Foreign Policy: UniversCiv

Maybe we give them choice between settling their Elephant city west of the mountains and settling their Sugar city, or they settling their Elephant city at U1 and not settling their Sugar city.
 
As for do we need that sugar.. I dont know.... It was more like sugar+river valley thing.
 
This just in from UCiv:

Fine. No hurry :)

Since our relations are good, we would like to suggest to open our borders for trade. The great river flowing between us would convey our trading ships and bring both of us a lot of trade revenues.

Yuufo

I say we offer OB immediately. Might as well get the trade routes, plus show the Spaniards that our friendship with UCiv has just strengthened. Make them sweat a bit about a stack coming down on them from the north.
 
I say we offer OB immediately. Might as well get the trade routes, plus show the Spaniards that our friendship with UCiv has just strengthened. Make them sweat a bit about a stack coming down on them from the north.
Good idea. I will offer them OB in game.
 
Just skimmed a lot of this thread. Seems pretty clear that UCiv relishes these stick-poking types of negotiations. We've gone from downright friendly to almsot at war and all the way back again in a very short amount of turns and it would seem to be by design (their design). With a long-term NAP now in place and us at war with SpAp, they wasted very little time in leveraging the situation. They agree to long term peace and ask us for concessions in the same breath. Whether we choose to treat these as separate issues or not, it's no coincidence that they were jammed together like that.
I still think that most of the perceived trouble is due to communication problems and is not intentional from their part. I strongly believe that the "almost war" situation was mainly in our heads. I do not believe this due to naïve belief on sincerity or such. I base my opinion on the communications. In our hour of darkness we suggested some rather expensive bribes so we don't have to fight a war in two fronts. They didn't take the bribes but gave us a long NAP that we also want. Compared to what they skipped, I think negotiating where the border cities will be is not really asking for concessions.
 
:agree: If they would like to take advantage of us, they had much better opportunity when we were desparately begging them for NAP
 
I still think that most of the perceived trouble is due to communication problems and is not intentional from their part. I strongly believe that the "almost war" situation was mainly in our heads. I do not believe this due to naïve belief on sincerity or such. I base my opinion on the communications. In our hour of darkness we suggested some rather expensive bribes so we don't have to fight a war in two fronts. They didn't take the bribes but gave us a long NAP that we also want. Compared to what they skipped, I think negotiating where the border cities will be is not really asking for concessions.

The latest message from them seems to back your case for sure. And I certainly didn't mean for us to treat them as hostile, but sometimes you have to be firm in your words to make the other party take you seriously. Certainly our own group seems quite divided on this issue (or at least was divided), but perhaps they are too and what me and a few others see as wishy-washy delay tactics is just a diplomacy-by-committee meat grinder combined with real life language barriers and good ol' paranoia on our part, and vice versa.

Someone on here, forget who, mentioned that making friends is way harder than making enemies. Very wise. But another wise man once said, "First we get the sugar, then we get the power, and then we get the women!"
 
But another wise man once said, "First we get the sugar, then we get the power, and then we get the women!"
So wise that he died in a pool of his own blood as all his enemies surrounded and ovewhelmed him, as he tried to snort all his piled high "sugar" before he died;) He had plenty of sugar... so much he couldn't snort it all no matter how hard he tried... Sadly he lost all his friends that could have fought alongside him on his way to getting all that sugar.:(

Making friends rather than enemies is more important than sugar.
 
:lol: You should write a children's book, Sommers. Something profound, where the sugar represents greed or something. Then hire a big-shot artist to make some illustrations (possibly inspired by the timer thread), and then you'll be rolling. Give a free copy to the RB guys, too, and tell them that the sugar is an allusion to their stone.
 
I would like we to tell Uciv:

We welcome the newly opened borders between our nations to strengthen our friendship.

We agreed to one exception to the no-settling border area for them, but your second proposed city will be second settled in the same no-settling border are which idea was to not allow cluttering of cities and fighting cultures which can make tensions in our otherwise perfect neighborhood.

We would suggest that you to settle your second city for bananas and gems on the north bank of the salt lake to leave our Marble city a bit of green land to feed on. Or if you prefer to have your banana/gems city in the no- settling border area, you can move your Elephant city west of the mountains to leave some green land for our marble city which otherwise would be under culture pressure from two cities.

True, friends are more important than sugar, but we already have the NAP in place. Cluttered border cultures are also not good for the friendship. And also, friends take turns in making concessions. We made concession on the Elephants. Now is their turn.
 
That message sounds good to me. I think we're fine to play a little bit of hardball here.
 
Sent:

CivFanatics Team <diplo.civfanatics@gmail.com> (sent by dimo.neykov@gmail.com)

8:32 AM (0 minutes ago)

to Lala
We welcome the NAP and newly opened borders between our nations to strengthen our friendship.

As for settling our border area, we agreed to one exception to the no-settling border area for you, but your second proposed city will be second settled in the same no-settling border area which idea was to not allow cluttering of cities and fighting cultures which can make tensions in our otherwise perfect neighborhood.

We would be happy you to settle your second city for bananas and gems on the north bank of the salt lake to leave our Marble city a bit of green land to feed on. Or if you prefer to have your banana/gems city in the no- settling border area, you can move your Elephant city west of the mountains to leave some green land for our marble city which otherwise would be under culture pressure from two your cities.

Please inform us which variant you choose.

Team CFC
 
This came in on March 23, 2 days ago (whoops).

Hi,
I am afraid neither of those variants suits us :(
But we don't plan to found the banana-gem city for a long time.

Yuufo

Translation: now that our NAP is secured, it's time for us to pull an "RB" and settle the claimed site before UCiv gets to it! :p
 
Little buggers...

Anyway, we wont lose secure border over stupid border dispute. Also, we might be able to run tremendous amount of culture there via caste artists and still have and use the sugar for most of the time if not forever. While writing this, I had a wild idea that if we manage to produce 100 culture in our Marble city, they wont be even able to settle their banana/gem city :D All it takes is 20 turns of having Judaism there and running 2 artists. We will see, this is only an idea :)
 
I did some calculations. In exactly 20 turns after we settle the Marble city we will be able to pop borders third ring at 100 culture. Not sure though if we can deny them settling with sugar in first ring even with this. But we can pressure hard on their Elephant city and use some of the green river valley tiles at least :)
 
Yeah, religion could be used for culture and some other stuff, but religion is not easy to spread and use. And our religion spread in potential competitor's lands can give us numerous advantages. Like easy visibility and cheaper techs steal.
 
Back
Top Bottom