2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
It is minor. They should know when our NAP ends. It is clear that the English version is written 2 days earlier and while it waits for translation, the number of days are no longer accurate.
Foreign Policy: UniversCiv
- Thread starter talonschild
- Start date
talonschild
Drive-By NESer
Alrighty then.
YossarianLives
Deity
Nevermind, I wrote that before reading the last two posts.
talonschild
Drive-By NESer
I'd gone ahead and written up a very brief draft in the gmail account, that said, "there was a mistake in the english version, we meant 24," but I'll leave it unsent.
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
Those guys are starting to irritate me. If it was some guys, who I know and have played with and know they will stick to their word, that would have been different. But their warrior standing 1 tile from our unprotected city just like that is starting to make me nervous. They dont say anything and just stay there. Yossa said they dont mess with our micro, but they actually do. We are building an axe instead of a Granary! I am not 100% sure how it works - do build order is processed first and then growth, but we were going to build a granary the same turn we grow and I believe we would have had half full basket after growing to size3. Now we lost 2 turns of being size3 instead of size2 and maybe additional 13 food in the basket! Because of their silence!
Is it possible that this bunch of non famous on the MP scene guys actually decide they have no name and reputation to lose anyway and see attacking and capturing our undefended city breaking our NAP as good opportunity? Now we must play after them, waiting for the end of the turn to be sure they wont declare war and move in our territory after we finish turn, taking the second turn order, thus denying us the opportunity to react whipping defender. Or we outright whip the damned axe now and just forget about them? Another possibility is we move a warrior from Lana towards Mantra (3 roaded tiles, so he wont arrive this turn and when we move the warrior that garrisons Mantra towards Daiva, Mantra will lose one turn of working 4h plain mine. However, we will have defender(warrior, but still good enough I guess) in Daiva next turn without us whipping the 1f5h copper mine working citizen.
edit: copying this in the 51-100 turn discussion thread too
Is it possible that this bunch of non famous on the MP scene guys actually decide they have no name and reputation to lose anyway and see attacking and capturing our undefended city breaking our NAP as good opportunity? Now we must play after them, waiting for the end of the turn to be sure they wont declare war and move in our territory after we finish turn, taking the second turn order, thus denying us the opportunity to react whipping defender. Or we outright whip the damned axe now and just forget about them? Another possibility is we move a warrior from Lana towards Mantra (3 roaded tiles, so he wont arrive this turn and when we move the warrior that garrisons Mantra towards Daiva, Mantra will lose one turn of working 4h plain mine. However, we will have defender(warrior, but still good enough I guess) in Daiva next turn without us whipping the 1f5h copper mine working citizen.
edit: copying this in the 51-100 turn discussion thread too
talonschild
Drive-By NESer
I would not be opposed to sending something irritable. They're not so great at making friends, so some firmness is a good thing. I would have said, "polite, but firm", but I'm a bit tired and so politeness can go hang.
RegentMan
Deity
I'd be happy sending a GTFO message and move on at this point.
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
I lean towards sending the Mantra garrisoning warrior to garrison Daiva.
talonschild
Drive-By NESer
Well, sure, that too.
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
We will have our wars and butt kicking, dont be afraid. We will most probably be fond of wars at the end, remember my word. It is just too early for us to get negative emotions.
Caledorn
Emperor
With the recent scouting made by UCiv, deliberately moving within 1 tile of our cultural borders twice now, I am reluctant to make any deals with these guys again. The general attitude of the team seems to be in consent with my feelings on this one as well.
Now, I have a suggestion to avoid any further negative emotions towards these guys. I suggest that we write them a rather pointed message telling them that we gave them our word that we would not enter within 1 tile near their cultural borders, and that they have not done us the same courtesy twice now. I suggest we further tell them that this has not been well received by our team, but that our team is willing to look past these unfortunate happenings if they can promise us not to move close to our cultural borders again with their scouts until we make a different agreement with them. We should further iterate that this is important, as we need to trust our partners, and that we wish to build up a relationship based on trust with them, where we can feel secure that words spoken by either team will be honored by both teams in the future.
I can write up a suggested draft with this message to show what I mean.
Now, I have a suggestion to avoid any further negative emotions towards these guys. I suggest that we write them a rather pointed message telling them that we gave them our word that we would not enter within 1 tile near their cultural borders, and that they have not done us the same courtesy twice now. I suggest we further tell them that this has not been well received by our team, but that our team is willing to look past these unfortunate happenings if they can promise us not to move close to our cultural borders again with their scouts until we make a different agreement with them. We should further iterate that this is important, as we need to trust our partners, and that we wish to build up a relationship based on trust with them, where we can feel secure that words spoken by either team will be honored by both teams in the future.
I can write up a suggested draft with this message to show what I mean.
Caledorn
Emperor
Here is the draft I have written.
Caledorn
Emperor
I'm probably being a bit too heavy handed in the draft, so feedback to soften it down a bit, while still maintaining a pointed attitude towards them (I do not wish us to come across as weak towards them), is very welcome.
Of course, if the general attitude of the team is that we should not send them anything now that they've moved away, that's fine too. Just keep in mind that they have done this twice now, and I see no reason why they won't do it a third, and a fourth, etc time. If we do not send them anything, I fear that we may sour our attitude towards them so badly that we will be outright hostile towards them without them even knowing about it - a bad way to conduct diplomacy. Communication is the key to diplomacy, and we should communicate to them in some way that we are not happy with their moves, so that they are made aware of it and given the opportunity to rectify their behaviour to establish trust again.
Of course, if the general attitude of the team is that we should not send them anything now that they've moved away, that's fine too. Just keep in mind that they have done this twice now, and I see no reason why they won't do it a third, and a fourth, etc time. If we do not send them anything, I fear that we may sour our attitude towards them so badly that we will be outright hostile towards them without them even knowing about it - a bad way to conduct diplomacy. Communication is the key to diplomacy, and we should communicate to them in some way that we are not happy with their moves, so that they are made aware of it and given the opportunity to rectify their behaviour to establish trust again.
1889
Mayor of H-Marker Lake
Since I'm really not that interested in any mor etreaties with these folks I would edit the second paragraph thusly:
Greetings again Gaul,
We have not received a response to our message that we sent to you on the 27. november. Since then, you have once again moved your scouting warrior within 1 tile of our cultural borders. We consider your moves to be in violation of the treaty we initially agreed to when we established the terms for our current NAP with you, as the treaty stated that we should not move within 1 tile of your cultural borders (which we consider a mutual term).
We are willing to renegotiate the treaty, but we need to to know that we can trust you to honor your word. We desire a peaceful relationship with your team, and we hope you are willing to enter negotiations with us to establish a treaty that both teams are happy with. We are also willing to maintain the current treaty, as long as your team does not break the treaty again. If we renegotiate the treaty, we trust that your team will uphold your end of the treaty, just as we have so far upheld our end of our former treaty.
If we do not hear from you, preferably as soon as possible, we will sadly have to consider our former agreement null and void, with the only exception being the NAP which we will of course honor until it runs out.
Awaiting your reply,
Team Civfanatics
Greetings again Gaul,
We have not received a response to our message that we sent to you on the 27. november. Since then, you have once again moved your scouting warrior within 1 tile of our cultural borders. We consider your moves to be in violation of the treaty we initially agreed to when we established the terms for our current NAP with you, as the treaty stated that we should not move within 1 tile of your cultural borders (which we consider a mutual term).
If we do not hear from you, preferably as soon as possible, we will sadly have to consider our former agreement null and void, with the only exception being the NAP which we will of course honor until it runs out.
Awaiting your reply,
Team Civfanatics
Caledorn
Emperor
So - we just got a mail from UCiv. Read it here
talonschild
Drive-By NESer
Hunh. So, they rescinded the part of the treaty tthat would keep them away now that we're gone. Or am I reading too much into it?
I vaguely remember someone suggesting the interpretation that the infamous "do not approach" clause was not part of the NAP but a precondition for their approval and applied only to Thunderfall when we met. 
Shoulda bet a beer on that 
Shoulda bet a beer on that
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
Yes, now when their fear that we will use our workers to steal a worker of theirs is gone, they are not afraid anymore. But see - they knew very well and they asked intentionally that we dont close their lands, while they had that right. Also, they knew this is not very nice. But they are right that we must have been mad to want to start a war. Just like they being mad if they started a war.
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
Hmm, the diplomacy with those guys is going to be difficult. But interesting
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
Reading their message once again, I see that they were just afraid we will steal a worker of theirs while we are close to their borders. Basically they did not wanted to mess their worker work from fear of being stolen. (Thunderfall was having an unused promotion back then and if could have taken double-woodsman easily they may have thinked back then). So Aivo, yes, you would have won a beer
Similar threads
