Foreign Policy: UniversCiv

[Caledorn]

This response does not in any way lessen my bad feeling about these guys. I suppose we should suggest a NAP, but I *really* don't see the point of trying to cooperate with them any more than what we absolutely have to under the circumstances. T120 or 140 sounds good.

I suggest a neutral-to-cool response under any circumstance, regardless of what we propose. It's so obvious they don't intend to cooperate with us now, that we should show them that we are aware of the fact, and also show that we are a strong team.

 

[talonschild]

Aye, not encouraging. I'll draft some sort of reply, because talking means not fighting. I maintain hope.

God, that sounds holier-than-thou.

Any input.

 

[cav scout]

We should make make a very clear and direct proposal now stating the exact terms for a NAP and a border agreement.

 

[talonschild]

Alright, then I'll want a map of the border area. Taking suggestions for the border.

 

[Caledorn]

We should make make a very clear and direct proposal now stating the exact terms for a NAP and a border agreement.

Agreed!

 

[2metraninja]

So, they are still willing to develop fair relations with us? Doesn't sound like a strong endorsement of our friendship.

Why not? Nothing fatal happened between us. Now, dont get me wrong, I dont see in those guys the strategic partner I would love to have, but not being happy if they outstretch us a hand, there is no reasons to do that.

I guess a NAP is still a good thing since we have no plans on attacking them in the short-term, and we want to protect ourselves from any opportunistic Worker steals with that 2-move warrior near our borders.

Not only this, but we need peace of mind to get our empire up and working and just then we choose our target.

Maybe propose something to T120 or T140? Let's not do another NAP that expires on T130, since it's better to stagger the end-dates of our NAP's (so that RB and UCiv can't both team up against us on T130). Whatever we decide, let's learn our lesson and not do a NAP that expires in X turns, but rather a NAP that expires on Turn X, to avoid any confusion.

All good points.

This response does not in any way lessen my bad feeling about these guys. I suppose we should suggest a NAP, but I *really* don't see the point of trying to cooperate with them any more than what we absolutely have to under the circumstances.

It seems those Uciv guys became the most hated of our neighbors. Well, we could use this sentiment and pay them a visit in some 50 turns with few 10's of knights Even we could get The Pyramids if they are kind enough to build them for us and not guard them well.

I suggest a neutral-to-cool response under any circumstance, regardless of what we propose. It's so obvious they don't intend to cooperate with us now, that we should show them that we are aware of the fact, and also show that we are a strong team.

No - no. What we feel or plan about them is only our business. We want to be on their good side for sure until we decide it is time to clear our deals. Telling someone you dont like him is not good idea. We must answer them in good and business tone and keep our thoughts and feelings for ourselves, just as the civilized diplomacy requires.

We should make make a very clear and direct proposal now stating the exact terms for a NAP and a border agreement.

I'm with Cav on that. Clear NAP with few clauses and clear "no-settling zone" border.

Alright, then I'll want a map of the border area. Taking suggestions for the border.

Will provide map and then will make proposed "no-settling-zone".

 

[talonschild]

Sweet. 2metra, you rock. Also, I'm glad we're on the same page.

On a tenuously related note, do you really think we could have a few dozen knights in only 50 turns? I'd really love to have those.

If we have a restless army, I do think UCiv is my first choice of targets, though Spanish Apolyton is close behind. They seem properly weak.

 

[2metraninja]

Hah, thanks Talons. 50 turns is not a hard benchmark. Might be more, might be less, but I get your sentiments guys and you get the idea.

 

[2metraninja]

BTW, very good point about the Spaniards. It might come that we take on them first. Situation can be very very different in some 50 turns. We must work locally and think globally.

 

[Caledorn]

No - no. What we feel or plan about them is only our business. We want to be on their good side for sure until we decide it is time to clear our deals. Telling someone you dont like him is not good idea. We must answer them in good and business tone and keep our thoughts and feelings for ourselves, just as the civilized diplomacy requires.

My initial annoyance had me a bit carried away. You are of course 100% correct on this, 2metraninja.

 

[talonschild]

Proposal:

Salut, Yuufo/UniversCiv,

Nous avons pour vous un autre proposition: Nous voulons étendre notre Pacte do Non-Agression jusqu'au tour 150, et de codifier notre frontière mutuelle avec une Zone de Non-Colonization:

Entre nos frontières, il y a une formation de montagnes avec la forme:
XX_
X_X
X_X
_X_

Nous proposons qu'aucun entre nous colonisera dans une ligne qui comprend les sections X_X et qui s'étend a l'est de là.

talonschild, pour l'Equipe Civfanatics

Translation:

Hi, Yuufo/UniversCiv,

We have another proposal for you: We'd like to extend our Non-Aggression Pact to turn 150, and would like to formalize our mutual border with a No-Settling Zone:

Between our borders, there is a mountain formation with the shape:
XX_
X_X
X_X
_X_

We propose that neither of us settle in a line that comprises the X_X sections and extends east from there.

talonschild, for Team Civfanatics

I just took a stab at a NAP end date, anyone want to propose a different one? Any other suggestions?

 

[YossarianLives]

I'd rather not NAP beyond T140. I'd even be ok with T120. I think the longer NAP ties our hands just a little too much.

Here is a screenshot of the border agreement. I think it is a pretty good one for us, since we wouldn't want to settle above that line anyways.

Spoiler :

 

[2metraninja]

t140 and t150 both sound good to me.

 

[talonschild]

I don't see us being ready for war anyhow for at least 50 turns; turn 150 gave us an additional margin of error. At this point 140 seems like the happiest medium, so that's currently what will be included.

 

[2metraninja]

It is not said that we must give NAP to the exact date when we plan to launch the attack. NAPs are so we feel secure and work our business instead of trying to keep up with the military of all our neighbors. Also prevents us from bad diplomatic approaches - say a neighbor wants to plot to attack us in coalition, but we have NAPs with all other our neighbors, so they have to either took the efforts to attack us alone or just forget about their plans of attacking us.

 

[talonschild]

Ayup. I suggested a long one because I honestly can't fathom a reason why we would want to be at war with UCiv before the proposed end date, and saw no reason for not having a NAP with UCiv unless we wanted war.

 

[2metraninja]

One interesting thing I noticed is Uciv have no Open Borders with anyone of the civs we know and have even meet RB. To be sneaky and hidden is maybe their style?

 

[talonschild]

Gonna send out the message in 24 hours or so. Any further comments?

 

[YossarianLives]

As it's been over 24 hours, I went ahead and sent talonchild's message to UCiv, just changing the NAP proposal to T140.

 

[talonschild]

Ah, thanks. Study session... ran a bit long.