Caledorn
Emperor
Thank you, Yossarian 
Foreign Policy: Spanish Apolyton
- Thread starter talonschild
- Start date
Just checking in for the first time on this game (late joiner); I've been browsing through the history for the past hour or so to try to get up to date.
Here's what I'm seeing looking over this...
They haven't met anyone else yet (based on EP distribution). They have at least one team member who is inclined towards a fairly bloodthirsty playing style (Magno, in his prior game with 2metraninja). They chose Shaka, which has to tilt them significantly towards getting a good early war in. Finally, their response is curiously lacking in any discussion of how to avoid surprise DoWs, and in fact if anything encourages those by providing advanced information on where we'll be settling.
Pair this with the fact that apparently in previous games they've found other sites to be rather aggressive and untrustworthy, making cooperation seem like a less reliable strategy to them. I don't know about you, but... I start to get a bit worried when I see a pattern like that.
I would recommend our response include three elements.
First, clarification on how the preplanned-settling deal would work. What if you're settling nowhere near them - do you still need to notify them? What happens if the other civ thinks the spot you're claiming should really be in their natural area instead? It would be nice if instead we agreed we only would be calling cities in some "up-for-grabs" region.
Second, some sort of peace assurance in writing, as grant suggests. Phrase it differently if they don't like the sound of a non-aggression pact; maybe make cosmetic changes, but get some way of knowing that we don't have to constantly be watching out for a backstab.
Third, point them at someone else to worry about. Rather than have their forums be filled with discussions of whether they trust us, and whether we'd be a good victim, it would be nice to get them worrying about someone else.
Here's what I'm seeing looking over this...
They haven't met anyone else yet (based on EP distribution). They have at least one team member who is inclined towards a fairly bloodthirsty playing style (Magno, in his prior game with 2metraninja). They chose Shaka, which has to tilt them significantly towards getting a good early war in. Finally, their response is curiously lacking in any discussion of how to avoid surprise DoWs, and in fact if anything encourages those by providing advanced information on where we'll be settling.
Pair this with the fact that apparently in previous games they've found other sites to be rather aggressive and untrustworthy, making cooperation seem like a less reliable strategy to them. I don't know about you, but... I start to get a bit worried when I see a pattern like that.
I would recommend our response include three elements.
First, clarification on how the preplanned-settling deal would work. What if you're settling nowhere near them - do you still need to notify them? What happens if the other civ thinks the spot you're claiming should really be in their natural area instead? It would be nice if instead we agreed we only would be calling cities in some "up-for-grabs" region.
Second, some sort of peace assurance in writing, as grant suggests. Phrase it differently if they don't like the sound of a non-aggression pact; maybe make cosmetic changes, but get some way of knowing that we don't have to constantly be watching out for a backstab.
Third, point them at someone else to worry about. Rather than have their forums be filled with discussions of whether they trust us, and whether we'd be a good victim, it would be nice to get them worrying about someone else.
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
Welcome, coanda, we are growing stronger as a team 
About written assurances I would love to have them too. Maybe we can word them as "both teams agree to not attack each- other as long as we keep the 1-city-at-a-time-towards-eachother agreement".
About written assurances I would love to have them too. Maybe we can word them as "both teams agree to not attack each- other as long as we keep the 1-city-at-a-time-towards-eachother agreement".
YossarianLives
Deity
I agree with 2metra's suggestion. We should just add the line "It is also our understanding that as long as we both follow this agreement, we may not DOW one another." In Spanish, this would be
This should be added right after the line where I put the ** footnote. Here's the full message:
I think the message is ready to go now.
This should be added right after the line where I put the ** footnote. Here's the full message:
I think the message is ready to go now.
As I understand it, the current agreement proposed is:
Before settling a city (presumably a city in a contested area, and not any city), we must provide advanced notice. That then "claims" that area as ours, and we can settle it without contest any time in the next 15 turns (if it takes longer than that, the area goes up for grabs). Each team may claim no more than one area at a time.
Our proposed revision is: as long as both teams continue to follow this agreement, there may be no DOWs.
Here's my concern. There's no clearly established procedure for leaving the treaty. So one reading would say that it simply continues until both sides agree to end this treaty... in which case we may be effectively proposing a permanent peace with them. An alternate reading would say that it continues until one of the sides chooses to withdraw unilaterally... in which case it provides no defense at all against a surprise DOW, because they could simply withdraw and then immediately attack.
Could we possibly slip in something along the lines of "Before breaking this agreement, we will provide 15 turns advance notice" or something like that? It's not as good as a full-on NAP until turn 100, but it's far better than nothing.
Before settling a city (presumably a city in a contested area, and not any city), we must provide advanced notice. That then "claims" that area as ours, and we can settle it without contest any time in the next 15 turns (if it takes longer than that, the area goes up for grabs). Each team may claim no more than one area at a time.
Our proposed revision is: as long as both teams continue to follow this agreement, there may be no DOWs.
Here's my concern. There's no clearly established procedure for leaving the treaty. So one reading would say that it simply continues until both sides agree to end this treaty... in which case we may be effectively proposing a permanent peace with them. An alternate reading would say that it continues until one of the sides chooses to withdraw unilaterally... in which case it provides no defense at all against a surprise DOW, because they could simply withdraw and then immediately attack.
Could we possibly slip in something along the lines of "Before breaking this agreement, we will provide 15 turns advance notice" or something like that? It's not as good as a full-on NAP until turn 100, but it's far better than nothing.
talonschild
Drive-By NESer
Your comments echo my thoughts, coanda. Thank you for voicing them.
Caledorn
Emperor
Is the latest draft with Yossarian's amendment okay? I suspect it is the best we can do without pushing them into believeing we want to force them into a NAP..
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
I am fine with it
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
My impressions are these guys (well, I know only Magno) are not that smart-a$$es. I have met other guys who dont want to bind themselves by written agreements exactly because they believe overly-spelled agreements can be twisted. Maybe this is the case?
Some teams/guys enjoy making complex agreements, while others just dont like lawering.
Caledorn
Emperor
This might actually be the very case here. The language barrier, combined with their desire to prove themselves as a serious contender in the civ community may have put them in a position where they don't want to bind themselves into the "usual" civ community agreements. Perhaps they've read up on Sulla's page, as well as read the team forums from the former MTDG, and decided that they want to prove that it is possible to form honourable deals in different manners than what the civ community we are used to playing in does it.
Unless there is any further objections or last minute changes, I will mail the latest draft to them tonight
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
But why? They gave us the right to claim a spot first? We claim the Gold city and settle it. What can possibly go wrong?
Seems ok, now that I spent some more thought on the matter 
YossarianLives
Deity
None of these things have been clearly spelled out, which is what I think is causing a lot of our anxiety (personally, the uncertainty is what I am most concerned about). I imagine the reason that their proposal was so vague is that this is the system they use to establish agreements on their own site, so these details are obvious to them.
What I am hoping is that when they meet other teams, the other teams will refuse to deal with the Spaniards on their own terms (since they seem so weird to us). Since we immediately accept their deal, on top of putting efforts into communicating with them in their native language, we will naturally be the team they want to ally with, and they will have more suspicions against the other teams.
When I read their sign-up thread on their site, it sounded like they had an agreement with another team in a past ISDG that was broken, so they could be mistrustful coming into this game. If we ask too many questions up front, they might think we're just looking for a way to break the deal later. Better to signal that we trust them enough to be proposing a fair deal, and we will work out all the details as we continue building trust with one another. Adding the line about our assumed NAP for as long as we hold to their deal is as hard as I would like to push for now.
What I am hoping is that when they meet other teams, the other teams will refuse to deal with the Spaniards on their own terms (since they seem so weird to us). Since we immediately accept their deal, on top of putting efforts into communicating with them in their native language, we will naturally be the team they want to ally with, and they will have more suspicions against the other teams.
When I read their sign-up thread on their site, it sounded like they had an agreement with another team in a past ISDG that was broken, so they could be mistrustful coming into this game. If we ask too many questions up front, they might think we're just looking for a way to break the deal later. Better to signal that we trust them enough to be proposing a fair deal, and we will work out all the details as we continue building trust with one another. Adding the line about our assumed NAP for as long as we hold to their deal is as hard as I would like to push for now.
YossarianLives
Deity
Also, welcome aboard coanda! It's great to get more members on Team CFC!
There's tons of posts to dig through, so if you have any questions to get caught up with where we are or why we've made any decisions, feel free to ask.
There's tons of posts to dig through, so if you have any questions to get caught up with where we are or why we've made any decisions, feel free to ask.
Fair enough; there's a lot to be said for building goodwill early rather than relying on spelling out every detail. I would say if we're going this way, we want them meeting other teams. Preferably soon. I'd recommend we point them towards WPC and RB. At the same time, that: builds more goodwill towards us, enourages them to split their EPs (making it easier for us to keep an eye on their power graph - incidentally, I'd recommend full EPs spent on them until we get that) and let the warmongers on their team contemplate attacking someone other than us.
Caledorn
Emperor
I have sent them the message as was translated by Yossarian.
We should continue the discussions we are currently in, so we are prepared with what we should respond when their response comes in. Especially, do we want to give them the directions to locate RB, WPC and the German team? How will we react if their response is "No, we mean that we should give 15 turn notice for settling cities, regardless of where they should be settled."? Etc.
This is definitely a tricky diplomatic situation compared to what I am used to negotiating with, but I hope it'll turn out for the best. We have to divert resources into defense, even research archery, if these negotiations fail.
We should continue the discussions we are currently in, so we are prepared with what we should respond when their response comes in. Especially, do we want to give them the directions to locate RB, WPC and the German team? How will we react if their response is "No, we mean that we should give 15 turn notice for settling cities, regardless of where they should be settled."? Etc.
This is definitely a tricky diplomatic situation compared to what I am used to negotiating with, but I hope it'll turn out for the best. We have to divert resources into defense, even research archery, if these negotiations fail.
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
Wise words, very good thinking, Yossa
Also my impression is that usually the first team you meet becomes your best buddy, just as the time goes if nothing serious happens to ruin your relations. The thinking is: "We know these guys for so long already and they are OK, we must worry for the new guys - they can be dangerous."
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
Very good, my thinking is the same.
And yes, keeping an eye on Zulu powergraph is always a good idea. Having sentry net close to their borders - another one good idea
Similar threads
