Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond
- Thread starter talonschild
- Start date
Caledorn
Emperor
For reference, I also logged into the game and offered RB the marble after sending them the email, which is why Civstats have noted a login by CaledornCFC. 
Caledorn
Emperor
As expected and predicted, RB has asked for an extension of our NAP until T200, using the marble as the excuse. 
Obviously the answer to the NAP extension is a flat out "No.", but how do we proceed in regards to the marble?
Obviously the answer to the NAP extension is a flat out "No.", but how do we proceed in regards to the marble?
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
LOL, yes, once I saw we have something from RB in our diplo-log, I knew what they will be asking for. So not very original, but good enough for its practical use.
I re-read the agreement and here is what the Marble clause actually says:
How about we reply like this:
When do our strategists think that we can gift our marble again after building the Epics? I guess that towards the end of our NAP we won't be needing the marble a lot as we will be gearing up like crazy.
As you can see the turns 120-150 window is RB's original wish but not a binding time limit. Therefore we are obligated to give RB a possibility to agree on marble loan to start until turn 165.
How about we reply like this:
When do our strategists think that we can gift our marble again after building the Epics? I guess that towards the end of our NAP we won't be needing the marble a lot as we will be gearing up like crazy.
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
That is very good tactic. To tell them it is "EARLY" to commit to longer NAP, but actually we dont need it. To t175 we have NAP, so we must only rearrange the part where is said "from t120 to t150" to says: t120 to t165" (10 turns to actually them use the marble)
What about answering only about the marble? As Aivo proposed, pointing out exact wording of our deal. They did not propose NAP extension per se, just mentioned it during discussion how to deal with marble issue. Let us not rush here.
Yes that is a good catch on the wording Aivo 
, so we are only obligated to give them Marble by turn 165. This would be perfect, because by waiting until turn 165, we guarantee that they will spend the critical last 10 turns of the NAP with their most productive cities building Epics and Wonders and such instead of whipping/drafting/building weapons of war, which is what we will be doing.
, so we are only obligated to give them Marble by turn 165. This would be perfect, because by waiting until turn 165, we guarantee that they will spend the critical last 10 turns of the NAP with their most productive cities building Epics and Wonders and such instead of whipping/drafting/building weapons of war, which is what we will be doing.
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
I like this approach. To speak about what is the matter.
I'm pretty sure that they are not quite that stupid. But anyhow, we are not going to be building Epics and Wonders anyway at that point, are we? So in turn 165 the marble is essentially worthless for both of us.
Also, we can't just say "turn 165, take it or leave it". We agreed also that "Both sides will make good-faith effort to be accommodating on the timing of this loan." So what we can do is to tell them honestly the times when we are not using our marble and then ask them to choose.
If we ignore their direct question about extending NAP until turn I believe they'll know why we did that. Or at the very least they will reply with "OK, that time frame for Marble works for for us. How about the NAP extension? You didn't tell what you think of that." At that point any excuse we make will sound lame.
Another good point. We don't have to jump to address a thing just because RB mentions it. We can just ignore their requests until they say flat-out "Are you guys refusing a NAP or what?" Then we can reply with "too soon" or "what kind of ransom will you offer us for a NAP?" or "NAP? What do you need this for? You will soon be dead
"
"
Caledorn
Emperor
Another good point. We don't have to jump to address a thing just because RB mentions it. We can just ignore their requests until they say flat-out "Are you guys refusing a NAP or what?" Then we can reply with "too soon" or "what kind of ransom will you offer us for a NAP?" or "NAP? What do you need this for? You will soon be dead
The interesting part here is that they already know the marble is useless come t165, NAP or no NAP. Could it be that they don't really need the marble anymore?
I like the idea of a short response stating something like "We need the marble between turn X and Y. So you can either accept the marble from now, until turn X, or wait until turn Y." without any mention of anything else, keeping strictly to the marble. But for us to respond like that we need to know what turns we are going to build the epics from the strategists and turn players.
Another good point. We don't have to jump to address a thing just because RB mentions it. We can just ignore their requests until they say flat-out "Are you guys refusing a NAP or what?" Then we can reply with "too soon" or "what kind of ransom will you offer us for a NAP?" or "NAP? What do you need this for? You will soon be dead
That is exactly what I had in mind - great minds think alike
Of course, if they ask us a direct question about NAP extension, we will have to answer. But there is no reason for us to rush there - and there is good reason not to 
. So far they only mentioned NAP extension as a way to resolve marble problem, so responding with another way of resolving marble issue should be completely fine, I think. And Sommers, I think that Aivo's "too soon" answer is perfect as the first answer to RB's direct NAP question. Again, I see no reason to tell them immediately which turn will not be "too early" to talk about it
Of course, we cannot do it forever, but I understand that every turn in which RB is uncertain of our intentions counts
@ Aivo - It's not about assuming they are stupid (which eveyone knows I am generally against). They will have to choose between building their Epics instead of military, or wasting the Marble and not getting their Epics... either of which is good for us. And we most certainly can say turn 165 take it or leave it. We were just getting ready to say "This turn, take it or leave it."
And we don't have to worry one bit about what they will assume when we ignore their NAP extension request. They already know very well what is happening. There is no way we can hide it or trick them about it. So no need to worry about how we can "trick" RB because it's not going to happen.
And we don't have to worry one bit about what they will assume when we ignore their NAP extension request. They already know very well what is happening. There is no way we can hide it or trick them about it. So no need to worry about how we can "trick" RB because it's not going to happen.
No, they will never know for sure why we did it - they would only be able to guess. The whole point is to keep them guessing as long as possible. Or perhaps even to guess wrong, but that one would be difficult to pull out remaining honest.
You know game theory well, Aivo, I think. The main insight for me from the game theory was not solution to specific cases, but general insight how valuable it is to keep your opponent guessing. So I would never volunteer unnecessary information, like which turn we will not consider to be "too early" to consider NAP extension. Let us give them the information one bit at the time, while remaining polite and friendly - as long as possible.
I generally completely agree with Sommers on that - I do not think we will be able to fool RB, but otoh it is not in our interest to dot all the i's now. And no, I do not think they are stupid. I simply think this is the way to play these games. And I do not think they will be offended, either - more likely, they will think we know how to play these games, too
RB certainly does. I actually think that mixing NAP with the marble issue is probably fishing for the information about NAP extension early and in a non-obvious manner - very smart. But let us not make it too easy for them by putting all our cards on the table at once.Arkipeller
Ancient of Lore
Do we want to send as much uncertainty and mysticism towards RB as possible?
Because I do got a weird thought after drinking the whole evening...
Because I do got a weird thought after drinking the whole evening...
Bring it on, Arki! I would not go for Spaniards style mysteriously absurd, but worth to hear your idea even if we will not use it - I have a hunch it will be at least great for lols. Whole evening of drinking
I am not proposing making any excuses. I completely agree with telling them what you propose to tell them. I would just do it slower - one bit of info at the time
Arkipeller
Ancient of Lore
Don't take this personally, but it's mostly out of mayhem: I suggesr to replace the RB diplomat. This may be used later as excuse for mistakes. The person hsve to be professional and at the same time being teatrically clumsy.
Similar threads
