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. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    For the record, I would also prefer staying silent on the issue for now. However, to keep discussion going I tried to compose a short message conveying our feelings. It didn't turn out as subtly nasty than I would've liked, though. (In fact it is rather in-your-face nasty.) Anyhow, for the sake of the discussion here it is:

    Scooter / RB,

    Thank you for letting us know that you have finished expanding to our direction peacefully. Can we continue our mutually beneficial cooperation now or is there still something else you still want to tell us out of courtesy? Excuse us for our curtness but we can't help feeling being a bit put off by the fact that you consider a few tiles of land more important than our friendship.

    Cordially,
    Caledorn / CFC
     
  2. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,177
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Is this a joke?:confused: It sounds like you are proposing that we dazzle and confuse RB with an avalanche of implication and inuendo.
    Game Theory eh?... OK fine... Can we predict how RB would respond to the Prisoner's Dilemna?

    Since that is the most "training wheels", "kiddie pool: form of what you are talking about... we need to be able to confidently predict how they would respond to that before moving to any of the more complex game theories like MAD, right? If we cant answer the prisoner's dilemna vis-a-vis RB then TBH we dont know jack about what they are thinking and we better just put on our poker face:)
    Not sure what you are saying here... Should we complain (whine) to RB or not?
    I must admit, I am completely lost on this point... Are you saying that RB DID NOT know their settlment would be provocative?

    It sounds like you are saying they did us a favor settling where they did and that we should be greatful for their generosity... Is that right?
    How about this? I think it captures your sentiment more directly...
    Should we send that or just keep quiet?
     
  3. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    No. I am saying that I prefer not sending a message at all. But there have been quite a many opinions supporting sending a message. I'm just voicing my opinion that if we end up sending a message, the message should not be direct about how hurt we fell. But as I said, I would personally prefer not sending a message at all.

    Oh, come on. MAD with two players is not that much more advanced game theory than Prisoner's Dilemma. Actually solution to MAD is much more intuitive than solution for Prisoner's dilemma. And do remember that game theory really applies when assuming rational players. Of course we can solve Prisoner's Dilemma for us and RB, but that doesn't help us a squat if one of the parties starts behaving irrationally. And that is the point with MAD as well. As long as we assumme both us and RB work rationally there is not going to be an early war.

    No. That is not what I am saying. What I am saying that RB settling 1S of the Oasis is just as provocative as us settling 1S of Oasis or them settling 1N of Oasis. Yes, it is a provocative move, but as provocative as we've considered doing ourselves. We don't have to be happy about what they did, but in my opinion, we do not have right to feel tricked given that we were thinking of doing exactly the same thing ourselves.
     
  4. 1889

    1889 Mayor of H-Marker Lake

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Devil's Punchbowl
    Maybe some of these complex psychological tricks could work one-on-one but our team has too many ideas about how this should be handled to pull off a charade of this magnitude. We’re civ players not Ocean’s Eleven. Complaining gains us nothing I can see. lets keep mum and out play them.
     
  5. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,177
    Location:
    On the one spin
    :rotfl:
     
  6. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,177
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Disclaimer: For the most part this is just responding to Aivo for the fun of it, as we both agree that nothing should be sent to RB (which is the real point of the discussion so there's nothing really to debate). So everyone besides Aivo... feel free to ignore the following;):
    OK so we agree to send nothing. But I did understand your point, which is why I went all-the-way mocking/sarcastic obsequious in my sample letter. I think that is the best way to convey strong, but polite contempt.:goodjob:
    I disagree, MAD is probably THE most advanced game, in fact, in advanced poli-sci courses on Game theory, you start with Prisoners dilemna (PD) and work your way up to MAD scenarios for the final exams... especially in a game like this where there is actual (virtual) military involved... But I digress...

    I think you missed my point in bringing up PD. The point is whether we (you) can predict whether RB's intent is to cooperate with us or backstab us. If they want cooperation (as is best buddies until the space race or there is no one left but the two of us), then we have to decide whether we want cooperation with them or we want to backstab them. If they intend to backstab us, then there is no choice but to backstab them and to do it as quickly as possible, before they backstab us.

    Its that simple. If we don't know the answer to that, then trying to engage in a game of misdirection with them is not a good strategy. That was my point.
    If you have a knife and have decided to stab me in the back and I also have a knife and I am considering stabbing you in the back... then you stab me first, then what? I should say "Oh well he stabbed me first. No point in feeling that I was treated badly. I will just lay here and accept it, bleeding to death, because after all, I was considering doing the same." It sounds like that is what you are saying.

    If it is, then I disagree. When I get stabbed I say "That bastard stabbed me! How dare he! How and when will I get my revenge?"
     
  7. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    Maybe we should create a separate thread for off-topic rants? These seem to happen every now and then. To prevent too much thread pollution, I spoiler'd my response to Sommers. If this continues much further, we really should create the rant thread.
    Spoiler :

    Sarcasm is a form of art and when done right, the reader should be left wondering what is the real meaning of the letter. That is the feeling I want to convey if we are to send a message. If we directly tell them that they screwed up diplo with us big time, they'll concentrate their efforts to other teams. They won't bother with us anymore. But if we manage to write a message that kinda hints that we are not amused but still leaves them wondering, that I feel could be almost as effective as not saying anything.

    See, this is where you can spot the difference in our education. To me Game Theory is maths. Plain and simple. To you it is political science. Nothing wron with that but if you talk about Game Theory, I'll start thinking formulas and Nash Equilibrium and stuff.

    From math perspective, MAD is a zero-sum game (so not that far from PD really). And the solution for MAD is as well really simple. You dont shoot the nukes at the other bastard. Period. If you do, everyone loses. As I said, it's the same with early Civ game with more than two players. You don't attack the other bastard. Period. If you do, both lose.

    This is exactly why RB can be pushing us so far. They know that we are in this to win. And they know that we are mostly rational player. So assuming they don't want long term cooperation they can push us as much as they like, as long as they don't push us to the point where we start to think that we can't win the game anymore. However, if we had from the start behaved more irrationally, RB couldn't be so sure that we won't just snap. And then they might not want to push us as much. This is all of course speculation and in the past but still and interesting observation.

    Now a word about misdirection. The point of misdirection is not so much to try to get direct benefit, but to make your actions less predictable to the other party. Again, the same point. If we won't know for sure how our enemy reacts, we'll be much more careful about them. Take SpAp for a practical example. Since from our point of view they behaved irrationally from the beginning (not willing to sign a NAP and all) we were tiptoeing around them. Of course, now that they've been left so far behind, it doesn't matter anymore. But the fact remains, we were careful not to anger them since we did not know what to expect.
    Nope. Wrong again. And your stabbing example is a bit extreme, when we at most got a slap in the face. I am now mererly pointing out the fact that RB's decision to settling south of Oasis is no more aggressive move than them settling north of it. I spent so much time in explaining this since someone agreed that we wouldn't have much room for complaining if theyd settled 1N:
    And then you'll bleed to death? :crazyeye:
     
  8. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    My first instinct would be also say nothing.

    :agree:This! Although I agree that this is fun to discuss all these options - and perhaps they can work well in some circumstances - I think there is no chance they would play out well when "designed (and executed) by a committee" ;-)
     
  9. whb

    whb King

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Messages:
    702
    (This is a bit off-topic but interesting strategically)

    On the whole MAD, PD, thing - what I was referring to when I first brought it up isn't quite as "out there" as that. If you assume your opponent is rational, then you can optimise your strategy against them. So one of the tricks (that does show up in AI theory) is to make sure your opponent cannot assume you are rational but still play rationally.

    An example the other way round -- until now we've been (rationally) going for the economic techs rather than the military ones. Had RB played exactly the same moves, but sent us a flurry of aggressive messages about how they hold a grudge against us and are gunning for taking us out early -- we might well have put more of our resources into being prepared for an early battle, to the detriment of our economy. As it is, because we knew they are rational players and like us are smart enough to think a German-style early war just takes down both parties, we didn't worry too much about being invaded in the early turns, even though RB's power chart has been a lot higher than ours.

    But it only works on an opponent not an ally, because it relies on convincing them you're irrational and unreliable (even though you're not).
     
  10. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,177
    Location:
    On the one spin
    "off-topic rants?":confused: ... OK;) (cavscout must be laughing at me, because I've tried to use the "We shouldn't talk about this anymore... followed by a 500 word response" trick on him like 50 times:D)

    Anyway, It sounds like we are mostly agreeing that nothing will be sent to RB about the provocative city. So let's talk about how we WILL respond to their actions.
     
  11. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    Just one more remark on game theory - in some games, where teams are formed at the beginning and cannot be changed during the game - there is a definite advantage to make your opponents think you are irrational - your behavior would be thus more difficult to predict.

    But since as I understand we are looking for a medium-term ally in RB convincing them that we are are irrational does not seem worth it. True, I think they would not start a war immediately if we would take their newly settled city - but that would likely earn us a number 1 position on their "to kill" list ;)
     
  12. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    I thought we needed some good humour in this thread ;)
     
  13. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    LOL, I like that a lot. Made me explode in laughter.
     
  14. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    Best letter proposal so far :D
     
  15. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    On a more serious note, to answer Sommers question what do we do if RB provoke us further - we take it (complaining gently) until we are ready to attack them?

    Threatening war before we are ready does not seem to make much sense. I guess we just do not have that many option as a weaker partner right now. We may try to convince them that they want us as a long term ally, but I am not sure what good arguments we have - beyond they know us and they they can trust our word and so far our relations have been very good?
     
  16. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    In relation with should we say something to complain to RB for settling in manner which denies us the spots we told them explicit we want to settle, or not saying anything at all and after looking more on the region's map, I think we might try some rational approach.

    We tell them we are disappointed from them settling this specific spot without any discussion with us but are willing to continue our relations with them if we are given some form of reparations for losing the fish and possibly stone and generally having to rework our settling spots completely. I noticed that they have another source of Stone and it will be looked upon as nothing to lose from their side if they promise us to give us this second Stone. Also, we can extort from them 1 calendar resource, which will be great to have. +1 happy is good. Then we can settle B2 and C2 which are the optimal combination in the current situation.

    Beside the obvious benefit of getting 2 resources and which is more important - settling in the optimal for us way our cities, we are achieving 2 things, which are very important in my point of view.

    First, we calm down RB's suspicions for us wanting revenge on them. And be sure, they will be suspecting us even if we manage the perfect poker face
    Spoiler :
    By asking for reparations, they will say: "Oh, poor guys - see that it was easy to steal from them the perfect city location and they whine and ask for mere stone and spices to forgive us. And they dont want to culturally fight with us about the Stone. Good trade - great city for 2 resources which we have duplicates of LOL" So we will calm them and they consider the score even. What is drink, is payed, we move on.

    The second thing is they will underestimate us and have the feeling of controlling us. They will say: "Poor guys have to rely on us giving them things and we can cut their supply when we want."

    I might not be George Clooney in Ocean's Eleven, but I did pulled this elementary practical psychology trick more than once. I give the people easy (and somewhat embarrassing) explanation about my motives and give them the comfort of them thinking they read my intentions as open book and they dont see me as threat anymore.

    What you guys (and gals) think?
     
  17. SilentConfusion

    SilentConfusion Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,617
    Location:
    Wherever
    I am a little worried about this, but perhaps I'd feel better if I could see a sample message along these lines.
     
  18. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I will draft one when I got the time, but where we can go wrong? They will either give us this or we can start bargaining - say we can add more turns NAP as "concession" on our side and bind the resources delivery with the NAP. Or propose Wines for their other calendar resource? Or we promise calendar resource of our own once we connect them? Also, opening negotiations to use some of their calendar resources can be good anyway. We need happy and we prefer to get those happy. Instead of RB offer them to other team/s to buy/secure their loyalty. And in eventual bargain, we will have the emotional and moral upper hand - they settled where we told them will settle without a single word. To help our cause, they delivered their message AFTER everything was already done. Even if accidentally, this is base for rant. Ranting is good when bargaining. What can go wrong? Why not use this chance to make RB give us something and in the same time, we cover our real feelings and make them underestimate us.
     
  19. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Also, following my instinct about that, I asked bistrita, who is more familiar about RB and their habits and he said that at RB they love to use resources for diplomacy tools. Yossa, what can you say about that? Will you confirm that observation? If it was me and someone concedes disputed border region and excellent city location to me and in exchange asks for 2 resources which I have dublicated, I would have give those outright to save myself the hassle. And I would have considered that great deal. And I would have think for this guys who ask me for this: "Poor guy, how cheap I bought his pride".
     
  20. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,177
    Location:
    On the one spin
    If we want Stone and a Spice from them, I think the best way to do it is to just ask them for it without any reference to their settlement. Leave them in the dark about whether this is reparations or what. They know what they did. Whining about it just makes us look angry, while simply asking for what we want from them makes us look more like we are asking for friendship and long term partnership.

    Then if later on they say, "OK now you must pay us back this and that for the resources"... THEN we can say "Oh we thought this was pay back for you stealing our city site without so much as a courtesy call you gutless pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person! We blow our nose at you, so-called Reams Begone! Now go away! Or we shall be forced to taunt you a second time!"

    Sorry Cal, I coundn't resist... Your post made me laugh so hard I had to leave my desk!:lmao:
     

Share This Page