1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Foreign Policy: The CivPlayers League

Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by talonschild, Jul 29, 2012.

  1. vranasm

    vranasm Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Messages:
    6,437
    Location:
    Czech Rep.
    to me it starts to bit a bit too complicated because my english knowledge seems to find borders here...

    I think sommers could handel the laywerish aspect here best...
     
  2. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,047
    Location:
    On the one spin
    So my reaction to this is Ot4e is trying to leave some loophole for himself that allows him to do what he wants (ie give CivFr units to fight us), while still seeming to agree to a NAP.

    2metra, TBH I think that we have to stick to our guns on this one. My suspicion is that CP wants/needs the NAP more than us right now. Tell them that the team thinks your exceptions are too complicated and too easily misinterpreted. Tell him that we are insisting that we just agree to a clean "No gifting military units to nobody" clause to avoid any confusion.

    Also, we need to know what the deals he already has are BEFORE we sign the NAP, because depending on what those deals are, we may want to change things a bit.

    That's my feeling, we have to push back a little in this situation. A NAP with CP where they are gifting units to CivFr is useless, we might as well just keep our right to attack CP intact.
     
  3. RegentMan

    RegentMan Deity

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,951
    Location:
    Washington State
    Sommers makes sense. :agree:
     
  4. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I already told Ot4e we most probably will want those deals already-agreed-upon deals disclosed beforehand, so we know what we sign, but now will tell him this is our firm condition.

    About vetoing, I think it is OK clause. I mean we can still find a use for it, in the unlikely case we will both want someone to receive units from someone of us.

    I think Ot4e suddenly felt almost all alone in this cold cold world and is changing tone drastically. I asked him to send us the money he owes us in 3x550 gold deal and he did that without a single word, while last time he was bargaining.
     
  5. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Another part of the negotiations:

     
  6. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,047
    Location:
    On the one spin
    This chat makes me feel even more strongly that the NAP must say, "No gifting of no units to nobody while NAP is in effect"

    Any unit trades/gifts/etc that CP is obligated to do, must take place BEFORE the NAP with us is signed. After the NAP is signed, then no unit gifts whatsoever.

    Otherwise, forget it, I would rather have no NAP then have an illusory one.
     
  7. bistrita

    bistrita Warlord

    Joined:
    May 31, 2012
    Messages:
    234
    I agree no nap.He is a snake we cant trust him at all.
     
  8. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    I don't mind giving CP a NAP for the conditions described by Sommerswerd. The point is to de-fang them for the next little while, and forcing them to keep their army to themselves is an excellent way to do that.

    But that condition must be there. Otherwise, no NAP.
     
  9. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Here is what Ot4e sent me as terms and clauses of the NAP:

     
  10. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    He also said the obligations he have are to give 10 cavalries to CivFR at t205. Nothing game changing if thats all.
     
  11. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,047
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Why cant he just give them now? I prefer he is all done with the gifting before the NAP is signed. That way we don't have a situation where we see him giving a horde of Cavalry to CivFr, and he says "Oh I said 10 Cavalry? My bad, I meant 100 Cavalry, just a simple typo :p ... but of course the treaty says I can fulfil my prior obligations :smug:"
     
  12. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    :) making him give those cavalries now will have other good effect too - he will be 10 cavalries short of attacking force to conquer WPC...

    But I doubt he will agree to this.
     
  13. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,047
    Location:
    On the one spin
    He would rather have no NAP? :confused:

    I doubt it :smug:, 1 beer bet.
     
  14. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I think allowing CP to give those 10 cavalries to CivFR is not the end of the world and it is OK. Saying that 10 was typo from 100 is not serious. Thinking in this fashion anyone can say then we mistyped the date of the NAP so there is no point in NAP at all.

    But now we have another problem - Ot4e insist on not having restrictions on the espionage. I asked him why he would want to use espionage on us and he said that he want to use passive accumulated espionage to acquire technologies from us. I asked isnt it a bit hypocritical that he runs counter-espionage mission on us just 2-3 turns ago to prevent us from stealing techs from him and now he to want to steal from us, and he said some $hit like: "But we were not sure what you are going to do with your espionage on us" LOL

    Do we give him our 20-turns warning in advance, meaning we can attack him in t215 and to say we wont give NAP without a no-espionage clause at all, so he to have his 20 turns to think about it?
     
  15. vranasm

    vranasm Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Messages:
    6,437
    Location:
    Czech Rep.
    I have to say I am pretty surprised that he admits he wants to steal techs from us...

    I think it's something normal in mp??

    in SP praxis I am very very angry on anyone using EP's on me :) and you can bet I will kill him even if the plan is something different
     
  16. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,047
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Cancel the NAP now?... interesting...

    Will he be done with his war against WPC by then? Will we? What will be our status with CivFr in 20 turns?

    I think we should insist on the espionage clauses, and on the Cavalry gift taking place before the NAP is signed... Unless that is going to expose us to a dogpile in 20 turns, which might be just what they want.
     
  17. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    We need to stay firm on espy and unit gifting, otherwise what is the point of any further NAP with them?
     
  18. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Bistrita pointed out something which we all knew, but at least I did not realized really. We actually have NAP with CP which forbids espionage over 100 points. It is our current - already rolling 20-turns NAP.

    Going from there, I had some interesting thoughts: Ot4e wanted to have NAP with us to t220 or t240 to avoid situation where he can be attacked from us and Poly simultaneous (they have NAP to t230), but now we are slowly and sure walking towards such possibility. It is t196 and we can declare at earliest after 20 turns, so if we dont have a new NAP in place to t210 (14 turns more), we can simply give the 20-turns-warning-in-advance to CP and we have NAP to t230 :)
     
  19. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,047
    Location:
    On the one spin
    This :agree:

    That is a good point. But this also means that we couldn't have used the Great Spies on CP anyway, so their counter-espy mission was a waste :p

    So we just leave the current NAP in place, and maybe even remind Ot4e that if he does not want a new NAP then we just leave the old in place that forbids espy over 100 points. No tech can be stolen with that little amount of points anyway...

    As a general rule, I don't give a rat's @ss about people stealing tech from me. It does absolutely no harm to your Civ whatsoever when someone steals your tech. However, I usually run an EE (or at least a partial one) in most games I play, and I find that people have a really negative, irrational emotional response to tech stealing. They act as if it harms them so badly, when it really doesen't, and they will resort to all kinds of extreme tactics to stop you from stealing tech from them, including War:lol:

    So are we going to attack CP or CivFr or both then?
     
  20. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I think CIvFR at t210 and hopefully CP at t230.
     

Share This Page