Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond

[YossarianLives]

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

Reporting for duty, General!

Ok, on to the Demos. Some very interesting stuff here. The first thing I want to point out is something I should have realized last turn. RB went up to 8k soldiers with their tech on T9, which tied them with Rival Best. They grew last turn, adding another 1k to their soldier count. So Rival Best should have gone up to 9k, but it stayed at 8k!

Therefore, we know Realms Beyond was the team that lost their starting Warrior to a barb animal on Turn 11!

So that's how we know they lost their starting Warrior to an animal on T11(almost certainly that injured lion south of Thunderfall). The only way this would not be true is if they researched a tech on T9 that did not come with any Soldier points (only candidate is Myst, but then they'd have a religion by now).

Since then, they could have built up to a maximum of three Warriors, but my belief is they have two: Goldilocks built on T18 and another built on T27. If both of these are exploring, then they have no city garrison.

They definitely do not have BW, and I am very confident they do not yet have AH. I believe they could be researching one of these techs right now, though. Their last tech was Hunting completed on T28. Before that, they got Pottery on T21 (verified by their cottage), and Mining on T9 (explained above).

At this moment, my assessment of the military risk Team Realms Beyond poses to us is slight to none.

 

[YossarianLives]

I think the message is sounding really great right now. Here is Caledorn's message, with grant's, mine, and 2metra's suggestions edited in:

Hey Team RB

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.

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 for now that we will not settle a city West of the Oasis, and you will not settle a city East of the Oasis? The bottom line in our suggestion is that we talk openly with one another about settling in each others direction. What are your thoughts on this?

Also, please be advised that there is both a bear and a lion roaming just southeast of where our scouting warrior is currently located. The bear has disappeared into the fog for now, but the lion is clearly visible 2s1e of where our warrior is currently standing.

Caledorn, on behalf of Team CFC

 

[2metraninja]

So, is it possible we to just kill them off in 3 turns? It could be way better than to worry about alliance with them

 

[Sommerswerd]

They pose no threat now, however with one War Chariot RB could elimminate us. So getting a Spear is important to 2metra's them of us being strong enough to be viewed as equals.

 

[YossarianLives]

Adventure One is size 4 and can definitely get out a 3-turn Warrior, so there's no way we can eliminate them without clock games, and they probably can beat us at any clock games since they seemingly have tons of players able to log on during any time of day / night.

We should be safe from any WC rush, since I think we can consider the NAP to T100 signed and in effect. Still, Hunting->AH should be our tech focus after BW, not just for military reasons (spears and revealing Horses), but also to hook up our Deer / Cow resources.

 

[2metraninja]

Yossa, another question, if it happens that they dont have a warrior in their capitol, is it possible for them to build one in 3 turns? I think you already said they could, is it 100% sure? they must have atleast 5 hammers production. Is it sure they have this?

More and more I think, more and more my gut tells me their capitol is defenseless. It is just not coincidence we appear from the best angle They even have no warrior nearby which can return in 3 turns, even if they play first in the turn order of possible war. It is a matter of can they build a warrior in 3 turns. If they can, then they are safe, but they need to know it right before this turn to start producing him. If they cant produce him in 3 turns, then they are in deep troubles.

Sad thing is that in the case they can produce one in 3 turns and if the turn is about to roll and they still dont know if they have NAP with us, they will put him in the production just to be sure. They will be 1 or 2 turns off of their plan, building warrior instead of worker/settler, and they will be pissed off, but still safe. Or at least 90% 1 warrior against other in a capitol on hill give some 10% chance, which is still quite good chance to eliminate early such opponent Not advocating it, just mentioning the possibility.

So, if we are going to make a good NAP, now is the time to ask and request, guys. They will take whatever reasonable deal they are offered to avoid the risk of being eliminated, choked badly, or at least being interrupted in their plans.

 

[2metraninja]

So, you already have answered my question.

About considering the NAP in effect, is it so? We asked for border agreement and they said nothing. Aren't all clauses bound?

 

[YossarianLives]

Yossa, another question, if it happens that they dont have a warrior in their capitol, is it possible for them to build one in 3 turns? I think you already said they could, is it 100% sure? they must have atleast 5 hammers production. Is it sure they have this?.

They had their Worker by T10, and their Corn Farm by T15. They got Pottery on T21 and probably used the last 10-11 turns to build FP Cottages. That leaves a 6-turn gap when we don't know what their Worker was doing. If they built a Mine, then they can get a 3-Turn Warrior. Since they were Rival Best Food at Size 2, and Rival Best Food did not increase when they grew to size 3, they probably did build a PH Mine and switched to that at Size 3. So, my best guess is they have the capability to build a 3-turn Warrior. However, this is not certain by any means.

Another thing to consider is that they really do seem to be holding the turn. If they don't feel that the NAP is valid right now, they can switch to a Warrior, end turn, then immediately End Turn again so that they are guaranteed to go first in any war.

 

[Caledorn]

I think the message is sounding really great right now. Here is Caledorn's message, with grant's, mine, and 2metra's suggestions edited in:

I can use this, and it is very well written and polite - but I do not like it's distrustful contents (Edit: That is - leaving out the stone. The rest of it is great!). The reasoning is simple: If they already know there is stone there, they will instantly know we want that position for a city. In which case they know we do not trust them, and they will build up for a future conflict with us when the time is right. If they not know there is stone there, they will know we have acted dishonourably by not telling them of the strategical position that stone is in as a choke point when they discover it. Which means they will not take us seriously ever again in this game (nor in any future games, based on how I have seen RB's view on honour - the way I read them is that you honour your deals even if it costs you the game). Are we really willing to risk that just over giving away some information about a stone resource?

Oh, and cav scout: I would not send of a missive of such an importance like this one without a majority approval within the team, no matter how much I disagreed. I ask that you (and of course the rest of the team) put enough trust in me if I am to represent us that comments like that one is unnecessary in the future. I'm not upset over it, as I understand your concern - but wanted to mention it as it is vital that I have the trust of the team if I am to represent us.

On that note: We should finish this up now, and get something sent to them. I'll give it another hour, before sending the last suggested post (that I do not like) unless there is a majority intervention that states "Include the information about the stone" after reading this post from me. This is what I will send them, to be as clear as possible:

Spoiler :

Hey Team RB

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.

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 for now that we will not settle a city West of the Oasis, and you will not settle a city East of the Oasis? The bottom line in our suggestion is that we talk openly with one another about settling in each others direction. What are your thoughts on this?

Also, please be advised that there is both a bear and a lion roaming just southeast of where our scouting warrior is currently located. The bear has disappeared into the fog for now, but the lion is clearly visible 1-East and 2-South of where our warrior is currently standing.

Caledorn, on behalf of Team CFC

 

[Caledorn]

So, you already have answered my question.

About considering the NAP in effect, is it so? We asked for border agreement and they said nothing. Aren't all clauses bound?

In my view, the NAP is a done deal, and we are trying to agree to cooperate even better. If we discover an empty capital, I would not feel at all comfortable about declaring war on them even if that is obviously the best course of action to us... I value honour and giving my word very very highly, and I hope the team feels the same way as me on that even if we would be in a position to eliminate our chief competitors by breaking our word.

 

[Aivoturso]

Adding my 2¢... First, though stone is good, it most definitely is not worth sacrificing the game. But as cav_scout and 2metra have pointed out, the isthmus is strategically very important. Personally I do not mind at all if RB settles west of the Oasis to grab the stone. However, if they settle on spot suggested by cav_scout or even more eastwards, I see it as an offensive maneuver. For us the isthmus is a perfect defensive terrain. If we plot a city on the isthmus, anyone approaching us from that direction would have to take out the city before entertaining thoughts of attacking our capital. Anyhow I believe we can forgo plotting a city where cav_scout suggested and instead settle on a plains hills between the wine and cow to get the same or even better strategic effect since the city would also make it more difficult to attack us from north too.

BTW, there is one major drawback I see in alliance with RB. We and RB must use all of our cunning to get others to work with us. Even if we can ally with RB we can't beat rest seven teams if they all work against us two. And if I have right hunch how other teams view us two an alliance between RB and CFC would seem really fearsome indeed. Nevertheless, I believe it is in our best interests to try and forge an alliance with RB.

Another random thought on how to deal with RB. If we can get them to warm up to us it could be wise to make an agreement on wonder building. If we can agree on that with them it would be possible to share the single stone when we get trade routes established (assuming it's the only stone around both of us). Not only that, it would make wonder races that much easier if we don't have to compete with RB.

 

[2metraninja]

Since they were Rival Best Food at Size 2, and Rival Best Food did not increase when they grew to size 3, they probably did build a PH Mine and switched to that at Size 3. So, my best guess is they have the capability to build a 3-turn Warrior.

Is their capitol on a Plain Hill? I think no.So if they just chopped their forested PH in to granary, they need to have 2 hammer giving tiles beside the naked PH(2h) which will allow them to build a 15h warrior with 3 pop for 3 turns. But as you said, 6 turns is a lot of time, they could easily have built a mine on the PH which will give them the wood and still give them the 4h mine. Damn!

Another thing to consider is that they really do seem to be holding the turn. If they don't feel that the NAP is valid right now, they can switch to a Warrior, end turn, then immediately End Turn again so that they are guaranteed to go first in any war.

They are holding the turn exactly because they dont have a warrior close enough to reach their capitol in time. If they had a warrior, they would had done exactly this and they would be just fine. But my guess is they have no such warrior (where turn order would have mattered), but they rely on building one in 3 turns and ending the turn last in case there are no enemy soldiers in sight to reach their capitol in 3 turns (just as we considerd this scenario a while ago). This is why they hold the turn, either to be sure our NAP is in place, or to set warrior as build. I put another bet of 1 beer on this And as I have short memory about such things, I will go on and make a thread for bets/predictions/guesses so we can have track on them once the game is finished and we can look at the other threads to verify them

 

[Caledorn]

Adding my 2¢... First, though stone is good, it most definitely is not worth sacrificing the game. But as cav_scout and 2metra have pointed out, the isthmus is strategically very important. Personally I do not mind at all if RB settles west of the Oasis to grab the stone. However, if they settle on spot suggested by cav_scout or even more eastwards, I see it as an offensive maneuver. For us the isthmus is a perfect defensive terrain. If we plot a city on the isthmus, anyone approaching us from that direction would have to take out the city before entertaining thoughts of attacking our capital. Anyhow I believe we can forgo plotting a city where cav_scout suggested and instead settle on a plains hills between the wine and cow to get the same or even better strategic effect since the city would also make it more difficult to attack us from north too.

BTW, there is one major drawback I see in alliance with RB. We and RB must use all of our cunning to get others to work with us. Even if we can ally with RB we can't beat rest seven teams if they all work against us two. And if I have right hunch how other teams view us two an alliance between RB and CFC would seem really fearsome indeed. Nevertheless, I believe it is in our best interests to try and forge an alliance with RB.

Another random thought on how to deal with RB. If we can get them to warm up to us it could be wise to make an agreement on wonder building. If we can agree on that with them it would be possible to share the single stone when we get trade routes established (assuming it's the only stone around both of us). Not only that, it would make wonder races that much easier if we don't have to compete with RB.

I agree on your points about how the other teams will view an alliance between RB and CFC. We will be considered a dangerous alliance! However, I also think some of the teams would want to join such an alliance, placing bets that eventually one of us will not renew the alliance.

Your points on the stone/wonders is exactly one of the things I have in mind when I suggest we diverge the information about the stone.

They are holding the turn exactly because they dont have a warrior close enough to reach their capitol in time. If they had a warrior, they would had done exactly this and they would be just fine. But my guess is they have no such warrior (where turn order would have mattered), but they rely on building one in 3 turns and ending the turn last in case there are no enemy soldiers in sight to reach their capitol in 3 turns (just as we considerd this scenario a while ago). This is why they hold the turn, either to be sure our NAP is in place, or to set warrior as build. I put another bet of 1 beer on this And as I have short memory about such things, I will go on and make a thread for bets/predictions/guesses so we can have track on them once the game is finished and we can look at the other threads to verify them

If that reasoning is correct our move should be 7, and not 4. Problem is: if it's wrong, we've lost all hope of an alliance with RB, and we come across as dishonourable dogs. I am not betting against you though, as you may very very well be correct. It is very weird that they are holding the turn - and it's unlikely that they are holding it for any other reason than that they are waiting for our response. But keep in mind that they may be testing our honour now. They may have defense there, and this may be a tactic to see if we intend to keep our word, or if we are dishonourable dogs...

 

[2metraninja]

I do value my word high too. Higher than losing/winning the game for sure. Here we talk about reading/interpreting the offer. If I offer someone 2 linked things (in our case peace and border agreement) and in responce I got "I'll take the one happily" and no single word about the second, is it really binds me to this? Even to the highest standarts of RB it is not exactly clear and this is why they are holding the turn - awaiting either our confirmation we are ok with NAP without the border agreement, or to put a warrior in build.

As of the reply, I vote we wait till tommorrow morning. The morning is clever than the night There are some 17 hours still on the timer. RB will patiently wait for our response.

 

[2metraninja]

And I think you all put too damned high value on the stone. Not as a strategic resource - stone is nice, but more as something which is so important, that it must be said, otherwise we can be considered slyful and tricky. It is just one resource. Too much noise for nothing. If the halfway between our capitols is there, it is there as a good base for who settles where. If us settling this closer to our capitol location will give us stone and good choke point, then even better! Why would we ask for something which is natural? I agree we to comment it in the aforementioned fashion (we are going to settle a city closer to our capitol than to yours but because it is still on our border, we would like to ask you you dont mind, right?) Not telling them precisely about the stone or the isthmus is absolutely OK for me. We are telling them where the halfway is, basically telling them where we are, isnt that kind enough for someone staying with warrior in the vicinities of another empty capitol? More than kind in my book. Anyone who will think "but this is not enough, they did not told us exactly what resources there are" I would call an arrogant and disgrateful pig.

 

[2metraninja]

Oh, and about the empty/not empty capitol, I think we already have scenario ready. Some pages back Sommers described it well:

them: oh, you stand near our capitol, please turn away your warrior
us: we are going to check if we can raze your capitol. if we can not, then you are worthy to be our allies, if we can raze it, why would we wont such an allies?
them: oh, no!

 

[cav scout]

So, you already have answered my question.

About considering the NAP in effect, is it so? We asked for border agreement and they said nothing. Aren't all clauses bound?

Sorry 2metra, we offered them a NAP right away without considering the possibility of an undefended capitol and they accepted. So we would be breaking the NAP we hastily offered if we attacked them now.

 

[Aivoturso]

About considering the NAP in effect, is it so? We asked for border agreement and they said nothing. Aren't all clauses bound?

IMO we still don't have a signed with RB. We suggested a NAP and starting border agreement discussions. They responsed that they accept their narrow interpretation of NAP. We have not responded. So there is not a common agreement of terms of the NAP making the whole deal still up in the air.

However, if we use this uncertainty to attempt to try take them out of the game early they are not likely going to trust any of us in any potential future games. And as I've said earlier I consider using this kind of ambiguities much less honorable than straightforward betrayal and backstabbing. Personally I can respect people who make an attack of opportunity against a team they've a NAP or even alliance with if they have decency not to pretend that the attack was legitimate. Though, IMO as a general rule backstabbing is practically always harmful for the backstabber too in multiplayer Civ. I'd bet that any unfair play (even perceived unfairness) we do will reach the ears of other teams. So even though I think the NAP is technically still up in the air, I'd strongly suggest not using that uncertainty as a pretext for attacking.

We do have two other possibilities how we can try to exploit the uncertain situation. First we can enforce RB to build a defender. We leave them hanging until the roll of the turn and then resume the talks. If Yossa and 2metra are right, RB will build a warrior messing their micro a bit. Another option is to send a diplo with mildly disappointed overtone explaining that we were expecting a bit more comprehensive co-operation and try to pressure them to open the negotiations on borders (so called gunship diplomacy).

BTW, another random thought. If we're aiming to ally RB we might want to consider renaming our worker. We don't want to risk an international incident in case some RB members don't view our naming shceme as hilarious as we do.

 

[2metraninja]

Another option is to send a diplo with mildly disappointed overtone explaining that we were expecting a bit more comprehensive co-operation and try to pressure them to open the negotiations on borders (so called gunship diplomacy).

Yes, exactly. We must ask now.

 

[Aivoturso]

OK. Now I'm just going to contradict my previous statement about technical effectiveness of our NAP. I reread our diplo and I think that the NAP is in effect also technically. While checking I noticed something else I overlooked in RBs message:

The term "NAP" is thrown around a lot in these games but rarely defined. For now, we will assume the narrowest definition: no actions which would cause war to be declared in-game (i.e., attacking units or violating borders).

At first I interpreted the underlined statement as an intention to agree on as little as possible. Now that I've read the message again I think it is not that simple. This statement could also mean that they are willing to discuss other terms as well, but don't take them for granted.