Foreign Policy: UniversCiv

[SilentConfusion]

The only reason I can think of is that if we say we are open to suggestions, that makes it a discussion and that can take time. We want the NAP as soon as possible, and if we invite further discussion, we might slow the NAP confirmation. We can just say that the NAP is contingent on them getting to settle the Ivory. That they can agree to. Then, once we have a NAP in place, we can talk about the placement of their Ivory city. At least that's what I think Sommer was going for with not specifically telling them where to settle. If we make suggestions, they might have issue with them and might delay confirming NAP until they are settled.

 

[YossarianLives]

Leaves too much room for negotiation. We can go back and forth for weeks compromising on exact locations without a NAP ever being signed. Not knowing whether we have to defend from UCiv could be the difference between simply defending against a Spanish attack, or advancing and capturing Spanish cities.

Edit: Didn't see SC's response, but we basically said the same thing.

 

[2metraninja]

It does not leave much room for suggestions. We tell them we are OK with them settling locations 1 or 2 and thats it. We then ask do they agree to the NAP or not.

 

[SilentConfusion]

The risk with saying you can settle 1 or 3 and that's it, they can come back and say well how bout this other spot we like. Then we have to explain any spot that's not U2 is ok. Then they might say well we really wanted U2.

If we just say, we guarantee you can have the elephant, we won't take it, so let's have that NAP now that we addressed your only concern. They have nothing to come back with, nothing to argue about. They said the only reason they didn't sign our NAP was that they couldn't get elephant. If we say "We guarantee you can have the elephant, so let's get this NAP signed before the end of the turn." They either agree with us because all they really wanted was the elephant, or they wait more than the 1 turn to agree because they really don't want a NAP with us in the first place.

EDIT: This way if they are stalling us, we know in one turn to prepare for their troops. If we let them stall us a little more by arguing the exact settling spots for elephant city they might have troops on us before we know.

 

[Maga_R]

I liked the earlier version, something like

Hi UCiv,

Please confirm that our NAP until turn 140 started this turn. In terms of settling the elephant, we would prefer you to settle location denoted as "C"

MM===
MeMC=
M=M==
=M===

please let us know if this is acceptable

Best Wishes,

CFC

I would rather say location "C" than "1" - with saying "1" it is sort of obvious we considered many other choices. Although not sure if concealing this is of any importance

 

[2metraninja]

Which is why I prefer just not telling them where to settle, but instead just asking them to confirm the NAP and settle where they want. Can we claim/defend the Marble spot while in a defensive posture with Spaniards anyway? Because if we can, maybe the way to go is to just claim the Marble spot now, to end this issue.

I think we can defend it from Spaniards once settled, but this requires a settler to be produced and sent there first, and we must had our first big battle with Spaniards to see who get the upper hand so it wont happen really soon.

 

[2metraninja]

It really doesn't matter where they settle to claim the eles' as long as it doesent steal marble from us.

I wanted to point out that there are ONLY 3 tiles east of the mountains that can get Elephants and one of those tiles (U2) denies us settling a city to hook the Marble AT ALL. So it is not small matter where they settle - both for our own plans for Marble and for our already word given that we will deliver marble to RB and we wont sign any agreement which will come in conflict in our RB-CFC pact.

We can of course have a city in the desert tile to get Marble, but then we will have to raze Kwa Dukuza. This have few negative aspects - we will have to fight for it even if the Spaniards just stay at their border fort city and wait for us to come to have the first strike with their catapults and make us really bad loss. And then, we will lose nice city already settled and it is in nice location already.

 

[Maga_R]

I would just tell them first that we consider our NAP already in effect and ask them to confirm it. In the second part of the message, I would ask them if they like city spot 1. Rest can wait.

 

[Maga_R]

I wanted to point out that there are ONLY 3 tiles east of the mountains that can get Elephants and one of those tiles (U2) denies us settling a city to hook the Marble AT ALL. So it is not small matter where they settle - both for our own plans for Marble and for our already word given that we will deliver marble to RB and we wont sign any agreement which will come in conflict in our RB-CFC pact.

We can also trade for marble - e.g. with UCiv - and thus be able to deliver it to RB and use ourselves. If UCiv insist on settling spot 2, what about asking them to gift us marble - at least for some of the time, assuring we will fulfill pact with RB and build Epics and such.

 

[2metraninja]

The risk with saying you can settle 1 or 3 and that's it, they can come back and say well how bout this other spot we like. Then we have to explain any spot that's not U2 is ok. Then they might say well we really wanted U2.

If it was me and I am proposing a compromise and concession on my side to someone, and he comes at me and ask me for further concession, I will know this person just dont want that deal. In our situation if we tell them we are happy to give them choice between U1 and U3 and they wanting to postpone things and buy time tell us "What about U2?" it will be not much different from we sending them "Confirm that we have a NAP" and we get no answer at all.

But in the spite of constructiveness, I will propose the following message:

Hi, Yuufo/UniversCiv,

As promised, here is our Non-Aggression Pact and Settling agreement:

Neither of us will declare war on the other until turn 140 inclusive. UCiv gets to settle to claim the Elephant and CFC gets to settle to claim the Marble.

As for the details of where to settle, taking in consideration your desire to have a city to claim the Elephants and our desire to settle a city to claim our Marble south of the mountains, we are proposing you possible solution where you can have the Elephants in a city BFC and we to settle our city to claim our Marble without those two cities to interfere with each-other. M=Mountain, e=Elephant, and U=Uciv City.

MMxxx
MeMUx
MxMxx
xMxxx

Please confirm that you agree with the settling agreement and the NAP.


Talonschild on behalf of Team CFC

 

[SilentConfusion]

I'm ok with that message. I mostly want to send it soon. I would like a time period, but if others prefer not, it's more important that it get sent.

 

[2metraninja]

Yep, lets send message quick. They might think we are stalling because we dont want to give them les Elephants.

 

[SilentConfusion]

If we don't give them a time frame to get back to us in, how much warning would we have if they were coming to attack us?

 

[2metraninja]

At least 3-4 turns. We can make it even more by sending sentries. I had online chat with MZ last night and he told me there are no unit movements in our way from Uciv. That is at least west of the mountains. Generally speaking, jungles are quite discouraging barrier for attacks between neighbors.

 

[Maga_R]

yeah, most important is to send something. I personally think UCiv is not that quick to reply because it is not a life or death matter to them - remeber, how long it took us to answer their previous mail?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Here is one thing I would change.

Neither of us will declare war on the other until After turn 140 inclusive

With NAPs the question always comes up whether you can declare War the same turn the NAP ends, or if you have to wait until the following turn. "Until turn X" leaves this in the air a little. I prefer saying "until AFTER Turn X" so there can be no confusion.

Also, what does the word "inclusive" mean in this letter (I know what the word inclusive means, just dont see how it applies here)? I did not know when I looked at it, and English is my first language. I just don't want words in the treaty that might be might be misinterpreted, or cause them to stall saying "Hey! What this word here means?"... 2 more days delay explaining editing etc...

 

[2metraninja]

To me "inclusive" means that the given date is included in the proposed agreement.

 

[SilentConfusion]

To me it means that even on turn 140 you cannot attack, so you can only attack after the beginning of turn 140.

I think saying "until after the end of turn 140" is the most clear and least likely to be misinterpreted by both native English speakers and non-native English speakers.

 

[Maga_R]

Yeah, it is a small stuff, but if the message is confusing to native English speaker it is not good. Unless it is message to Spaniards

 

[2metraninja]

I want to push forward and hurry sending the message to Uciv with Sommer's correction.

Neither of us will declare war on the other until After turn 140

We keep forgetting we NEED to have confirmation on the NAP and so much depends on it.