Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond

[2metraninja]

I doubt it is possible to convince them that we won't be attacking them right when the NAP ends and even if we could convince them, I am not sure what benefit this will be to us. Surely they will be prepared for attack when their NAPs expire.

We can convince them, but then we must lie to them. And I would not lie. Otherwise, dont know how it could be done

 

[2metraninja]

We are aware that some of your NAPs, as well as some of ours, and many other Teams' NAPs with each other, are all expiring around the same time. To borrow from GRRM, we think that this potential "chaos is a ladder of opportunity" for us and we prefer to let as many NAPs as possible expire in order to leverage the uncertainty into the best possible situation for our team. To illustrate, our current extended NAP with you has necessitated that we give up numerous potential agreements that would have been much more lucrative.

So this time we want to take some time to see what new offers and opportunities will reveal themselves as the expiration of these many NAPs draws closer and then expire. We are confident that there will be much better offers on the table form many Teams, when the NAPs are at or near expiration. We welcome your thoughts on this.

This is pure genius.

Followed by Yossa's questioning to make them speak and sweat, this is the best we can send them at the moment.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think a good strategy here would be to say that we're concerned about their big lead, and say we need more information about their t175 plans before we can commit to anything. Who would they go after if they get the NAP, how do we fit in, what's in it for us, etc. Be honest that we don't want to make their game easier if it doesn't benefit us, so we need to know what they have to offer us in exchange for a NAP.

I thought Yossa's ideas were good as well, so how about this way of presenting them (adding my draft to Yossa's thoughts).:

Hi Scooter,

As promised, here is a response to your question about the NAP.

We are aware that some of your NAPs, as well as some of ours, and many other Teams' NAPs with each other, are all expiring around the same time. To borrow from GRRM, we think that this potential "chaos is a ladder of opportunity" for us and we prefer to let as many NAPs as possible expire in order to leverage the uncertainty into the best possible situation for our team. To illustrate, our current extended NAP with you has necessitated that we give up numerous potential agreements that would have been much more lucrative.

So this time we want to take some time to see what new offers and opportunities will reveal themselves as the expiration of these many NAPs draws closer and then expire. We are confident that there will be much better offers on the table form many Teams, when the NAPs are at or near expiration. We welcome your thoughts on this.

More specifically, we (and you) are aware that as the current leaders (congrats on that BTW) your best strategy is to maintain the status quo with long NAPs and deepen your lead. But at the same time you (and we) are obviously aware that we want to be competitive too. So rather than just jump into another long NAP that only serves the purpose of giving you guys a more secure hold on the lead, we want to think about options that will serve our goal of making us more competitive for the lead.

We hope that is more clear. Thanks again for your patience.

CFC

 

[Sommerswerd]

As for "What are these 'options' we are considering?"... because you know that will be their next question... We should be prepared to put on our big boy pants and go big. For example, saying that we want the 4 closest cities gifted to us and territorial right to all land south of City X comes to mind. In other words, we want something that will put us on par with them scorewise. Of course they will probably refuse out of pride (when it is actually probably in their best interest to give us whatever we want), but what we are really looking for is their reaction. Do they try to counteroffer? Refuse us outright? Stall? Complain? Try to convince/confuse us with (dazzling demographics and bean-counting) that our demands are unreasonable? Ignore us? Get angry?

All of these will help us predict how they will respond, maybe even help us push them towards (or away from) invading Germans/CP depending on what we think is best for us.

 

[2metraninja]

I thought Yossa's ideas were good as well, so how about this way of presenting them (adding my draft to Yossa's thoughts).:

Very, very good.

Though the request for their 4 cities we must think more about and refine.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Very, very good.

Though the request for their 4 cities we must think more about and refine.

Of course That is why I did not put any specific requests in the letter itself, just vague talk about what is a good "opportunity" for us. This of course will invite them to ask "So what opportunities were you thinking about?"

 

[YossarianLives]

I also like Sommers' message. Can we go ahead and send it?

 

[whb]

I take it the aim is to make them think we're holding out for a bribe to extend the NAP?

 

[2metraninja]

This and to make them speak. Making the others speak is good. Gives away intentions, etc.

 

[YossarianLives]

I just sent Sommers' message. It looks like someone is logged into RB's email account right now (green light next to their name in the GTalk contacts list), so they should receive it immediately.

 

[2metraninja]

Good job Yossa. Lets see how they react.

 

[2metraninja]

So, here is a hot-hot chat with Ot4e from before 5 minutes:

Ot4e: hi
2metraninja: heya
Ot4e: you must know that RB is supplying zulus with ivory, right?
2metraninja: lol
2metraninja: no, we did not knew that
2metraninja: this must be new
2metraninja: good that zulus dont have HBR yet
2metraninja: at least last turn they did not
2metraninja: so, I would say good minds think alike
2metraninja: we have really easy way to cut this off
Ot4e: how?
2metraninja: we can declare to zulus and RB must stop the supply
Ot4e: if you have similar treaty with RB, there is nothing about "instantly stopping supply"
Ot4e: as far as I remember
Ot4e: and they wont be able to cancel it in 10 turns
2metraninja: they can
2metraninja: they pillage their source
2metraninja: or declare war
Ot4e: they cant pillage
Ot4e: because they have city on it
Ot4e: so just declare war
2metraninja: then they must declare war
Ot4e: well, anyway it is not my business
Ot4e: just letting you know

We must assess the situation and declare Spaniards war immediately if it is needed to prevent them getting elephants. Will be not nice to meet WEs against our Knights.

Or.... ... Or if RB reject to declare war to Spaniards, then we send our units to raze few RB cities and "let the games begin" earlier

 

[2metraninja]

Damn

I just checked our agreement with RB:

Section 1. Members of the RB-CFC treaty

1.1. Team Realms Beyond

1.2. Team CivFanatics

Section 2. Pact Duration and Terms

2.1. The pact binds both teams to adhering to all of the clauses of the pact as a whole.

2.2. The pact lasts until the beginning of turn 175.

2.3. The members of this pact cannot enter into agreements with third parties which interfere to any of the clauses of this pact.

Section 3. Non Aggression

3.1. The members agree not to conduct actions which will lead to a declaration of war between the members of this pact for the duration of the pact.

3.2. If any of the members is at war with a third party, the other member agrees not to gift units to that third party.
3.3. Both teams agree not to use Great Artists to culture bomb in cities touching culture with culture of the other team.
Section 4. Open Borders

4.1. Both members agree to maintain an Open Borders treaty to facilitate trade and unit movement for the length of this pact.

Section 5. Resources and future agreements

5.1. Team Realms Beyond agrees to gift Spices happy resource to Team CivFanatics starting from turn 103 and keep providing it for free for the duration of this pact.

5.2. Team Realms Beyond agrees to gift Stone strategic resource to Team CivFanatics starting from turn 106 and keep providing it for free for the duration of this pact.

5.3 Team Realms Beyond agrees to not get Pyramids and Team CivFanatics agrees to not get Hanging Gardens.

5.4 Both teams agree to offer first dibs to newly acquired/unused resources to the other team at an appropriate price (happy resource for happy resource or for a price of 2 GPT per city count of the team receiving the resource)

Section 6. Espionage

6.1. Both members agree to not spend/gain espionage points against eachother.

6.2. Both members agree to not perform espionage actions against eachother .

Section 7. Temporary Exceptions

7.1. Temporary exceptions can be made to the terms of the pact with the express agreement of both members. This is meant to allow either member to react to unforeseen circumstances or circumstances outside of their control.

Section 8. Amendments

8.1. A proposed amendment may be submitted by either member.

8.2. A proposed amendment will be adopted upon agreement of both members.

Now I remember I removed the clauses for not giving resources and money from the standard treaty just to leave ourselves backdoor to help Germans or WPC - whoever was to be attacked by RB - chance for us to help them and make RB's life harder.

As Bistrita said about it: Now it bite us in the ass ...

So, we cant have any objections about RB gifting resources to Zulus. Here I outsmarted myself

 

[vranasm]

seems to me like they did exactly the same thing I was suggesting for Germans in the fp:germans thread....

too bad we don't have ivory to offer...

 

[2metraninja]

Yes, we were discussing the same thing. Seems both us and RB think in the same lines.

In t145 (not last but before it) Spaniards had no Archery and no HBR. They had only 40 gold too. So with their economy it will take them some time to tech those two. Unless of course RB gift them few hundreds lump sum.

Spaniards cant really defend against us, even with WEs. Not so unprepared at least. But what WEs will do is slow us down considerably. No more blitzkrieg opportunities for us unless they make terrible tactical mistakes. And what serves RB best - no more 10-turn quick war for us.

 

[2metraninja]

Just checked on the APT site. No more than 50-60 gold in cash for Spaniards now. And no increase in their power the last 3-4-5 turns, so no Archery, nor HBR tech for them lately. HBR is 450 beakers. if they dont get serious money injection from RB, hopefully they will be losing cities already before they can field their first War Elephant.

 

[2metraninja]

happily chatting about economics with Bist, we came to realisation we will need to re-negotiate our Marble agreement with RB. Here is the math behind it:

2metraninja something of our math is not right
having no marble at t165 will be not good for us
Bistrita: what?
2metraninja we will be about at t170 starting building Hero Epic
Bistrita: well i asked to gave marble turn 40
140
if they dont want it
bye
i dont know why we hadd to propose
165...
we need the best for our empire
Изпратено в 12:25, понеделник
2metraninja our considerations were to not give them pretext to attack us while we fight zulus
Bistrita: why you didnt asked me?
they would never do that
2metraninja and I made some calculations that we will start on NE and HE at about t 155
hmm, why are you so sure?
Bistrita: becasue its a Nap
man
and they know what write there
2metraninja if they dont get the marble they can say: you broke your word, we attack
Bistrita: lol man
2metraninja for myself, I know I would not do that
Bistrita: did you seen they globe guarded by an axe
2metraninja but I dont know for them
yes, it is
Bistrita: i would never do that either
especilay knowing what i signed
so they have completly trust in us
that shows that they feel same for us
and they tried marble stuuff to get a longer nap
you cant bllame them for that
but we could say in that time we want to build some wonders
i have to do best micro but i dont like beein forced by deals with rb
2metraninja well, I guess we can tell them our plans changed and they can have the marble now and we will need it later
Bistrita: its like we havre the marble but we use when rb want
whats that?
2metraninja back then we were in really dire situation and we had to accept their clause
Bistrita: and was good
but they should accept when we can offer
2metraninja yes, I consider this deal with RB big success
Bistrita: not when tehy want
2metraninja there was discussion when to offer them the Marble
Bistrita: actualy i think tuern 175 hodtilities with rb
2metraninja and those two dates came to me as most logical
Bistrita: to early for us
its 147
zul anexed
by 150
160
sorry
and ebd of revolts lets say
166
so the earliest date i would start aga
i wich spam we need to get replacebale parts
gunpowder
rifling
and to get globe build somewhere
and they put another dificulty
marble deal
its near imposible working in this conditions
2metraninja ok, tell when we will need it and we rearrange the timeframe
Bistrita: well the think its i think
we will needed in like 5 turns for NE
that would take
4-5 turns i think
so turn 162
we could gave
i will do some math in game beter
2metraninja but this is almost the same t165 we told them they will get it

Bistrita: so will be ready turn 157 so we can gift
turn 158-168
this is going good
with starting heroic epic
i think
betr say 157
i think i can suize
another turn
157
then

2metraninja ok, we need to tell this
Bistrita: after some harder math
say 156
2metraninja I wonder before or after we get answer with our quiestions to RB
Bistrita: so turn 166 for he
just good

 

[YossarianLives]

happily chatting about economics with Bist, we came to realisation we will need to re-negotiate our Marble agreement with RB. Here is the math behind it:

Happily chatting? That sounded somewhat contentious to me!

Let me know if you want me to contact Scooter about this. He confirmed that he got my GTalk info, but hasn't reached out to chat yet. Maybe this is better to go in an official email, but on the other hand it may require some back-and-forth dialogue.

 

[2metraninja]

Which one sounds contentious? My description as "happy" or the content of the chat itself?

Neither are with ill faith I hope.

But the marble gift thing is indeed something that is best settled on more witty informal chat with Scooter I think.

 

[YossarianLives]

The chat itself. bistrita sounded upset / annoyed about the marble trade, not happy. Anyways, just my attempt at humor since I imagine that bistrita wasn't truly angry.

So just to confirm, we want the trade to begin at t156? Let me know and I will try to find scooter on chat.