Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond

[2metraninja]

Okay, with the presumption that our opponents we are dealing with are at least as smart as us, I will go on and play the conversation as if I am the one receiving this message.

"So, CFC needs Stone for something and they need it very soon? What are they up to? Pyramids? Or maybe HG? 10 more citizens would be cool for them, and they are gonna need Aquedut in their capitol too anyway with all those flood plains worked, so here you go! Or they want to build The Great Wall and have a chance for Great Spy? The dreaded espionage thing we were fighting them outside the game for so long and so heated? To give them chance to get a GSpy and steal our precious shiny hard-worked-for technologies which we have monopoly at while we have long NAP? No way! Or they want to build Moai on the other side of the lake and steal our Clams? Or they want to build Chichen Itza in their Isthmus city to push our culture and steal tiles from us and make it virtually unassailable until gunpowder? What are they up to? Hell, we wont give them OUR stone to use it to THEIR advantage. No matter what they have in mind, we better mess up their plans.

Also, they say they are closing their happy cap? Well, build more units, you are in HR for God's sake! We wont just give them happy res now to let them use their hammers on libraries instead on axes to keep their cities in order!"

I wont use my power to veto sending such message to RB. Until now we failed on the negotiations front to secure good deals with RB regarding land and resources. I want to see how it works this time.

 

[Caledorn]

If RB declines, the NAP expires, as we are clearly stating that these are our terms if we are to accept the NAP until turn 170. Yes, you are making a perfectly valid point as to what RB may think, 2metra - but that is also the point here: if they don't want to gift these resources to us, they don't want that NAP. If they don't get that NAP, they will not be able to steamroll the Germans and WPC because they have to worry about us allying with those teams and giving them a three-front war (possibly four-front war if they don't have an established NAP with CP). It's as simple as that.

I think RB will be more than happy to give us stone and spice for the safety of knowing we will not interfere in their upcoming conquest of the Germans and WPC.

 

[2metraninja]

This chat we made with the RB turnplayer/espionage screen taker.



I was online, but he seemingly did not paid attention and tried to open diplo-screen to see what we have. I answered and even managed to type "Hello" and he closed the diplo-screen. I went on and started chat. After them saying "we WON'T STOP YOU from settling 1E either" my blood just boiled up and I started to tremble with anger. I managed to restrain myself from unleashing hell on him and asking him if they are going to STOP us from settling B3 or even 1E from B3 to steal one of their flood plains cottages, because all those sites are well on our side of the midway or at least on the midway.

Whoever he was, I give him points for being true diplomat though. Threatening without actually saying harsh words.

 

[Caledorn]

This is complicating matters. By telling them that we will decide where we will settle our city based on their response, there has been made a subtle threat that we will settle the city 1E just to spite them. Now you have given them an opportunity to postpone answering us to see what we will do with that settler.

The conversation does not make sense though. What was the question you responded "which one?" to? And what "works either way"? How did "we are just not decided yet where exactly to settle it" come into the picture? I don't understand the coherence of the conversation.

 

[2metraninja]

By telling them that we will decide where we will settle our city based on their response, there has been made a subtle threat that we will settle the city 1E just to spite them.

It is called "using a levers in diplomacy" and is actually speeding things. They have to decide do they want to challenge us by not agreeing to our demands or they want to see a city settled in location which they would prefer not to see settled.

Do you think they did not already discussed where we are going to settle? Keep attention that he was speaking not only for himself, but from the name of their team: "We wont stop you". They have seen the settler already and they have discussed what we are going to do, so they have ready answer and preference what is best for them and they follow it. With giving them food for thoughts that we can decide to settle other location we make them starting thinking again and this time they take our opinion in to consideration too. Not to mention that "We wont stop you, it is your settler" is outright and badly veiled arrogant threat, which will became as a bad habit to just swallow. How we are going to deal with them if they dont respect us at all and use every possibility to humiliate us without us saying a word?

Now you have given them an opportunity to postpone answering us to see what we will do with that settler.

How is that? To everyone it must be clear - satisfy our desires or we are going to take care of our interest ourselves. And you dont read carefully - I am telling them we have other locations beside the tile where our settler is and beside 1E of this tile. This will make the assume even worse for them cases. Will make them think we might settle B3, they might even think we will settle 1E of B3. If they dont know what we are going to do, they will try to regulate this. How it is regulated? By making concessions if you ask the other making concessions too. They give us stone and we dont settle stupid cities just to secure the stone.

Diplomacy is about using kind words, but also carrying a big stick. The stick in this case is "We settle city to culturally fights your and possibly steal tiles from you only to take the stone if you force us to by not giving it with good will".

If you need something from someone, always give him a good reason why would he want to give it to you. Being it that he thinks he is buying you cheap (ranting about A1 and wanting compensation), being it threatening to take it yourself if they dont give it to you, despite you will be harmed too, as long as they are harmed too ("we will settle B3 or even more East.")

The conversation does not make sense though. What was the question you responded "which one?" to? And what "works either way"? How did "we are just not decided yet where exactly to settle it" come into the picture? I don't understand the coherence of the conversation.

I though his "Sorry, wrong window" must have given idea that he was typing in the "say to all" tab initially. What was said there by him was: "Oh, you are going to settle another city?", to which I respond: "Which one?" implying we have other settlers too, so it is not only this settler. Just to misinform them a bit. Little harmless trick. Confusing opponents is good.

 

[Caledorn]

2metraninja. I have been elected the head diplomat by the team, and I have also been appointed the ambassador to RB. The team has expressed that they have confidence in my abilities to perform my duties in both the role as head diplomat, and also as the ambassador to RB. You have above expressed that you disagree with the consensus of the team, even flagging that you "do not intend to use your veto right" as the elected team leader so you can "see how it works this time". It is obvious that you are very much in disagreement with not mentioning something about reparations for the city they planted, and that they owe us something - but the majority of the team does not agree with you, and you have to accept that.

I would not have taken up the role as the head diplomat, nor as an ambassador, if I were not willing to take the responsibility for any blunders or failures that I may do along the way. In the case of the failed border agreement with RB (which I thought we were done with, until you brought it up again here now by stating that you want to "see how it goes this time" implying that I have done a failure in the past), I repeat that I do not have the power, nor have I ever had the power, to force RB to accept anything they do not wish to accept no matter how insistent I am in my dealing with them. The border agreement was brought up with them several times, and they refused to acknowledge it, and your assumption that there was a border agreement in place is simply not my responsibility. You even publicly acknowledged the lack of that border agreement in another thread here a few weeks ago. I think it is very unfair of you to take out your anger with RB on me, by trying to place the blame on me for the lack of a border agreement with them - but by all means, if you believe that I could have done something to force RB to accept a border agreement, please tell me what I should have done and what I did do wrong (not informing you was not something I did wrong, as you were informed, but seemed to have deliberately ignored it).

Now, in this specific case you are putting me in a position where I feel you are trying to subtly overrule what the team wishes me to do as the Ambassador to RB by engaging in a chat with their turnplayer in game. You could easily have said that "You can expect an email from us guys today" and left it at that - but instead what you have done is quite possibly invalidate the point of what we wished to accomplish by implying that we are indeed angry with them for that city with your subtle threat (or "big stick" as you call it). I have leaned heavily on the advice from several other players who have a great deal of experience in diplomacy, and if you look at the poll that I asked to be put up there is currently 2 votes for option A (which is the one I have used as a basis for my draft to RB), and 4 votes for option D - where two of those votes expressively states confidence in my decision, and 1 of them even wants to use option A but remove the part about the wine.

This is not a one-man show, but a team game, where we as a team decide what we want to do - and I try to the best of my ability to follow the majority of the team's wishes to outline our diplomatic messages. If winning the game is so important that you believe that it is better to overrule the team's wishes, I will resign as diplomat, and you can find someone else to do the job - as I am in this because I enjoy playing the game as a team, not because I want someone to play the game with me as a spectator who tries to participate but is met with criticism for doing what the team wishes me to do.

We all need you in this team, 2metraninja, as you're possibly the best general and turn player we have in the team. As you well know I have nothing but the utmost respect for you as both a person, and your abilities as a civ player. But it is imperative that the team gets to say what they wish, and that you accept that sometimes the team disagrees with you - even if you are the elected leader of the team. Otherwise this will no longer be a team game. And it is also imperative that we who are elected officials on behalf of the team do our best to follow the majority of the team's wishes - even should it cost us the very victory of the game. This is just a game, and while the goal is to win, the purpose is to have fun together - as a team. And that means the team needs to be allowed to make their decisions, both the good ones and the bad ones.

 

[Caledorn]

How we are going to deal with them if they dont respect us at all and use every possibility to humiliate us without us saying a word?

By outplaying them later in the game.

We need to ignore our sense of pride and hurt ego right now because they have outplayed us. Making a fuss about it, as has been stated a lot of times now, will not help in any way. Their arrogance is so obvious, and I am really surprised that you do not acknowledge the simple fact that by whining to them about that city, we will truly become the laughing stock of RB once and for all. At least, by keeping quiet about it, and acknowledging that we have been outplayed on the settling of that city, we are taking it in a manly way (as you are so fond of saying ) admitting that we have indeed been outplayed this time.

But losing one battle does not mean the entire war is lost. The game goes on, and we have lots of opportunities in the turns to come to plot our revenge and outplay them back.

 

[2metraninja]

{OOC} Before we continue with the heated and emotional discussion about who is right and who will be left, I want to tell you guys few things Out Of Character. Me and Caledorn are good online buddies, been playing games so many times and chatting RL stuff about life, universe and everything. We even discussed this specific clash of interests over skype and made assurances to each-other for n-th time that this is simply a game and we play it. No personal things involved or feelings hurt for sure. And the reason I am telling you guys (and gals) this is because I know some may not be aware that this all is just a game thing and may consider it too much of an emotional steam for a game and get repulsed/discouraged by the seemingly overly emotional exchange of posts and this to turn them away from the game. All this is in the game, guys. (And gals ofcourse ) All this is for show and for role-playing purposes. Just as in RL there could be government crisis and disagreement and even melee fights in a Parliament because the sides cant agree what is best for their country and their nation, just in the same manner there can be scandal between Prime Minister and his Chief diplomat. What is in the game, stays in the game. Everyone dont be afraid to play their role and play it convincing. So game on. Keep calm, hold your breath and dont take it too deep. My response to Chief Diplomat Cal is coming{/OOC}

 

[2metraninja]

So, Chief Diplomat Caledorn, even before reading the whole of your long double post, I got the impression you are in defensive position. Why would you defend yourself if you are right? After reading it, I see why your position needs defense. You imply that you got wide support for your position and sending a message, which got what? 2 out of 7 votes? For any unbiased observer it is clear that this message is not representing the team's sentiments right. Despite it has not binding power as it is non legitimate vote (The Elector-General has the singular power to oversee elections. it shows the general sentiments of the team. So, something else must be sent to RB about this controversial case. You better move and come with something better to offer to win the team's consent.

And to make things clear, I will quote our Constitution on few more things:

The Chief Diplomat is responsible for dealing with other empires. The Chief Diplomat is responsible for appointing ambassadors, organizing our foreign policy, and keeping track of alliances and threats Organization and documenting stuff I see here. Nowhere is said Chief Diplomat can decide on his own what agreements we must offer/accept with other nations. Nor what foreign policy we must follow. It is up for the team to decide what we want and the Chief Diplomat to make best efforts to make it happen.

The Leader is in charge. His duty is to organize decisions and keep things moving. The Leader decides when a team vote must be taken, and suggests topics that need to be discussed. The Leader always acts as the tie-breaker, and has the ability to over-rule the results of a vote if he decides it is in the best interest of the team. Here is what my powers and duties are as democratically elected Team Leader. And we need some agreement with RB. Thats why we are discussing what it to be. And I am not even acting on the extremes of my powers. I am not overruling or vetoing things. Yet. As I am sure we can find the best or at least widest supported thing to send to RB.

I want you to collect all clearly defined messages/courses of action towards RB which any member propose from now on in the next 6 hours, compose your own message/s and give them to the Elector-General to organize 12 hours poll so we can get a clear picture of what we must send to RB.

 

[2metraninja]

By outplaying them later in the game.

Oh, how sweet - we make concessions to them on all disputed areas and then you simply say: "Now go win us a game, guys". I am not saying strong play dont matters, but strong diplomacy is a must to supplement/support it. What good makes us in the long battle having even the strongest arms in the world, if we are staying on clay feet? Or the opposite?

We need to ignore our sense of pride and hurt ego right now because they have outplayed us. Making a fuss about it, as has been stated a lot of times now, will not help in any way.

Who stated it? Did you counted how many times there was a post in which it is mentioned that we dont say a thing versus those where is stated we need to say something?

Their arrogance is so obvious, and I am really surprised that you do not acknowledge the simple fact that by whining to them about that city, we will truly become the laughing stock of RB once and for all.

I used some serious deal of time and efforts writing how we will make them see us as whiners and how they bought us cheap and because of this underestimate us and I explained well why I think it is to our benefit.

At least, by keeping quiet about it, and acknowledging that we have been outplayed on the settling of that city, we are taking it in a manly way (as you are so fond of saying ) admitting that we have indeed been outplayed this time.

Admitting to ourselves we've been outplayed/tricked/disregarded have nothing to do edit:contradict with our whining on purpose. And this purpose being to use their overconfidence they can outplay us each time in the long run if we give them NAP and because of this give us couple of resources to sleep our anger.

But losing one battle does not mean the entire war is lost. The game goes on, and we have lots of opportunities in the turns to come to plot our revenge and outplay them back.

Yes, we do have of opportunities, but they diminish quickly with us not getting Stone and 1 more happy resource out of the whole mess. If you think we can get those by simply asking nicely (and with somewhat awkward explanation why we need those resources and why they are going to give them to us), then OK, I admit you were right and apology. Faith in your diplomatic skills restored.

While talking about mistakes and apologies, I do owe you apology for letting their provocation with the online chat get the best of me.

 

[YossarianLives]

Wow, I go to sleep and all hell breaks loose. I'm seeing red over what RB said to us. How dare they try to impose settling limits on us. The statement that they won't stop us from settling 1E is a direct threat, barely veiled at all. I can only hope they're treating all their other neighbors with the same contempt.

Guys, we shouldn't fight between ourselves. I was glad to read 2metra's post that none of it is personal, but I still don't think it's good for the team.



What I originally came in here to post is that RB has recruited Soren Johnson, one of the creators of Civ4, to play (or at least lurk) on their team.

 

[Sommerswerd]

WTF?!? What are you guys arguing about?

I am going to calmly read all these pages and pages of posts now... Hopefully this is not some pissing contest between our team officers RB is the enemy not each other, right?

 

[whb]

How come the chat is from "Need to sign off now" onwards. Surely posting it from "Hello" onwards would be a little more helpful...

 

[Sommerswerd]

How come the chat is from "Need to sign off now" onwards. Surely posting it from "Hello" onwards would be a little more helpful...

I think you read it from bottom to top.

 

[whb]

I wouldn't read too much into "We won't stop you..." in the chat. 2metra set up the context for that ("from your answer we're going to decide where to settle the city"), as if we wanted RB's permission.

Incidentally, how much has leaked in chats? Because it seems a touch coincidental that they settled the oasis just 3 turns before we would. It's been sitting open for a race for donkeys years, and only gets settled just as we've decided to.

 

[whb]

I think you read it from bottom to top.

Makes no sense whatsoever bottom to top. Are there a bunch of missing lines? I just seem to be missing some context to get the flow of the conversation.

"what's up neighbours? Which one? On the isthmus?" Surely there's got to be something in the middle of that?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I thought it made sense... Maybe my brains are just scrambled up like that

 

[whb]

I thought it made sense... Maybe my brains are just scrambled up like that

Late at night, maybe I'm just trying to read the thread too quickly.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I wouldn't read too much into "We won't stop you..." in the chat. 2metra set up the context for that ("from your answer we're going to decide where to settle the city"), as if we wanted RB's permission.

I don't know whb... I too took it as a thinly veiled, backhanded, condescending threat... "WE the mighty RB choose where we LET you settle and don't let you settle. They could have even said "can't stop you"... but "won't" clearly indicates "We could if we wanted to." That's my take on it.

Incidentally, how much has leaked in chats? Because it seems a touch coincidental that they settled the oasis just 3 turns before we would. It's been sitting open for a race for donkeys years, and only gets settled just as we've decided to.

There are 1 of 2 possibilities to me:

1. We have a mole - I can't be bothered to worry about such. - This is just a game and paranoid fears will just ruin it for me, so I am choosing to assume that this is not true.

2. RB thinks like us and can therfore analyze the communications and circumstances and come to the same conclusions we do... just a little faster. - What we need to do then, is start thinking a few more moves ahead of what we have been doing. I recommend this approach to our analysis from now on... We analyze the situation, assume that RB is coming to the same conclusion, but only a couple turns ahead and then re analyze based on that assumption.

 

[2metraninja]

What I originally came in here to post is that RB has recruited Soren Johnson, one of the creators of Civ4, to play (or at least lurk) on their team.

Ba$tards He wrote first in the WPC forum asking to get idea of how Civ4 and pitboss are played after so many years. He mentioned Pitboss v2 but suggested it would be unofficial thing, as he is not working for Firaxis (as we could see from Civ5 LOL). Those guys at RB are quick to recruit him...