Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond

[whb]

The term "NAP" is thrown around a lot in these games but rarely defined. For now, we will assume the narrowest definition: no actions which would cause war to be declared in-game (i.e., attacking units or violating borders).

The seriously big news in this is that they have effectively given our warrior explicit permission to walk onto the hill 2 squares from their capital with a view of all their land.

We'd speculated they might ask us not to, but having interpreted "NAP" in the way they have, they won't be able to turn around and say "actually nick off from that square outside our borders too".

 

[cav scout]

Our demographic analysis seemed to indicate that they lost their initial warrior to an animal early on. So that could explain why we are the first team they have contact with.

 

[whb]

And yes, I am surprised by the simple, yet positive things which the message says.

We are two turns from seeing where their undefended worker is, and there are animals prowling. From their perspective, they may be thinking:

"In 2 turns, CivFanatics will be faced with a choice between
a) hobbling their enemy and effectively putting them out of the game, and
b) being eaten by a panther
Let's be nice to them and see if we can get them to pick (b)!"

ie, I'm not surprised they're saying simple positive things. Bodes well for the future though. Forced friends can be friends nonetheless.

 

[whb]

Our demographic analysis seemed to indicate that they lost their initial warrior to an animal early on. So that could explain why we are the first team they have contact with.

Good point! Ok, that settles that one.

 

[2metraninja]

Someone who has been trashed talked is like a woman scorned, she might forgive but she will never forget.

I tend to agree with that. Dont underestimate RB's pride and self-esteem as the best possible civ players in the world. The old heavies there will act as the world champions (why there was no CFC team in the last ISDG btw?) and look at us as petty pretenders, while the inexperienced will howl for blood thirsty to see the RB superiority in action. I can tell you, there the mass of the guys were swearing they will kill all other 8 teams with 1 hand tied behind their back. Others were suggesting to not make any diplomacy at all or dont build workers or something else stupid as that to "give anyone else the slightest chance.

All in all, I dont support the idea of "they clapped hands, hug each-other and lived happily together till the end of the time". I think those guys will respect the strong ones. And not forget the "meta-gaming". Sun Tsu teaches us that if there are two strong kingdoms (CFC and RB) and there is a weaker one, none of the strong must not attack the weak.

We are not obliged to tell them about the stone, nor our location. We already were the first to show good will telling them info, and hopefully they returned it. Now is their turn to show friendly. We did that already.

I also suspect they might not be being totally honest about us being the first team they've met.

We can check that via the espionage screen I think.

All in all, we had bad luck with finding RB first, but we set good foundation (meeting them first, exchanging friendly messages, etc) so for now this might be just enough. But I really really want to avoid the situation where they race to settle and steal land and we are bound by a NAP. Or to make us start to race. We want our game and not respond to their moves.

 

[talonschild]

So insist on more. Or hurry for cavscout's proposed, even as a third city. Definitely as a fourth. The fifth would do well to bridge between RB border and Indira

 

[Sommerswerd]

Sigh...

Alot of you guys are already falling into exactly the type of thinking that we need to avoid in this game.

1. On the one hand you have 2metra rightly pointing out that for the experienced ones there is no bad blood. But then you and cavscout are saying this "woman scorned" stuff. It can't be both. Either they are led by petty scorned women, or they are led by experienced players who know that allying with the first guys you meet is the easy path to victory.

Which one is it? Time to decide... If it is the first one then obviously we should attack them on turn 100. So right now we go full scale war prep and start slaving as army as soon as we can, and try to put RB down as early as possible. If it is the second one then stop all this cloak and dagger talk and start treating them like a friend and ally. That means free information sharing and negotiating over city settlement spots.

2. For my own selfish ego, as well as for the good of the team's diplo I am pointing out tsome I told you so's...

Some did not anticipate that RB would accept the NAP, you did not anticipate that we would be able to go to the hill to see their land, you did not anticipate that they would respond favorable to our message, especially the olive branch about our pre-game fights.

And Once again you are wrong that we should approach RB with suspicion and deception. Yes cavscout, we should be open and honest with potential allies. That is how game-winning alliances are formed, (watch and learn young grasshopper). We do not have to tell them about the gold right now, but our goal should always be to tell them about things BEFORE they find it out for themselves. That is how trust is built.

And don't be naieve. For evey tidbit of info that we know that they don't, there is info that THEY knothat WE don't. We gain by SHARING info not hiding it. Let the other teams be foolish and suspicious and grasping while we build strong alliances by disarming our potential foes and making them friends by shocking them with how open and cooperative we are. 2metra especially knows that this is my approach and that it works. Give your friends everything you can and your enemies get jack sh!T, besides the sharp end of a sword.

We are on the way to allying with one of the strongest teams in the game, setting ourselves up for the win.

@ cavscout - I am flabergasted that after that clusterf**k that was Q-CDZ relations in the last game that you would even imply that our team would engage in the game-losing folly of Pink-Dot settlement racing with RB. CDZ and Q fared terribly in the last game, precisely because of that approach. It is beyond comprehension that you would advise following the same path.

 

[grant2004]

I agree that we should be giving RB as much information as we can to try to establish trust. I don't think anyone is going to push out a pink dot city for stone alone, not knowing what else is out there. I'm sure RB will have good information through their own scouts of what that peninsula looks like well before they send out a settler. So if relations fail it will be a settler race one way or the other. I'd prefer to work on making relations succeed because an alliance between us and RB will clearly be a powerful one. Having the two of us together will make it much easier to recruit other members, and will help us to advance much further into the game.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Having the two of us together will make it much easier to recruit other members, and will help us to advance much further into the game.

Exactly this.

 

[Caledorn]

So, no hangover! A good drink of water before bed definitely helps!

Here's my drafted response to Team RB.

Hey Team RB

We are very happy with your positive response, and we are honoured to be able to cooperate with your team. Our hope is that we can make the NAP a bit more substantial than just the obvious "no-warmoves". We all know about the famous "Pink Dot", and we all know how things proceeded with making a NAP the loosest definable term, while doing a settling race to deny the NAP partner access to resources etc. We have no intentions of doing this to you, and we hope you would not do this to us either. Our suggestion is that we agree to a clear and simple border rule as soon as possible, so both our teams can focus on settling optimal cities rather than subobtimal cities placed just to deny eachother access to this or that resource/land.

On that note, we do not know how much your team has explored, but in the lands between our respective capitals there is a single source of stone. This stone seems like an obvious source of conflict. We suggest that we agree to not settle to claim said stone until we have had a full discussion on how to share it, or find a second source, etc. The bottom line in our suggestion is that we talk openly with one another about settling in each others direction (which would be settling westwards for us, and thus eastwards for you). What are your thoughts on this?

Also, please be advised that there is both a bear and a lion roaming just southeast of where our scouting warrior is currently located. The bear has disappeared into the fog for now, but the lion is clearly visible 2s1e of where our warrior is currently standing.

Caledorn, on behalf of Team CFC

I believe it would be a very good idea to get this sent off today, preferably before we move our warrior again next turn. I'm posting it here to give people time to comment and suggest changes of course.

Obviously, as should be easily deducable, I am all in support of Sommerswerd's suggested attitude towards RB. While meeting RB first was irony on a high scale, I think we are very lucky actually to have met them first, as it means we may have eliminated the single biggest source of conflict for us in this game for the entire game if we're able to negotiate a good alliance with them. RB is known for sticking to agreements they make, and they know the irreparaible damage caused by breaking agreements, so if we play this out in a friendly, honourable and trustworthy manner we may just be in the position where we have an alliance with the (suspected) single strongest team in the game (except ourselves of course ).

A point was made here that worried me a bit though. I think it was whb who mentioned that there is a possibility RB has met other teams. My concern about this point is not the fact that RB may be lying - but rather the fact that someone on Team RB may have had the exact same thought, and that they suspect us of lying to them to be able to put espionage points on them. To leverage this, as I am 100% certain that Team RB will be closely monitoring espy points, I believe it is critical that we find another Team as soon as possible, and that we tell RB about it immediately when we meet another team, and modify our espy slider accordingly. What we do not want is a situation where RB is afraid we are spying on them. I'd go so far as to say that if we really wish this to become a true alliance, we should turn off espy against RB as soon as we meet someone else - although that may be a bit drastic.

 

[grant2004]

I'd edit the way we're bringing up the 'pink dot' strategy. If I were on RB, I'd read that as almost an accusation that we expect they will use the pink dot strategy based on their response to the NAP agreement.

Maybe something along the lines of:

Spoiler :

We are very happy with your positive response, and we are honoured to be able to cooperate with your team. We hope that this NAP will serve as a strong foundation for further agreements between our two teams. We agree with the interpretation of the NAP as you've suggested it, but would like to begin discussing how we can strengthen this agreement. Of largest importance in the short term is defining a border between our teams. Our intention is not to settle provocative cities in your direction, but instead to focus on settling the most productive cities in our home region. In order to avoid a settler race and conflicting cities we'd like to begin sharing geographical information between our teams and discussing settlement plans in the land between our two nations.

 

[YossarianLives]

Well, I'm convinced that our best way forward is to push for full-on alliance with RB. Caledorn's message sounds great overall, but agree that the pink dot talk sounds a little accusatory. I like grant's revision for getting the same point across without implying that we are concerned about their potential actions.

 

[Bowsling]

Excuse my ignorance - where does the term "pink dot strategy" come from?

 

[YossarianLives]

Not the original use of the term/strategy, but the one I am thinking of in these discussions (and which I believe most of us are referring to):

http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ4/ADG2.html

Basically, in the Apolyton ISDG, RB settled their second city right in the face of their closest neighbor, grabbing all the good resources in the area. Using superb demo-hacking and diplo skills, they were able to hold it without a fight. This allowed them to become strong contenders with a sub-par start, and eventually win the game.

Edit: Hmm, RB seems to be holding the turn. They are the last to end turn, and have logged in and out since becoming the last. I bet they're waiting for our reply before deciding how to proceed (Do they need to build a Warrior in their capital?)

 

[2metraninja]

I like Grant's variant for the border issue.

As for the main attitude towards Rb, I think we have no other option except try to have stable relations with them at least for the first half of the game. Then we could adjust accordingly to the situation. We gain nothing in being hostile towards them now, even the opposite, I never advocated this. Just we must remember there cant be 2 kings on the land. We must always act as a major powerhouse, which we believe we are and which we hope to be.

 

[1889]

Personally, I think the message is a huge mistake. It gives way too much map info to RB when all they have offered us that there are lions and panthers about. It also unilaterally gives up our proposed 3rd/4th city location to avoid a dispute about something they likely are not even aware of.

I agree that making a strong alliance with the first team we meet is the best strategy but that does not make it an automatic strategy. An alliance will take time and reciprocity. This message gives away way too much for nothing gained. At the very least it should be delayed for further discussion.

 

[2metraninja]

I think the whole description (really great read btw) of the Apolyton ISDG from RB perspective by Sulla (who I believe is the current Team RB leader too btw) linked by Yossarian (always wondered Armenian of Catch 22 fan ? ) is a must-read for anyone who wants to get some inside thoughts about the RB way of thinking.

 

[2metraninja]

It also unilaterally gives up our proposed 3rd/4th city location to avoid a dispute about something they likely are not even aware of.

Yes, I am thinking in the same direction. They know nothing about this I can bet. Why would we want to tell them where we are vulnerable and give them such ideas?

I like the whole idea of "new game, new attitude", but Sommers, think about Rhoth/E_T and all which happened in ACTA. We met them first, we were looking to befriend them, we made a NAP and still, see where we are now, we are planning their extermination. And tell me that after all their statements "old things dont matter" how they raised "Sommerswerd's machinations" thing in the first dispute in the organization thread we had. So they did hold a grudge. And those are way nicer (in term of being easy-going) guys than the almost-religious-about-RB guys.

I am all for having strong and decisive ally/allies. If it was say civforum.de, I was going all for an open and offering-more attitude. With RB... Dont know. Those are the actual ISDG champions. They will not willingly take a deal which is equal. They will always look at anyone as a petty competitors. Especially about us.

Some did not anticipate that RB would accept the NAP, you did not anticipate that we would be able to go to the hill to see their land, you did not anticipate that they would respond favorable to our message, especially the olive branch about our pre-game fights.

This is sooo easily explained and was somewhat easily to predict I think. We find them, our warrior is standing 2 tiles from their capitol, but of course they will take peace if we offer them, they dont even have to humiliate themselves asking for (if they are worthy, they will give us credit for it, if they are not, they will laugh at us for us being so meek and "good guys" - I put 1 beer bet for the latter, anyone accepting the bet, we can see and find out once the game finishes and their threads are open).

About the olive-branch, who on this Earth would answer something different? We say:"Yes, we had some bad blood before" And they will say what? "Oh, you will eventually pay for this one day"? Of course not. Who wants to be seen as the old grumpy man who holds his hate under his heart and waits for a good moment to revenge? They will be our friends when this suits them and in the moment they see an opportunity to hurt us, they will just say: "Sorry guys, this have nothing to do with our out-of-game talks and relations, it is just the game which requires it, but still, we are going to fusk you bad, so get prepared

 

[2metraninja]

1. On the one hand you have 2metra rightly pointing out that for the experienced ones there is no bad blood. But then you and cavscout are saying this "woman scorned" stuff. It can't be both. Either they are led by petty scorned women, or they are led by experienced players who know that allying with the first guys you meet is the easy path to victory.

Which one is it? Time to decide...

This one I can explain too. I think the really good and worthy players at RB dont really hold grudge against me or you or CFC as a whole. They are just with the thinking of being the best, and all the others are fodder. So this is why I think they will never accept us and deal with us as equals. While the mob (most of them actually turncoats originally from CFC) will be crying for our blood. And you know - the newly converted is the worst nightmare against his ex-fellows.

To be honest, I like the idea where we become allies and this our powerful gang makes easy getting new members from the other teams. But will it be that easy? Well, some teams will see aligning with us a good idea for survival, while others will be afraid they will be pawns in such an alliance and try to organize a counter-alliance.

The best thing to do in my opinion is to stay strong and enough-friendly with them. I think RB will respect the strong ones and take them in to consideration, where they might despise overly-pleasing wannabe-at-all-cost-friends.

 

[1889]

BTW is there any rules on sharing map info before Paper?