Embassy to Team Sirius

[Sommerswerd]

I would agree that a message to Sirus would be in order. Sommers suggested we send text saying we are willing to extend the SAP, I am curious if it would be better to say we would like to continue it. That way the onus is on Sirius to turn the agreement down which would give away intentions.

I would not sink the caravel with privateers as it would be easy to suspect us. I would however think it is ok to acknowledge to Sirius that we see their sentry net and to disclose that we have similar ships patrolling the waters. Saying something along the lines of "secure borders makes for stronger allies" would make sense. We may want to consider a secondary line of privateers though should Sirius attempt to send a caravel past our sentries. Again it would be ok to disclose this and to inform them of the consequences of attempting to run the blockade. We can assume they will do the same.

Directly asking them to extend the SAP puts the onus on them to give a yes / no answer. Saying we are "willing" to extend it means they have a lot of flexibility to respond in any manner they please which they could use to better hide intentions. It is a small thing but I would rather use language that forces them to make a commitment.

Maybe a good strategy is to ask to extend existing treaty and then if they say yes open the discussion to new terms.

I logged in to look around and I was greeted by this screen...

Spoiler :

It purports to trade Marble from Sirius to us for 1 Gold per turn. This struck me as odd. They have over 1000 gold so they dont need the money. I know we are building Heroic Epic so we could use the Marble, but they should just gift it to us for 3 turns... why do they want 1GPT

Then I realized that agreeing to the trade would force us into a 10 turn peace treaty with them, which would last untill 980AD, 1 turn before the SAP treaty expires (580AD + (10x40yrs per turn)=980AD). So this seemed to me to be another indication that they are worried that we plan to invade them before the treaty expires or right after.

So I though just rejecting the trade would set off false red flags that we in-fact planning invasion. To avoid this, I put a long message in the in-game diplo window. I meant to save a screenie but I somehow exited before I could finish. I hope the parts I wrote before were sent, but I sent a folloup message to be sure. This is the gist of what I said as close as I can replicate:

I just logged in to look around and saw this trade proposal. I have no knowledge of it and I just want to look around so I am rejecting it only for that reason. If this was already planned out and agreed to with another member of the team, I apologize.

However, it seems odd that you would ask for 1GPT for Marble. Why not just gift it to us if you are not using it? The only thing I can think of, is that the 1GPT is a way of guaranteeing a NAP for the next 10 turns. That is not necessary since we already have a treaty covering the next 10 turns.

It seems that maybe the real issue is that we need to have a more formal discussion about the treaty. Since it seems you are thinking the same thing, I will just send you a repeat of this message through regular diplo channels.

Just to be clear, me rejecting this trade should not be taken as a sign that AMAZON is planning to invade Sirius. We are planning no such thing and are eager to discuss extending our treaty with you.

I think most of the message went through, except that last paragraph, which I re-sent right after, along with a proposal for them to just gift us Marble, along with a proposal fo them to trade us Marble for Sheep, which I dont think they have from us already... or maybe they do... anyway, that's what I did.

I did not want to destroy our bargaining power by accepting the trade without discussing it, as now I am even more certain that their entire army was destroyed by Mavs at Injiya. That 1GPT trick seems a little bit on the nervous side...

I will send the above message to them via PM and gmail, along with a proposal to extend the SAP, along the lines we discussed earlier. I will post the whole thing here when it is sent

 

[Sommerswerd]

This request to extend the SAP (or at least talk about it) was sent to Sirius via PM and gmail:

Dear Sirians,

This is a repeat of my in-game messages... I just logged in to look around and saw a trade proposal of Marble for 1GPT. I had no knowledge of it and I just wanted to look around so I am rejecting it only for that reason. If this was already planned out and agreed to with another member of the team, I apologize.

However, it seems odd that you would ask for 1GPT for Marble. Why not just gift it to us if you are not using it? The only thing I can think of, is that the 1GPT is a way of guaranteeing a NAP for the next 10 turns. That is not necessary since we already have a treaty covering the next 10 turns.

It seems that maybe the real issue is that we need to have a more formal discussion about the treaty. Since it seems you are thinking the same thing, I will just send you a repeat of this message through regular diplo channels.

Just to be clear, me rejecting this trade should not be taken as a sign that The AMAZON is planning to invade Sirius. We are planning no such thing and are eager to discuss extending our treaty with you.

Again, The AMAZON wishes to extend the SAP/ASP treaty with Sirius. Please let us know if Sirius sees any merit/need to extend the treaty. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sommerswerd, Captain of The AMAZON

 

[Sommerswerd]

Reply from Sirius:

Dear Amazons,


Though I am not the usual Diplomat I wanted to explain my in game actions. We are currently building the Great Library and cannot give Marble to you until next turn. We would be happy to make a trade deal of Marble next turn. I was not trying to make a "Nap treaty for 10 turns", I was merely trying to rent the Marble for the duration of your need of it.


As for the 1000 AD Treaty, Irgy or Trystero will send a more formal message about it once our team has had time to discuss that and the Marble trade for next turn.


Yours sincerely,


AlphaShard

They are saying that they cant give us Marble because they need it, and they were just trying to "rent" it to us for 1 GPTWTH?

I have no idea what that means......sounds like nonsense to me. If they need it,, I don't see why they would be offering it to us at all, whether for free of for 1GPT... it just dosent make any sense the way AlphaShard is explaining it... and what does "renting" it to us accomplish? It's not like the 1GPT makes it so that the deal would automatically end

I just don't get his drift...maybe I am missing something, but it doesent really matter since its not about the Marble anyway. All we want is to discuss a formal extension of the treaty... Incedentally, IIRC accepting gifts creates a forced 10 turn NAP as well.

 

[nabaxo]

It could just be an honest mistake. Simple faulty thinking (happens to me a lot). I'm sorry if I don't make any sense, the fever may be talking.

 

[2metraninja]

I can try to put a ray of light to this.

I asked Sirius to loan us their marble for 3 turns we to finish the NE.
A gift in MP does not puts forced 10-turrn peace.
Gifting something in MP makes sure you cant cancel the deal in 10 turns.
This is what I can say for sure.

Now follows what I THINK their 1GPT means.
Exchanging something for something - in our case Marble for 1 GPT these deals can be canceled before the 10 turns, means they are giving us the Marble, halting their build of Great Library, but they need a way to cancel this deal in 3 turns and to continue building the GL after these 3 turns.

 

[Sommerswerd]

OK so I was wrong then, I was thinking exactly the opposite. That makes more sense.

 

[2metraninja]

Maybe a message in-game or PM clarifying this case is a good idea. Just tell them that at first glance we misunderstood the whole their idea and now we see the point and gratefully accept the marble or something like this.

I can imagine how they are wondering what's going on It is good for us to calm them down and have them on our side. We are no ready to fight neither tech on our own yet, and this will not change soon. So we need our strong Sirius allies.
I think they need us too, so it will not be hard we to continue to be buddies

The other possible way is we to ally M&M. With their powerful armies and our technologies and navy, we can wreak a hell of havoc in the game (excuse me for being so warlike and machinative - I just started a surprising nuclear war in another pitboss, gathering in secret around me all the underdogs against the 2 superpowers)

 

[Sommerswerd]

I still think our best course is to stay close to Sirius. No need to resurrect Zombie Merlot or Mavs. The object here is to elimminate our rivals and the ETTT is the best way to do this. We need to stay buddies with Sirius I think to keep ourselves secure when M&M are dead. Once they are gone we will have NAPs with Sirius and CDZ, which is a good position for us. I imagine that Sirius has probably already secured a NAP with Quatronia and maybe CDZ as well. Quatronia may even have a NAP with CDZ. In that scenario, we and Quatronia would be the only teams without a NAP between them.

As far as the dust -up over Marble goes, I think that we are OK just waiting to see what they say about extending the treaty. This mis-understanding gave an opporunity to bring up the treaty expiring in 1000AD, so I would rather just wait to see what they say. I doubt they want to cancel the treaty, because they just lost thei whole army to Mavs.

 

[2metraninja]

Some good news - entering the game I saw a diplo-screen from Sirius, offering us the Marble for free.

They are either finished their GL - forgot to take a look when in the game, or they are trying to please us so hard and to calm our suspicions, so they are ready to delay their GL with 10 turns just we to be happy. If it is the second, then thats great.
Anyway - I said them "Thanks" and offered them Marble for 1 GPT.

 

[nabaxo]

I logged into our team Gmail, this mail from Irgy was waiting for us:

Greetings people of the Amazon.

Our apologies for the poor communication with regard to the marble. As you no doubt would have noticed, we were using it to build a Great Library. Since this is now complete, we are happy to loan the marble to you, and I would assume an offer has been made in game by now. The offer to trade for gold was one turnplayer's attempt at a compromise, not related to any sort of fear for our NAP ending.

You raise a good point however, as indeed the treaty is coming up to its nominal completion date reasonably soon. We would be pleased to remain allied with the Amazon people for as long as other teams remain, so we are indeed happy to discuss an extension of the pact.

As such, we suggest an extension of the pact until the year 1500AD.

One more technical issue; I had assumed that there were 10 turns of NAP leeway any time the pact was cancelled, but re-reading it the 10 turn NAP only comes into effect if the pact is cancelled specifically due to no other teams remaining. While obviously there is no need for an NAP in the case of the pact being cancelled due to a violation by the other party (section 2.4), it seems incongrous to me that after 1000AD that we could in theory go from having a pact one turn to a decleration of war and surprise attack the next. So I would be inclined to extend the 10 turn NAP of section (3.4) to apply to any time the pact is willingly cancelled.

We hope all is going well in the fight against Merlot, and await your thoughts.

Irgy, on behalf of Team Sirius

 

[Sommerswerd]

They are being cautious, asking for a short term extension. I guess that is good for us as hopefully, Merlot will be dead by 1500AD and Mavs will still be alive. That will just enhance our position.

Anyway, I am inclined to accept their proposal, but without the 10 turn NAP/cooldown after the 1500AD NAP ends. TBH there is no need for such a thing. We both know that the NAP ends in 1500AD. If you want to extend, then just ask to do so BEFORE 1500AD, just like we are doing now. Adding the extra 10 turns just extends the NAP, why not just say we want a NAP until 1600AD or whatever if you want a longer NAP?

Since Sirius is bound to be more commerce and science focused while we are more Militarily focused, a cooldown period helps them much more than it helps us. I am pretty sure they will accept an extension with no cooldown period if that is what we insist upon.

I would like to hear others thoughts before drafting our reply if any one has any thoughts on this.

 

[2metraninja]

You are technically correct, I cant see why they will want 10 turns delay before possible attack if it is not a revolving NAP with earliest cancellation date 1500.

But I am not keen to argue for such small thing as 10 turns of NAP. If we insist on 1500 AD date, it will look to them as we plan to attack them exactly at this date.

 

[Sommerswerd]

But I am not keen to argue for such small thing as 10 turns of NAP. If we insist on 1500 AD date, it will look to them as we plan to attack them exactly at this date.

These are both good points. It is a small matter, and it will make it look like we are planning to invade if we say no.

But what difference will this make in what Sirius does? If we say no, they will still accept the NAP, keep attacking Mavs, and when 1500AD gets close, they will worry that we will attack them, and they will start to prepare. Meanwhile, we will contact them and ask to extend again and this all starts over.

If instead we say yes, they will accept the NAP, keep attacking Mavs, and when 1500AD comes, they then start to worry that we will attack them after the cooldown. If we dont contact them before the 10 turn cooldown they will assume attack is coming, and they will start to prepare. Meanwhile, we will end up contacting them to extend again.

What 10 turn cooldown does, is give them 10 turns to slave/draft units before we invade. That's all it does. If we dont extend the treaty before the cooldown starts, it will be so obvious that we plan on attacking. Adding 10 turns does nothing but force us to telegraph our actions so that they can prepare. At least with a NAP with a firm end date they have to do a little guessing.

 

[Sommerswerd]

One last thing I forgot to mention... Irgy is clever to say "Hmmm I did not notice" because the truth is that this treaty they offer us now is the same thing they tried to get at the beginning and we turned it down once already for the same reason.

We have a simple draft proposal for the terms of the non-aggression pact:
* No declaration of war until the year 1AD, with terms to be re-negotiated at that time.
* An agreement that even after 1AD, either side give at least 10 turns warning prior to declaring war.

Let us know your thoughts on this proposal.

Irgy, on behalf of Team Sirius.

Irgy's original offer to us was a longterm NAP with a cooldown. Notice that they consider the cooldown to be "10 turns warning of war." Now he is hoping we dont remember and just agree to give them maximum protection, with a firm cancelation date (1500AD) AND a cooldown.

This is what we originally offered them (page 6 of this thread):

Our suggestion is that the Sirians choose whichever of the following best suits them.

Diana's plan: Immediate Permanent NAP, subject to cancellation at any time with 15 turns notice.
Hera's vision: Irrevocable NAP until 1AD, at which time we may negotiate a new NAP with new terms to fit the changed situation or we may part ways.

And this is what they replied:

We have held a vote, and decided to adopt Diana's Plan: "Immediate Permanent NAP, subject to cancellation at any time with 15 turns notice". We are pleased to begin this agreement straight away.

However, we also wonder whether it is possible to eat our cake and have it too, by agreeing to both plans. This gives both the desirable sense of permanence of Diana's Plan, and the additional short-term security of Hera's Vision.

This was SilCon (Our Diplomat at the time) analysis:

Ok, so:... 3. Their choice of NAP is interesting. They chose the flexibility of Diana's plan is interesting, but they obviously are more worried about us attacking them. ... I don't think we should implement the double NAP. I think the one should be sufficient. We let them choose which one suited them... I don't see how we can have both. What's the point of a 15 turn cool-down if we can't declare war anyway.

This is the most importaant part of his analysis IMO:

What they are essentially saying that what they want is the offer they proposed before, about unbreakable NAP until 1AD, then revert to a more flexible NAP with cool-down.

Eventually when the ETTT was formed, the old 15 turn notice revolving NAP was replaced by the terms in the SAP at Sirius (Irgy's) request:

We're sure you agree that it doesn't make sense to have such a close technological alliance, and yet still at all times have the threat of a potential war between us being only 15 turns away on the horizon. Simply put, it seems to us that our old non-aggression agreement just doesn't fit any more ...

That last sentence essentially cancels the previous revolving NAP and replaces it with the SAP, which is what we have now. This was their outline for the SAP...(page 9 of this thread)

As such, we propose the following extensions of our alliance as conditions for accepting the ETTT:

- Non-aggression between our nations fixed until at least 1000 AD. The only condition for this being broken is if all other nations in the game have been destroyed before then (which is extremely unlikely, maybe even impossible)...

Note that we are not proposing necessarily adding these conditions to the ETTT... but as a specific and separate agreement between our two teams...

Sincerely,
Lord Parkin and Irgy, on behalf of Team Sirius

This is the Anjennida discussion all over again, with Sirius just repeating what they want over and over until we break down and agree to it... Not this time, I think, because there is no benefit to us in giving them a combined unbreakable NAP + Cooldown.

I suggest we offer them the same as last time. They can have one or the other (NAP until 1500AD OR Permanent NAP with 10 turn cooldown), but not both.

 

[2metraninja]

You are right - it does not make sense, but if this is how they want it - either we need to clarify the situation, or we need just to accept this as a strange thinking of a foreigners

To my understanding, Sirius did not put the things too clean - sometimes in another pitbosses I have been offered a NAP with a cancellation-warning-in-advance- like these 10 turns that Sirius want, but this must be combined with a revolving NAP, where no one is allowed to cancel the NAP before turn XXX.

Maybe they have this in mind???

 

[2metraninja]

My post was at the same time you wrote your second.

 

[Sommerswerd]

So seeing my second post what do you think? We already rejected their fixed NAP + cooldown idea. They are just offering the same again as if they think we forgot.(see my above comments)

We should offer them again to choose which one they want.

 

[2metraninja]

First of all - I dont know why it is so important.

Once upon a time, my boss and a partner of the company had disagreement about the price for something .And the situation started to escalate. It was like possible ruining of 100 000$ deal for a mere 15 or 150$ disagreeing. Then I said to my boss - OK - I will pay those money from my salary - let the deal happens. Then he said to me smiling - "My young apprentice, this is not about these 15$ or 150$ - this is something bigger - he is trying me - if today we step back for 150$, before we know, we will be forced to give up like 15 000 000$"

I dont know these Sirius guys from the beginning. You can say better if it is about their ego and pushing our limits to see how much we are willing to take - and if it is the case - then lets cut their attempts.

But if they just want better, longer and more secure NAP, why would we dont give it to them?
Honestly, I think we need them more and longer, than they need us. They are in better shape - more and bigger productive cities, better economy. Even the score shows this well. Why we dont just stick with them for a bit longer?

 

[Sommerswerd]

First of all - I dont know why it is so important.

Here is why IMO... 2 reasons

1. We want to be able to attack them as soon as NAP expires... not giving them 10 turns where they know we guaranteed to attack... that would be foolish, especially since they are larger in size. We should have element of surprise if we want to attack.
2. They already offered this to us and we rejected it so if we accept now they will think us either pushovers or incompetents

 

[nabaxo]

I say we stick to our guns and start drafting a reply outlined by Sommer.