Doughnut Files Term 7 - 9

[gbno1fan]

I agree with Chamnix. I feel like the whole letter gives a feel that they can expect to be attacked by us as soon as the treaty expires.

I would much rather we wait a couple turns and then try to appeal for them to attack KISS.

However, I also would like to know where their military stands in relation to KISS.

 

[fe3333au]

They will not attack KISS because we ask, the Nut's have constantly proven that their play to their own agenda and bugger anyone else.

I agree that the benefits to send the letter are limited.

I see the potential of outbidding KISS to have little chance of success in achieving a delay or upping the price of any KISS deals. But the real reason however slight is that we may be informed of any negotiations that KISS are trying for.

For me the impotus and hence the real reason to send the letter is to remind Nuts that we have excess Luxes at our disposal.

I'm in no hurry to send anything either but if sent (and I'm leaning towards that) there will be absolutely no pleading and it shall remain as strongly worded as is.

Asking for Military Intel will result at best a non reply as any information sent can not be trusted ... they have an Army which they may not know we are aware of though

 

[fe3333au]

Nuts have cut our luxury trading ... The deal ran out ... and true to bloody form ... NOTHING from them

I would like to send a modified message.

Title ... Spice for Gems

Dear Nuts

Now that we have committed to eradicating the KISS from the map, we would like to just touch bases with you on our own existing treaties.

Despite what you may hear from the whisperings of others, we want to remind you that our treaty with KISS had gone 1 full turn over it's expiration date. We upheld our end of the Treaty with KISS both in letter and in spirit; we will do the same with for as long as you are honorable as well.

While you may be committed to trading with the KISS already, and while we're not pleased by this – we recognize your right to do it. If you're interested, we would like the chance to "out-bid" KISS for any resources, technology, or luxuries you are currently providing them or plan to in the future.

Also our luxury trading seems to have reached a natural ending, would you like to trade Spices for Gems ???

Please know that we're always willing to talk with you if you have questions or concerns.

Yours

Feaurius III
MIA Foreign Minister

 

[azzaman333]

Right now, its best for us to remain at peace with them (unless they attack). That way, we can concentrate solely on removing KISS for our continent at least.

 

[fe3333au]

True ... no need to get a double taste of WW until necessary.

Question is do we benefit more by trading with Nuts then they do?

I am leaning to getting Gems as it will help in the interim until we hook up KISS Wine.

But it has to be an even swap ... or they can bugger off !!!

 

[Chamnix]

They are not interested in an even swap - they cancelled the wines for ivory deal even though they don't have ivory hooked up yet. There is no point in sending them anything.

 

[Chamnix]

Hi Fe,

Im just dropping you a line to let you know that we did not trade techs with KISS in violation of our agreement, we merely received techs from them. There was some misunderstanding there, and we wanted to be on the same page. Have a good one!

Casey

Maybe we should reply to this to gather more information. Nothing accusatory, just ask for details:

Thanks for the message. As you know, we have declared war on KISS. We are trying to determine their economic status - if you could please provide us with the details of your trades (what you provided to KISS in exchange for the techs), we would greatly appreciate it.

My draft is terrible, and I wouldn't expect it to get any reply since MIA is clearly the greatest threat right now, but if we are considering a preemptive attack on the Nuts, I'd like to give them a chance to explain to see if we are missing something, or if their answer is obviously a lie. Maybe someone else can write something better.

 

[fe3333au]

I'm still eager to send the original ... I feel it cannot hurt and added to Chamnix's request sounds that we are still open to their game.

I have tried to alter to fit, but consider it still in Draft form.


Title ... Spice for Gems

Dear Nuts

Sorry for not sending a message earlier but I have been busy in RL and also somewhat distracted and focussed with other MIA business.

As you are no doubt aware, MIA is committed to eradicating the KISS from the map, however we would like to just touch bases with you on our own existing treaties.

Despite what you may hear from the whisperings of others, we want to remind you that our treaty with KISS had gone 1 full turn over it's expiration date. We upheld our end of the Treaty with KISS both in letter and in spirit; we will do the same with for as long as you are honorable as well.

While you may be committed to trading with the KISS already, and while we're not exactly pleased by this – we recognize your right to do so. If you're interested, we would like the chance to "out-bid" KISS for any resources, technology, or luxuries you are currently providing them or plan to in the future.

Also our luxury trading seems to have reached a natural ending, would you like to renew a trade of Spices for Gems ???

In your most recent message you wanted us to know that you and I quote -'did not trade techs with KISS in violation of our agreement, we merely received techs from them. There was some misunderstanding there, and we wanted to be on the same page.' ... Could you expand on this for us, as any information will greatly be appreciated in determining the economical status of KISS. We feel it could be mutually advantageous to us both since our conflict will undoubtedly syphon most of KISS' military back to our island and make it easy for you to clear their prescence from yours.


Please know that we're always willing to talk with you if you have questions or concerns.

Yours sincerely

Feaurius III
MIA Foreign Minister

 

[General_W]

Looks good Fe, I also remain a fan of sending the letter.

However – especially with the questioning for more info on the trades with KISS - I think it is a VERY bad idea to include the " as long as you are honorable as well" line.

I strongly urge you to delete the line before sending.

Also – I don't think we really want to encourage the Nuts to kill KISS.
How about this rework for the final paragraph?

In your most recent message you wanted us to know that you 'did not trade techs with KISS in violation of our agreement, we merely received techs from them. There was some misunderstanding there, and we wanted to be on the same page.' ... We appreciate you making the effort to update us. Things did look a bit fishy. Could you expand on what you deal with KISS was? Any information will greatly be appreciated in determining the economical status of KISS.

I softened the language a bit, and deleted the kill KISS part.

Just my 2 cents.

Otherwise – it looks good to me.

 

[gbno1fan]

I agree with GW's edits.

Could we also insert a line where we ask for military strength intel?

 

[fe3333au]

Still Drafting ... I'm torn between schmoozing or getting tough as Peter suggests.

Title ... Spice for Gems

Dear Nuts

Sorry for not sending a message earlier but I have been busy in RL and also somewhat distracted and focussed with other MIA business.

As you are no doubt aware, MIA is committed to eradicating the KISS from the map, however we would like to just touch bases with you on our own existing treaties.

Despite what you may hear from the whisperings of others, we want to remind you that our treaty with KISS had gone 1 full turn over it's expiration date. We upheld our end of the Treaty with KISS both in letter and in spirit.

While you may be committed to trading with the KISS already, and while we're not exactly pleased by this – we recognize your right to do so. If you're interested, we would like the chance to "out-bid" KISS for any resources, technology, or luxuries you are currently providing them or plan to in the future.

Also our luxury trading seems to have reached a natural ending, would you like to renew a trade of Spices for Gems ???

In your most recent message you wanted us to know that you and I quote -'did not trade techs with KISS in violation of our agreement, we merely received techs from them. There was some misunderstanding there, and we wanted to be on the same page.' We appreciate you making the effort to update us, but could you expand a little more on the exact nature of the KISS deal. We are not expecting you to go into too much detail but you are correct that things do look a little contrary to the signed Agreement.

Any information you would care to share about KISS like Military Strength, will greatly be appreciated and used in determining the economical status of KISS.


Please know that we're always willing to talk with you if you have questions or concerns.

Yours sincerely

Feaurius III
MIA Foreign Minister

 

[peter grimes]

sorry, but I smell blood in the water

I'd edit the parpagraph to this:

In your most recent message you wanted us to know that you and I quote -'did not trade techs with KISS in violation of our agreement, we merely received techs from them. There was some misunderstanding there, and we wanted to be on the same page.' We appreciate you making the effort to update us, but could you expand a little more on the exact nature and timing of the KISS deal? We are not expecting you to go into too much detail but You are correct that things do look a little contrary to the signed Agreement.

bold just shows what I added...
I wouldn't include the detail disclaimer, as the whole point is that we do want details!

 

[greekguy]

i agree with peter's edits, it adds a little bit more conviction from us in the letter. i really think we should send this letter to D'Nuts, as we could find out some intel and remind D'Nuts we're on top of the totem pole all in a few short paragraphs.

 

[General_W]

I totally understand the rational for wanting a more strongly worded request for info on what went down between KISS and the Nuts, but consider what the Nuts' options for answering that question are.

1) Make up a lie that fits the facts (we'll have no way of knowing it's a lie)
2) Tell the truth about how KISS stole from them (we won't know if it's really true)
3) Tell the truth that they broke the treaty (Very unlikely)

So what does asking the question really gain us?
We can't trust the answer no matter what it is - unless they admit to wrongdoing. And even if they do that… then what? We declare war out of a sense of honor whether or not the strategic timing makes sense? I would think not! And if not – then we're already pretty sure they broke the treaty, so why not wait till we're ready to declare war?

I'm ok with asking the question in a vague non-confrontational way, because Dnuts have been sloppy in diplomacy before, and maybe they'll be sloppy again.
If the question is vague and low key enough, we open up a 4th possibility…

4) Dnuts lie, and we catch the lie without them knowing

This allows us to attack them with a clear conscience at the time of our choosing.
I don't think we're likely to have any shot at getting response #4 if our questioning is too confrontational.

That's my take anyway.

 

[fe3333au]

Getting close ... I'm all for the no nonsence and plain request for the following reason ... have changed the order so it flows better.

1. Most likely it will not make any difference what wording we use, as Nuts will already have a strategy in place.
2. There may be a very slim chance (which I doubt) that we could be missing something, so why not indicate that we require additional information.
3. We could get a reply ... and getting any return communique at this stage is usefull.
4. We may get an additional period of trade with Nuts.


Title ... Resume Trade

Dear Nuts

Sorry for not sending a message earlier but I have been busy in RL and also somewhat distracted and focussed with other MIA business.

As you are no doubt aware, MIA is committed to eradicating the KISS from the map and while you may be committed to trading with them already, and while we're not exactly pleased by this – we recognize your right to do so. If you're interested, we would like the chance to "out-bid" KISS for any resources, technology, or luxuries you are currently providing them or plan to in the future.

Despite what you may hear from the whisperings of others, we want to remind you that our treaty with KISS had gone 1 full turn over it's expiration date. We upheld our end of the Treaty with KISS both in letter and in spirit.

Any information you would care to share about KISS eg. Military Strength, will greatly be appreciated and used in determining the economical and military status of KISS.

We would also like to just touch bases with you on our own existing treaties.

Our luxury trading seems to have reached a natural ending, would you like to renew a trade of Spices for Gems ???

Finally, in your most recent message you wanted us to know that you and I quote -'did not trade techs with KISS in violation of our agreement, we merely received techs from them. There was some misunderstanding there, and we wanted to be on the same page.' We appreciate you making the effort to update us, but could you expand a little more on the exact nature and timing of the KISS deal. You are correct that things do look a little contrary to the signed Agreement.


Please know that we're always willing to talk with you if you have questions or concerns.

Yours sincerely

Feaurius III
MIA Foreign Minister

 

[peter grimes]

1) Make up a lie that fits the facts (we'll have no way of knowing it's a lie)

As stated below, I really doubt that they'd be able to make up a convincing enough lie to cover all the quirks of the recent tech acquisition (by KISS and DNUT).

4) Dnuts lie, and we catch the lie without them knowing

You've arrived at the intent behind my wording: We know certain facts regarding the timing of KISS and DNUTs technology. DNUTs don't know for certain how much of the timeline we know, as they have no way of telling for certain how responsible we are in checking the status of everything. They also have no way of knowing for certain what KISS has been saying to us. Dnuts are likely to trip up in offering an explanation that fits the facts we have if they have not acted in accordance with the treaty. If they have been on the up-and-up, then their explanations will be succinct and efficient. If they are lying, they stand a very good chance of presenting a paradox into the timeline.

Basically, I agree with you, General_W, that the 4th option is what I'm hoping to uncover.

 

[fe3333au]

Sent to Nut's g-mail and Robi_D

 

[classical_hero]

I would send them some infomation about how removing KISS will help them with the tech research.

 

[fe3333au]

Well here it is at last

Dear MIA,

We are well aware of your feelings towards us, i believe Fe is familiar with these words.
Oh and PS.
We are unhappy, and frustrated, by your recent dealings with the "Dark Side" across the water

Do not expect any deals to be renewed when they expire. I will remind you we have a peace treaty up to and including turn 177.

Robi D, F.M. Doughnutia

I'm working on a curt response

 

[General_W]

You think they'd be a little more pleasant - seeing as how
1) We wiped out a much stronger empire in 2 turns
2) They are still without rail lines
3) They know we suspect them of breaking our deal - and may use that as a rational for attacking them

So why be intentionally provacative??

Morons.
(at least when it comes to diplomacy)