I did not follow it, but templar_x's interpretation of that looked terrible… And all that has happened before Republic gift. Even during the short period when things looked like we got a compromise variant, d73070d0 came with new demands.
Clearly, the Republic deal was assumed that we stay in some alliance during AA, otherwise it is nonsense. But we and you did not manage to make this agreement in time before you would get this gift.
My experience showed that the inflation rate in Civ is about 2.5%/turn. That means, that 16 gold approximately is equal to 1 gpt.
( = 16.59).
In other words, inflation reduces the value of everything in the future. Realistically, around 35 turns after the Republic gift, the MA tech cost would be 800*1.025^-35=337. Your gift with that deal will be 363 gold. If you decide not to give us the MA tech, our loss would be a plain 700g. And in addition no mechanism was discussed how to make this deal secure.
We have not heard anything positive from you that could convince us to give you Republic next turn, say. Instead, you made an agreement with the Eagles, and as part of this agreement you gave them Techs for a low price. Exactly, you did what you did not want that we would do. Since the Eagles already had an alliance with DK, where the Eagles are superiors, your alliance practically means that you decided to be a second satellite. We always offered you equal partnership with unbiased trade of tech. Since we have not done any harm to each other yet it is still time to return back on track.
Sincerely yours,
I. Larkin.

 

[Memento]

d7 post

As of rule 6.3a you are required to move the warrior that is lingering within our borders to the north (direction 8).

must ask the referee

edit:i send worf a message
wait with the turn

 

[Memento]

private message from worf

worf:
Über die Sinnhaftigtkeit kann ich nicht entscheiden. Den Regeln nach ist für jetzt alles richtig. Der Hinweis, dass es sich wiederholen wird, gibt mir leider auch keine weitere Optionen.

Memento:
kleiner heldt sieht es aber genauso wie wir.
kannst du bei denen mal im team fragen? außer d7 scheint bisher keiner für diese auslegung

Worf:
Es wird diskutiert. Letztendlich hängt es am Team bzw. halt Zugführer/Diplomat. Ich halte mich an dem, was offiziell in der Botschaft steht. Auf das Team im Sinne von Option B werde ich aber nicht einwirken.
__________________

 

[Memento]

kleinerHeldt and Apollon vote for our way, but not in the diplothread. and worf say only the diplothread is fact

 

[Lanzelot]

Now we are being punished for lingering on their road too long...

Wer fleißig den Nachbarn provoziert, gerät mitunter in eine so mißliche Situation, daß es sich vielleicht alles nicht gelohnt hat.

I don't like it, but d7 is completely right here... and now he is using the opportunity to pay us back
They probably want to keep the warrior as easy elite training for their swords?!

So as I understood Worf, we have to move N or declare war, right? Should I make my move now? (Otherwise it'll have to wait until tomorrow night. Need to go to bed now.)

 

[Lanzelot]

I'm making another try with the referee. The rule can be interpreted in different ways...

 

[Memento]

I don't like it, but d7 is completely right here...

Is not fine, but who cares?

 

[Memento]

Nun trägt es auch nicht gerade zu unserem Spielspaß bei wenn es einen solchen Aufstand gibt, wenn uns mal eine Finte gelingt.

.

Its not a "Finte", its an owngoal if our warrior can pillage a street

 

[templar_x]

lurker's comment:
the whole style of this ISDG is more than questionable. i should have known that already when i had read about the preparations. those discussions showed no compromises, and lots of negative and aggressive comments.

unsurprisingly, it stayed like that. still you obviously enjoy the competition enough to stay in it. but i am happy i am not involved any more. the ruleset, the diplo behaviour, and even the decision of the juror (once Cyc got the right words: it would never "fly in the real world") are simply a bad joke and create quite the opposite of the fun this game could be.

sorry Lanzelot, but the only thing that would even nerve me more than that, is when your own team member always defends people like d7 and their incredibly stupid and narrow minded comments. i really have no clue how you can still want so much that the "non-appliance" of your diplo-style leads to a disaster, that you esteem his nonsense "completely right" and find your team only "punished" for former own misbehaviour. those comments would again have driven me mad, if i was still a team member.

re the game: you really made a storm in a teacup. why not simply move the warrior north after they demand it? you can tie some of the Anarchos´ units there, and maybe even cause havoc. you could have let them taste the dish d7 always wants to prepare for them, and once face the consequences, but no you start this nonsense discussion and keep it alive.

templar_x

 

[Lanzelot]

the whole style of this ISDG is more than questionable. i should have known that already when i had read about the preparations. those discussions showed no compromises, and lots of negative and aggressive comments.

Completely agree with you here. But for me this was one more reason to keep cool and try to "de-escalate" by taking the emotions and the heat out of the discussions. Unfortunately this prooved to be impossible, when you and Memento kept pouring even more oil into the fire. Please, both of you: don't take this personal, but it is a fact that whenever d7 posted something stupid, you (and later Memento like in the current example) "answered insult with insult" and the situation exploded...

unsurprisingly, it stayed like that. still you obviously enjoy the competition enough to stay in it. but i am happy i am not involved any more.

I have also lost most of the fun playing this game. But unfortunately for me it's not so easy to leave as it was for you: I was the one who had the idea and established the first contact between the two forums, I was one of the main organizers of the event. It's my baby that is going to pieces here...
I had thought that we are all grown ups and that it should be possible to conduct a game like this in an honest, fair and respectful way on a "personal level", even if there would be wars and tough competition on the "game level". I had played the GOTM for three years and met only fine and courteous people there, who freely shared their help and advice with each other, who were modest when they won - and heartily congratulated the other guy for his achievement when they lost. (You yourself are among these people, and I still respect you not only as an excellent Civ player but also as a friend who shares a lot of common interests, opinions, situation in life, etc. And I regret very much that all this had to cause a disgruntlement in our relation - and hope we will be able to reconcile again eventually. But this does not change the fact that I disapprove of some things you have done in the "diplomacy" for this team.) And I hoped that the people in this ISDG would be the same kind of "characters" that we have in GOTM. But apparently this is unfortunately not the case, and I feel very sad about it. But what can I do except stick with this team and play the game until the bitter end...?

sorry Lanzelot, but the only thing that would even nerve me more than that, is when your own team member always defends people like d7 and their incredibly stupid and narrow minded comments. i really have no clue how you can still want so much that the "non-appliance" of your diplo-style leads to a disaster, that you esteem his nonsense "completely right" and find your team only "punished" for former own misbehaviour. those comments would again have driven me mad, if i was still a team member.

I think you must have completely misunderstood me?!? I was not reproaching any of my team members here, and I was certainly not defending d7?!? In fact, I even said that I didn't like d7's action, didn't I? All I was trying to express, is the fact that apparently d7 is now trying to grab this opportunity and to "pay us back" for the annoying things that our warriors did in the previous turns. (Blocking their settler and their road, threatening to pillage that road, etc.) And he is obviously right in that point.

But I guess, this was our main problem in this team: the rest of you always misunderstood me and never really understood, what I was trying to achieve on the diplomatic side. Of course I realized as much as you, that the behaviour of the Anarchic team was in some parts intolerable and stupid. Only the conclusions I drew from this fact were different from yours: while you/Memento heated up the discussions on many occasions and sometimes almost lowered yourself to the same level of their behaviour (like personnal insults etc), I tried to keep cool, de-escalate, swallow their insults --- and in the end use them to our advantage... But of course at some point this was no longer possible.

re the game: you really made a storm in a teacup. why not simply move the warrior north after they demand it? you can tie some of the Anarchos´ units there, and maybe even cause havoc. you could have let them taste the dish d7 always wants to prepare for them, and once face the consequences, ...

Yes, this is what we are going to do now... I noticed they just finished another road on the horse tile, and we can position our warrior in such a way that they will need to protect both their road segments with warriors now. And if not...

... but no you start this nonsense discussion and keep it alive.

Haha, I'm surprised that this comes from you of all people...
(Still didn't understand what you were trying to achieve in this discussion: http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?p=4220272#post4220272 )
But nevertheless, you are right, the current discussion was mainly for nothing... However, it may be important to clear this up now for the future, because of the curragh example I mentioned at the end: I don't want to risk loosing a galley full of units just because someone founds a coastal town and then orders our galley out on sea where it sinks...