Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by talonschild, Jul 29, 2012.
RB's response is in!
Looks like we did confuse our directions a bit. I'll send Scooter a PM at RB to clarify that point.
They say they located the Oasis, but have not explored past it. I wonder if they're testing us to see if we inform them about the Stone we want, or if they genuinely haven't discovered it. Any ideas how to respond to this? We won't be in a position to actually settle the Stone for quite a bit, unless we skip the closer Wines city and go straight for Stone after the Gold city. I'll grab a picture of the area and post it in here so we have a better idea what it looks like there as we discuss it.
They say things are going well with WPC, but don't go into any details. Surely they know of the army that WPC is building. I wonder if they're a bit worried there. Is it prying too much to ask if they have a NAP? Is it even worth asking?
One minor thing that I noticed: Scooter says "I tried sending a message to the barbarians..., so we declared war on them" I think this means he is acting as RB's diplomat / ambassador for all teams, or at least he is the lead diplomat (or else why wouldn't he say the team tried sending a message).
In regards to the stone city, I think we should go ahead and tell them that we wish to settle near it. If they have seen it or not is irrelevant to me - the point is that it is the westernmost city we intend to settle (in that specific direction), and we have everything to gain on being honest with them. I also suspect that they have stone somewhere else, based on the other stone resources we have spotted, so I doubt they will mind. I am actually more worried about the wine rather than the stone in that regards - but the wine clearly is within our hemisphere regardless, so I would be surprised if they object.
Thanks for helping me out btw, Yossarian. I appreciate it a lot You are a godsend to the team with your dedication and huge efforts into both demographics and all the other things you do
Here's a picture of that area between our teams:
Yeah. Totally tell them. Like you say, Caledorn, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. It's within our sphere of influence and openness fosters trust. Which we like.
Why is RB so far ahead? Just SH? Or are we failing to Micro effectively? And are we getting GW? Seems in line with our EE gambit... If this has been discussed and I missed it just direct me to the proper thread
Not only to SH, but it adds a lot. In case we got it and they not, it would have been they 148 points and us 135. Also, they settled their second city without overlap with their capitol and this adds few points for land already after more than 20 turns. What really bothers me is our low food count, but we are working toward improving this. My wish is we settle aggressive and settle only good locations. Chop settlers, build cottages and we explode. We are FIN and we have Fast Workers. We must exploit this.
I think RB will get even further lead in score because of their free monument in each city expanding their borders. Which is nice, but can be deceiving - what good expanded borders in Terasvin for example could have gave us? Not much, while on the score it would have been another 10 or so points.
And yeah, we discussed TGW just few turns ago in the t50-t100 discussion. I wanted to put the overflow in it and then slowly build it for like 10 turns to get it, but the team opinion was towards putting it in to worker. If we settle that Stone city, we will have to decide between Pyramids and TGW. We have one nice patch of forest east of Terasvin to convert to any of those. I am in preference for The Pyramids, but we can start discussion from now.
I would generally be against wonders, wanting to expand as rapidly as possible. If we can squeeze in a wonder because our economy won't let us expand at full speed, then sure!
Follow-up message from RB has just come in:
I vote yes.
Definite yes from me as well
Yes, but let's also agree with them, whether it's ok to send scouts through each other's land or not. Assuming either way can turn ugly if the other party has assumed the other way around.
Pyramids could be huge. Despite we are FIN. We need only connected stone and Terasvin can build them in some 15-20 turns.
Yes, was thinking the same - do we want a clause of "No scouting"?
If it is only for the traderoutes, we will wait quite a bit more, as I think we need road or sea with sailing tech to have traderoutes between us.
How does this sound?
Aye. No scouting is a good, good idea. I have no problem with traderoutes, but as 2metra has pointed out, that'll be awhile yet. It would make them happier about our settling the wine city, too. Shorter distance for their road connection to go.
That does not invite to a further cooperation with them. If we send that we should be aware that RB will turn suspicious towards us. We would benefit from seeing their cities, won't we? I suggest we ask them before sending that what they think about scouts in one another's territories instead of outright stating we don't want scouting. By asking them we still have the option of denying scouts, but give them the option of suggesting the term themselves (thereby lessening the risk of suspicion, and making them be the "bad wolf" if they don't want scouting). Also we can gauge more of their intents and potential for cooperation with us. While I like the plan presented for long term diplomacy, we should not close all other options before such a plan is set in stone, or preferably even solid steel.
Agree with Cal, very good said. I myself was not against scouting, I just wanted to know what team thinks or start a discussion about it at all. Cal is right that asking for not allowing scouting will make us look bad, while they almost said they want the OBs for the routes only (but do this means they dont want we to scout them or they are simply not insisting we agree they to scout us is not clear). So lets ask. As Cal said, we still have the choice to refuse, while this will tell us what they think. And to some extent will make them believe we are undecided and away from the serious diplomacy. And rival who underestimate you is already in disadvantage toward you. Like the world directions thing - west-east mistake. Let them think we dont know where we are and what we are doing, when the time for acting comes, they will see how wrong they were
How about this:
I think maybe we should go ahead and reply to their earlier message too, since the above seems too short to send on its own.
Separate names with a comma.