IMO, revealing that we suspect also that the starts are quite similar if not mirrored would be the way to go (and to state that the land south of our locations as far as we know do not seem that much mirrored). The info is not that valuable really since RB is going to know it soon enough anyway. I can't really see what they could do with the info to change the game. What we gain is continuation of open and honest discussions. BTW, I like Grant's idea of asking about mountains as well. Keeps the discussion going.
Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond
- Thread starter talonschild
- Start date
Caledorn
Emperor
New draft
I am uncertain if there's any point to acknowledge the info sharing agreements on meeting other teams, and I couldn't find any way to write it properly without it just sounding awkward. If anyone thinks we should give them a "thank you" or something for agreeing to it, then by all means suggest so. It was their suggestion though, so I'm thinking that if someone should say thank you for that, it should be them and not us. An acknowledgement might be proper though?
Oh, and sorry for being so late with this. We've had a visitor the past few days - an old friend I haven't seen in 3 years. I did, however, tell scooter about this 2 days ago on gtalk when I sent an acknowledgement that we had received their message, so RB knows the response will be a little late.
I am uncertain if there's any point to acknowledge the info sharing agreements on meeting other teams, and I couldn't find any way to write it properly without it just sounding awkward. If anyone thinks we should give them a "thank you" or something for agreeing to it, then by all means suggest so. It was their suggestion though, so I'm thinking that if someone should say thank you for that, it should be them and not us. An acknowledgement might be proper though?
Oh, and sorry for being so late with this. We've had a visitor the past few days - an old friend I haven't seen in 3 years. I did, however, tell scooter about this 2 days ago on gtalk when I sent an acknowledgement that we had received their message, so RB knows the response will be a little late.
YossarianLives
Deity
I think the agreement to share info about meeting other teams is in place, so no need to bring it up again in this message.
We probably don't need to apologize in the first line. There's no urgency in this message, so our response time is appropriate.
I'd leave out the part about expecting to find another team on the other side of our eastern mountains. We really don't know where they might be or when we might explore there. If we don't find someone there right away, RB might start thinking we're holding out on them. We can still say we've noticed mid-size mountain ranges, and ask if they've seen anything similar.
We probably don't need to apologize in the first line. There's no urgency in this message, so our response time is appropriate.
I'd leave out the part about expecting to find another team on the other side of our eastern mountains. We really don't know where they might be or when we might explore there. If we don't find someone there right away, RB might start thinking we're holding out on them. We can still say we've noticed mid-size mountain ranges, and ask if they've seen anything similar.
YossarianLives
Deity
Well, it doesn't seem like anyone else has suggestions for changes. Does anyone want more time to discuss this, or can we get it sent?
Caledorn
Emperor
Bowsling
Deity
Sounds good! 
YossarianLives
Deity
Has this been sent? I think the updated version looks great, btw.
Caledorn
Emperor
Eep. I forgot to send it, thanks to Mists of Pandaria. I'll send it right away - thank you, Yossarian!
Caledorn
Emperor
Just had a quick question from scooter on GTalk where he asked if we had any units SE if their territory as they have spotted a wounded lion there. I told them we have no units in their parts except Thunderfall in the jungles north of them. Just as an FYI
He mentioned that it may have been another team in the area who have lost a unit, so this info may be relevant to you Yossarian.
He mentioned that it may have been another team in the area who have lost a unit, so this info may be relevant to you Yossarian.
YossarianLives
Deity
That's very, very interesting indeed! That wounded lion to their southeast is almost certainly the one we saw back on T32:
There were only two warriors lost before T32, so if that really wasn't the one that took out the RB warrior on T11, then it must have been responsible for the warrior kill on T31, just one turn before we reached that hill and revealed that tile. According to my best Demo-Hacking analysis, the team that lost the T31 warrior was Apolyton, which would mean they are located south and / or east of RB.
Edit: Maybe in our next communication we should ask RB to confirm that the lion with .8 health to their southeast was not the one that killed their warrior. I am surprised that RB does not know that we haven't lost a unit, though if they just saw that lion, they don't know which of the multiple warrior kills it is responsible for.
Spoiler :
There were only two warriors lost before T32, so if that really wasn't the one that took out the RB warrior on T11, then it must have been responsible for the warrior kill on T31, just one turn before we reached that hill and revealed that tile. According to my best Demo-Hacking analysis, the team that lost the T31 warrior was Apolyton, which would mean they are located south and / or east of RB.
Edit: Maybe in our next communication we should ask RB to confirm that the lion with .8 health to their southeast was not the one that killed their warrior. I am surprised that RB does not know that we haven't lost a unit, though if they just saw that lion, they don't know which of the multiple warrior kills it is responsible for.
Caledorn
Emperor
Scooter did mention that it could be the lion that ate their initial warrior, and that that was what they were trying to figure out by asking us. But since they asked it means they are uncertain, which I think we should take to heart.
YossarianLives
Deity
In that case, it's probably safest to assume that it is the lion that killed RB's warrior, but to keep in mind that there is a small possibility that it ate Poly's warrior. We could ask some follow-up questions to get a better idea of the likelihood that this is the lion that took our their warrior (such as, how much health did that lion have? Where did the kill take place?).
Do we want to give them any additional info about what we know / suspect about the warriors that have been killed by barbs so far in this game (in other words, that we know someone lost a warrior on T31, and strongly suspect it was Poly)? This will definitely give them more immediate benefit than it gives us, but might help strengthen our partnership and encourage them to share more of their secrets with us.
Do we want to give them any additional info about what we know / suspect about the warriors that have been killed by barbs so far in this game (in other words, that we know someone lost a warrior on T31, and strongly suspect it was Poly)? This will definitely give them more immediate benefit than it gives us, but might help strengthen our partnership and encourage them to share more of their secrets with us.
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
Keep it simple. Why would we say this? They either know this and we are not telling them anything new, or they dont know it and we are giving them info for free. I think we are doing well in becoming biggest best buddies as of now.
1889
Mayor of H-Marker Lake
They wouldn't necessarily know the health of the lion that ate their guy and while the analysis by Yossarian suggesting that it may about Apolyton to RB's south or west is intriguing it is speculation. Offering them this speculation tells them more about our team's most valuable asset than anything else. Even if true, it would make no difference until Apolyton, or whoever it is, actually contacts them. There is just no reason to offer more than the truthful answer we have already provided.
YossarianLives
Deity
I think this is important to mention here. I believe I was wrong earlier about RB's tech. In order to get the Monster GNP we've been seeing in the Demos, they must have been getting a 20%-40% pre-req bonus. The small 3% bonus for knowing us isn't enough. Therefore, they do not seem to be going for a religion right now and we do not need to tell them our research path.
talonschild
Drive-By NESer
And this is why we have you. (Consider my support for the message retracted, by the way)
Caledorn
Emperor
At present time, I don't see any real use of sending off anything to RB. We have established a working relationship with them that I believe is positive, and I suggest I just send scooter a message on gtalk where I say that we keep in touch as soon as anything important happens. We have nothing to work with at present time as they're not done exploring, and both teams are working on our foundations. Any thoughts?
talonschild
Drive-By NESer
Splendid.
talonschild
Drive-By NESer
When we tell RB we met WPC (as I believe we said we'd do, correct me if I'm wrong), what exactly will we say? Will we name Thunderfall as the one who located them? Will we mention we located them at all, as opposed to the other way around? Are we giving them info on direction?
Caledorn
Emperor
Good questions. I believe honesty is crucial, and that what we should consider is the level if detail we put into our honesty.
Our deal with them implies that we tell them we have met WPC (when we have met them, preferably on the same turn we meet them or the turn after), and that they are in the NE direction from RB.
We have a huge advantage here though, in defining how the treaty will actually work. We may state that WPC is X tiles NE of RB (which implies RB will have to state the same info when they meet someone), or we can keep the info vague and just state NE direction. My personal recommendation is to state the distance, as that will further strengthen our relationship with them (and also bind them to give away the same info if they want to play honourably) but this should be discussed by the team. In the case if low participation on this matter, I will use my discretion (which means including the approximate number of tiles).
I don't see the need for telling them what unit encountered WPC though. They will probably figure it out for themselves, but I think the info is redundant anyways.
Similar threads
