1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond

Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by talonschild, Jul 29, 2012.

  1. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Just saw this in RB's sign-up thread for their new PB

    So based on their status at RB, I'd say these are their team leaders. I'm actually more surprised and worried to hear that T-hawk is heavily involved. He's their number-cruncher and code-diver, and if he's playing they are paying very very close attention to all the details and it will be really difficult to get anything by them.
     
  2. bistrita

    bistrita Warlord

    Joined:
    May 31, 2012
    Messages:
    234
    Actualy i think seven spirits its better then any of them.
     
  3. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    I have no opinion about their respective skills, just was saying that RB's diplomacy last couple couple of months, and especially last NAP offer, sounded like Sulla to me. But it was only based on reading couple of his write-ups. But Yossa says that my hunch was actually close to the truth :D. Pity it is too late for a bet ;)
     
  4. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    :) It seems you were not following close the forum. I am 100% sure I had few cases where I had said Sullla is the RB mastermind.
     
  5. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Got this quick screenshot while I was logged into the game. RB has officially taken ALL the good German land.



    German WEs are actually pointed away from their cities, instead headed towards WPC borders. Looks like they decided to try to raze a WPC city or two instead of leaving those units for RB to plow through. The advance stack has 1 WE, 7 cats, 2 axes, 1 longbow and a couple workers. The back-up stack has a few WEs and HAs, along with another cat and two medic chariots.

    They'll probably all get taken from behind by RB Knights :(
     
  6. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,049
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Think RB will move on to taking WPC cities after Germans?

    If not... any ideas about what WPC has been promised in this War?
     
  7. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    RB and WPC have long NAP as far as I know. About cities and land division, I've been told RB promised WPC 5 or 6 cities. Basically the North, while RB keeps the South.
    The turn of events is going to be really interesting to follow, as obviously RB captured more cities than they should had and they have no other way of returning them to WPC except declaration of war?
     
  8. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I wanted to catch Scooter so I could ask him about the German war a little, but I was really busy at work and he was able to get a lot of the initiative in terms of asking questions.

    tldr:
    • Scooter asked about the NAP. I told him that there are some who are ready to sign it right now, but we'll take a vote and we're taking our time since there is no rush
    • I asked about the German war, and the land split agreement with WPC. He says that WPC didn't attack when / where RB told them to, so they ended up taking most of the cities and now they're working out a new division
    • I asked if they're going to attack WPC after the war, he said "no"
    • I offered some nit-picks about the NAP. He is going to go back and re-write it.
    If they have heard anything from UCiv about our recent discussions with them, then he is doing a very good job at playing it off. I think I may have indicated we're closer to agreeing to the NAP than we really are, so I'll probably back off a little next time we chat. In the meantime, I think it might be time to put up a poll about this, something with a long deadline, at least a week.
     
  9. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Here's the "before" picture, since RB hasn't re-played their war moves yet.



    The Germans have already moved their troops towards WPC. RB will swoop in with Knights to take the cities (Willhelm and Waren), then use the roads to get their one-movers in place (12 Cats inside Willhelm, 11 Maces 1E of Willhelm, sprinkling of other units).
     
  10. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    We just got the official NAP proposal from RB:

     
  11. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,049
    Location:
    On the one spin
    To me, this clause:
    means that they are willing to give us a lot more than what we are currently asking for.

    Also keep in mind that they may be using this as a litmus test for how possible a NAP with us truly is... meaning that if we stall or try to add too much to it they will interpret it as proof of hostile intentions.
     
  12. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    The same paragraph to me means: "Just give the fcuking NAP and do what you want :)
     
  13. Magno_uy

    Magno_uy Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    273
    basically the same. lot of text for said nothing more dont attack me till Im really ready...
     
  14. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    2 things stuck out to me. First, RB put in a special clause that they can opt out if we attack WPC. What does that mean? Are they friends, are they worried that we could take WPC lands and surge ahead of them, or is it just a red herring?

    More importantly, they included this in the loopholes section:

    This caused the alarm bells do go off in my head. Do they know what we're planning with UCiv, or is it just a coincidence?

    At any rate, I will put up a poll in the next day to vote on this NAP. Like I said before, it will stay up for at least a week.
     
  15. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    @Yossa, I think that RB is now just super cautious about including every way we can screw them up by going around the agreement. And they have a very good reason to be too. If UCiv had told on us, I'm quite sure that we would know it. First, RB would have beefed up their defences. Second, it is very difficult to not to react to the kind of scheme we're suggesting. Though RB has been very succesful so far in this game, I really do not believe even they can suppress their emotions to the extent of calmly negotiating NAP extension if they knew that we are planning on backstabbing them so seriously.

    One important thing to note is that this agreement is mutually exclusive with the UCiv surprise attack scheme. And of course this will also render "force RB to build insane amount of troops and crash their economy" scheme rather obsolete as well.

    Oh and just one more thing, I think this kind of agreement speaks volumes of RB and CivFr not being in cahoots. I don't think we could have gotten an offer this good if RB would think that they can crush us with two front war.
     
  16. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I would say it is the second and a bit of the first. But tiny bit. Mostly they dont want we to attack WPC, because they have long NAP with WPC and they think we can crush them easily. Maaaybe, just maybe a little tiny bit of the third, telegraphing us they have friends too.


    This :thumbsup:

    This too :thumbsup:
    Plus, what "not grant right of passage" means if we have already OB agreement with many nations? What we do if they want to walk in our territory and attack RB?

    And this! :thumbsup:

    All very good points.
     
  17. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,262
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    How do our alliance partners feel about this?
     
  18. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    Good point. If we decide not to go for NAP, we can actually use this to stall the negotiations. We'll send a message or have our ambassador complaining: "You know, we have deals with other teams including Open Borders. And there is quite some overlap with our agreements and this proposal. We can't agree on something that would conflict with our existing agreements. And we can't very well renegotiate all the deals half way through either."

    This is a legitimate concern even if we decide to go for NAP extension as well.
     
  19. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,049
    Location:
    On the one spin
    To me what RB is getting at with the whole "no right-of-passage for enemies" thing, is a sort-of codified alliance. In other words, they want us to treat them like a team-mate. You wouldn't let other people cross your land to attack your teammate.

    That seems to me like what RB is asking for with this NAP. It is more than just a NAP they are trying to get, it is essentially an agreement that we will not do anything that could remotely harm them or be against their interests in any way.

    And if that is what they want... an alliance/partnership, then they need to be able to tell us what they envision doing to equalize things between us, to equalize our chance of victory with their own.

    Since the easiest way to measure the "equality" between Civs is score, then our response to them should discuss ways that they envision equalizing their score and our score, and how this can be done within X turns of the beginning of the NAP.

    I reccomend that next time Yossa talks to Scooter he does a few things.

    1. Call out the fact that this "NAP" of theirs looks more like an alliance pact
    2. Tell them that such a thing would require us to be equal in score
    3. Ask him to discuss this with his team and see what ideas they have for doing this.

    Of course their response will be to offer something vague and way in the future... "trust us and eventually we will help you conquer X and then you get their land, making you equal with us"... Then we can respond by saying we need score parity much faster than that.

    See where I am going with this?
     
  20. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    I just got a thought. There is another possibility to RB wanting to consolidate their gains from German war. What if this whole NAP is a red herring and a very cunning bit of diplomatical misdirection? I'm pretty sure that RB knows or at least supsects very strongly that they are surrounded by hostile nations, and that the said nations are allied against them. They know that the war is likely inevitable and they are afraid of 3 vs 1 option. So they propose NAP extensions to Poly and us with this "opt-out" clause because they know we wouldn't leave CP at their mercy. This gives the teams an idea that RB just wants to build on the newly won land and is not planning anoter war. Now suppose we and Poly were to take the deal. We'll move seriously against CivFr and Poly will keep building happy to avoid growing army costs. When turn 175 (or couple of turns after it) hits RB attacks CP with full force. We'll have our army on the East front way too far away to move in position during the 3 turn opt-out window. And Poly would probably not have enough army in position to react either. So RB gets to maul one of possible threats around it before other two can react.

    I'll be first to admit that above scenario is not very likely. I believe it's much more likely that RB is just seeking to get their economy back up after annexing a lot of land from their weakest neighbour. But I think this scenario perfectly explains why this "opt-out" clause is about as good as nothing for us. Either we'll have to keep "RB ready" as big of an army detachment as in original 3-way alliance plan without the benefit of forcing RB to crash their economy, or we would effectively leave other RB neighbours at their mercy.
     

Share This Page