And about the stone. I agree with 2metra that it is not a big deal. So just tell them about it so that there is no issue later. It seems pretty clear that we are claiming the stone regardless, so just let them know its there and we are planning to claim it, to be respectful and courteous at least.
We gain nothing except annoying our neighbor with further delays. We CAN'T capture the city, so just tell them we accept the NAP and that we are taking the stone so that they can end their turn.
I have cleaned up and done some modifications. I removed the "suck up" statements, as per whb's suggestion that I agree with. I also rephrased some sentences. If there is no objections or further suggestions, I intend to send this off to Team RB within the hour, as there is a majority agreement that we should send them a response sooner rather than later. I chose to leave the information about the oasis there, as I consider it a minor point of information. We have not told them that just east of the oasis is an important chokepoint/isthmus - nor have we told them about the stone that was initially in the message, so it has been strongly toned down. They probably will think the oasis has strategic importance, but the fact that it is actually situated in the middle of our capitals means it has strategic importance anyways. It makes sense that the map maker would create chokepoints between civs with resources to promote conflict, and I'm sure RB is aware of that too.
Spoiler:
Hey Team RB
With a NAP in place, we hope that we now have a foundation to build further agreements between our two teams. We agree with the interpretation of the NAP as you've suggested it, but would like to initiate discussions on how we can strengthen this agreement. We consider defining a border between our teams one of the most important short term goals we should come to an agreement upon. Our intention is to focus on settling productive cities in our home region, and not to settle provocative "pink dot" cities in your direction. In order to avoid settlement races and possible conflicting cities we'd like to share 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. As a suggestion for an initial border agreement, we propose that we will not settle West of the Oasis, and you will not settle 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
Now, if anyone gets upset with me for sending it off, I am sorry - but I have to make a decision here, so you are allowed to slap me with a dead trout later. Besides, there's still some time to object, as I'm not sending it right away.
And about the stone. I agree with 2metra that it is not a big deal. So just tell them about it so that there is no issue later. It seems pretty clear that we are claiming the stone regardless, so just let them know its there and we are planning to claim it, to be respectful and courteous at least.
We gain nothing except annoying our neighbor with further delays. We CAN'T capture the city, so just tell them we accept the NAP and that we are taking the stone so that they can end their turn.
While I agree with you that we should just tell them about the stone, there has been so much discussion about that stone and the oasis now, that I think we should just leave the message with the oasis. If they respond favourably, then we should most definitely include the information about the stone in our next message to them, with a possible offer to share it with them, in my opinion.
Edit: Come to think of it... Just so the team is aware of it - if I had free reigns I would have written the second para like this:
Spoiler:
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. As a suggestion for an initial border agreement, we propose that we will not settle West of the Oasis, and you will not settle East of the Oasis. Be advised that this means we get a stone resource within our influence, but that we are open for trading this resource if you need stone in the future, and are without a source of stone yourself. 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?
Dude, don't tell them where our capital is! We don't need to prostrate ourselves to RB and kiss their boots with a bunch of free info to earn their favor.
My opinion is that some of you guys are so excited that we have made contact that you are falling all over yourselves to "get the diplomacy going." I honestly don't understand what the rush is. We should let things happen at a natural pace and not try to nail everything down on the first turn of contact.
Oh, and RB is not holding the turn awaiting our response. They didn't even pose any questions to us did they? They are probably just taking advantage of time on the clock to have internal discussion about these new developments (which is wise).
If we send it this turn and ask about strengthening agreements, are we giving them an opportunity to say "don't move the warrior NW" -- which we want to do, but without offending them.
I still think this turn we should just be allaying their fears, and next turn we should start negotiating things of mutual benefit. (Or maybe even the turn after when they've seen us not set foot in their territory)
But it's not a strong opinion and I have confidence in Caledorn.
Dude, don't tell them where our capital is! We don't need to prostrate ourselves to RB and kiss their boots with a bunch of free info to earn their favor.
My opinion is that some of you guys are so excited that we have made contact that you are falling all over yourselves to "get the diplomacy going." I honestly don't understand what the rush is. We should let things happen at a natural pace and not try to nail everything down on the first turn of contact.
Oh, and RB is not holding the turn awaiting our response. They didn't even pose any questions to us did they? They are probably just taking advantage of time on the clock to have internal discussion about these new developments (which is wise).
We are not telling them where our capital is. We are telling them that "We are somewhere approximately 18 tiles east of you". We are not prostrating ourselves, or kissing any boots either - we're asking them if they wish to cooperate with us, and the way we're doing that is by showing them that we are prepared to trust them with some information that in the bigger picture is pretty unimportant.
MP games are lost and won by diplomacy and alliances. The teams that choose to not trust anyone are the teams that lose. A rogue team who decides to not share information will be eliminated.
I hope you don't take this the bad way, cav scout - but just as you say you think some of us (which would include me) are falling over "to get the diplomacy going" (we are not "falling over", but we are advocating the importance of diplomacy in a MP game), I would claim that your point of view may lead us in the wrong direction. I am fine with that of course, and if that's how the team wants to play, I have full intentions of sticking around even though I don't like it.
If we send it this turn and ask about strengthening agreements, are we giving them an opportunity to say "don't move the warrior NW" -- which we want to do, but without offending them.
I still think this turn we should just be allaying their fears, and next turn we should start negotiating things of mutual benefit. (Or maybe even the turn after when they've seen us not set foot in their territory)
But it's not a strong opinion and I have confidence in Caledorn. (Albeit the note under his name is reminding me of a slightly paranoid thought I had at one point last game... )
I agree with that whb - but again, we are not giving away state secrets here. Chances are pretty high that they already have the oasis in their FOV, even with the dead warrior. I rephrased away some of the bootlickery though, because your point was well made, and I agree fully with it.
I thank you for your confidence You have also baited me into saying that I am now very curious what the paranoid thought was/is. Please share! Just as an FYI (to hopefully alleviate any paranoid thoughts ) the note/title is something I have done as a personal honour to Sommers for how much he taught me about MP in the MTDG and also another MP Diplo game I am participating in.
Back on track though: I will send the last drafted message I wrote to RB now. I obviously take full responsibility for this action, and if it should turn out that it was a mistake, then I will happily leave diplomacy to someone else without any hard feelings. I think this is the best course of action right now, and as the person currently responsible for diplomacy - with a (admittedly shady) majority backing me up - I am making this decision.
Again, for ease of reference, this is what I am sending:
Spoiler:
With a NAP in place, we hope that we now have a foundation to build further agreements between our two teams. We agree with the interpretation of the NAP as you've suggested it, but would like to initiate discussions on how we can strengthen this agreement. We consider defining a border between our teams one of the most important short term goals we should come to an agreement upon. Our intention is to focus on settling productive cities in our home region, and not to settle provocative "pink dot" cities in your direction. In order to avoid settlement races and possible conflicting cities we'd like to share 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. As a suggestion for an initial border agreement, we propose that we will not settle West of the Oasis, and you will not settle 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
Edit: The message has now been sent as written in the spoiler above.
Only one thing still bothers me and this is that we agree to NAP and just ASK them not to settle east of the oasis. So the principle stays - we will have a NAP and no border agreement. If the majority of the team thinks we are already bound by the NAP, then so be it, I can only sorry a bit I wasnt much around when all this started, I would had said the turn100 concern which whb rises too - t100 is just the right date where they wouldnt had attacked us before anyway.
And yes, Sommers, I knew we cant get them by surprise, but was inclined in putting a slight pressure on them in accepting the fair oasis east/west land division, as they would had to mess their micro (which micro they worship and put really high on the scale btw) and they would had preferred to just give up to our border agreement.
Another thing is that the NAP was sent without clear formulating (the basic one being "No one shall declare war till txxx") so they had to put their formulating (which is the same of course)
And where is Dave btw? Anyone knows something about him lately? He is the legally chosen Prime Minister, he must have something to say about such big issue. I am his deputy and I would preferred to hear from him.
All in all, I am ok with the wording of the message, only feel a bit sorry we did not used the situation to our best gain with securing the borders. Hopefully time will prove me wrong about the vile and overaggressive nature of RB and they for real dont settle towards us in provocative and boxing manner.
Oh, just a minor change I would like to see in the message - can you change the positions of the two first few phrases and change a bit one.
We agree with the interpretation of the NAP as you've suggested it, but would like to initiate discussions on how we can strengthen this agreement. We consider defining a border between our teams one of the most important short term goals we should come to an agreement upon. We hope that a NAP must be a foundation to build further agreements between our two teams.
We've just told them that Indira is 18 tiles east of them, so yes we have told them where we are located. And since starting locations are most likely evenly spaced we have also greatly aided their efforts to locate other teams...
Was it essential that we reveal this specific info right away to gain some goodwill? Nope. We could have told them about general map features, how we have flood plains in our BFC also, the bear, the corn nearby etc and still generated plenty of trust and goodwill.
They stayed noticeably silent on the borders discussion we raised in the first post. But we are so impatient that we bring it up again right away. Don't you guys think that being pushy might be a turn-off for them?
When I talked about bootlicking I was refering to the earlier suggestion (it got edited out thankfully) of ceding our right to claim the stone. This would have prevented us from being able to place an effective blocking city on the isthmus and also would have virtually encourage them to rush our direction.
I have never suggested that we don't make friends with RB or form an alliance with them. I have never suggested that we act as a rogue team and fail to share info. To imply these are my positions is worrying to me because it seems to indicate that you and others are missing the points I am trying to make. I understand that timely diplomacy is important and I believe in having good communications with the other teams. But rushing responses isn't always helpful and can sometimes be damaging. I'm arguing for patience and wisdom- both in our internal deliberations and also in our developing relationship with RB.
Diplomacy is obviosly not an animal I would pat on.
I've read everything that is written here and there are some parts I do NOT understand.
1. Why did we gave up the direction AND distance to RB? This is pure (moronic?) goodwill in any case. They do not know where we are and have lost their first unit, so they would doubtly discover either us or the stone. By saying that we are east AND 18 squares from them, they will discover stone easier and settle on it. We can't taking to account that all RB-members are so completely braindead that they don't figure that the stone (when met) will be midway 18/2.
Next time: Give only distance as goodwill. They may self find out where we are.
2. Why even say the right stuff? Which effects would a lie give? If we said that we were 18 sq south of them, they would never find us until turn ... 50-70, when we already/nearly claimed the stone/wine.
3. What kind of issues did you have with them last time since you are writing to the douches and giving them way more than they deserve. What information have they given us?
4: Can ONE person be responsible for writing to RB? As far as I read this is not the issue right now.
Thinking of this, I tend to agree that if they are not obliged to any border agreement, it is not very smart to tell them where exactly we are. But as I think they will not agree to any border division before seeing the land, then in hiding it we dont gain much. What if we say them we are generally east and propose them to make agreement to not hurry settling towards each-other before the other good land is taken and just then we make border agreement having distance to capitol as fair indicator where the border lies?
I thank you for your confidence You have also baited me into saying that I am now very curious what the paranoid thought was/is. Please share! Just as an FYI (to hopefully alleviate any paranoid thoughts ) the note/title is something I have done as a personal honour to Sommers for how much he taught me about MP in the MTDG and also another MP Diplo game I am participating in.
Jeez, I go to work for a few hours and look what I miss!
Just for the record, I approve of a high level of individual responsibility and freedom. An ambassador ought to have our trust in their judgment. Naturally, this assumes skilled diplomats, but I don't fear that being a problem overmuch.
Also, I'm inclined to be wary of RB. Not quite a cavscout level, but I do prefer not broadcasting our position (and hose of other teams by metagame deduction) so openly. Not that I'm in time to prevent it. Let's just be a little more cautious.
Caledorn, I would have wholeheartedly backed that amendment politely informing them of our intent to claim the stone. It's good and assertive, while being polite. The right tone for this relationship, I think. I also give you my backing unconditionally if you need to make a tough decision. DaveShack, that goes for you too. My teammates, right or wrong.
And finally, I would suggest that the people in charge make decisions more quickly. Let's not keep anyone waiting. Bad diplomacy. We can always hold an election if too many poor execuive decisions are made.
2. Why even say the right stuff? Which effects would a lie give? If we said that we were 18 sq south of them, they would never find us until turn ... 50-70, when we already/nearly claimed the stone/wine.
We don't gain anything by lying and have everything to lose. It is not certain that RB would want to contest the land with us at all. I think it is actually rather likely that if we indicate that we want to play nicely with them they are to respond in kind. After all, they have several other directions to expand to as well and no idea who they have as neighbours and how they want to play. So if we give them our general direction, my guess would be that RB is in no hurry to move their warriors to that direction.
On the other hand if we lie, they might still choose to move towards us believing they'll going to meet another neighbour in that direction. When they find out that we lied we will lose all hope of allying with RB for the rest of the game. With seven other teams around we can't afford upsetting any of our rivals until we are sure that we can get decisive advantage over them and they cannot muster too many of our other rivals against us.
So the options essentially are to tell the truth or not tell much at all.
Thinking of this, I tend to agree that if they are not obliged to any border agreement, it is not very smart to tell them where exactly we are. But as I think they will not agree to any border division before seeing the land, then in hiding it we dont gain much. What if we say them we are generally east and propose them to make agreement to not hurry settling towards each-other before the other good land is taken and just then we make border agreement having distance to capitol as fair indicator where the border lies?
I think also that it'd be better to not share info about our location before we can get them to agree to at least start talks on borders. If they agree on that, then it would be more prudent to tell where we are at.
As I mentioned before. I am confident that they are very worried that we know their location and they don't know ours. I am betting a beer that they are already prioritizing finding us. Telling them where we are may actuall discourage them from scouting for us because they know where we are. So by telling them we may actual make it less likely they find the ithsmus/stone. Refusing to tell them would actually make it more likely that they scout for us aggresively.
One thing 2metra said that I agree with though... With the amount of free info and goodwill that we have shown, they have no cause to complain about us claiming the stone (since it is closer to us). Any complaints would just be pure dickery IMO... or bluffing.
As I mentioned before. I am confident that they are very worried that we know their location and they don't know ours. I am betting a beer that they are already prioritizing finding us.
I am tempted to take that bet AFAIK, with this many teams the game will be won mainly by diplomacy. Knowing where your rivals are is important but even more important will be making a contact with all your neighbours ASAP. If RB plays half as well as we seem to give them credit for, my guess is that their top priority will continue to be establishing as many other contacts as possible.
I saw the turn switched. Do we have agreement on moving the warrior to look at their capitol and what to send to them? I think we are close to agreement about the message to RB.
I saw the turn switched. Do we have agreement on moving the warrior to look at their capitol and what to send to them? I think we are close to agreement about the message to RB.
I sent them the message I posted here this morning, 2metra. I stated so in my post before I went to sleep. We've received an acknowledgement from them about it too, that the message has been received and is being discussed by them.
Interestingly this time the message was signed by Ruff. Although with a "title" that said "messaging bot for RB". I'll post it here.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Besides, there's still some time to object, as I'm not sending it right away.
)
Please share! Just as an FYI (to hopefully alleviate any paranoid thoughts 
