Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond

[Aivoturso]

They apparently did not plan on people ruining their spoils of war. Good news that not everything is going as they planned If we have to comment on that we could say to them that we consider it quite similar to:

1. Pink dotting our Stone city (after we stated where we think a fair border would be).
2. Building Globe Theatre next to our borders. (Did I remember correctly that they did that as well?)
3. Gifting elephants to our enemies. (Thank you for pointing that out already.)

I.e. we can point out that it seems to us that they want only to follow the letter of agreement, not to go any further in our relationship.

One thing that they did get right was how we treated CivFr's GM. IMO, DoW after we promised to let it through was kind of backing down from a deal. And I think we may owe CivFr and apology and perhaps a compensation for that. I will comment more on that in CivFr thread.

 

[talonschild]

I wouldn't mind sharing the real reason for the CivFR war, but don't know what others think. Regarding the GM - well, I guess you have a point, Arki, but I thought we'd been quite gentle and courteous about that amongst the greater context of war.

 

[Maga_R]

I wouldn't mind sharing the real reason for the CivFR war, but don't know what others think.

I think it would be suicidal - if CivFr and RB cooperates, it would be very bad for us. Moreover, it seems that the whole team is bent on attacking RB just after our NAP expires - we are already acting openly hostile towards them (pillaging), so why would we share such a sensitive information? Scooter asks, of course, but that is his job I would simply say that we will not share this info.

 

[Caledorn]

I'm not so sure attacking RB on T175-176 is such a good idea.. I have a bad feeling about it. Bur nothing with substance that I can point to, sadly..

 

[vranasm]

well as I got it we don't plan to invade RB T175... we just should have standing army at borders and close borders...

 

[Maga_R]

I'm not so sure attacking RB on T175-176 is such a good idea.. I have a bad feeling about it. Bur nothing with substance that I can point to, sadly..

OK, I did not state it well - we are not planning to attack them just after T175, but it seems that I was the only person on the team who actually considered extending NAP with RB for less than half of their lands And we are openly hostile with them already - pillaging around their newly conquered cities. So why would we give them such an insider info? Anyway, I think they would not believe us if we would tell them

 

[YossarianLives]

I had a somewhat aggravating chat with Scooter just now. I'm on my phone so I'll post it in a bit when I get to a computer, but basically he said to stop pillaging German tiles or they will send chariots to the Zulu land to pillage our cottages. Jeez, it's like these guys only know how to use threats in their diplomacy.

 

[classical_hero]

Well, it might be a good time to replace me as RB ambassador after all. I went and just about got myself banned from RB today.

Nah, it wasn't really that bad, but I do think I pissed a lot of them off. I now understand better how Sommerswerd and 2metraninja felt when they tried to invite RB to join this game and got run off the site! Anyways, I figured I should let the team know since this could definitely affect our diplomacy with them. My bad, sorry!

Then again, maybe we can find a way to use this to our advantage?

Edit: Just to clarify, I am fine continuing with the RB diplomacy if the team is comfortable with it, but I wanted to bring this up since it really could affect how they respond to me over there so I felt the team had the right to know (and there really wasn't any threat of a ban or anything like that, just some calls to delete my thread )

What was the original thread title?

 

[YossarianLives]

"Why is Krill so angry?"

 

[Aivoturso]

...basically he said to stop pillaging German tiles or they will send chariots to the Zulu land to pillage our cottages. Jeez, it's like these guys only know how to use threats in their diplomacy.

Couple of points to consider:

1. Zulu land does not have too many mature cottages anyway.
2. The chariots would be away from the war front while their war is still hot.
3. Can we pillage roads to Zulu land to prevent them pillaging the cottages?
4. We have enough army in the area to pillage any cottages ahead of them in the worst case. So we'd lose the cottages but would get the gold.

In short I believe RB has more to lose if we continue the pillage campaign than we do. BTW, my guess is that the real reason why RB is so pissed about this is that they did not think of it first.

 

[YossarianLives]

Good point Aivo, I think you're right why they're pissed! I was thinking about it on my drive to work and we can definitely encourage them to send their chariots to former Zulu lands. Our own borders will pop before they even arrive, so it only denies them troops in their German war.

Anyways, here's the chat:

Scooter Hey, you around? 6:36 AM
YossarianLives Getting ready for work right now, so I can't chat much, but I'll try to respond 6:42 AM
Scooter Ok, no problem 6:42 AM
I wanted to see if you guys had any thoughts on the pillaging issue 6:42 AM
also, we're thinking about sending a couple of our chariots over towards the Zulu to see if we can't fund our research a little bit 6:43 AM
YossarianLives Starting early with the threats today, I see 6:45 AM
6:45 AM
Scooter not a threat at all, just a statement of fact. we thought it sounded like a good idea 6:46 AM
YossarianLives Did our turn player write correctly that after I told you we needed the gold for our research, you went ahead and pillaged your own tiles to deny us? 6:46 AM
That might be a more convenient way for you to get the gold you need,I guess 6:46 AM
Anyways, I did bring it up to the team. We don't have a decision yet 6:47 AM
Scooter Nope. We did that before I talked to you... and it was because it was on a tile we planned on farming, so the cottage wasn't useful to us 6:47 AM
but there will be some cottages we would like to keep in future cities 6:47 AM
YossarianLives Not sure if this statement of fact will help or harm your cause, but I'll let them know you're plans there, too 6:48 AM
Ok, I see... 6:48 AM
Scooter I figure if pillaging in neutral tiles is fair game under our NAP agreement, we would be remiss not to get in on the action 6:49 AM
YossarianLives I haven't brought this up top the team yet, but we will have a source of dyes soon, and we have that agreement to give each other first dibs on resources. Maybe we can work out a gpt trade that will be in everyone's favor 6:49 AM
If you really actually need that happy... 6:49 AM
Scooter well we are getting dye in exchange for the ivory, but of course we are willing to drop that trade as I said yesterday 6:50 AM
and yes, happy is nice when you're drafting and likely about to experience war weariness 6:50 AM
hate that mechanic 6:50 AM
also, I understand it takes time to decide, I think we were just hoping before this turn is played to know where you stand on the pillaging thing. I don't know how realistic that is? 6:51 AM
YossarianLives Ok, I'll double check 6:52 AM
Not sure I can get you the answer before the turn ends, though. There's a lot of different opinions when it comes to our diplo with your team 6:53 AM
Scooter heh, that I can understand. Well let me know either way, and thanks 6:53 AM
YossarianLives Np

 

[YossarianLives]

Did I already say this idea out loud, I can't remember?

I was thinking that we offer them the following:

• We stop pillaging their gold
• We sign a NAP extension with them
• We trade them the Dyes we're about to take from the Spaniards
• They gift us three or four border cities: Starfall (the stone city they stole from us), Eastern Dealers (just north of Starfall, they said it was a barb city they captured), and a couple others of our choice

Of course they will decline this huffing and puffing, but might get them thinking that we are still trying to extend the NAP. The goal is to keep them guessing as long as possible, so when it becomes obvious they're not getting an extension, they have to whip / draft that much harder to catch up.

And if they accept the deal? Well 4 free cities would be worth it, I say!

Oh, and the reason I brought up the Dyes trade in the chat this morning was because in our treaty with them I believe there is a clause that we trade resources "fairly" with each other, and specifies this means happy for happy or 2 gpt per city. Since RB has tons of cities, I'm thinking that an influx of about 50-70 gpt would be worth it to us.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I suggest telling Scooter that we are not willing to stop pillaging the neutral tiles, but we welcome them to pillage neutral tiles themselves if they want, wherever those neutral tiles might be. This is just basically calling his bluff, as there is no way they can spare units from the war front for pillaging, plus we can pop borders before they arrive, plus the Zulus don't have many cottages plus, etc etc... Bottom line this is a stone cold bluff by Scooter and he should be called on it.

One thing I would take away from their whining about our pillaging, is that you can suggest it as one of the terms in our NAP extension. You could even give it a clause number like this

NAP Extension Addendum

A. Pillaging the tiles in neutral land that will fall in the BFC of a treaty members recently captured city is prohibited.

B. No trading strategic resources to parties that the other treaty member is at War with.

c. RB agrees that the following cities will be gifted to CFC at the start of the NAP extension City X, City Y, City Z...

This will give the signal that we are serious about talking about a NAP extension (if the terms are very favorable to us... which we are, technically). Plus it gives Yossa something better to talk about with Scooter, so he can go on the offensive... as in, "So did you guys decide what cities you're willing to give us yet? No? Oh well I guess that means you aren't serious about a NAP extension then right?"... As opposed to Scooter just badgering Yossa about "Why you really went to war with CivFr?"

I actually think its better to let them think there is a CFC-CivFr conspiracy so that they are scared of us... so I am for encouraging that kind of thinking rather than trying to convince Scooter that there is no conspiracy (which is exactly what Scooter wants you to do IMO).

Last thought... I kept clause B vague on purpose to encourage discussion, let them come back with questions about it so we can say "hmmm we didnt consider that!... How clever you are to point that out.... let us think about it and get back to you"

 

[YossarianLives]

So, if scooter comes asking about our decision, do we go with option 1: " Go ahead and pillage away, we're not stopping ourselves" or option 2: "We'll stop pillaging, but only as part of a larger agreement and NAP extension, which we'll be emailing you shortly"?

 

[2metraninja]

Avoid him until we have answer from French.

Much depends on their attitude.

 

[2metraninja]

BTW, they are threatening Poly too because they pillage too without much result

 

[YossarianLives]

So, what do we want to do about RB? Do we want to try a NAP extension with them or not? Have we still been pillaging their tiles? Would we be willing to concede anything in order to secure a NAP? What / when would we tell our allies if we do extend our NAP with RB?

Lots of questions here, and I have no idea what approach to take with Scooter if he were to try to chat me at this point.

 

[Maga_R]

So, what do we want to do about RB? Do we want to try a NAP extension with them or not? Have we still been pillaging their tiles? Would we be willing to concede anything in order to secure a NAP? What / when would we tell our allies if we do extend our NAP with RB?

Lots of questions here, and I have no idea what approach to take with Scooter if he were to try to chat me at this point.

I vote for NAP extension with RB. But we owe it to our allies to tell it to them first, that we are in no position for 2-front war turn 170-175 (whenever our NAP with RB expires).

 

[2metraninja]

So, what do we want to do about RB? Do we want to try a NAP extension with them or not? Have we still been pillaging their tiles? Would we be willing to concede anything in order to secure a NAP? What / when would we tell our allies if we do extend our NAP with RB?

Lots of questions here, and I have no idea what approach to take with Scooter if he were to try to chat me at this point.

I am not sure yet what we do with RB. We dont need to concede anything in order to get a NAP with them. How quick we went from asking them 1/4 of their cities for NAP to conceding to them?

I am not sure if we wont look like cowards and traitors if we sign NAP with RB. But who knows, this may turns out good, so MZ and Ot4e finally get their defense in their own hands?

Speaking strategically, if we dont extend NAP with RB, in best case scenario, we will be in 2 vs 3 situation with possibly becoming 2 vs 4 if Uciv show a bit of activity. That is 150 to 200% superiority. Where if we extend NAP, we will be 1 vs 1, which speaking pure in numbers, will be 1.5 to 2 times worse situation

If Scooter ask what is our decision, we have no clear decision yet. Such important choice have to be taken not lightly.

At least we do not pillage them anymore. If they ask something, tell them we are impressed by them turning down the Spanish gold, we admire fair play.

 

[Sommerswerd]

1. We will look like cowards and traitors if we sign NAP with RB
2. We will be dealbreakers if we sign NAP with RB
3. RB will not sign a NAP with us. They know we have our backs turned to CivFr, and they see this as their chance to eliminate us.
4. CivFr will not sign a NAP with us. They know we will lose our NAP with RB on t175, and they see this as their chance to eliminate us with RB opening a second front on us.
5. Now is the worst time to abandon our CP and Poly allies, as we will need them desperately against RB in 20 turns, especially since we are fighting CivFr.
6. Even asking RB about a possible NAP is a bad move, because obviously RB will take this news straight to Poly and CP and tell them "Look CFC leads you into this folly against us and then plots to make a NAP with us on the side, leaving you hanging in the breeze to fend for yourselves! Come sign a NAP with us and we will crush those CFC backstabbers together!"