Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond

[YossarianLives]

BTW, I have a hunch that Sulla is in charge now or at least a very influential RB team member. Anybody wants to bet on that? Since there is no indications: other than Sulla never posting anything on RB's behalf in spite of Scooter recently confirming he is around to some extend - I think I should get very good odds - like 1:10?

Just saw this in RB's sign-up thread for their new PB

I'd volunteer to concede my solo spot for an RB celebrity like T Hawk or Sullla / Speaker.

Jeez. Neither of us have even posted in this thread and people are trying to clear out spots for each of us.

Guess I better shoot down the rumors. Despite doing the programming for the mod project, I'm not at all interested in playing it. Sullla feels the same way, we'd both rather play original Civ 4 than this mod. And we're both sufficiently occupied by the CFC team game.

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.

 

[bistrita]

Actualy i think seven spirits its better then any of them.

 

[Maga_R]

Actualy i think seven spirits its better then any of them.

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 . Pity it is too late for a bet

 

[2metraninja]

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.

 

[YossarianLives]

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

 

[Sommerswerd]

Think RB will move on to taking WPC cities after Germans?

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

 

[2metraninja]

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?

 

[YossarianLives]

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.

YossarianLives: Hi Scooter
Sent at 9:22 AM on Tuesday
Scooter: Hey Yossarian. Sorry, just got back
Sent at 10:03 AM on Tuesday
Scooter: Well I'm around now, so just poke me whenever
Sent at 10:06 AM on Tuesday
YossarianLives: Sorry, I'm around now too if you still are
Busy morning at work today!
Scooter: I'm here! What's up?
Sent at 10:22 AM on Tuesday
YossarianLives: Hey sorry, got another phone call!
Not too much
Crazy what's going on with the ISDG right now. I hope it doesn't hurt the game too much
Scooter: Yeah no kidding. Such a messy sequence
hopefully we can get things running smoothly again. gotta reset the "X days without incident" counter
Sent at 10:28 AM on Tuesday
Scooter: What's your team think about the NAP idea btw?
Sent at 10:31 AM on Tuesday
YossarianLives: tbh, we're still somewhat divided
The proposal you made was a good one though. A lot of our team is ready to sign
But we do everything very diplomatically, and decisions take a little while to make
We're taking our time on this one, since we have it
Not diplomatically, democratically
Scooter: Yeah no problem, I understand. Glad to hear people at least feel generally favorably about it
YossarianLives: Yeah, we're closer than I thought we would ever get before you had proposed anything.
Scooter: I know our teams have both clashed with each other once or twice, but the reality is we communicate fairly well and both of our teams are pretty practical, so that helps a lot
YossarianLives: Were you able to replay your turn? Did the second reload have any impact on your battles?
Scooter: "we communicate fairly well" - I mean both of our teams
YossarianLives: Yeah, I really like the dialogue we've had since we've been chatting
Scooter: we haven't replayed it yet. Probably tonight or tomorrow, not sure. little hesitant to hurry too much and play since that ended poorly last time! haha
not too worried about the rerolling of battles. our luck was moderately above-average the first time so we may lose an extra unit or two, but it was our mistake to begin with so I cant complain
YossarianLives: Yeah, I don't think luck has much to do with the outcome of your battles at this point
What are you leaving for WPC? I thought they were going to get some of the German lands
Scooter: yeah it wasn't going to hurt us on a significant level, it's mop-up time right now
YossarianLives: Right now we're predicting you might just continue right through WPC after you finish the Germans off.
Scooter: that's sort of in progress on sorting that out. they kind of did things very different from our recommendations early on, and that really hurt them.
it's just awkward when one is attacking with knights, maces, and elephants and the other is attacking with dog soldiers
YossarianLives: lol!!!
Scooter: hah, nah probably not
YossarianLives: Well that's good (from our perspective)
We were thinking that the way you worded the NAP, if you started a war with them right before T175, then we couldn't do anything while you just kept gobbling up more land
Scooter: would it make you guys more willing to agree on the NAP if we promised not to attack them?
oh
no, sorry on the confusion there
the idea was as soon as the agreement was signed, that clause would be in effect
so theoretically if you guys sign it tomorrow and we declare on WPC next week, you would get your "out" clause
and vice versa of course
YossarianLives: Another question about the NAP
Sent at 10:49 AM on Tuesday
YossarianLives: Do you have the same concerns about us that we have about you? That with a standard NAP we could DOW another weak team and take more land without you being able to stop us? Or was there another reason you made the clause reciprical?
Scooter: Kind of, yeah. If we sign a NAP with you suddenly get peace with CivFr, you have a sizable army and a northern neighbor with basically no army
*with you, and you suddenly
Sent at 10:51 AM on Tuesday
YossarianLives: Well we need to catch up to you somehow! We had to share the Zulu lands with CivFr, but it looks like you're now getting all the German lands to yourselves
Scooter: I can understand that, yeah. Would you be more interested in the deal if we dropped that portion of the clause for your team?
Sent at 10:53 AM on Tuesday
YossarianLives: Is that something you would be willing to do?
Scooter: I'd have to check with the team and talk about it. I hadn't considered that it might be a sticking point. In my opinion I'd be willing to, but there are a lot of other opinions of course
YossarianLives: Yeah, I definitely know how that goes!
Scooter: I'll check with them and get back to you for sure
YossarianLives: That would be great. One less concern for some of our members.
Scooter: for sure, and yeah, do pass on to your team that the "out clause" would be active immediately, not wait until T175
you know, I'll send you an official email after we discuss all that with official wording so it's clear
let's me clean up the language a bit so nothing is overly ambiguous
Also I can't remember if we discussed this, but if we did this, we'd like to close "NAP loopholes"
YossarianLives: Like the pillaging thing?
Scooter: and also extend our EP arrangements where we both target EPs elsewhere
yeah pillaging, helping enemies with strategic resources/gold, etc
we really only closed about half of them last time, and it seems prudent to just clean it all up so we're both clear
YossarianLives: You'll re-write it with the appropriate language for all that, then?
Scooter: yeah I can do that
as soon as we figure out what we want to do with your half of the out clause, I'll send that to you
that work?
YossarianLives: Perfect, we'll be looking out for that, then
Scooter: great!

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.

 

[YossarianLives]

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).

 

[2metraninja]

We just got the official NAP proposal from RB:

Official T175-T200 NAP Extension Proposal
Inbox
x
Realms Beyond

10:37 PM (31 minutes ago)

to me
Yossarian,

I talked with my team, and I've included our official proposal for the deal we suggested. We were mostly fine with dropping your half of the opt-out, but we would like to protect WPC if possible, so we kept an exception in for that. I also tied up some loopholes and included EP/OB things as well. Please let me know if you have any questions, clarifications, or concerns and I'd be happy to discuss them! This isn't necessarily meant to be a take-it-or-leave-it offer, so do keep that in mind if there's a major issue in here. I don't expect there will be any surprises though.

Thanks!
scooter - Team RB

NAP Extension Proposal
1) Current Deals
A) All current deals are still in effect until their expiration on T175.
B) These cannot be canceled in any way except for the opt-out clause in Section 2A-C

2) Opt-out Clause
A) If at any point during the length of this agreement (expiring on T200) Realms Beyond declares war on another team, CFC can choose to opt-out of all current agreements with RB if they believe it's in their team's interest to do so.
B) If at any point during the length of this agreement (expiring on T200) CFC declares war on WPC, Realms Beyond can choose to opt-out of all current agreements with CFC if they believe it's in their team's interest to do so.
C) The window for this is 3 turns. Example: If RB declares war on a neighbor during T168, CFC has until the end of T171 to notify RB that they would like to opt out of their agreements with RB. After the 3T window is closed, the agreements can no longer be canceled unless an opt-out condition is triggered again.
D) The opt-out does not apply to any other wars not explicitly covered by 2A-B. This means none of the following qualify: on-going wars, wars in which a 3rd party declares on RB, non-WPC wars which CFC initiates, or anything else that does not explicitly follow section 2A-B.
E) This opt-out clause takes effect immediately upon agreement of the deal by both sides.
F) Exception: Team RB has made it clear to our neighbors that if they use spies to revolt our civics or religion, we consider that to be an act of war. If one of our neighbors does that to us, we will consider that to be a declaration of war on us, so we would be free to officially declare war in game and retaliate without opening up the opt-out window. RB does not expect this to happen, because we either have spy agreements or very clear warnings with all of our neighbors.

3) T175-T200 agreement
A) NAP agreement from T175-T200, which goes into effect immediately upon the previous deal expiring.
B) EP agreement to target EPs at other teams as long as both sides are able to view graphs. RB and CFC will not run EP missions against each other.
C) Extension of Open Borders throught he duration of the agreement.
D) No NAP loopholes or exploitation. This includes:
-No gifting (or trading) units, gold, or strategic resources to a nation the other side is at war with. If such deals are in place prior to a war, they must be canceled if a war begins. Example: If RB is trading iron to a neighbor of CFC and a war breaks out between that neighbor and CFC, RB will cancel the trade immediately. Note: Brand new trades must wait 10T to cancel, so if advance warning is provided, it must be followed. If it is not provided, then the deal must be canceled on the earliest possible turn. Health resources and non-strategic luxuries are not covered by this provision and are free to trade.
-No doing damage to land/units/resources that the other has claim to, even if cultural borders allow it (example: pillaging in the BFC of recently captured/razed cities).
-No granting Right of Passage to and/or aiding an army that has the intent of hurting the other party or giving tactical scouting info to the 3rd party.
E) By "Expiring on T200" that means the deal is effective through EOT199. During T200, the deal is no longer in effect.

 

[Sommerswerd]

To me, this clause:

Please let me know if you have any questions, clarifications, or concerns and I'd be happy to discuss them! This isn't necessarily meant to be a take-it-or-leave-it offer, so do keep that in mind if there's a major issue in here.

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.

 

[2metraninja]

The same paragraph to me means: "Just give the fcuking NAP and do what you want

 

[Magno_uy]

basically the same. lot of text for said nothing more dont attack me till Im really ready...

 

[YossarianLives]

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:

-No granting Right of Passage to and/or aiding an army that has the intent of hurting the other party or giving tactical scouting info to the 3rd party.

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.

 

[Aivoturso]

@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.

 

[2metraninja]

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?

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.

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.

This

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.

This too
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?

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.

And this!

All very good points.

 

[classical_hero]

How do our alliance partners feel about this?

 

[Aivoturso]

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?

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.

 

[Sommerswerd]

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?

 

[Aivoturso]

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.