Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond

[2metraninja]

So, we move our warrior to see their capitol, right?

 

[Caledorn]

So, we move our warrior to see their capitol, right?

That decision I leave entirely to you, 2metra. I think they expect us to do that anyways, so if they get upset by that after we sent the message we did, then they're just grabbing for reasons to hate us.

However, you may want to ask in the t1-50 thread, and get a consensus. I trust your decision no matter.

 

[Caledorn]

This is the confirmation response we got from Team RB, 4 hours ago:

Team CFC,

Your email has been copied to our discussion thread and is under review / consideration.

Ruff (acknowledgement bot for Team RB)

Edit: And with this confirmation response from them, I think we should extend the same courtesy to them for the future when we receive messages from them, unless there is a good reason not to (e.g. we want to postpone answering due to some ingame factor).

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think we should extend the same courtesy to them for the future when we receive messages from them, unless there is a good reason not to (e.g. we want to postpone answering due to some ingame factor).

I have 2 thoughts on that.

1. We don't need to send a confirmation of a confirmation, right?... As in we sent a message and they send a quick confirmation message, and then we send them a confirmation like "Thanks for confirming! We will wait for your reply." I think confirming confirmations is overboard.

2. Careful with adding extra work for yourself. If you start confirming everything, they will expect this all the time, and sometimes you may not be available, or too busy for the extra confiming.

 

[Arkipeller]

Are we comfortable with confirming the confirmation, so RB could be comfortable?

 

[Caledorn]

I have 2 thoughts on that.

1. We don't need to send a confirmation of a confirmation, right?... As in we sent a message and they send a quick confirmation message, and then we send them a confirmation like "Thanks for confirming! We will wait for your reply." I think confirming confirmations is overboard.

2. Careful with adding extra work for yourself. If you start confirming everything, they will expect this all the time, and sometimes you may not be available, or too busy for the extra confiming.

Oh, I didn't mean to confirm a confirmation. That would be silly. I mean that when we receive their real answer I will respond with a short confirmation that we have received it and that we are discussing the contents etc.

2 on the other hand is a valid point indeed. So maybe leave it to the crucial messages like these infant relationship messages

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Caledorn]

There is some humor in this though..

"Thank you for confirming our confirmation of your confirmation of the confirmation of receiving your message! *most formal bow*"

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[cav scout]

There is some humor in this though..

"Thank you for confirming our confirmation of your confirmation of the confirmation of receiving your message! *most formal bow*"

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Hey, just as long as we make RB comfortable. That's the important thing, right guys?

 

[socralynnek]

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

Damn, I am too late to discuss this message now...

But anyway here are my thoughts:

Short summary :

Initial message from CFC "We'd like to talk about borders"

Response from RB: "Go away with that silly stuff"

Answer from CFC: "But here is a lot of priceless info for you, and we already propose to not settle some strong location which would make us strong, you are the greatest team on Earth"


OK, I exaggerate, of course.

And that summary would be more accurate if we gave away that info about stone.

Sommerswerd, I think, you are contradicting yourself: You want to get their respect by showing signs of strength but giving away too much info is IMO a sign of weakness and fear.

I don't mind giving them some info for free as a sign of goodwill (e.g. the general direction where our capital is), but (especially after they didn't mention border talks in their answer) I think, it is too early into the discussion to tell them about that Isthmus (which we do only indirectly but anyway)


But anyway, I don't have enough experience with those MTDG and the necessary diplo talks, so as always, I might be wrong here...

BTW (lawyer hat on), I don't think it is right, to tell them where exactly that oasis lies with the "no maps before paper" - rule in place.

 

[YossarianLives]

So I'll comment more on some of the topics related to RB.

Going for the Kill:
This was just not going to happen. RB might have been susceptible to this around T11-T18 after they lost their starting warrior, but I am sure they have had plans in place to make sure they don't go down so easily, just like we did. Based on the close study of their moves I did today, I am pretty sure they have a PH Mine hidden in the fog. That, with the forest PH and their capital tile, would give them 8 for a 2-turn Warrior at size 2, let alone their current size 4! In another big RB Pitboss (RB PB7), a newer player found Lord Parkin next door. He was able to see Parkin's empty capital from the diagonal, and wrote in his thread:

I guess the question is, should my warrior survive to next turn and the city is empty, what should I do?

As its LP, it screams to me KILL! Just imagine being able to say the first person I ever 'defeat' in RB MP warfare is LP haha

But as the game is meant to be a bit more casual, maybe I shouldn't.

Well, LP had a Warrior hidden one tile away from his capital, and also timed a Warrior build to complete the turn that TwinkleToes arrived, so TT lost his exploring Warrior and his game went downhill from there. LP won that game, too.

Revealing too much information:
I think this is being blown way out of proportion. RB has plenty of players who can take a look at map size, # of tiles and I don't know what else and make very accurate predictions of how far teams are from each other. Telling them that we're about 18 tiles away probably was not news, or if anything, confirmed their predictions. Telling them that one potentially fogged tile between us is an Oasis is equally minor. Telling them that we are generally east of them is probably not surprising, especially if they have tundra to the south, like we do. If we are trying to establish a friendly relationship by offering minor details of little importance, I think we did exactly this.

Sucking up to RB
I do think we've been making efforts to ensure that any team we meet immediately feels we respect them and value a partnership with them. This is why we have been translating messages into foreign languages, getting ideas about preferred diplo style, etc. If anything, what we discussed was that RB thinks very highly of themselves and will respond favorably to praise, so I think we're just following the game plan by putting those little embellishments into our messages. I don't have any problem leaving them out, but I don't think it's anything to be concerned about. Hand in hand with praise, we've discussed the need to make them understand that we are right at their level, and none of their tricks will work with us, which I think we're also doing.

Long Term Alliance with RB
As Sommerswerd has mentioned, this is the easiest road to eventual victory for us. A strong, secure alliance with your closest neighbors is always what you want in these games, and having that be another of the strongest teams in the game makes us that much more secure. This is certainly not the only way to play, but I think it should be our primary objective as far as our diplo dealings with RB. Mutual distrust will make this difficult. I was wrong with my earlier prediction about them accepting our NAP, but my next prediction is that they will reject or again ignore our border suggestion, this time thinking (somewhat correctly) that we are hiding a strategic resource on "our side" that we want to "trick" them into not contesting. This will result in renewed calls from our own team to pull out of any dealings with RB and prepare for war on T100. I would prefer that we remain firm in our commitment to foster a strong alliance with RB while looking for other neighbors. See Team Amazon in the last Pitboss game here for a template example of exactly how these games are won with early and strong alliances.

 

[Caledorn]

Thank you, Yossarian. That sums up everything I'm thinking about this situation so eloquently that I have absolutely nothing to add. And is why I have taken the actions I did.

I did not "wait until I had a majority" as cav scout implied in the other thread. I gave it several more hours after I had a majority before I sent off the last message. And I sent it off stating that I take full responsibility for it, as it is my responsibility. I did not state that I would "blame the majority", and nor have I done so. The sent message is ultimately my sole responsibility, as I represent the team as the lead diplomat as things are now.

 

[Caledorn]

I managed to leave out a rather critical "not" in the text above, because this situation is stressful for me. It was evident by the following "nor have I done so", but nonetheless I have edited it in, and post this for clarity's sake.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I did not "wait until I had a majority" as cav scout implied in the other thread.

Ignore that from cavscout, its mostly tongue in cheek as he loves to accuse people of some conspiracy. I cant count the number of times he has made similar accusations of me... Don't worry about it, Its all love

I didn't like everything about the message either, but you are the Diplomat, its your call. Well done pushing out our diplo thats your job

 

[Sommerswerd]

And the vote count for posterity's sake:
Caledorn, Sommerswerd, talonschild, Yossarian, Bowsling, whb and grant2004 (7)
without the part about the stone/oasis: Aivoturso (+1 = 8)

In opposition was cav scout, 2metraninja, socralynnek, Arkipeller, 1889 (5)

But as I have said elsewhere. Vote counts are only FYI in most Diplo situations. The Diplomat has to have final say on communications, including when they go out.

 

[cav scout]

Ignore that from cavscout, its mostly tongue in cheek as he loves to accuse people of some conspiracy. I cant count the number of times he has made similar accusations of me... Don't worry about it, Its all love

I didn't like everything about the message either, but you are the Diplomat, its your call. Well done pushing out our diplo thats your job

Actually please do not ignore it. I meant exactly what I said and none of it was tongue in cheek. I will speak for myself thank you Sommers.

Also, I'm disappointed that you are discounting what i consider to be valid concerns as conspiracy theories. Caledorn is an upstanding guy and one of the backbones of our team. He has done everything in good faith and I would never ever acuse him of conspiring to do anything. I guess its easier to completely discount my concerns though if you can just write them off as conspiracy theories eh? I know it also gives you a leg up in our debates the cast me in a negative light, so well done

As far as our debates in the past... well we both love to debate. And whenever you go down the Alcibiades path of demagoguery I will be waiting with my Polybius hat on.

As far as the powers of our ambassadors... have you wiki'd plenipotentiary yet? It basically mean the ability to make binding agreements on behalf of the whole team. Before the electronic age is was kinda important...nowadays not as much.

Something like a NAP is a binding agreement and as we have discovered our hands are already bound now. I disagree that our ambassadors should be given carte blanche powers to make deals. I think the team as a while should decide such things. And using the "omg there is no time we have to act now" excuse just doesn't work for me. We could still be engaging in friendly negotiation with RB right now without have missed out on anything.

Lastly, you are right Sommers that its all love! I think we have a great group of guys on the team and I have nothing but the utmost respect for all of you. We are still just getting into the game and what we have experienced is a bit of a hiccup during our first dilpo exchange. I spoke my peace and said what I had to say now so we can learn from this grow as a team. It's better to have a robust discussion than for people to feel marginalized or simmer over stuff and then become disinterested.

 

[cav scout]

And the vote count for posterity's sake:
Caledorn, Sommerswerd, talonschild, Yossarian, Bowsling, whb and grant2004 (7)
without the part about the stone/oasis: Aivoturso (+1 = 8)

In opposition was cav scout, 2metraninja, socralynnek, Arkipeller, 1889 (5)

But as I have said elsewhere. Vote counts are only FYI in most Diplo situations. The Diplomat has to have final say on communications, including when they go out.

When I tallied the votes I counted WHB and Aivoturso with the opposition...

 

[Caledorn]

Let me just state clearly that I have the utmost respect for you cav scout, and that I think you're also an integral part of the team. However, I would also like to say that your claims that I "waited for a majority vote to rush off the message" is insulting. I would have sent the message off far earlier, while there was a 4-3 majority if that was the case, but I didn't because I wanted to see if there was more feedback. At the time I actually sent the message several hours later I had a 5-4 majority, after a stalemate of 4-4. whb stated that his opinion was not a strong one, and that he had confidence in my decision, which to me reads as "I trust your decision, Caledorn". You stated clearly that you were angry with me for sending off the message too soon. And lastly, you were upset with me for not listening to your request that I should delay sending the message off. If I try to follow your reasoning here, I can only reach the conclusion that you are telling me that I should have listened to the minority, and gone to bed without sending anything off to RB, even after waiting for nearly 36 hours to let the team discuss (I posted their response to us 7.Sep at 20:57 GMT+02, and I sent our response back to them 9.Sep at 07:19 GMT+02).

If you read the posts, you will see that whb stated clearly that we should send something, but that he would prefer to leave out the bootlicking (which I removed, as I agreed with him) and also the information about the stone/oasis (which I disagreed with and made a decision about within my role as the diplomat, but kept it to the oasis as per what 2metra suggested). Aivoturso clearly states that he would consider using ambiguities like the NAP not being in effect even more dishonourable than straightforward backstabbing/betrayal. I did not use any "plenipotentiary power" to bind us to any agreements, as the NAP was already in place after the first message, that was sent (you yourself participated in those discussions, and you never said anything about wanting to wait to offer them a NAP). What I did was use my best judgment on how I would view it with the situation reversed, and I gave ample time for discussion as 36 hours is more than what we should consider polite in critical first-contact discussions with other teams.

I have said this several times, but nonetheless: We either try to cooperate with RB, or we don't. There has been a clear consensus on the team that we wish to try cooperating with them, which is what I have worked towards. We have given them a handout (they know they have an oasis 9e2s of them, and they know we are some 18 tiles east of them, without knowing where on the N-S axis we are), and their next response will tell us whether or not we can trust them. Either they respond negatively with some mumbo-jumbo, whereas we will know immediately that we must prepare for conflict with them - or they respond positively and treat our information in the way that would be sensible, and give us something that we can work with back. As I'm not a betting person I'm not making any bets for either - but what I can say we have achieved is to shorten down a process of "feeling out what their intents are" that could have taken weeks, or even months, into 2 messages and just a few days.

Believing that we could actually take their capital in 2 turns is a nice fantasy in my opinion. If RB has truly left their capital without defensive capabilities within a few turns, I personally don't really care if we lose to them, because that in itself will in my head be such a fatal mistake from their behalf that their entire bravado about being the "best civ players around" is just a huge joke (That's my personal take on that though). I for one would have voted a definite no to a gambit of declaring war that would have thrown us into a conflict that 110% certainly would have cost us the game victory if they have defense prepared that we can't currently see (warrior in fog beside capital, or enough hammers to pump out a warrior within 2 turns). Such a gambit would have meant war to the death with them, and let the other teams race ahead (keep in mind we do not have tech sharing in this game, and for good reasons).

Lastly, I would like to say this, and this goes to everyone on the team: Please avoid taking out your frustrations over seeing that "OMG! RB's capital is empty - what have we done??!!" on me personally. It sure feels like that's a part of what is going on when I read some of the things that have been written here after we revealed their empty capital. By all means feel free to disagree with my actions, and discuss/debate in hindsight - but please keep it civil. Remember that I am a human being and not just a funny morphed avatar of some animals that spews out some text every now and then. Please also consider that I am doing my job based on the consensus that was made "We need to try to cooperate with RB, and we need speedy communication with them to ensure that goal".

 

[cav scout]

Thank you Caledorn. It was not my intent to insult you. But I believe our team's deliberative process has suffered recently and I want to get our team back on the right track. Here is where I believe we went wrong:

1. Grant announces that we have made contact with RB in the First Contact Thread on Sep 06, 2012, 03:27 PM, post #24 (I am GMT -8 by the way)

2. Caledorn is the first to respond a few minutes later in post #25, stating:

We should not wait more than a day - two at the most - to get out a message to them, unless we get a message from them first that is

3. Sommerswerd then makes post #26 to #29 stating that waiting a day is too long and offering a draft post.

4. I make post #30 at 4:52 PM saying we should be careful what info we reveal and also saying(emphasis added):

i'm against empowering our diplomats plenipoteniary powers. Yes, our ambassadors should be able to discuss stuff and ponder ideas with other teams. But it should always be clear that any binding decisions/agreements will be made by the team.

5. Post #31 and 32 is Caledorn offering various draft messages

6. In post #33 at 5:07 PM Caledorn responds to my post saying in part:

I don't think plenipoteniary powers is what is implied. It's the same thing the turn players should be entrusted with: the option to act quickly when needed, and the trust in the diplomats (And the turnplayers in that case) to act in the team's best interest. However, I think we should take that discussion after we have sent off our message to Team RB

This basically brushes aside my post by saying that we need to act quickly (why exactly?), trust our diplomats to make binding decision for the team and to have discussion about it after he sends the message of his choice.

7. Caledorn continues on with post #34 at 5:09 PM stating:

I'm giving it an hour or two at max before I send off that last draft

This is 112 minutes after Grant announced we had contact... 112 minutes seriously?

8. Post #35 is Caledorn offering a proposed draft for contact with other teams.

9. Post #36 to #38 are Sommerswerd responding to my post, saying(emphasis added):

Caledorn is right, and the message should go out right away, like within the hour. I will take full heat and responsibility to anyone who is offended that we didn't wait longer. First Contact Diplo is a game of hours and a few hours delay can be the difference between be in the team they make a NAP (or treaty) with, and the team who they attack first because you're the only team they don't have a NAP with. Send that letter out ASAP.

and

As I said I dont know what the 7 syllable word means, but that last part about binding agreements... There is no binding agreement being put on the table that any sane member of the team could possibly disagree with. Are we going to war with RB in the next 80 turns? No, so a NAP until turn 100 is a no brainer, right? We don't need a discussion on that do we? If we do we are doomed.

I will go dig up my Law dictionary and we can have a multi syllable debate on what the specific powers of the diplomats will be over the weeks to come. For now lets just make 1st Contact and get a NAP in place.

So Sommerwerd is basically saying "OMG we need to act now", anyone who disagrees with a binding NAP is a insane idiot, and if we want to have a discussion about it we are doomed ...and he wonders why I tease him about being a demagogue!

These posts by Sommerswerds really speak for themselves but I feel like I should point out the "There is no time, we need to act now" tactic. This is used by a person to discredit/shut down any opposing discussion to push through something on their agenda. It serves as a thought terminating statement that stops people from questioning something and gets them to just go along.

10. Bowsling makes post #39 at 6:00 PM giving his full support for sending the message.

11. Caledorn announces in post #40 at 6:02 PM that he has sent the message to RB.

Soooo... at first glance it looks like a binding diplomatic message was sent 2 hours, 35 minutes after contact was first announced. I total of 4 people got to discuss the issue.

But wait! If you look at the RB Embassy thread post #3 you will see that Caledorn actually sent the message at 6:00 PM, before Bowsling's post could even be considered. So our diplomatic response was decided by Sommerswerd + Caledorn (protege) vs. cav scout in 2 hours, 33 minutes. I didn't stand a chance and neither did our team's deliberative process...

What I find funny is that Caledorn had to wait for me to log out of the game before he could log in and send an in-game message to RB at 6:00 PM. I was checking the RB situation first hand, counting the tiles between our capitols and getting ready to put together a map for our discussion. I only got the chance to post once before they sent the message and I never got a chance to respond to them. No one else even got the chance to discuss things.

 

[whb]

The tight decisions (where there might be an opportunity to take a team out) are always going to be tense and edgy.

My amateur thoughts:

1. When I said "I trust your judgment" I did mean it -- I've no complaints about Caledorn's sending the most recent message he did, even though I was keen for us not to include the middle paragraph with the info on our location, etc.

2. Yup, the first message was where we decided to make peace. After that message we had plenty of members of the team say they felt morally obligated to stick by that offer and not invade. So from there on, war was off the table (dividing our own team would be bad news!) and it was just a question of how best to negotiate a stronger alliance -- how much info do we reveal, do we make them worry it might be all-or-nothing to force them to commit.

3. The initial offer of peace was the right thing to do (albeit 100 turns was perhaps an unfortunate choice -- it should have been long enough that their War Chariots would be useless by the end of it).

3b. In our planning before contact, we should have taken better note of RB being the team that lost their warrior. Ideally I guess we'd have had our plans for what deal we'd be looking for from each team we might contact (taking into account their apparent progress according to the demohacking, unique unit, etc). But there is only so much time in the day, so I'm not surprised we were unprepared!

4. We couldn't have invaded anyway. bcool's numbers, and RB's delaying the end turn, tells me they could have got a defender in the city in time (and they were waiting to know if they needed to)

5. If we hadn't made peace we possibly could have hobbled them with some pillaging (they wouldn't have been able to risk losing their rushed warrior in an attack on our marauding warrior) and maybe camped out next to their city. But to do that we'd have had to delay our explorations and meeting other teams, giving the unmet teams more time to forge alliances without us (and therefore against us). Rather than having a strong ally we'd have had a weak enemy.

 

[socralynnek]

And the vote count for posterity's sake:
Caledorn, Sommerswerd, talonschild, Yossarian, Bowsling, whb and grant2004 (7)
without the part about the stone/oasis: Aivoturso (+1 = 8)

In opposition was cav scout, 2metraninja, socralynnek, Arkipeller, 1889 (5)

But as I have said elsewhere. Vote counts are only FYI in most Diplo situations. The Diplomat has to have final say on communications, including when they go out.

BTW, you can count me in the same position as Aivoturso here.

My exaggerated post was more about the stone part (but slightly about oasis part also), just in case anyone brings it on the table next turn.

I do agree that we should try to get an alliance with RB, and I do agree with the NAP and treating it as in place already last turn.

I even agree with giving them some information, but what I am opposed is about the speed at which we gave them info.

If they had replied in their first answer that they wished border talks , then it might have been different, but as they didn't react to our proposal, I think, giving them info for free was wrong as it was showing weakness instead of strength.