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. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,153
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Yes exactly I was thinking the same but reaching the opposite conclusion as you. From the very first time we met I warned you about them and told you exactly that being friends wasn't going to work and you insisted to try and be friends and here we are still tense and hostile with them.

    My point is that my instincts about people are often very good, and when you listen to me I am right most of the time. I do not always think being friends with your neighbor is best, sometimes you must destroy him quickly, but in THIS situation all this mistrust in RB is folly. We should be open and honest with them and work with them rather than trying to outsmart them or trick them, especially so early in the game.

    Another example look how bad it was between Team Kaz and Saturn and how me and LP were at each others throats in planning MTDG II because of it. But then Sirius and AMAZON became fast friends and went on to quickly dominate the game.

    It is so obvious that history is repeating itself like so much low hanging fruit... all we have to do is just reach out and grab it! TBH we could not have hoped for a better situation, this game is so close to being won and we have barely even started. Please don't let silly distrust and suspicion and fear let this opportunity slip away.:(
     
  2. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Yes, they are. I think we were those who most insisted on them :D
     
  3. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    LOL, I will admit I never looked at the situation like this :) Still a good angle, have to think about it.

    And look, I am not saying to attack them or lie to them or try to trick them out. Why would I want to do such thing :) I say we being strong and play our game. They will respect the strong ones. We cant make them love us with all the kindness in the world, all we need is they to respect us.

    As for the Rhoth/E_T, the exploding feelings of bad blood I think it was easily explained by you actually trying to pink-dot (I hate that term) Rhoth. His only mistake was that he threatened to break the NAP. As I said to you then, if it was me, I would have let you plant that city under my nose, prepare the axes and the chariots, wait for the 15 or so turns of NAP to pass and then take it. Simple as that. Here I cant say if you planning to choke/box him was affected by possible grudge from DoE or it was just a try which you would do to anyone who happened to spawn near you or it was Rhoth being overly sensitive about your provocation because of the bad blood you had from DoE. But as you see, such neighborhoods dont end up well. Here I can say this is another example of the history repeating itself :)

    As for your instincts, I tend to agree you vision most of the time proves right, sometimes even for my utter surprise. How it goes to there is another matter :)

    Again, I am not saying to lie or trick Rb, just threat them with the carefulness and respect they deserve.
     
  4. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,153
    Location:
    On the one spin
    On this we agree. I think being militarily and economically their equal is the only way an alliance with them is going to work.
     
  5. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Here's the rule:

    Spoiler :
     
  6. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,153
    Location:
    On the one spin
    ;)
    :agree:
    Spoiler :
    Yes I agree with all of that, who is to say for sure whether he was itching for a fight because of sore feelings over losing to me in the prior game or whether it was because of my settling close (BTW I would have done that settlement in that situation to anybody Maybe with the exception of you ;))... but that is my point exactly... Either RB is going to settler race with us or not. We NEED to find out and we can't find out except by ASKING them directly. If they are not settler racing us, then all we do by racing with them is antagonize them and ruin any chance of an alliance.

    If they are racing, we will be forced into a Q-CDZ situation and we are both going to lose. So we must prevent this at all costs, and the only way to prevent it is to get it out in the open and TALK about it with them, honestly and fairly. You can not just sit back and say, "Well, I will show faith and trust and goodwill only if he does so first" or say "I already told him some info, Im not saying more until he responds in kind" That approach is folly and its not going to work... Why? As you already said yourself THEY ARE ARROGANT and think that they are better and will never be at ease unless they THINK they are getting the better end of the deal.

    We can't change that, so we have to use that knowledge to our advantage. This is how. What did they say "honor-bound" to share info? So we know, (because 2metra has told us) that to get RB to start giving us info, we are going to have to put ourselves out there first because that is how they think. They always want to feel like they are getting more than they are giving. Sirius was the same way, remember?

    If we think like them (ie refusing to give more info in order to get them to start sharing more), then we are going nowhere with them, and I advocate planning for the early war right now becuse that is what we are going to have to do to pursue the stealth aggressive settlement towards them some of you are advocating.

    As you already said 2metra, "if it was you you would have got the chariots ready and attacked as soon as the NAP expired"... Well that is exactly what is going to happen to that stone city if we are stupid enough to settle it without talking to them about it first.

    cavscout should remember TKY (a "Pink Dot" in BTS MTDG I) and how it basically lost SANCTA the game. If they had just given that city up, we would have joined their alliance and they would have won. Lets not repeat mistakes that have already been made in prior games.
     
  7. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,153
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Another think about this whole "Pink Dot" thing (I also hate that term BTW, because it gives RB credit for a manuver they did not invent), those of you advocating risking war with RB over Stone... We can easily tech Masonry and chop GW way before settling that Stone...

    If your reaction is "Wait! I never said I wanted to get GW!" then why would you risk war for Stone? We are going to ruin our potential alliance with the team that we previously regarded as the biggest threat to get... Stone? Seriously?

    As an aside, I actually think it is BETTER for us to use the annoying phrase "Pink Dot" in our letter to them, because it shows we have studied and are aware of their tactics. This will only enhance their respect of us (think Wesley the Dread Pirate Roberts vs. Inigo Montoya). It will also show respect to them having created the term, which based on 2metra's comments will make them look on us even more favorably as natural allies "Oh so you read my book and subscribe to my beliefs? Wow I am honored, let's be friends"
     
  8. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    Sommers you are not accounting for the unique geography in this game. The only way I can see RB pink-dotting us by beating us to stone/wine location and settling on this side of the oasis. This is key strategic terrain not just for the resources but because it is a wide isthmus linking our respective spheres of influence. Once we grab this spot we are good.

    We could reveal all the info in the world to RB, enter into an alliance of perpetual peace and friendship or even agree to become their vassal and they would still race to claim this key terrain before us.

    Right now we have the advantage. There is a good chance that they are not aware of this isthmus. So we can claim it first and control a choke point between our two teams. This would not harm our diplo with them at all as it would be a city clearly in our sphere of influence. It would also block any attempts by RB to settle cities deep in our territory.

    Sending them a message effectively saying, "Hey guys great to meet you, we urgently want to lock in our boundary with you right away" is only going to telegraph that there is juicy land that we want to get before they get it! So they will immediately focus their scouting in our direction while stalling for time on any deal until they can get a city planted first.

    EDIT: I don't have any specific use for the stone in mind right now but it's always good to deny a strategic resource to a rival. And who said risking a war over it? I'm just saying lets grab this key terrain first and not help RB to beat us to it.
     
  9. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    That is really very well written, grant2004, and I like it a lot. However, I believe mentioning the "pink dot"-strategy is important (Sommer has already explained why). If you would like to rewrite what you wrote here and incorporate the "pink dot", that would be very helpful, and I will more or less just copy/paste it for the next draft. We need to send off a message to them soon though, preferably within a few hours of now! Delaying this is not good at all.

    On that note though, there seems to be a distinct majority for not giving away too much information etc, so I'm left a bit puzzled on how to proceed here. This is also why I have been quiet, because I have been reading everyone's feedback and thinking. I will voice my strong agreement to what Sommers has written about this subject, as I believe he is spot on when he says what he says about "this is where the game will be won".

    We have absolutely nothing to lose by giving away some information to Team RB. There are other teams around on this map, and if we give away information to Team RB that they abuse we know they are dishonourable. And really - how much can they abuse this information? They are bound to discover the stone, if they haven't already (And let me say that there is a distinct possibility that they have. Remember the Monty Python story they posted public? It was a bear, in a forested hill. Take a look at where we discovered the bear last turn.). And, they will obviously discover we are due east of them soon enough anyways. We are not giving away state secrets on the scale of where we intend to build our cities, etc here guys - there are just tidbits of information that proves to them that we have honourable intents. We state our willingness to cooperate and avoid "pink dot" settler races, to further the goals of both our teams. If we botch this, and run into an early conflict with Team RB because we intend to distrust them, or because we think we will lose the game by giving them the proposed information and concessions, then we will lose the game to those teams who do not run into conflicts with their neighbours, and who chooses to trust their neighbours - regardless of previous attitudes. I believe Team RB knows this as well, and I strongly believe this is why they so readily accepted our 100 turn NAP.
     
  10. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    I think you fail to see the fact that if we do what you propose and grab the stone/wine it's not a question of "risking a war". It's a matter of "There will be war" in that case, as we will be seen as dishonourable and conniving by them.

    By revealing the information, and trying to make an agreement over that, we are telling RB that we do not wish to aggravate them, and that we are prepared to cooperate with them. If they build a city there after the fact that we have revealed this information, they know we will declare war on them. And they are more than skilled enough to know that that means both our teams will lose the game. Please do not underestimate them into believing they will risk losing the game over a stone resource.

    Edit: In other words, all sense dictate that it is both in our and their interest to come to an agreement over this area, and not try to "pink dot" it. They know it, and so should we.
     
  11. 1889

    1889 Mayor of H-Marker Lake

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Devil's Punchbowl
    Yuup. We mentioned a territorial agreement in our first message, which they ignored. So let’s just keep playing as we planned until we have something else to discuss with them. An early alliance is important but they take time to form and are not made in a vacuum. I think we should wait a few more turns and see who else is around us rather than try to force something on RB.

    Just how can they make a border agreement at this point anyway? They probably have little information on the terrain to their East. All they can agree or not but without having explored it they are hostage to how we describe it. We can give things up but they can not know what they have gained. It just seems like a horrid idea.

    I'm not trying to put our diplomats out of work, I just think there is no diplomatic work at the moment.
     
  12. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    Caledorn- what is dishonorable and conniving about establishing a city that is on our side of the halfway point between our civs? If we establish a city there it's not a pink-dot on our part. How would this lead to war?

    Also it was a lion in their monty python post, not a bear.

    Also, please don't send any response yet as we have not decided as a team yet how we want to proceed.
     
  13. grant2004

    grant2004 Citizen

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    America
    I agree with Sommer's point about including the pink dot term in the message. If we can gain any benefit by flattery, despite how much we all seem to dislike the term, lets do it. I don't think the statement needs much work to include that term. If you see a better way to reference it, feel free to make edits before you send your message.

    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 pink dot 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.
     
  14. grant2004

    grant2004 Citizen

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    America
    I'm still in favor of telling RB about the stone. I don't think it is nearly as big a deal as it's being made out to be. There are much better resources to kill each other over.

    Honestly we shouldn't be settling a city there in the near term because we have better options close by. If we rush a settler there, the only advantage we gain is preventing RB from placing a city there. If we can achieve that same objective through diplomacy, and can split the land fairly at the time that it makes sense to send settlers there, why not?

    I don't think we should be holding up our diplomat from talking with our neighbor. We've seen that RB was prompt in getting back to us, they believe that speed is important in diplomacy, just as we do. I don't think you're in disagreement about the general idea of discussing borders with RB, which is what the team rightly should decide on. The details of how the diplomat does this don't need extensive review by the team, otherwise our diplomacy will be too clunky and won't achieve its' goals.
     
  15. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    This is what I fear too for sure.

    As for the "stone city", I think it is more matter of "isthmus city". While stone is still in fact high value resource of course. Think Pyramids, Stonehenge, even Hanging Gardens. Later on - Oxford.

    And how exactly you think we work out an agreement? What besides "Stone is mine" said by the both parties can be argument? Who will make the compromise by letting the other team have it? RB?

    Building a city from our side of the halfway is still OK. It is not like building a city in pinkdot fashion, as the stone is actually closer to our capitol, if that can be any measure. I just dont see why would we tell them where the isthmus is and how far we are and in which direction exactly.

    But I am even OK with telling them all that, if you those who advocate this tell me how we are going to agree who is going to settle the isthmus.

    edit: crosspost with the last 4 posts, including Cav's
     
  16. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I'm also of the opinion that it is ok to reveal the location of the stone, in case anybody is keeping count.

    However, what if we change the wording of the second paragraph as follows:

     
  17. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,153
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Pink-dotting as you know, is settling provocatively in the opponents direction, passing by open land to get a city closer to your opponent. Pink-dotting is hostile and provocative. 2metra has already said that he responds to being Pink-dotted by attacking right after the NAP. Why would you expect RB to respond differently?

    And more importantly, This is what you are missing. If you can see that them settling the stone is "pink-dotting" us, why can't you see that US settling the stone is pink-dotting them? You don't pink-dot an ally:(

    Finally, If that is the ONLY way you can see them "pink-dotting" us is by claiming the stone, then you are missing something.:p I can think of some ways they could get revenge on us and pink-dot us back.
    Yes, and we are perfectly within our rights to "claim" it because we saw it first. But the correct way to claim it is to say "Hey we saw this spot first and we want to claim it, but we acknowledge that you might feel provoked by that. That is why we are telling you ahead of time so that if you have objections we can resolve them. We say this to you because we value you as friends and want an open an honest relationship between us."
    No, once we grab this spot (without any notice or conversation with RB) it is the TKY situation all over again, with permanent tension between us and RB for the rest of the game. Or even worse it is a ancient times War as soon as the NAP expires:(
    Melodramatic exagerrations aside, you are wrong about this. If we negotiate to claim this spot with RB's acceptance and approval, there is no race. I dont want to race because it wastes time and resources, especially if you lose.
    We can accomplish all of that by just talking to them. And the so-called advantage we have depends heavily on RB not sending a unit out and discovering the ithsmus on their own, BEFORE we can even settle the spot.

    Hell, they might even know about it already. Maybe their first warrior was killed investigating the ithsmus. Has anyone even considered that? EDIT: x posted with a bunch of guys. I see that Caledorn actually mentioned this before me:)
    I guarantee you that they are prioritizing finding us already. Given their egos, as 2metra already said, it is unbearable to them that we know where they are and they don't know where we are.

    In fact THE BEST way to discourage them from scouting heavily in our direction trying to locate us is to just TELL THEM where we are. By telling them where we are, they will probably put off exploring for us because there is no need and they can use their time exploring in other directions. In this way, being open and honest might actually prevent them from discovering the ithsmus before we can settle it.
    No, No, No. It is not "always good" to do that. Denying resources is what starts conflicts. Gosh cav, have you forgotten the Or Here/ereh Ro/Pulsar Plateau conflict already? That BS (CDZ denying Q copper) almost broke up the alliance!

    We should only deny a resource is if there is a REASON to do so. The fact that you say you have no use for stone is another reason NOT to provoke hostility over it.

    Again, I have no problem with claiming the ithsmus. However, I strongly prefer that we talk to RB about it in advance.
     
  18. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I am afraid of this too. I think they never mentioned a border agreement just because they will never agree to one before seeing the land. From one side there is no reason to not tell them the truth and describe the land well, as they are going to see it for themselves, but from the other side, if they are not going to make a border agreement before seeing the land, we will not going to get a border agreement soon, so we cant be safe from provocative settling.

    BTW, one very important question, what army RB have at the moment, Yossa?
     
  19. Bowsling

    Bowsling Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,000
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    As good as Grant's writing was (and it was great! :goodjob:), I think that this version is better. Just because it's very simple and straightforward, and we are talking to RB here. The less intricate the wording for now, the better IMO.
     
  20. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Way better. I would have even periphrases it not like communicate with each other before planting a city within two tiles of the Oasis? but simply not settle on the oasis west for us and east of the oasis for them. Even with this, we can be safe.

    We can still include the part where we suggest we both settle in the opposite directions towards other teams, while leave those lands between us for later settling. They will still see the stone and the isthmus, and yet they will know we had told the truth about the oasis and that it is fair border point.

    That actually is a way finer wording, not like "we want you to know where the goodies are so you can ask to claim them". The main point is we make a claim for this and politely ask them if they have objections. This is the way to go. If they say they have objections, they will look bad and we will know they dont want fair deals.
     

Share This Page