Foreign Policy: UniversCiv

[YossarianLives]

I've been thinking about our agreement with UCiv, and I really don't think they're living up to their end of the bargain.

If you want a treaty of non-aggression you may follow some clauses listed below:

not come too close from our borders
inform us about the approximate distance between our civs and your geographic location
inform us about the known existence of others civilizations on our continent


.... It goes without saying that if we encounter another civ we will keep you informed.

Based on Espy spending, they made contact with another team on or before T66. On T67, they very likely made contact with another team. They haven't said anything.

And now there's this:

Spoiler :

See that UCiv Warrior up there? He actually came within vision of our borders last turn. He can't see any of our city tiles yet, but if he moves 6, he will see Lana, and give UCiv permanent vision on it's size and buildings.

When we agreed to their clauses, it was a very one-sided deal, and now that UCiv has the opportunity to reciprocate, they are declining to do so. I know I will hesitate to agree to future deals where we have to put something up on the front end.

 

[Caledorn]

We should seriously consider sending them a message telling them that they are in violation of our treaty if they do not move away from our borders. They could see our cultural borders last turn, unless they are totally inept, right?

 

[RegentMan]

Blah to them. I also agree a "Whatcha doin' boy?" message should be sent.

 

[talonschild]

Agreed. Something must be said.

I'm waiting to translate whatever the team decides should be said.

 

[1889]

"Just a reminder but according the terms of our agreement we were not to move any units next to each others borders. We can renegotiate if you like but until then please move your warrior away in accordance with our mutually agreed treaty."

 

[2metraninja]

"Just a reminder but according the terms of our agreement we were not to move any units next to each others borders. We can renegotiate if you like but until then please move your warrior away in accordance with our mutually agreed treaty."

To me it is clearly not the case. The clauses of not closing are meant ONLY for us. They are not two-way, so if we expect reciprocity, it can be only out of good will, rather than agreed on deal.

To me the whole thing with their warrior is minor. Let them look if they want. Remember friends are made way more difficult than enemies.

 

[Calis]

The clauses of not closing are meant ONLY for us.

Even if this the treaty is understood that way (which is rather strange), their approach is not really respectful and trust building.

 

[2metraninja]

This is minor nuisance and it is often made by not very experienced players. To ask more than you give that early gives away that you feel inferior and you want to even the score

 

[1889]

I think it should be pointed out. If it was an honest mistake lets remind them now to pay closer attention to the deals they make. "Hey, not a big deal but your warrior is next to our borders. We thought our agrement was no scouting. What gives?"

 

[RegentMan]

I am against not sending anything. If we can't show some backbone to any other team due to us not wanting to hurt their feelings, we'll deserve the "weakling" label that will be applied to us.

I do not think the below is a verbatim message that should be sent, but something to blow some steam off for myself.

Hello Team UniversCiv,

Upon opening the previous save, our team has become annoyed. We did not go near your borders per your request. We are disappointed you did not reciprocate in kind. We are also disheartened that we have not learned of the contact you have made with another team around turn 66 or 67, even though 'it went without saying.' We hope this can be reversed soon.

Regards,
Bowsling
Team CFC

 

[2metraninja]

I am against not sending anything. If we can't show some backbone to any other team due to us not wanting to hurt their feelings, we'll deserve the "weakling" label that will be applied to us.

No one will put us a weakling label, or if they do, they will be terribly mistaken and will pay dearly for that in the course of events. When the competition is tight and winning or losing depends on actual skills and play, rather than some psychological tricks (no one thinks we can scare the $hit out of any team in this game so they just concede to us or whatever, right?) basically it is better to be underestimated. When you underestimate an opponent, that is the beginning of a spiral that leads to catastrophe.

Another thing is I though it is clear to everyone to what we agree. They said it to us clear:

If you want a treaty of non-aggression you may follow some clauses listed below:

not come too close from our borders
inform us about the approximate distance between our civs and your geographic location
inform us about the known existence of others civilizations on our continent

And once we agree to something, there must not be silly: "But on a second glance this looks unfair to us" No way. We gave our word and accepted a deal. We must restrain from closing their borders? No problem, why would we lurk around them? They come to lurk us? Well, that we will notice, although we keep to ourselves, as they are not breaking any deal, just maybe some ettiquette, but they did so long ago when asking for not equal terms to sign a NAP. So be it. We will come to this later when we have something more to say and most important do. It might be forgiven/remedied by later acts of theirs, or it may become worse and got us upset to them. But why the hell would we want to give them hints how to behave or that we are upset and we think hostile to them and possibly plan to harm them?

 

[YossarianLives]

My main concern is the advantage they would get by seeing one of our city centers. If the team is ok with that, so be it, it's not a huge advantage if they don't pay attention to it. But I also think it's ok to send a request to them now that we don't want them scouting our borders. It doesn't even need to be related to our existing NAP. They should at least understand the request.

 

[2metraninja]

Yes, that is OK - to send them request to kindly turn back and if it is not bind with the NAP we already agreed.

We can also ask them in another message if they already met another teams (and see what they will answer).

 

[Aivoturso]

I don't mind them skirting our borders. I don't really see what advantage would seeing the city center give them. It's not like it's going to stay as a secret for very long. Alphabet is right around the corner and that gives access to the spies. If they want to, they can easily sneak our borders and we won't even know about it (unless they step in and get caught). It's not like we're planning to have completely closed borders either. I believe our lands will eventually be known to all the world. So the question is, what can UCiv really benefit from knowing one of our cities and some borderlands before that happens. Not much, I think.

 

[YossarianLives]

Well, UCiv's response has just come in:

Nous ne savons malheureusement pas quoi répondre à cette proposition de frontière : notre exploration n'est pas bien avancé et nous ne savons pas de quelle taille de terrain vous disposez par rapport à nous, il faudrait en rediscutez à la fin du traité de paix.

M&Ms

Only in French. Here is Google Translate's rendition:

Unfortunately we do not know how to respond to the proposed border: our exploration is not well advanced and we do not know what size of land you have against us, it would be necessary rediscutez at the end of the peace treaty.

M & Ms

No mention of meeting any other teams, which is clearly stated in our agreement as something both teams would do. Also no mention of them arriving at our borders, except to say they do not know the size of our land. Not exactly what I was hoping for.

 

[talonschild]

Hm. Maybe not such ideal allies after all. Ah well, we'll have to make do with someone or other.


WPC I still have no quarrel with. Pity they're the only ones.

 

[1889]

We need to decide who are going to be reliable allies. We can not do that by keeping all our concerns secret and only just inferering another teams intentions by their actions alone. I want to know what is the status of our agreement with UCiv. We can contact them about our concerns and give them a chance to explain or make them right or we I guess we can write them off and begin secretly plotting against them. But I think allies are made in little steps and by frequent contact, we have something to discuss with them so it should be discussed. We don't have to come down on them all acusatory but this is a chance to employ diplomacy and we should use that to keep them talking.

 

[Bowsling]

Sorry for my inactivity - I have been rather busy lately.

On the subject of sending a message to UCiv, I am not decided. I would certainly like some more input (and some time to think) before we decide on our course of action.

Of course, don't wait for me if we decide that we need a message to be sent urgently at any time.

 

[1889]

To me it is clearly not the case. The clauses of not closing are meant ONLY for us. They are not two-way, so if we expect reciprocity, it can be only out of good will, rather than agreed on deal.

To me the whole thing with their warrior is minor. Let them look if they want. Remember friends are made way more difficult than enemies.

I didn't realise that it was a one way deal at the time I thought it was a bit lopsided because we were att their border and had to elect not to take advantage of that at the time. If they really meant it as a one way deal then contacting them will force make them to state that clearly now. I would be suprised if they would be so bold. If they do not then we have just renegotiated more favorable terms, if they do then we have clarified our relationship.

 

[talonschild]

I have a desire to say something. To question them.

Something like:

Greetings, UCiv.
We spotted a band of Gauls near our border. Surely they could see the border, and yet they moved in regardless. We desire clarification. It had ben our implicit assumption that the terms of our NAP were reciprocal - that we would not stray close to your borders and you would avoid ours. Upon rereading it we find that the only stipluation was that we avoid you.
Was our assumption false? Did you intend a one-sided deal? If so, well, we agreed, and will abide by our word. However, it would sadden us greatly.
Or, as we hope, was it a rogue band, violating your will? If you can make contact with their leader and convince him to withdraw, then no harm, no foul.
We eagerly await your response.
Team Civfanatics