Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond

[cav scout]

How about we wait for the turn to roll and then move Thunderfall to get a view of their capitol before sending any more messages?

@Sommers- I never said that RB founding a city to get the stone would be a pink-dot city. If they found on our side of the oasis and gets the wines then yes, that would be a pink-dot. That is why I like my proposed city location next to the river on the isthmus. It gives us the wines while avoiding the corn that is in their sphere of influence. If we found here we effectively prevent them from being able to do any pink-dots against us and we have a stable border at the natural boundary halfway point.

 

[2metraninja]

I will again remind that we are dealing with Sulla as their mastermind. In the previous ISDG, where they ponkdotted the team next to them, and the other guys did not declared them a war, but started to whine like: "Well, we accept this now, but in the future, bla bla bla" he said something in the lines: I have told you, those sissies will do nothing and just whine. Since then, they never though those Templar guys a real worthy ally/parthner.

Same thing can happen here. We stay with a warrior 3 tiles away from their undefended capitol, and we do nothing. Even worse, we ask for nothing, but give them the comfort to not look like they have to beg for peace. Come on, it is OK to try to win an important ally, but let us show we have balls too? Lets ask them to accept that halfway and agree to not settle east of it for the duration of the NAP. They will say: Well, those guys had the opportunity to harrass us, but they decided to not do so. And yet they know what they want and made us accept their terms. Well done, guys, this is our kind of guys

I am going to bed, but I ask you to postpone the answer and formulate it as to bind the two things - NAP and border agreement. Equal distance to capitols is absolutely fair and enough criteria.

 

[Caledorn]

How about we wait for the turn to roll and then move Thunderfall to get a view of their capitol before sending any more messages?

@Sommers- I never said that RB founding a city to get the stone would be a pink-dot city. If they found on our side of the oasis and gets the wines then yes, that would be a pink-dot. That is why I like my proposed city location next to the river on the isthmus. It gives us the wines while avoiding the corn that is in their sphere of influence. If we found here we effectively prevent them from being able to do any pink-dots against us and we have a stable border at the natural boundary halfway point.

I do not like the prospect of waiting for the turn to roll, as we have already a NAP in place with them.

If we move that city so we do not take the oasis inside the BFG, I agree that it is legally and honourably our sphere of influence.

I will again remind that we are dealing with Sulla as their mastermind. In the previous ISDG, where they ponkdotted the team next to them, and the other guys did not declared them a war, but started to whine like: "Well, we accept this now, but in the future, bla bla bla" he said something in the lines: I have told you, those sissies will do nothing and just whine. Since then, they never though those Templar guys a real worthy ally/parthner.

Same thing can happen here. We stay with a warrior 3 tiles away from their undefended capitol, and we do nothing. Even worse, we ask for nothing, but give them the comfort to not look like they have to beg for peace. Come on, it is OK to try to win an important ally, but let us show we have balls too? Lets ask them to accept that halfway and agree to not settle east of it for the duration of the NAP. They will say: Well, those guys had the opportunity to harrass us, but they decided to not do so. And yet they know what they want and made us accept their terms. Well done, guys, this is our kind of guys

I am going to bed, but I ask you to postpone the answer and formulate it as to bind the two things - NAP and border agreement. Equal distance to capitols is absolutely fair and enough criteria.

We would obviously not accept such a move, that is exactly what we are trying to make clear and consise agreements to avoid, 2metra. By postponing the answer we come across as indecisive, and we also look as if we're not sure if we wish to uphold the NAP.

My initial message showed we have balls, imho, as we clearly stated that we would not accept any pink-dotting. The message was rewritten into a more polite, less suspicious message that I do like better (I like being polite) - but that also means it's more submissive in it's approach than the original message was. I would prefer making the message a bit more demanding in it's approach though, to show that "We mean business, take it or leave it". I'd still prefer it to be polite demands, but concise and to the point.

I'm really not happy with postponing the message any further though..

 

[cav scout]

What is the reason to rush back with a response exactly? Can't we just wait until the turn rolls and see how things develop?

Also, I disagree about the oasis. It's on the halfway boundary seam so I think it would be fine for it to be in our BFC. If our BFC extends any further though i would consider it a minor encroachment into RB territory.

 

[Caledorn]

What is the reason to rush back with a response exactly? Can't we just wait until the turn rolls and see how things develop?

Also, I disagree about the oasis. It's on the halfway boundary seam so I think it would be fine for it to be in our BFC. If our BFC extends any further though i would consider it a minor encroachment into RB territory.

1. To show them we really want to cooperate and not postpone things until we "see how things develop". Imagine the situation reversed and how much we would be crying out about their non-responsiveness in our forum because they made us wait for a response. What we do now will have consequences for how they view us and deal with us for the rest of the game. Edit: They KNOW we are postponing a response. They do not know why, but I am willing to bet a beer on the fact that they believe we want to see their capital before we respond!

2. To show decisiveness and team unity (which we sorely lack at the moment...).

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[1889]

We certainly won't attack. As far as I'm concerned, the NAP we offered has been accepted.

As for the proposed message, I think its premature to discuss a boarder agreement when we don't have any common map info. It has already been mentioned and ignored by them, perhaps for that very reason. I wouldn't send anything at all until we had something of substance to discuss, but I certainly don't see the need to rush something to them. The least we can do is wait for the turn to roll over and give the team time to come to some consensus rather than rush a message that some of us think is inappropriate.

 

[Bowsling]

They're holding up the turn waiting for our answer!

We need to send a reply ASAP. I'd be in favour of sending the current version as is, but I'll leave it up to the more active posters in this thread.

 

[Caledorn]

Based on the current tally I can see in the thread here, making a count over the past 4 pages, there is a majority in favour of sending the message off, counting Bowslings latest post. With my current sleeping patterns, I will not be available until tomorrow afternoon (like 12 hours from now, as I prefer to wake up properly before starting diplomacy).

The way I read the thread now the people in favour of sending a message are: myself, Sommerswerd, Bowsling and Yossarian

While the people not in favour of sending a message until the turn has flipped are: 2metra, cav scout and 1889 (the latter loosely based on the fact that you do not see the point of discussing border agreement at the moment, 1889).

I'm going to postpone for a few hours to see if there are some more reactions in the thread, and then I'll make a decision whether I'll send the message or not before I call it a night for me (or rather morning...).

 

[whb]

I'm not convinced we should reply immediately -- at least not in any detail. (But I need to go back and read the latest draft)

The best indication of our friendship is when our warrior sees their undefended capital and does not enter their land. That will happen in 2 turns anyway. Fretting about needing to give them extra info now is putting the cart before the horse. The warrior is about to prove our friendship -- after that, negotiations will be easier. (in my opinion)

 

[1889]

How about we locate Copper before we start telling RB where we won't settle.

 

[Bowsling]

4-4. Guess that means someone here has to make a decision. After all this official nominating and such, have we appointed someone to have the final word here? Glad it's not me.

 

[whb]

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...

The agreement is not to enter their territory. Looking at their territory from their border is entirely honorable -- keeping the agreement exactly as they have assumed it is -- and we would be fools not to.

 

[whb]

Ok, re-reading the drafts, here's my thoughts --

Para 1 and 3 are ok. I think para 2 is a seriously bad idea indeed. It does not just "give them the location of stone - a worthless resource", it tells them of the peninsula (that there is a land connection 9E and that we lie in that direction) and that is very much more important. And having volunteered all the useful info we have about the land between us and them, they would be entirely honorable to say "Thanks but no thanks, we'd like to just keep it to the NAP for now" and give us zero terrain information in return.

Make the offer of sharing map info, but wait until they agree before giving it to them

 

[whb]

Actually, I'd modify para 1 as well -- 100 turn NAP is effectively "heck it'll take us 100 turns to get a war chariot to your door anyway".

The para 1 I'm commenting on is:

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.

From Yossarian's post (always possible I'm commenting on the wrong draft).

Although I like it from the "Of the largest importance..." part, I think the first part is weird. The 100 turn NAP clearly benefits them more than us because they're not in any sort of a position to do otherwise anyway. If we are over-effusive and over-grateful for such an agreement, it sounds to me like either we're a bunch of suckers or we're about to backstab them.

 

[whb]

4-4. Guess that means someone here has to make a decision. After all this official nominating and such, have we appointed someone to have the final word here? Glad it's not me.

I think we should send something, but I don't think we should presume they'll agree to the map sharing (and give up all our info before we've even asked them). So far they've said they interpret the agreement in its narrowest possible terms -- that's a positive for peace, but so far a negative for sharing info. And I can't help but think you ask your date if she's interested before you take all your clothes off...

Oh, the way I see it, the delay means two options

1. They could build a warrior in time, and they think they might be able to trust us and are waiting to make sure. (If they didn't think they could trust us, they'd just build the warrior and end turn; if they couldn't build the warrior anyway they'd just end turn as there's no dilemma for them)
or
2. They are faking that they could build a warrior in time.

So our reply should certainly reassure we won't invade (which means inside their team they'll have to actively decide to bet on trusting us)

 

[whb]

On reflection, I'm in danger of leading this into being a lawyer response.

If Yossarian's draft is the current one, I think we should send it minus the para about the stone oasis and land bridge. Save that para for a follow-up when they agree to some info sharing.

Domestic blindness. How did I read "stone" for "oasis"?

 

[Caledorn]

On reflection, I'm in danger of leading this into being a lawyer response.

If Yossarian's draft is the current one, I think we should send it minus the para about the stone oasis and land bridge. Save that para for a follow-up when they agree to some info sharing.

Domestic blindness. How did I read "stone" for "oasis"?

My thought is that one of our teams have to give something in way of info first. Giving away the info about the oasis can be considered a handout, while not being exactly vital information. By giving them that little tidbit (and it is little) we show them our intents are indeed cooperation. Does that change your mind?

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Caledorn]

By the way: I feel it is very important to add that the level of involvement from everyone here is very pleasing. Even though we do not reach a unanimous decision, the level of involvement is really a blessing and proof of strength for our team. Thank you, guys

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Caledorn]

4-4. Guess that means someone here has to make a decision. After all this official nominating and such, have we appointed someone to have the final word here? Glad it's not me.

For the time being, the "final word" rests with me as there was no-one else stepping up to be the Lead Diplomat. I have postponed this far longer than I am comfortable with, because I believe the feedback is important. But I will send off a message to RB before I go to bed.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sommerswerd]

If I understand correctly... Assuming that they can build a warrior in 3 turns (as Yossarian suggested) AND we are going to attack their capital:

How about this... Just login and Declare War on them right now so that we are guranteed first move every turn... result?
This turn (turn 1) - we already moved...We DoW, RB switches to warrior (3 turns to complete)
Next turn (turn 2)- We move to hill and see their Capital, end turn. RB is building Warrior (2 turns to complete)
New Turn (turn 3) - We move next to their capital end turn, RB building Warrior (1 turn left)
(Turn 4) Now when turn 4 starts, their warrior will spawn during the roll and appear in their capital. This will happen BEFORE we can attack correct?

So we cant capture their capital UNLESS they need more than 3 turns to build a warrior. So why dont they just switch to Warrior and end their turn since either way we cant raze them either way? 2 possibilities:

1. They are not building a warrior but instead moving a warrior they already have to the capital. So if they move first he gets ther in time, if not they get razed.

2. They are trying to avoid wasting on a warrior if they dont have to. If we confirm the NAP then they can continue building whatever. If we don't confirm, they have to waste on a warrior.

Either way the raze is not happening UNLESS they are moving rather than building the warrior and somebody (not me) is going to play the clock game with them (trying to hit end turn and log out before they can (which would be dumb as its easier to just DoW now.)

The other issue is that we offered a NAP and they accepted, asking for a clarification of the terms, IMO. But if you want to put our lawyer hats on (which I am always happy to do) we can say that their response attempts to change or modify the contract which is not an acceptance of the offer but instead a rejection of the offer and submission of a counteroffer with their new terms, which consequently makes us free to accept, reject or reject and then counteroffer.

So is that how you guys want to play this game? Because once you go there, there is no going back.