Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond

[Sommerswerd]

I like the whole idea of "new game, new attitude", but Sommers, think about Rhoth/E_T and all which happened in ACTA.

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.

 

[2metraninja]

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

Yes, they are. I think we were those who most insisted on them

 

[2metraninja]

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.

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.

 

[Sommerswerd]

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.

On this we agree. I think being militarily and economically their equal is the only way an alliance with them is going to work.

 

[YossarianLives]

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

Here's the rule:

d. Sharing of Map Images – Map images / screenshots cannot be shared outside of the game until it is possible to share maps in-game.

Spoiler :

Final Ruleset

01. Rule Infringing
a. Infringing on the rules is not allowed.

b. When an allegation of rule infringement has been leveled at one or more teams by one or more teams, the game will be paused.

c. Each side of the alleged rule infringement will appoint a spokesperson. 'Prosecutor' for the alleging team or teams, 'Defender' for the alleged rule infringer.

c. Evidence of alleged rule infringement will be collected and forwarded to the Game Admin together with any accompanying explanatory text by the Prosecutor.

d. The Game Admin will forward this information to the Defender and ask for feedback.

e. Upon receiving feedback (or after a reasonable amount of time at the Game Admin's discretion), the Game Admin will rule on the alleged infringement, determine the penalty (if any), the resolution (if any) and those determinations will be acted upon.

f. The Game Admin should start a thread that communicates allegations of rule infringements, parties involved, rule(s) allegedly infringed, evidence of infringement (providing proprietary information is not disclosed) and Game Admin ruling.

g. All rulings under this rule by the Game Admin are final.


02. In Game Actions
a. The following in-game action rules apply at all times.

b. Suicide Training - Knowingly sacrificing a unit to an ally in order to yield experience points to the victorious unit is not allowed.

c. City Gifting - Conquest, culture flip, UN resolution, and AP resolution are the only permitted methods of city transfer.

d. Unit Gifting, Unlock Building - Gifting a unit with experience that would remove the unit experience restriction for the Heroic Epic is not allowed. Gifting a unit with experience that would remove the unit experience restriction for West Point is not allowed.

e. Unit Gifting, war ally support - A team can only gift units to a war ally during the war ally's portion of the turn.

f. Bugs and Exploits - The use of any bug or exploit is not allowed. The decision about exactly what constitutes a bug or exploit rests solely with the admin. Consult with the admin if any action you are considering may be a bug or exploit.

g. In-Game Pausing - Any Team may pause the game. Any team encountering a paused game should consult the CFC based turn-tracker thread. If a team has not requested a pause in that thread, the game may be unpaused.

h. Abusing Pauses - No team should abuse the game pause rule.


03. In Game Actions (war edition)
a. Civilizations that are at war must observe turn order. Turn order is automatically fixed by the APT Mod on the first turn of war.

b. Teams must also observe turn order on the turn immediately prior to the first turn of War.

b1. Declarer Desires First Half Example: If the declarer desires to move first during the war phase turns, they must move before their 'target' in the turn preceding their war declaration.

b2. Declarer Desires Second Half Example: If the declarer desires to move second during the war phase turns, they must move after their 'target' in the war declaration turn.

c. Turn Order Shuffle to later slot - All teams at war have the right to request an order shuffle to a later slot providing at least 3 turns have elapsed since the declaration of war or the last order shuffle. If order requests conflict, the priority for a later position goes to the team that is currently earlier in the turn. The team moving ‘down’ the order acknowledges that they are giving the team moving ‘up’ a double move against them.

d. Deleted as per Administrator - June 6, 2012

e. Turn Order Appeals – A team can appeal to the Game Admin that the shuffle order is unfair and that the Game Admin can adjust the shuffle order at his discretion.

f. Joining an existing war - Teams will exercise care so as to avoid any double move when joining an ally in an existing war.

g. Care should be exercised on the war declaration turn so that the mod can correctly assign war turn order. This means that teams should not leave the game without finishing the turn on the turn that they declare war or the team being declared on should not enter the game until the declarer has finished their turn.

h. Teams can't declare war on a team that is currently online. Teams cannot permanently stay online just to avoid being declared on.


04. Out of Game Actions
a. Team Espionage - All external forms of intelligence gathering against opposing teams are not allowed.
Non-exhaustive list of example: Entering Team Forums, joining multiple teams using different accounts, actively petitioning other players for information, looking around on the CFC (or a 3rd party website) image database for screenshots and save uploads.

b. Game / Pitboss / Save Manipulation or Disruption - Editing the save file (with or without a utility) is not allowed. Intentionally disrupting access to the Pitboss host server is not allowed. Intentionally opening Diplomacy screens and then pausing, intending to lock teams out of playing their turn is not allowed.

c. Pre In-Game Contact - Teams making diplomatic contact before they have met in-game is not allowed. Non-exhaustive list of example: meeting privately to discuss in-game actions, game-related deals, in-game agreements, etc.). Note that teams meeting to discuss rules, ramifications of the impact of votes or rules are allowed.

d. Sharing of Map Images – Map images / screenshots cannot be shared outside of the game until it is possible to share maps in-game.

e. Game Pause Requests - Any team may request a pause by posting in the CFC turn-tracker thread. The purpose of the pause must be included in the pause request.

f. Abusing Pause Requests - No team should abuse the Game Pause Requests rule.


05 - Administration
a. Game Administrator - r_rolo1 has sole authority as game administrator. Replacement of the game administrator must be agreed to by all teams.

b. Victory - The winner of the game is the first team recognized as winner by in-game victory dialog.

c. Defeated Teams - Player on teams that are eliminated are permitted to join another team. These "refugee" players are free to share any information from their old team with their new team. They may NOT engage in team espionage by reporting information on their new team to any other team.

e. Game Setup Votes - Items determined during the voting phase of the game cannot be changed by rules or subsequent team votes. This rule cannot be changed by 05f.

f. Game Rules - Rules (with the exception of 05e) can only be changed by unanimous decision of all remaining teams in the game (1 vote per team) or by admin ruling.

g. Game Reloads - All game reloads will trigger an automatic game pause (game admin will post such in game pause thread) for a minimum of 24 hours or until each team that logged in to the game after the reload point has stated in the game pause thread that they are ready to continue.

 

[Sommerswerd]

LOL, I will admit I never looked at the situation like this Still a good angle, have to think about it... As for your instincts, I tend to agree you vision most of the time proves right, sometimes even for my utter surprise.

We cant make them love us with all the kindness in the world, all we need is they to respect us... Again, I am not saying to lie or trick Rb, just threat them with the carefulness and respect they deserve.

Spoiler :

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

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.

 

[Sommerswerd]

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"

 

[cav scout]

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.

 

[Caledorn]

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.

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.

 

[Caledorn]

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.

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.

 

[1889]

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.

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.

 

[cav scout]

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.

 

[grant2004]

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.

 

[grant2004]

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.

 

[2metraninja]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[YossarianLives]

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:

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. 9-East and 2-South of Adventure One is an Oasis that is equal distance from each of our capitals. For an initial border agreement, can we agree to communicate with each other before planting a city within two tiles of the Oasis? 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?

 

[Sommerswerd]

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.

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. I can think of some ways they could get revenge on us and pink-dot us back.

This is key strategic terrain not just for the resources but because it is a wide isthmus linking our respective spheres of influence.

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."

Once we grab this spot we are good.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[2metraninja]

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 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?

 

[Bowsling]

As good as Grant's writing was (and it was great! ), 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.

 

[2metraninja]

On that note, we do not know how much your team has explored, but 9-East and 2-South of Adventure One is an Oasis that is equal distance from each of our capitals. For an initial border agreement, can we agree to communicate with each other before planting a city within two tiles of the Oasis? 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?

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.

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."

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.