Foreign Policy: UniversCiv

[1889]

Their behavior upsets me too but it might be a mistake so I don't think we should get that in their face about it yet.

"Greetings Gaul,

You mention revisiting the issue when our current deal expires (in 26 turns I think). That deal was that we would not move too close to each other’s borders and that we would notify each other about the other teams we meet. We notice your warrior exploring along our northern border. Is our deal still in effect or should we renegotiate now.

We understand your desire not to declare a border until you have explored thoroughly and we look forward to establishing a peaceful border with you when you are ready but until then we will consider ourselves free to settle where we wish.

Awaiting your reply,
Team Civfanatics"

 

[talonschild]

That is better. I like.

 

[Caledorn]

That looks very good, and is properly devious so that we can get answers without making any accusations. Well done, 1889.

 

[talonschild]

Salut Gaul,

Vous avez mentionné revisiter le question quand notre entente courant expire (en 26 tours, si je suis correct). Cette entente était que nous ne marcherions trop proche aux frontières de l'autres, et que nous informerions les uns les autres des autres équipes que nous rencontrent. Nous voyons votre guerrier qui explore notre frontière nord. Est-ce que notre entente continue toujours, ou serait-il mieux de renégocier maintenant?

Nous comprennons votre désir de ne pas déclarer une frontière avant que vous avez complètement exploré et nous attendent établir une frontière permanente avec vous quand vous serez prêts, mais jusqu'alors nous nous considerions libres à coloniser où nous voulons.

En attente de votre réponse,
Equipe Civfanatics

 

[1889]

Looks good but I may have been way of on the estimate of how many turns we have left on that agreement. According to the diplo log we sent a message accepting those terms on Nov 11. Not sure what turn that was but according to the state of the empire thread it was near turn 48. Probably closer to 13 turns left.

 

[talonschild]

Easily remedied.

 

[Aivoturso]

I'm with 2metra in this. Please, do not be too hung on that single warrior. That warrior really cannot hurt us. IMO, ignoring the issue won't make us seem weak. Interpreting the original communications is unfortunately difficult, since the critical message is a bit less than perfect English. I read our communications again, though. My current understanding is that it actually is not even clear whether we can now move our units next to their borders or not. Here is a short recap of what happened and why I think current situation is ambiguous:

1. We meet UCiv and send a message offering them NAP up to 100.
2. UCiv responds and says if we want NAP we shouldn't come next to their border and we should tell them of our location and about teams we've met. They also say that they want only 20 turns NAP and that they would share any contact info.
3. We move our warrior away and reply with information they asked. At this point we do not have NAP in effect.
4. UCiv respond and in light of the new info they say that they want 30 turn NAP.
5. We agree to 30 turn NAP.

Now in light of this, my current understanding is that the "not going to their borders" was mainly about Thunderfall not moving in while the issue is still up. We also have never explicitly stated that we won't move any troops near their border. So I would say that it is unclear whether we can do it or not.

If we want to bring the issue up, I suggest that we just ask for clarification and do not make any assumptions in the message either. Something like: "There has been a bit of confusion within our team on exact rules of our NAP. In the first message you asked us not to move close to your borders. We are uncertain whether that was only about our warrior Thunderfall moving close before we have NAP in effect or do we have an agreement not to approach each others borders." We can also add that we noticed their warrior skirting our borders but I don't know how to word that properly.

The second issue that they have not mentioned meeting anyone is a bit more worrisome as I believe that we have agreed on to do. BTW, we probably should tell them we've met Germans.

 

[1889]

I would certainly not notify them of our recent contact until we clarify our agreement.

If you want to soften the proposed message we can change "That deal was..." to "We understood that deal to mean..."

 

[cav scout]

We absolutely need to say something. Not talking to them because we are worried about upsetting them is not a good communications strategy.

Our relationship with them is unclear right now so we should clarify it. We don't need to be nasty or hurl accusations. But we do need to stay engaged. So lets send a diplomatic message where we ask some clarification questions. We should also feel comfortable enough to state what we are wanting, which is reciprocity. We can do this without being offensive at all... so why not?

The worst case scenario is that we discover them to be just plain unfriendly to us (they haven't told us about contact with other teams yet like they agreed to right?). But I believe that if we just talk to them they will step up and do the right thing.

 

[2metraninja]

OK then, lets send them a message, if not anything else, we can keep the communication alive and as suggested, decide if they do this without realizing how it looks or they are unfriendly on purpose.

 

[Bowsling]

Had TC's message not been sent yet? I think it would be good to send.

 

[YossarianLives]

Correct, nothing has been sent yet. I also agree something needs to be sent. Are we ok with the message talonschild translated above?

 

[Caledorn]

I like it, and think it's a good message to send them

 

[1889]

Its perfect.

 

[talonschild]

Well, good.

 

[YossarianLives]

Ok, following message sent:

Salut Gaul,

Vous avez mentionné revisiter le question quand notre entente courant expire (en 24 tours, si je suis correct). Cette entente était que nous ne marcherions trop proche aux frontières de l'autres, et que nous informerions les uns les autres des autres équipes que nous rencontrent. Nous voyons votre guerrier qui explore notre frontière nord. Est-ce que notre entente continue toujours, ou serait-il mieux de renégocier maintenant?

Nous comprennons votre désir de ne pas déclarer une frontière avant que vous avez complètement exploré et nous attendent établir une frontière permanente avec vous quand vous serez prêts, mais jusqu'alors nous nous considerions libres à coloniser où nous voulons.

En attente de votre réponse,
Equipe Civfanatics




Greetings Gaul,

You mention revisiting the issue when our current deal expires (in 26 turns I think). We understood that deal to mean that we would not move too close to each other’s borders and that we would notify each other about the other teams we meet. We notice your warrior exploring along our northern border. Is our deal still in effect or should we renegotiate now.

We understand your desire not to declare a border until you have explored thoroughly and we look forward to establishing a peaceful border with you when you are ready but until then we will consider ourselves free to settle where we wish.

Awaiting your reply,
Team Civfanatics

I changed the line in English from "That deal was..." to "We understood that deal to mean..." but obviously not the French translation.

 

[talonschild]

Your message provides different numbers in the english and french versions. I think we oughta send a follow-up to clarify.

Just to be sure, does anyone know when the NAP does expire?

 

[2metraninja]

1889 said few days ago that there are 13 turns left only of this, however, I think it must be a bit more. Will check this.

 

[YossarianLives]

Sorry about that. By my reading, they proposed the 30 turn NAP about T63, and we accepted about T65. I meant to use T95 as the expiration (in 24 turns), but I forgot to adjust the number in the English version.

 

[talonschild]

Should we send a clarification?