Foreign Policy: The CivPlayers League

[Sommerswerd]

OK I read all of it. This is what I would like us to propose to Ot4e:

Dear CP,

CFC proposes we extend the NAP between CFC and CP until turn 250, and also that we keep the 20 turn notice in effect.

Love,

Team CFC

Ot4e wants some clear goal of cooperation for such a long NAP. He wants a goal for the alliance, like how the purpose of the last NAP was to destroy RB. So now we have to say we are cooperating to destroy somebady else.

So aks him who he wants to destroy, UCiv? OK fine, lets start planning with him to destroy UCiv, and set a NAP that gives us enough time to kill CiVFr and then kill UCiv.

 

[2metraninja]

Interesting development I think, which only shows that if you stay at one place long enough, all the world and the opportunities will come around you

Ot4e: hi
Изпратено в 11:23, неделя
аз: hi
whats up?
Изпратено в 11:23, неделя
Ot4e: I have remembered 1 thing
аз: yes?
Ot4e: you said that for "good guys" you can agree not to use change civics/religion missions
I know that I have fallen from that group
аз: how do you know?
Ot4e: but can we agree on this for this game despite of our following relations
I should push it before we stopped being friends and started dividing RBs land
my mistake
Изпратено в 11:33, неделя
аз: haha
so you consider dividing RB lands catapulted you out of our friends list?
Ot4e: I expected this. This is the most serious test for friendship
to divide something
Изпратено в 11:36, неделя
аз: so you think you failed the test?
Ot4e: it is not me or you
I hope we dont tbh
аз: you hope, but you dont believe it?
Изпратено в 11:40, неделя
аз: anyway, I am open-minded enough to not put labels "good" or "bad" on people based on what effect their actions have specifically on me. I measure things more globally
Изпратено в 11:41, неделя
аз: what I mean is someone can be still good guy in general sense even if he acts hostile towards me
maybe he have his reasons and in the big picture it is justified

So, Ot4e will ask us to give our word we wont use CMS and RSM on him or to no one else. He knows he is a bit late this to be just a friend's request and we can put our terms for this deal. First thing that comes to my mind is he to promise he will propose and support a rule change where AP religious win is not allowed. Second possible thing that we can ask for in exchange of us promising to not use those so feared missions is he to give us NAP. What duration NAP we might be best interested in? I think MZ have NAP with him to t230, so we asking for this will be very suspicious. We have NAP with Uciv to t240 and we ourselves hope for NAP to t250 with Poly. Or we make it something with like t215 "hard NAP" as he was proposed last time (when we were friends still lol) and then we put some 10 or 20 turns "rolling NAP" after it?

 

[talonschild]

Either sounds good, though the NAP seems an easier sell. I guess... How terrified are all y'all about a religious victory?

 

[2metraninja]

Religious victory is distinct possibility. Once RB last city is gone, it is possible. Of course, this will require CivFR to vote for CP, but having in mind how close those two teams look so far, no wonder that we come to a situation that CivFR vote for CP's religious victory only to deny it to us with Poly if we are at war and decimating them seriously without them having a hope to defend.

In my head though, there is easier to deal with possible CP religious win than if we have to deal with CP attacking us once we declare war to CivFR.

So if I have to choose between both, I think I will choose that he gives us NAP, so we can conquer CivFR together with Poly and just then worry about ot4e's AP.

 

[2metraninja]

So, the answer came himself. I just sat and waited the whole world to come around me

Ot4e: most people do like you described
putting labels
Изпратено в 12:11, неделя
аз: I must recognize I do put labels sometimes, just the criteria differ from most people
Изпратено в 12:13, неделя
Ot4e: I know everyone does, but it rarely difffers from "good" and "bad"
Изпратено в 12:16, неделя
Ot4e: so what about missions?
Изпратено в 12:17, неделя
аз: what is your idea?
Ot4e: to agree not to use those missions
Ot4e: in this game
Изпратено в 12:20, неделя
аз: what about you agreeing to not use the AP religious win vote and give us a NAP?
Изпратено в 12:22, неделя
Ot4e: heh, does it look like I dont give you NAP?
well I dont want to make it condition for our NAP, because NAP has duration and that agreement is for entire game
about AP victory I think it is possible to agree not to use it also if it makes you worry
about NAP I am open for discussion and you know we are flexible. But we have NAP with Ottomans until 230, so for obvious reasond I'd like to have NAP with you till 220 or 240
Изпратено в 12:25, неделя
Ot4e: we are seeking for military help against them and at least "not giving them gold" agreement
Изпратено в 12:27, неделя
аз: I understand you reasons. will post this in our forum for discussion and hopefully will have answer for you soon
your request make sense for me at least

I think NAP with ot4e to t240 is a no-brainer. Till then we will be hopefully long - long defeated and incorporated CivFR in our growing empire. Ot4e will have his NAP with MZ 10 turns ago ended and they will be most probably in some form of hot of cold war already, where we will have NAP with MZ to t250. Only bad thing is it coincide with our NAP end with Uciv, but we will think about it when the time comes. Hopefully we will be able to fight 2 defensive wars easily than 1 defensive (with ot4e) and 1 offensive (with French) if we could not secure NAP with CP and still want to kill off CivFR. Ot4e even makes it easier for us with asking for "no military and economic help" clause to secure himself from us supplying MZ, where we will use the same clause to deny him supply CivFR once we jump at them and he have a NAP with us

 

[Sommerswerd]

Sounds good. We should agree to this NAP and the conditions "No religious victory vote, and no CSM missions against each other" for the duration of the NAP. The chat makes it seem to me that Ot4e was already considering religious victory.

The fear of CSM with our SPI leader pays dividends once again hopefully

We still need to spread Budhism, but we can do it more slowly with this NAP in place. We should realize that when CivFr is faced with a 2 on 1 against us and Poly, they will know that they are dead anyway and vote for CP to get a religious win. It is the obvious course they will take, so we must be prepared.

 

[vranasm]

I have to agree with sommers that ot4e already thought about using AP to some extent, since otherwise he wouldn't ask for ban on changing religion.

well he maybe needs AP religion for spies, but after all those years I am not sure how the maluses stack with spy economy and if your religion is important or only the target etc.

 

[2metraninja]

But of course he will think about winning by the AP. After all, it is allowed as victory condition in this game and it is true it is not exactly cheesy or unworthy for respect in my personal opinion.

As for why he could want to stay in the AP religion, there are many and many reasons. As he gains 2 hammers per religious building, 2 coins too. He have this religion spread in his cities, so OR or Theocracy or any other religious civic will work only if he is in Buddhism. But he must be afraid of Civic switch missions too. Those can easily change the game - having friends with the "right" civics and enough espionage on you to switch you back will become crucial, as we are the only SPI team left in the game.

Anyway, he knows how easy we can ruin his day with CMS and RSMs, so he prefers to avoid it. Interesting thing is he finally admits he knows he is no longer in our friends group. Sad story.

Though, I would like to make "no AP win" official rule change. Because despite how powerful CMS and RSMs can be, they can be lived over and later avenged, where when AP win comes, the game simply ends. End of story.

This of course will result in him asking us to propose official rule change of banning CMS and RMS, which will be political sensitive

BTW, in regard to denying ot4e the AP win, I was thinking about releasing a colony. Vassals are off, but I saw last turn we have one city which have the option of the fist in the city list adviser. Hovering its button says "Release the selected city as colony". What will happen if we click it?

 

[2metraninja]

Anyway, here is the NAP proposal to Civ Players:

CivPlayers-CivFanatics Treaty second edition(CPCFT2)

Section 1. Members of the CivPlayers-CivFanatics Treaty

1.1. Team CivPlayers

1.2. Team CivFanatics

Section 2. Treaty Duration and Terms

2.1. The pact cannot be canceled before the beginning of turn 240.

2.2. The members of this treaty cannot enter into agreements with third parties which interfere or may cause interference to any of its clauses.

2.4. Both members of the treaty must adhere to all clauses together.

Section 3. Non-Aggression Pact

3.1. The members agree to not declare war on the other member of this pact while this pact is in effect.

3.2. If any of the members is at war with third party, the other member agrees to not help to that third party.

3.2.1. Giving aid to a third party consists of giving gold and military units plus Great Generals

3.2.2 Giving money and units does not affects already agreed deals at the time of signing the CPCFT2.

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. Map Trading

5.1. Both members will freely gift maps to the other on request.

Section 6. Temporary Exceptions

6.1. 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 7. Amendments

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

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

I have problems with defining how we control that ot4e wont give units to french - section 3.2

The problem is ot4e will know MZ will attack French 10 turns in advance and he will simply give them big amount of army, messing with our plans too. Any ideas which will not sound too obvious?

 

[vranasm]

But of course he will think about winning by the AP. After all, it is allowed as victory condition in this game and it is true it is not exactly cheesy or unworthy for respect in my personal opinion.

As for why he could want to stay in the AP religion, there are many and many reasons. As he gains 2 hammers per religious building, 2 coins too. He have this religion spread in his cities, so OR or Theocracy or any other religious civic will work only if he is in Buddhism. But he must be afraid of Civic switch missions too. Those can easily change the game - having friends with the "right" civics and enough espionage on you to switch you back will become crucial, as we are the only SPI team left in the game.

Anyway, he knows how easy we can ruin his day with CMS and RSMs, so he prefers to avoid it. Interesting thing is he finally admits he knows he is no longer in our friends group. Sad story.

Though, I would like to make "no AP win" official rule change. Because despite how powerful CMS and RSMs can be, they can be lived over and later avenged, where when AP win comes, the game simply ends. End of story.

This of course will result in him asking us to propose official rule change of banning CMS and RMS, which will be political sensitive

BTW, in regard to denying ot4e the AP win, I was thinking about releasing a colony. Vassals are off, but I saw last turn we have one city which have the option of the fist in the city list adviser. Hovering its button says "Release the selected city as colony". What will happen if we click it?

hammers and coins from religious building you get regardless of your state religion (that's why you usually spread AP religion anyway).

the only thing that is problematic is running OR/Theo AND you have only half votes in votes if you are not state religion of AP.

I am not sure if you can win AP diplo/resident if you don't run state religion of AP... this one I am not really sure.
I think having AP guarantees you being on list regardless of how much you spread compared to everyone else (similar to UN), but not sure if you need to have correct SR to be there.

I very vaguely remember that civs choosing Free religion won't appear on the list and thus you can have 1 leader popups for choosing the resident.

Other thing is I am not totally sure how the things work regarding firing up resolutions. I think it is kinda cyclic, but once the games realizes big shift (how big?) in AP population it fires vote for resident.
So if we switch ot4e religion to something else, he can't shift back for 5 turns at least, not sure if the game will fire resident voting (based on big shift of AP population).
Seems to me like we could in theory strip him of voting diplo victory with that mission alone, but more testing is needed. Since I am really not sure on the mechanics, since AP victories are basically "banned" in S&T and I usually win before UN kicking in (and the mechanic doesn't need to be the same).

I think it could be good to ask STW or neilmeister on some finer details on AP through PM here on civfanatics, I think both of them are masters of AP (and maybe WastinTime too).

 

[2metraninja]

hammers and coins from religious building you get regardless of your state religion (that's why you usually spread AP religion anyway).

For hammers you are right, but the other goodies depend on what religion you are in at the moment. For coins (beside shrine obviously) or beakers, or culture out of religious buildings, they are not linked with whether this religion is AP or not, but if you are running it as state religion I think.

I am not sure if you can win AP diplo/resident if you don't run state religion of AP... this one I am not really sure.
I think having AP guarantees you being on list regardless of how much you spread compared to everyone else (similar to UN), but not sure if you need to have correct SR to be there.

I very vaguely remember that civs choosing Free religion won't appear on the list and thus you can have 1 leader popups for choosing the resident.

Other thing is I am not totally sure how the things work regarding firing up resolutions. I think it is kinda cyclic, but once the games realizes big shift (how big?) in AP population it fires vote for resident.
So if we switch ot4e religion to something else, he can't shift back for 5 turns at least, not sure if the game will fire resident voting (based on big shift of AP population).
Seems to me like we could in theory strip him of voting diplo victory with that mission alone, but more testing is needed. Since I am really not sure on the mechanics, since AP victories are basically "banned" in S&T and I usually win before UN kicking in (and the mechanic doesn't need to be the same).

Interesting bits of info, must see what is true and how things are if not so.

I think it could be good to ask STW or neilmeister on some finer details on AP through PM here on civfanatics, I think both of them are masters of AP (and maybe WastinTime too).

Can you do this for the team? Maybe even invite them? If not else to read and give practical mechanics advices?

 

[2metraninja]

In other news, Ot4e is in hurry to finish the NAP negotiations. Why so, I dont know. He recently stole Liberalism, Replaceable Parts and Rifling from French. And he is moving some units in general WPC direction. Plus they made few 2-pop whips this turn.

10/14/13 2:03 am civplayers Score increased to 1505
10/14/13 1:52 am civplayers Score decreased to 1481
10/14/13 1:52 am civplayers Score decreased to 1488
10/14/13 1:51 am civplayers Score decreased to 1493
10/14/13 1:50 am civplayers Score decreased to 1500
10/14/13 1:49 am civplayers Score decreased to 1507
10/14/13 1:49 am civplayers Score decreased to 1512
10/14/13 1:48 am civplayers Score decreased to 1520
10/14/13 12:53 am civplayers Logged in

Ot4e: hi
what's up?
аз: Hi
all is OK I think
working a bit
we almost have our NAP proposal ready to send it to you
Ot4e: about NAP? do you have it all in one proposal?
I hoped to solve some things by today-tomorrow
аз: yes, in one proposal
you are suddenly in hurry ?
why so?
what you cook?
Ot4e: diplomacy
cook is right word
I need to refresh NAPs and arrange them
and the thing with civics swap
demands different style of the game
which I dont like personally
аз: lets look at them as separate things
I said what we are worried about, you said what you are worried about, I think we can agree
both things demand different approach to the game and make it very nervous
Ot4e: why not to agree right now, say "phew" and play for fun?
аз: why not?
but this is second importance for me
I dont even count it as legitimate play
Ot4e: +
аз: I want first thing first, lets do the NAP business
Ot4e: we have long enough history of maintaining NAP
it is not our first meeting
lol
ok, when can I expect to get your proposal at your estimation?
Изпратено в 14:26, понеделник
аз: before end of the day I think
Ot4e: I didnt sleep enough sorry for pressure
and now I read end of day and trying to find "end of day" button
Изпратено в 14:33, понеделник
аз: hahahah
good one
look at civstats
to see how much there is left
Ot4e: if my day could end at 0:00...
but timer continues going
Изпратено в 14:36, понеделник
аз: hahah.. same with me

He suddenly became so business... After days and days of twisting and stretching. Any idea why is all this about?

 

[vranasm]

he probably wants to fire war against UCiv "soon" and wants cover...

hmm or in couple of turns he expects the popup for trying for religious win and doesn't want spy intereference?

Another interesting thing/twist is if changing someones religion means the last voting on something is stripped?

wasn't wastingtime part of the team btw? not sure now...

if you want to invite people directly to team it would be better if you do... I probably can try to form couple of questions and throw them at neilmeister through PM though.

 

[2metraninja]

Another interesting thing/twist is if changing someones religion means the last voting on something is stripped?

This one I think I can answer. For AP win purposes it only takes in to consideration switching others religions as change in the vote power.

If it is the Pope switched to different region.. hmmm... I dont know... sounds logical that if the Pope want to win the game, he at least must be from this religion.

wasn't wastingtime part of the team btw? not sure now...

I think he never was part of the team. Or if he was, he never showed up by saying something.

if you want to invite people directly to team it would be better if you do... I probably can try to form couple of questions and throw them at neilmeister through PM though.

Yes, of course, it is just I dont know those guys, we never talked or something. Maybe they will be more interested if it is someone they know who invite them?

 

[Sommerswerd]

In other news, Ot4e is in hurry to finish the NAP negotiations. Why so, I dont know. He recently stole Liberalism, Replaceable Parts and Rifling from French. And he is moving some units in general WPC direction. Plus they made few 2-pop whips this turn.

He suddenly became so business... After days and days of twisting and stretching. Any idea why is all this about?

He is getting ready to attack someone clearly, probably WPC, they are the weakest left right? Or UCiv... Maybe he is upset that he did not get any ransom from either of them and he is going over there to extort some money from them while they are weak and scared.

We cant trouble ourselves with trying to stop that from happening. As long as he does not attack us, and we destroy CivFr, everything is on schedule.

This line was my favourite

the thing with civics swap
demands different style of the game
which I dont like personally

This was of course the plan from the start, to put people off balance and in fear of CSM, despite nobody having ever used it in this game, because they are not used to worrying about it.

Also for the record, again, I am totally opposed to us trying to change the rules to ban any victory condition, including AP win. That would be such a dishonourable tactic at this point... I will not write 5,000 words on the subject just yet, (in case you are just joking about it), but I am so opposed to the thought of it, I will be sure to loudly protest and show my opposition to it.

As for the treaty with CP... We can add this clause:

3.2.3 Both parties agree to disclose any already-agreed-deals to provide gold or units to a third party under any circumstances. Disclosures must happen immediately at the time of signing the CPCFT2. Violation of this term is the same as a violation of the NAP.

So we can just DoW CivFr, and they will be cut off from CP aid.

 

[vranasm]

This one I think I can answer. For AP win purposes it only takes in to consideration switching others religions as change in the vote power.

If it is the Pope switched to different region.. hmmm... I dont know... sounds logical that if the Pope want to win the game, he at least must be from this religion.

I think he never was part of the team. Or if he was, he never showed up by saying something.

Yes, of course, it is just I dont know those guys, we never talked or something. Maybe they will be more interested if it is someone they know who invite them?

well not sure if I am the best person though

I had some disputes with STW in past, no contact/connetion with WastinTime whatsoever and I think I communicated with neilmeister only once and it was something like 'I really liked your design of last SGOTM'.

Will look into it tomorrow to make some good PM to neil.

 

[2metraninja]

He is getting ready to attack someone clearly, probably WPC, they are the weakest left right?

Thinking more and more, this is more and more real possibility. I thought it will be stupid from political and economical POW for ot4e to conquer WPC, but I dont think so anymore. With SP available as civic for Ot4e, it can turn in to nice temporary disposable fief which can be acquired at low-low price right now. Sometimes I am like blind Cant see obvious things. Not that we can do much about it anyway. Or maybe we can?

OK team, we have a situation. What do we do to make it harder for Ot4e to get his whole WPC nice fief?

 

[talonschild]

Sign a defensive alliance before we NAP with CP?

 

[Sommerswerd]

OK team, we have a situation. What do we do to make it harder for Ot4e to get his whole WPC nice fief?

Nothing. Let them have it. Honestly we can't be bothered with such right now. Saving WPC is not worth War with CP and CivFr. We need to focus on the important goals right now.

1. NAP with Poly
2. NAP with CP
3. Kill CivFr

Trying to stop CP from killing WPC is a distraction we can't afford.

 

[2metraninja]

As for the treaty with CP... We can add this clause:
Quote:
3.2.3 Both parties agree to disclose any already-agreed-deals to provide gold or units to a third party under any circumstances. Disclosures must happen immediately at the time of signing the CPCFT2. Violation of this term is the same as a violation of the NAP.

About this clause I thought a lot about. He can always say: "We already have a deal with French that we must give them all our army after we are done with WPC" or whatever, you get the point. Trying to restrict who "potential enemy" can be without telling him in straight it must be CivFR, will always have backdoors. We spoke with ot4e and I told him we will sign the NAP if there is clause "no giving military units to anyone under no circumstance during the duration of the NAP". I think this closes all the doors for shenanigans with units. You gift unit, you broke the NAP.

Ot4e is in hurry to get the NAP signed. This is what I will send him as working variant:

CivPlayers-CivFanatics Treaty second edition(CPCFT2)

Section 1. Members of the CivPlayers-CivFanatics Treaty

1.1. Team CivPlayers

1.2. Team CivFanatics

Section 2. Treaty Duration and Terms

2.1. The pact cannot be canceled before the beginning of turn 240.

2.2. The members of this treaty cannot enter into agreements with third parties which interfere or may cause interference to any of its clauses.

2.4. Both members of the treaty must adhere to all clauses together.

Section 3. Non-Aggression Pact

3.1. The members agree to not declare war on the other member of this pact while this pact is in effect.

3.2. If any of the members is at war with third party, the other member agrees to not help to that third party with money.

3.3. Both sides agree to not give military units and/or Great Generals to any other team during the duration of the CPCFT2.

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. Map Trading

5.1. Both members will freely gift maps to the other on request.

Section 6. Temporary Exceptions

6.1. 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 7. Amendments

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

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

If ot4e have problems with any of the clauses, he must come and say so. If we cant reach agreement, we are even good if we simply dont sign the NAP. Giving him our warning in advance right now will not give CP enough time to establish themselves in the WPC lands. Which will be good for us and bad for CP.