Foreign Policy: The CivPlayers League

[2metraninja]

Can we get OB with them so we can send our Chariot through to meet CivFr? This would be really great for demo-hacking (let's us see more city centers) and also for the diplomats (gets us more contacts). There won't be much for Ambassador SC to do except double back into RB borders if we can't get OB with CP.

Very good idea. I think we can even combine it with NAP. Need to write it down and will post it here.

 

[SilentConfusion]

Here's an adaptation of the inter-team treaty for CivPlayers. Modified the religion bit because we both already have a religion. They like clear and direct, and I think they will appreciate the clarity of a highly structured treaty because it will cut down confusions that have to be explained via diplomacy. As for what turn/year, I think it should be something impressively long. What do people think? Also any additions or subtractions based on the game situation or what we know about CivPlayers. I think this will be more than they expect and we may pleasantly surprise them with our offer of complete cooperation. We shouldn't put anything in the treaty about attacking RB, but once this treaty is in place they should feel more comfortable talking about such an offensive.

Civ Players-Fanatics Treaty (CPFT)

Section 1. Members of the Civ Players-Fanatics Treaty
1.1. Team CivPlayers

1.2. Team CivFanatics

Section 2. Pact Duration and Cancellation Terms

2.1. The pact continues indefinitely until it is canceled.

2.2. The pact cannot be canceled until <turn/year>.

2.3. The pact will be canceled if at any time there are no non-member teams left in the game.

2.4. The pact can be canceled by either member if the other member knowingly violates the terms of the pact.

Section 3. Non Aggression

3.1. Both members agree not to attack each other at any time while this pact is in effect.

3.2. If a third party attacks either one of the members, the other member agrees not give aid to that third party.
3.2.1. Giving aid to a third party includes providing gold, gifting military units, and granting passage to troops.

3.3. Both members agree to help each other where possible if either of them are engaged in a defensive war.
3.3.1. If either member is engaged in an offensive war against a third party, the other member is not obligated to get involved, although help may be given voluntarily.

3.4. If the pact is canceled because there are no non-member teams left in the game (Section 2.3) a Non-Aggression Pact will go into effect that will last for 10 turns after the last non-member team is eliminated.

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

5.1. Both members will seek to trade excess resources with the other member first before attempting to trade it to a non-member.
5.1.1. If the other member is unwilling or unable to make a reasonable trade offer the resource may be traded to a non-member.

Section 6. Sharing Information

6.1. Both members agree to cooperate with complete openness and honesty.

6.2. Neither member will hold back any information which we feel the other member would like to know. This includes but it not limited to all of the following.
6.2.1. Contact with new nations
6.2.2. Important diplomacy with other nations
6.2.3. Positions and strengths of suspicious rival units
6.2.4. Information gained through espionage

Section 7. Religion

7.1. Each member agrees to make an effort to provide the other member with a missionary from their religion within a reasonable time limit.

Section 8. Wonders

8.1. Both members agree be open with each other about plans to build World Wonders, to avoid duplication and the tension that could arise from secretly competing against each other.

Section 9. Temporary Exceptions

9.1. 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.

Section 10. Amendments

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

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

 

[Aivoturso]

I think it is still a bit too early after initial contact with these guys for a treaty this complex. I suggest first signing NAP and OB. Then we can build on that but even then I'd send a message that simply says "We'd like to formally ally with you guys to get rid of RB and other rivals. If you feel the same way about us let us know and we can whip up a draft for an agreement. If you have any terms you'd like to include, that's fine. Just let us know."

My rationale is that when you are trying to sell something, you'll first want to give a good sales pitch. Only when the customer is ready to buy you'll whip out the agreement in legalese that most of the customers will just give a passing glance before happily signing it.

 

[Bowsling]

I'd think getting them to agree to this treaty is more of an end than a means. First we have to earn their trust, get some good, open dialogue going... not just dump this massive treaty on their desk and ask them to sign it!

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think it is still a bit too early after initial contact with these guys for a treaty this complex. I suggest first signing NAP and OB. Then we can build on that but even then I'd send a message that simply says "We'd like to formally ally with you guys to get rid of RB and other rivals. If you feel the same way about us let us know and we can whip up a draft for an agreement. If you have any terms you'd like to include, that's fine. Just let us know."

My rationale is that when you are trying to sell something, you'll first want to give a good sales pitch. Only when the customer is ready to buy you'll whip out the agreement in legalese that most of the customers will just give a passing glance before happily signing it.

I'd think getting them to agree to this treaty is more of an end than a means. First we have to earn their trust, get some good, open dialogue going... not just dump this massive treaty on their desk and ask them to sign it!

You guys are both correct I think... However, in order to "whip out" the contract after you have made the sale, you need to have the contract already drafted nice and pretty, or you may "lose your sale" in the course of arguing over the small details. Better to have the cotract ready and we can make minor adjustments if they want. As you said they may just "happily sign it"

 

[SilentConfusion]

I think it is still a bit too early after initial contact with these guys for a treaty this complex. I suggest first signing NAP and OB. Then we can build on that but even then I'd send a message that simply says "We'd like to formally ally with you guys to get rid of RB and other rivals. If you feel the same way about us let us know and we can whip up a draft for an agreement. If you have any terms you'd like to include, that's fine. Just let us know."

My rationale is that when you are trying to sell something, you'll first want to give a good sales pitch. Only when the customer is ready to buy you'll whip out the agreement in legalese that most of the customers will just give a passing glance before happily signing it.

I'd think getting them to agree to this treaty is more of an end than a means. First we have to earn their trust, get some good, open dialogue going... not just dump this massive treaty on their desk and ask them to sign it!

I, too, agree that it is probably too soon to send this, but I want us to start thinking about the language that we want in it. Better if we have it as quickly as they show they are willing to work together more permanently. That way we can have the initiative. While not an end in itself, it is still something I would rather get to sooner rather than later.

I'd like to gather input on the terms that the team would like to see in a Treaty with CivPlayers. Any additions or subtractions to the terms above are welcome. At the same time I will draft something less heavy that will strengthen the bond we have started (probably something with Open Borders that shows our desire to work with them). We want to say things to encourage further trust and mutual benefit, in preparation for strengthening our bond with the treaty, which will hopefully be finalized by the time we want to send it.

 

[YossarianLives]

For NAP length, I think T200 would be good for us. I don't know if that's where we want to start negotiations, though

Section 5: we already promised this to RB. How can we give both teams dibs to our resources?

Section 7: we would need to send those missionaries through RB lands, tipping them off to our close cooperation. Unnecessary, imho. We each have our own religions, let's leave it at that.

 

[cav scout]

I'm a little weary of sending them something in a treaty format right now. The legalese of this might turn them off.

I think we would be much more successful if we send a plain language offer for a long NAP and open borders. Also talk about resource trades but make sure we don't promise priority when we have agreed to this already with RB.

Once we get a NAP going then we engage them with a converation about the world and the other teams and how the game is unfolding. Then once a good repoire is established we can offer a special long term alliance deal.

 

[Bowsling]

Did any of these guys participate in the last MTDG? I fear that they may see this, and quickly associate a lengthy treaty offer from Sommerswerd, 2metra, and SilentConfusion's team with Amazon's winning diplomacy from the last game. Especially after you explained your intentions in the post-game thread, them making this association could really hamper our diplomatic advances.

 

[2metraninja]

Did any of these guys participate in the last MTDG?

No, as far as I know. I doubt that any of them even heard of it. They are not CFC regulars at all.

 

[2metraninja]

Though I do agree with Cav that this will look scary to them.

Maybe just simple OB request at first time shortly followed by an in-game offer for OB?

They are just 4 or 5 in their team. And they have clear roles. OT4E is the mastermind, Filon plays the turns and Decebal handles diplomacy. Adnana and IPlayCiv are newcommers to my understanding and are in the team to learn from the veterans. Such long and advocatish agreement on the second date - I am not sure if there will be enough time and will they to read and discuss it point by point.

With Filon we had quite diplomacy in the two games we played. In the first we happened to be allies. Very reliable and reasonable ally I can say. He does what we agreed without trying to trick. I think I made the very same impression to him. When I say I will have 25 units on someone's border at turn 100, I am there with 30 units and I attack.
In the second, he proved reasonable too. Too bad she ended prematurely...

I think we would be much more successful if we send a plain language offer for a long NAP and open borders. Also talk about resource trades but make sure we don't promise priority when we have agreed to this already with RB.

Once we get a NAP going then we engage them with a converation about the world and the other teams and how the game is unfolding. Then once a good repoire is established we can offer a special long term alliance deal.

This sounds great.

I know I asked for more formal terms of our deals, but we also must have in mind to whom we make those offers. To CP or Spaniards, I think such offers wont have big success...

 

[2metraninja]

BTW, I saw that the letter from CP was written most probably by their Team Leader. This shows the significance they put on us I think.

Lets think of something to send them tomorrow at last, ok?

 

[SilentConfusion]

BTW, I saw that the letter from CP was written most probably by their Team Leader. This shows the significance they put on us I think.

Lets think of something to send them tomorrow at last, ok?

Or it shows how few people they have. They all have to do a bit of everything due to low activity.

I feel that 2metraninja probably has a better understanding of how to talk to these guys. I'll write a letter if 2metra doesn't have time, but I think what 2metraninja will write will probably be better in this instance.

 

[YossarianLives]

We just got a second reply from CP. This one was sent directly from their foreign minister, and I would say it looks very promising, even more than their initial message.

Greetings SilentConfusion and CFC!

I have analyzed our positions together with our generals and we have concluded as well that from a military point of view an alliance is the very smart thing to do. I hope that you can find time to put down on paper the specific ways in which you think it would materialize.

Great, it looks like they caught on to our suggestions that we need to ally against RB, and they seem to agree. They even ask us to put together a formal treaty. Good thing SilentConfusion's already been working on this for us!

Our Economy Minister has shown great excitement on hearing about our encounter, as they have heard of amazing exotic trade goods originating in your part of the world. Are those rumours true? Do you have extra production to trade? If so, should we start exploring for/building a trade route? Should we use the Egyptian routes? Are you allowed to do so? Or do you find the taxes for their usage too high?

We look forward to your answer!

Best regards,

Decebal

I noticed that they use a lot more role-playing than we were expecting. That's fine, we can play that way too if they prefer it. Definitely time to propose Open Borders in game, and let them know we are interested in passing through their lands to meet other teams. We can also let them know that we already have trade routes established with RB and the Germans, so if they can connect to either of those teams, then we would be happy to start discussing resource trades. Maybe even let them know which resources we have that we can spare. I think this is only wines, right? And a spare source will only come online once our newest city pops borders.

 

[2metraninja]

I noticed that they use a lot more role-playing than we were expecting. That's fine, we can play that way too if they prefer it.

It is more the opposite - they think we would like it this way and they are playing it this way. Those guys - OT4E and Decebal are merciless killers who dont waste time for speaking as they most of the time play at blazing turn timer always war online games with simultaneous turns and they are both top-notch players.

Definitely time to propose Open Borders in game, and let them know we are interested in passing through their lands to meet other teams.

Absolutely. Also, we can start talking about long NAP with them to set good base for our coordination.

We can also let them know that we already have trade routes established with RB and the Germans, so if they can connect to either of those teams, then we would be happy to start discussing resource trades. Maybe even let them know which resources we have that we can spare. I think this is only wines, right? And a spare source will only come online once our newest city pops borders.

Yes, we must do that. Spare wines in 10 turns, maybe spare silk at some time.

Most important is we must start talking about timeframes for possible military action.

 

[2metraninja]

Do you have extra production to trade?

We must ask them about this. I think they have something in mind. Or just poor English? "extra production" sounds like they want to buy units from us, or it is just "extra resources"?

 

[YossarianLives]

Good catch. I was slightly confused by the wording of that whole paragraph. They ask if we have extra production to trade (Units? Fast Workers? Missionaries? Something completely different?). They also ask if we are allowed to use Egyptian trade routes, or if we find Egypt's taxes to be too high. What does that mean? Is that code for "How unhappy are you with RB"?

In the end, I just attributed it to the fact that English isn't their first language, and they are trying to be clever with the roleplaying, so I assumed they're asking about resource trades.

 

[2metraninja]

They also ask if we are allowed to use Egyptian trade routes, or if we find Egypt's taxes to be too high. What does that mean?

This line actually made me belief it is something more than poor English wording.

 

[cav scout]

I think we need to clarify if it is actual excess production they are wanting (i.e. units that we move across RB lands to then gift to them) or excess resources. I think they meant to say excess resources but we need to ask to be sure.

I think their messages have a hint of role playing so we need to take that into consideration when we are reading them.

The part about RB taxes being too high could just be a roleplaying-style way of asking "so is RB being overly demanding of you guys?" It might also be a reference to the prefered resource trading partnership we have with them. If RB was really crafty they could try to drive wedges between us and CP- one way would be to exaggerate our treaties and make it sound like we are bound to them.

 

[SilentConfusion]

The following is a draft I made to get conversation going about how we should respond to CivPlayers. They have expressed interest initially, and then sent another message specifically hinting that they share our understanding of our geopolitical locations. They suggest working together militarily will be the smart thing to do. The following letter dispenses with a lot of Role-Play. Since they are understaffed and value efficiency, they may appreciate a more no-nonsense tone. We can role-play this up a bit too if we think they want to role-play a little. This is just to get us discussing the direction to go with our response.

Greetings Decebal and Team CivPlayers,

We think Open Borders would be a good first step in building our friendship, and we agree that mutual respect and admiration will make ours a close and lasting friendship.

Our trade routes already reach through RB to the Civforum Team. If you can connect to RB's network somewhere, you can use their roads to connect to both us and the Germans. Is RB giving you trouble about using their trade routes? One clarification: by "extra production" do you mean excess resources or units? We will have excess Wines soon to trade if a trade route could be established.

We would like to work out a long-term Non-Aggression Pact with your team to further solidify our friendship. We are willing to draft the document, but please do let us know of terms you would like to see in it.

Our generals appear to be in agreement and we think the time will come when mutual military campaigns will be in order. The planning stages of any campaign will require as full a picture of the map as possible. Below is our diagram of the known locations of civilizations; some are unknown to us. We are guessing from your letter that Civfr is located where the X is on the map. If so that would leave Apolyton in place of the Y if the teams are arranged as we speculate.

ooAoooooooBooooooooCoooooo
ooooooEooooooooGooooooooXo
ooDoooooooFooooooooYoooooo


A = Civforum.de
B = WePlayCiv
C = UniversCiv
D = CivPlayers
E = Realms Beyond
F = CivFanatics
G = Spanish Apolyton

We look forward to hearing back from you.

Sincerely,
SilentConfusion and Team CFC