Foreign Policy: UniversCiv

[2metraninja]

This came in earlier today.

Good. I was wondering about it. Hopefully it is not a RB way of processing border proposals (we settle and few days later inform you with lame message, where the most important part is cluttered and compressed at the end). Which RB message (we settled aggressive and took the good land between us, but we wont settle anymore towards you) highly reminds me a message about borders I got from OzzyKP from Apolyton in one game where he traveled like 15 empty tiles to come and settle a choke-point 6-7 tiles from my capitol, which also turned out to be a great city site (RL Constantinople/Istanbul location on Europe map). He then sent me a message that this will be the most western point he settles and he leaves the (rocky) Balkan peninsula to me and Greece to settle "at our leisure". He was Ottomans. Needless to say, this ended really bad for him, as I was playing Mongolia based Bulgaria. 30 keshiks and 6-7 of his cities captured/razed later we made a long peace and he was out of the competition for good. RB were smarter to secure a NAP with us first, so we are unable to to this to them at this moment, but UCiv have no NAP with us.

I love the "Bye."

Aye! Their English is charming. Love "We dont forget you" too Sounds almost as a threat.

 

[Maga_R]

≈
Love "We dont forget you" too Sounds almost as a threat.

C'mon, I think it is just you, 2metra ;-) Sounds just friendly to me.

 

[2metraninja]

Might be. I was half-kidding. But still...

 

[Caledorn]

UCiv is obviously stalling for time. So we need to make some decisions here. Here are the outright alternatives I see:

* We send them a more forceful message, stating that we need to know whether they want to accept the NAP and the border agreement - I suggest we give them a time limit if we choose this (say 4-5 days).
* We send them a message that since they have not come back to us yet, the offer is no longer valid, and we consider any territory between our two nations free to grab
* We keep quiet, and do nothing, as we intend to declare war on them and capture all their lands

In light of the recent debacle about the lack of a border agreement with RB, I would like this to be a crystal clear decision that the team agrees to.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Do we want a NAP or no? If we want a NAP, the easiest way to get them to give us one is to quickly patch together a strike force and advance to the border like we are going to attack. Then of course they will say "Hey! Sorry for the delay guys we were busy with blah blah blah excuse, excuse... Of course we will accept the NAP you offered us before"

If we DONT want a NAP (because we plan to attack them) then we should just tell them that our NAP offer has expired, and we are open to discussing a new one whenever they have time. That way we can attack at our leisure, but we are still at least giving them hope of peace.

 

[YossarianLives]

I think we want peace for the next 40-50 turns so we can finish preparing for war and strike when we're ready, so a NAP is preferred, but probably not required.

 

[2metraninja]

UCiv is obviously stalling for time. So we need to make some decisions here. Here are the outright alternatives I see:

* We send them a more forceful message, stating that we need to know whether they want to accept the NAP and the border agreement - I suggest we give them a time limit if we choose this (say 4-5 days).
* We send them a message that since they have not come back to us yet, the offer is no longer valid, and we consider any territory between our two nations free to grab
* We keep quiet, and do nothing, as we intend to declare war on them and capture all their lands

In light of the recent debacle about the lack of a border agreement with RB, I would like this to be a crystal clear decision that the team agrees to.

Very good, Cal!

I want to comment on all options:
Option 1 -

* We send them a more forceful message, stating that we need to know whether they want to accept the NAP and the border agreement - I suggest we give them a time limit if we choose this (say 4-5 days).

in not a bad one.We will know if they want an agreement or not at all. And hopefully 4-5 days will not give them enough time to build and move settling party with settler and enough defenders to claim and keep a city which is in the no-settling zone proposed by us. I have sent a chariot to keep eye on the area having this in mind.

Option 2:

* We send them a message that since they have not come back to us yet, the offer is no longer valid, and we consider any territory between our two nations free to grab

This will require that we have a settler and settling party ready to go there in ... say 1-2 turns so we dont look like ba$tards who just say: "Open season!" and the same minute settle a city. If we decide on this option, we must prepare soldiers and 2 settlers. Migh need to whip Lana or Raj and to postpone settling C2. Totally viable option. Even more, we have 1 of our main worker force groups just there at the moment.

Option 3:

* We keep quiet, and do nothing, as we intend to declare war on them and capture all their lands

We absolutely need the Marble. And we will need it long before we can just go and stomp over them. So we must do something.

If we want a NAP, the easiest way to get them to give us one is to quickly patch together a strike force and advance to the border like we are going to attack. Then of course they will say "Hey! Sorry for the delay guys we were busy with blah blah blah excuse, excuse... Of course we will accept the NAP you offered us before"

I have sent there a chariot as I said and given that they have only a warrior in the area, this may look to them as somewhat invading force, or at least as concentration of forces. So we might get answer very soon. Or we need to send more units there to speed up their decision making processes?

 

[2metraninja]

I think we want peace for the next 40-50 turns so we can finish preparing for war and strike when we're ready, so a NAP is preferred, but probably not required.

True.

 

[talonschild]

I'm inclined to send something, though I'll refrain from drafting until I get a clearer picture of the team's attitude.

 

[2metraninja]

I feel those guys are trying to pull off the same stupid trick on us that RB did - postponing agreeing on borders, so they can settle what they want and then hope we wont go to war with them.

I am moving here the part of the discussion about settling the Marble from the Spanish thread:

Now I am more confident that there is no reason that we not settle in rapid succession Desert Hill and Marble city. As for do we want Marble city fast, maybe I will be more calm if we send scouts there so we are not surprised one bright day to see someone else's culture claiming our precious Marble. Or outright to send a good garrison to bespeak speechless for the seriousness of our intentions and how we look at this land as ours.

When we have that garrison there, we can send a reminder to Uciv or just settle the city without a word and wait for their initiative on NAP?

 

[Caledorn]

My sentiment is to just settle, and wait until they (if they) approach us with a NAP suggestion.

 

[Sommerswerd]

We already offered a NAP to them and they have not accepted it. You guys instinct is that they are stalling... 2metra says outright that they are planning to pull the same trick as RB. So IMO (as long as we are not breaking any treaties by doing so) we must just hurry and settle to claim our Marble and let them be the ones who have to figure out what to do next rather than this be us again.

 

[SilentConfusion]

With SpApoly mobilizing and UCiv possibly mobilizing, we need to be extra careful with our gameplay and with our diplomacy.

UCiv is more dangerous than SpApoly at this point, although we need to keep an accounting of the troops we see in SpApoly territory and be ready to defend against them. If either were thinking about attacking the other, I think they'd have been more quick to sign NAPs, at least short-term ones. I think we need a message to UCiv about a decision on whether they are going to want a NAP. Since they have taken so long give them a short time frame to get back to us, otherwise we will get the message that they want to be able to attack us. Letting them know that we know might give them doubts in case they are plotting against us. In fact they may be confident because they are counting on help from SpApoly. It might very well be a joint thing.

 

[Bowsling]

Salut UniversCiv,

Ça fait longtemps depuis votre dernier message. Il y en a plusieurs dans l'équipe qui croient que vous ne voulez pas un NAP. Des membres sont aussi convaincus que vous voulez nous attaquer. Si vous pouvez prendre une décision sur la NAP bientôt, on sera plus confortable dans notre diplomatie avec vous.

Talonschild, pour l'équipe CivFanatics

Translated as:

Hey UniversCiv,

It's been a little while since we've heard from you. There a few in our team that believe that you don't actually want a NAP. Some are also convinced that you are about to attack us. If you could make a decision about the proposed NAP soon, we would be more comfortable in doing diplomacy with you.

Talonschild, for Team CivFanatics

We might want to clarify this a bit more, but my French wasn't quite up to it today. Also could possibly tone it down a bit or be more direct, if that is desired.

 

[SilentConfusion]

I like it. The only thing I worry about is not giving a deadline for their decision. IF it is true that they want to attack us we still won't know until it comes. If we give a deadline, at least we'll hopefully know a little bit sooner.

 

[2metraninja]

Spoiler :

I tried to speak with Uciv turnplayer today, but he went offline after some 2-3 minutes and 2-3 lines where I try to speak with him. Is it that he dont had the time? Is it that he dont speak English? If he is ultra-nationalist French who refuse to speak English, why would he name himself the English "Hunter" and not "Chasseur" or how is it in French?

 

[Maga_R]

We already offered a NAP to them and they have not accepted it. You guys instinct is that they are stalling... 2metra says outright that they are planning to pull the same trick as RB. So IMO (as long as we are not breaking any treaties by doing so) we must just hurry and settle to claim our Marble and let them be the ones who have to figure out what to do next rather than this be us again.

I completely agree and do not see any downside. That would both secure us Marble city and project confidence better than empty words.

 

[whb]

Settle the hill north of the marble. It also claims the sugar and has a hill defensive bonus.

We're not bound to any agreements because nobody has agreed to anything. If you want to send a message, then "as we haven't heard anything back, we've assumed you haven't agreed, and have settled accordingly. If you change your minds, we can look at not settling further cities in that zone".

(But, as with RB's strategy with us, send it after we've settled the city so they can't reply "Actually we accept so don't settle")

 

[2metraninja]

(But, as with RB's strategy with us, send it after we've settled the city so they can't reply "Actually we accept so don't settle")

Yeah, that was the main sentiments and my intention too.


As for the north hill, I liked that location proposed by Cav very much too. East of Marble also is claiming the sugar, but goes too much in the Zulu territory. N of Marble is better, I agree.

 

[Bowsling]

Should we use Yossarian's suggestion and only send this message in English? This would probably be much clearer, since they could probably misunderstand our French message quite easily.