1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond

Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by talonschild, Jul 29, 2012.

  1. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    One thing- we don't need to be that passionate in our complaint over the placement of their city. It might even be best to plant our cities and only bring up their city if they complain about ours. I don't think they will complain though, as they know the deal- both teams are going to settle the land in the contested area as they see fit.
     
  2. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    LOL, Cav, I saw you online and I was waiting for your comment on the issue, thinking you will outright call for a Holy War. Well, you got me by surprise here :) Pleasant one I can say.
     
  3. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    Oops, I just realized that I missed reading a whole page of posts when I just made the one above lol.

    I guess we are all on the same page. :)

    @2metra- don't get me wrong, I do want a holy war against RB :D They are such a dangerous threat that only viable option if we are in this thing to win it is to plot their destruction. We don't have the combat power or the coalition to go after them at the moment though so no sense in stirring the hornet's nest.
     
  4. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I went back and was surprised to see that actually RB never agreed to a border, nor promised to not settle east of the Oasis, so we can fully expect we had lost the isthmus to RB as of this turn.

    Those three are the ones I can see where they are talking about borders:

    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11837919&postcount=5

    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11837921&postcount=6

    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12020071&postcount=25

    First is official diplomatic message from Scooter in our diplomatic mail:

    ? What does this means? What it guarantees? Nothing to me.

    Your description is OK, but it does not promise nothing. And it is only your perceived way of cumulative describing a group of people feelings.

    Very good general rule of them. And well done on avoiding saying "we dont agree on equal split of land with you based on distance" which would have sounded some alarm of ours.

    We should not had relied on this line to keep us safe and our land secure :( Damn!

    Revisit. Maybe us telling them where we intend to settle our city around the Oasis and them saying "thanks" without actually giving their agreement or anything can be considered as "revisit". But it does not covers us at all.

    They know way more since then and what have they done on our border agreement? Maybe the best they could - not at all agreeing on such thing as distance based land midpoint, but settling 2-3 cities east of the Oasis and still being nice and open for working out a border agreement?
    Well done, RB I can only say.

    In this message we say what we think, to which we never got answer/acceptance from RB. We do even agree to revisit what we understand of the agreement we have a bit later, so it is only temporary thing.:

    The next message where we talk about borders is the one I mentioned in the "thanks" part few lines above:

    "I think the team is fine with the oasis spot" Again he thinks of some things, he is letting us know his personal opinion on the other players from their team personal collective opinions. He never actually agrees or says something concrete.

    He just knows, but he just says nothing which can be used as "promise" or "agreement" or at least "man's word given". We cant even accuse them of being outright dishonest. Tricky? Yes. Crafty? Yes. Sly? Yes. But not dishonorable or deal breakers.

    It is intrusive, but just not TOO intrusive, so settling the Stone is OK location for them. Can be said the same for settling the Wines a bit east.

    The conversation continues:

    Well, thats a manly words - those words actually PROMISE something about the settling and borders. Too bad such words are ONLY on our side. No single promise I have seen till now regarding the border on the RB's side.

    What RB's ambassador says about this all?

    "thanks!" ??? But of course YOU will thank US. We just constricted ourselves about land and never insisted on you taking some responsibility and doing the same on your side.

    OK, I think I let the steam a bit. I am more angry on ourselves and mostly on myself for not following more carefully the diplomacy with our perceived biggest competitor Team RB. Lets try and not repeat this same mistake in future. Lets insist on clear clauses and clear "Agree!" on the deals we accept as agreed and for granted.

    We have to wait 2-3 turns before we are able to see if my fears will become true before starting to think about diplomacy with RB and what exact kind.
     
  5. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,177
    Location:
    On the one spin
    So are we saying that we can't settle near the Oasis?

    I disagree. In order to have a deal, both side have to promise something. "I agree to give X, for you agreeing to give Y" That is a deal. What we made was not a deal as you pointed out, just a gratuitous promise on our part with nothing offered in return by them. If there was no deal, then we can not be dealbreakers to change our mind.

    If I say to you... "I promise to give you 3 cities and 3000 gold in 30 turns out of the kindness of my heart to help your poor backwards Civ" and you say "Thanks! What a great guy you are!" then 25 turns later I say hmmm, situation has changed, I cant give you all those gifts after all because of blah blah blah, this and that reason"... Have I broken a deal? I dont think so. Sure you will be sad that I dont give you the xmas presents I promised, but that is different from breaking a deal.

    I think we are still fine to settle where we want/need to and let them try to complain that we had a deal.
     
  6. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I would not hesitate to settle anywhere near the Oasis where I think is a good strategical position. We are even fine if we just settle any of those described and "promised" locations, they are not bad locations and most important - give us Stone. Just I am afraid it might turns out it is a bit too late, as RB settled 2 cities last turn and we cant see if they are (or at least 1 of them) settled on the isthmus to deny us getting the Stone. What I say is that if RB already settled there, we are a bit screwed, because we lose that land and its resources and on top of that we cant even call RB deal-breakers, because as you agree for yourself, there was no deal on the border.

    As minor point, I cant agree 100% on your "3 cities and 300 gold" example. Yes, there is not a deal in the classical term: "One side gives x, while the other side gives y". It is more case of "giving a word". If one give word to give something to someone else, he must keep it if he is able. Completely different thing is why Chief Ambassador Caledorn made such promise on behalf of the team. I dont quite remember if we agreed as a team that those are the only locations we are ever going to settle, or those were just the latest locations we had as proposals.
     
  7. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    You read too much into the conversation I had with scooter, 2metraninja. Those conversations are not formal diplomatic agreements, and as such my statement was only good as a pointer about what our intent was if we formalized this agreement. So please calm down. We have not promised RB anything about settling, as there was never a formally signed agreement made by either teams (and scooter knows this, so I am not worried about my honour or ego here).

    And just to clarify: Both scooter and I have been pretty insistent that any formal deals be sent on the team emails. So even if we have reached a tentative agreement in some of those conversations (like where I wrote there was full consensus on the team about the settling), no actual deal has been made until an email is sent from our teams diploemail to RBs diploemail, and vice versa.
     
  8. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I am calm as the deepest ocean. Actually what worries me is not that we had promised where not to settle or that we have any constraining deal, but exactly the opposite - we have no deal on the border whatsoever. So it is 100% real danger that we have just lost the Stone to RB.

    On connected issue I have noticed we had two absolutely contrary by meaning opinions/interpretation about agreements and their meanings we actually have with RB. Here you say "They never gave any objection to any of these locations, and based on the diplomacy log in question, that is to be counted as an agreement to any of those 4 positions. If we suddenly settle 2 of the Oasis, we are going to break a deal." and now you say that "Both scooter and I have been pretty insistent that any formal deals be sent on the team emails. So even if we have reached a tentative agreement in some of those conversations (like where I wrote there was full consensus on the team about the settling), no actual deal has been made until an email is sent from our teams diploemail to RBs diploemail, and vice versa." It will be of great help if we have consistent understanding and position do we have any deal with someone and what actually this deal/agreement consist of.
     
  9. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    Yes, I expected those conflicting messages to be brought up. As soon as I was made aware of RB settling E of the Oasis (even though they settled NE of it), I considered that previous statement I made invalid as they have proven that they considered the conversation non-binding as well. There is no reason why we can't settle 2 of the Oasis now, and I in fact support settling 2 of the Oasis based on RBs settlement NE of the Oasis.

    If RB has settled near the Oasis, as you fear, I will be surprised and disappointed. It will complicate diplomacy with them in the future quite a bit as I interpret their formal communications as statements that they did not intend to settle there (they clearly stated no pink dotting early on among other things). However, our lesson then is that we have been too slow in sending a settler there, and not having been more insistent on a border agreement with them. I have made them no formal promise is my point, and I do not wish to be given any blame or scrutinizing from the team based on a non-binding conversation with scooter. I have no problems taking blame for a job not done properly when it is fair to give me the blame and scrutiny, but in this case the only thing I feel I may have done wrong is not being more insistent with them in regards to a formal border agreement - perhaps being a bit too naive believing they would keep their word about no pink-dotting.

    Regardless, we are taking the sorrow in advance. We do not know if either of their newly settled cities are near the oasis, and I suggest we find out asap instead of theorizing about creating scenarios that may not be true at all. For all we know both their settlements are in the north towards WPC/Germans, and the oasis spot is still available to settle. I suggest we send a scout, and that we send our settler close behind so that we can settle there if it's not taken, or at least settle the isthmus itself if it turns out they have settled the Oasis.
     
  10. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I am at the office right now, will comment after I get home and play our turn in few hours.
     
  11. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,177
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Let's not start arguing or casting blame. TBH I deserve my own hefty share of blame for just lurking and being so absent for so long and then coming on all of a sudden with STRONG opinions.

    What seems clear to me at this point is that we all agree that 1S of the Oasis is the best spot to settle next. Let's do that. Only if it's NOT available do we even need to continue this discussion about what is to happen next.

    Let's assume in fact that they have not settled the stone and send a second settler to claim the rest of the ithsmus ASAP. If they have it already we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
     
  12. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I've been posting about my own worries that we don't have a border agreement with RB for days, and my last draft message would have addressed this directly. Anyways, like Sommers says, it's not productive to argue about this. I don't think there's any way to speed up our settler to the area, but at least it'll be in transit in a few turns.

    However, we shouldn't sit around twiddling our thumbs, either. If RB stole our isthmus from us, then we need to completely switch diplomatic gears and start strengthening our ties with WPC, the Germans, the Spaniards and UCiv right now, so we have allies north of RB and a secure eastern border come T130. Also makes it that much more important to meet CP to RB's west.
     
  13. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I dont know why, and I wont go back to check this, but was under the impression we have legitimate border deal with RB, or at least we have agreement to not settle the are before come to such border deal. I have debated few times about settling priorities and I always had put the main argument in my decisions to not hurry and settle the Isthmus as because we have a border agreement with RB As it turns out, we do not have, so a lot of our strategic decisions were based on false assumption. And I was never corrected by our Chief Diplomat.

    I think you still dont get it. The problem is with mixing "casual", "informal","binding", "official" and all sort of quite different things in to something that we must be 100% positive and sure about. You are not even being criticized about making even "informal" promises as our Chief Ambassador and Appointed CFC Ambassador to RB, which promises are still not to be given (and just 2 days after overthrown) lightly, as you represent our team.

    We are not taking sorrow in advance. The problem is not if they settled there or not. The problem is in we failing to communicate things even in our own team. What to talk about talking (and enforce/enjoin) our wishes and will to the other teams.


    We might get lucky this time and the Isthmus and more precisely the Stone is still there for settling. But we can not be so loose in the future. We cant rely on our luck or other's goodwill eternal. We must work our things and make our wishes become reality.

    Anyway, what I see we failed badly here is to get a border agreement with RB. And what we have failed even greater is not making that clear/taking it in to consideration when taking decisions - that we do not have any border agreement of whatsoever with RB. If it is my fault for thinking that we had border deal with RB, then I apology and will try to listen and read things more careful and keep closer eye on our diplomacy from now on. If it is someone else's fault, then I expect him/them to gather up and live up to be a better from now on.

    To start moving things again, I propose we dont wait to see IF the Stone is taken, but we start discussing the 2 possible messages - one if they settled east of the Oasis and other if they are not. Our settler will be online next turn in Daiva and can settle depending on availability of land and decision we take on turn 102 or turn 103.
     
  14. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    We did talk about this in the "Next 3 Cities" thread.

    And then later in the same thread:

    At any rate, it doesn't matter who said what and when. I think we're all on the same page now, so we just need to figure out how to move forward. I really like your suggestion to draft 2 messages to RB. One for if they settled east of the Oasis, and another for if they stayed on their own side. Caledorn, do you think you can draw something up for this?
     
  15. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Back to work, we have a game to win.

    Few thoughts on RB are following:

    First is a wild thought about the possible arrogance and self-esteem of RB. In this picture here, you will see how they change their name to Realms Bewonb. At first it looks like misspelling, and I am sure the first time their turn players/turn loggers did that was not on purpose, but now I read it as "Be won b" which looks to me as game of words.

    Spoiler :


    Another thing is their scheme of naming units. They seems to name after their team members. 2 turns ago one axe was named Lewwin, which is one of their team members who is considered (and worshiped by most of them as) rude and hot head. With him we had numerous arguments in the RB site the last of which escalated so much that their admin threatened me with ban if I dont shut up (great judging, Sullla btw), despite I was keeping the good tone and arguing the usability of ideas, where the profane was drunk (or at least pretending to be, if a mature man can get drunk by 2 beers at all) and hurling outright insults at me. So what I saw is they had renamed their axe from "Lewwin" to "Lew" when our chariot was going trough. LOL, good one, guys. At least they show some decency.

    Spoiler :


    Third thing is I saw a galley last turn (t97) but had no opportunity to post the pics. Bistrita told me few times that when we spoke (and I am sure someone else mentioned that in the threads too) that if Plako is keeping his manner of map making, there must be some islands reachable with galleys, which hold nice resources and have land for like 20-30 cities cumulative. RB know this for sure and maybe this salt lake to their west have a way to get in the ocean? Maybe 1-2 of those settlers we saw whipped lately are intended to go to the islands?
    Spoiler :



    Speaking of settlers, here is a pic from t96 where a settler named "Settler3" is headed east. Can someone make guess if he is already moved or is having full movement from his gesture? (I remember Sommers did pointed out such details to tell if a unit is moved or can move again - it was a MG which when with exhausted moves have its machine gun on his shoulder). If he had movements, it is possible that they settled around the Corn, but maybe not more east I think. If he is with exhausted movements, then he is not able to settle near the Oasis at turn 98 (at least not without some serious logistic support from whole bunch of workers.

    Spoiler :
     
  16. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,177
    Location:
    On the one spin
    A quick thought on chats versus promises...

    Caledorn has said that he has an understanding with scooter that their chats are just chats and that nothing said in those is binding. The only thing that is binding is treaties sent over email. I am satisfied with this. This is very clear and means that we are free to do what we need to here.

    TBH I prefer it that way... The Diplomats need to be able to communicate freely over chats and such to keep the lines of communication open, frequent and close... with both friends and foes.

    We can't have a situation where our Diplomat is afraid to speak because the team will give him s#!t about it later. I want our diplomat to have the aura (with other teams) of authority, so his words and implications carry weight. Even if other team's diplomat accuse him of misleading, he can always say, "Those pesky partisans on my team changed minds, outvoted, acted without permission, etc etc etc excuse" later.

    Treaties are the promises... the rest is just idle talk... That is the understanding Caledorn has with RB's Diplomat. Seems clear enough to me. Let us move forward with this understanding clear from now on.

    More importantly, how soon as in how many turns can we settle the city we want (next to the Oasis)?
     
  17. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Depending on the position we choose (or we are left to choose from) it can be 2-3 turns. I plan to whip Daiva and we will have the settler next turn. He moves 4 tiles over road. Then on the next turn we hopefully settle. Or on the next if we decide so and have the place free.

    As we are discussing settling in the are towards RB, here is a screenshot with the tiles where I think we will want to settle marked with capital letters to identify a settling are and numbers to tell specific tiles.

    Spoiler :


    To me it is clear that we must settle one of the A's then one "B" or one "C". I have included a "D" too for completeness.
     
  18. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    I prefer a B to a C on the whole.
     
  19. SilentConfusion

    SilentConfusion Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,617
    Location:
    Wherever
    I like A1 for first settler if available. For second city I like B1. I would normally prefer C2 to C1, but I think the fact that C1 is closer to the isthmus for enhanced defense capabilities is worth considering.
     
  20. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    I concur.
     

Share This Page