1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Foreign Policy: WePlayCiv

Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by talonschild, Jul 29, 2012.

  1. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    Long NAP sounds good. I just hope they won't view it as a desperate move and reject it. They know why they chose their civ/leader, and they know a long NAP denies them the advantage.
     
  2. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    On that note, it may actually be a good idea to state turn 100 and not 150, as they may indeed perceive it as a desperate move and think we are weakly defended as a result of that. Keep in mind they might already have met someone else and could potentially already have an alliance in place for all we know. If that is the case let's just hope it's not the Spanish Apolyton team..
     
  3. RegentMan

    RegentMan Deity

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,951
    Location:
    Washington State
    I don't mind RP, but some of the RP seemed clunky to me. To be fair, this one looks a little silly too, but I think it flows better if we're going for an RP-filled message.

    If we must propose a NAP, I like 100 for an end date. Who knows where we'll be by that turn- in all likelihood we both will be seeking to extend it.
     
  4. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    I think the goal for the NAP should be to negate their dog soldiers. If the dog soldier threat will be effectively neutralized by turn 100 then we can go for that. If not we should try for a longer NAP.
     
  5. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    Oh, we're on the same page cav scout. I'm just thinking aloud that we need to avoid them considering us an easy target instead of wanting to sign a NAP with us. Even if a T100 NAP does not negate the threat entirely, we still have the 10 turn clausule in there. If they consider us a weak target they will most definitely deny the NAP, and start looking for us. If they go in Thunderfalls direction they will find RB, which may or may not be a good thing in that case. I have no clear preference as to whether T100 or T150 is the better choice.

    I'm just pitting in my 2 cents here, and I have full confidence that 2metra will make a decision he feels is for the best for the team when he sends off the initial message. :)
     
  6. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    I have full confidence in 2metra also. But again, any binding diplo agreements should be decided by the team.
     
  7. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    3 weeks ago, I clearly asked for a consensus to be made in regards to how to deal with meeting new civs after we met RB in this thread. The response was more or less nonexistent, which I assume means that the team has confidence in the Diplomatic team to make the correct decisions. The only thing left open in those drafts was the length of a NAP.

    The reason I asked about this was because of the grumbling that occured when the messages to RB was sent off "too quickly". I gave a clear opportunity for the team to say that they wanted things differently, but nobody did so. This is part of what I consider the job of being the Chief Diplomat is: to establish a team consensus on what our policy is. And that is what I tried to do. Silence in this regards means agreement, so when nobody responded, that obviously means everyone agreed with what I proposed.

    Before you suggest that I don't want to have team consensus, however, let me point out the fact that one of the things that the majority of the team agreed to was that we need speedy communication in first-contact with a new team. As such, my point of criticism to you here is quite pointed: Why do you bring up team consensus at this point, when there is already a team consensus in place where the team has clearly stated that we wish to negotiate a NAP with the first teams we meet?

    Whether the NAP should last until T100, T120 or T150 is one of those things that really should be left to the Ambassador. Otherwise the diplomacy work is going to be hampered down by a lot of nitpicking because 3 people wants T100, 3 people want T120 and 3 people want T150. We cannot afford to lose time over calling for votes like that when it's a first contact situation, because votes simply take too long.

    If you think otherwise, then please do bring it up - but after we have established first contact with WPC. This is not the time to start nitpicking.
     
  8. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I think we're all essentially on the same page here as far as how our foreign policy should work. The team gives input, the ambassador uses that to finalize a message and send it off. In this case, with a full turn advance notice before meeting WPC, there's plenty of time for everyone to give their input before 2metra sends our official greeting.

    I like this a lot. :thumbsup:

    A NAP to turn 100 with a 10-turn cool down should give us sufficient time to make Dog Soldiers obsolete. Archers should be enough to protect our cities, and we can easily get HBR and probably catapults by turn 110 if we think WPC is going to cancel the NAP and send an army at us. A NAP to T120 with a 10-turn cool down would be even better if we can get it.
     
  9. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    Well said, Yossarian. :)

    I like that draft very much too, regardless of whether it says 100, 110 or 120 turns. In regards to a cool down though: Should it say to turn X, with renegotiation 10 turns before the NAP expires? If we ask for a NAP until, say turn 120, without any other specifics it would seem odd to mention a cool down - as that would imply one of two things: 1) either the NAP automatically renews itself, and goes on until one of the teams give a 10 turn notice before cancelling it or 2) the NAP actually ends turn 130.
     
  10. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Definitely. Say, "We wish to avoid undue Native American blood spillage, and accordingly offer you the following: Our empire pledges not to engage in hostilities with yours on condition of a similar guarantee from you."

    Edit: Whole bunch of crossposts

    2metra, you got my approval pretty well unconditionally. You know what we want. Get it.
     
  11. grant2004

    grant2004 Citizen

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    America
    I wouldn't say anything about spilling Native American blood. That sounds unnecessarily aggressive. I'm in full agreement with Caledorn on this one, we do have a team consensus that offering a NAP to our neighbors is good policy as is communicating quickly with them. If there's a desire to change the team consensus, it's best to do this between contacts rather than in the comparatively short period of time we have for sending a message once we meet them.

    There's certainly time for us to give input, and make suggestions, but we can not delay diplomatic communications for lengthy debates, polls, etc. We'll have to play the turn soon, and we'll have to be ready with a message to send out when we do.
     
  12. RegentMan

    RegentMan Deity

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,951
    Location:
    Washington State
    I have to head to work, so this won't be too elaborate, but I'm with cav scout regarding diplomacy. Requiring team approval for agreements binding to Team CFC should have the signature of most CFC team members. This will prevent ambassadors/the foreign ministry from agreeing to something too quickly or without much thought (NOT saying this has happened with RB and WPC, but one of those very unlikely things one would like to avoid, like putting a seat belt on to reduce the likelihood of death in a car accident- odds are you're not going to get into one, but just in case).

    When we stumble upon a unit out of the fog, we can always send a quick "Hey how's it going? Welcome... love... hope... we'll send our full message shortly. :) " kind of note, and respond later that day or the next.
     
  13. 1889

    1889 Mayor of H-Marker Lake

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Devil's Punchbowl
    Lets confuse them by suggesting a NAP until turn 127. Its longer than 100 so it gives us more cover but too specific to sound like we are just looking for cover from Dog Soldiers. I can only imagine how much time they will waste trying to figure out what we have planned for turn 127.
     
  14. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I am arriving artistically late, so I'll start at clear draft:

    "Greetings, WPC!

    It is pure luck and pleasure to make contact with your team. I hope we could have good relations and great cooperation with such gentlemanly players as I know of you.

    As a start of our cooperation we would like to offer you a basic Non-Aggression Pact "We will not declare war at each-other" till the beginning of turn 107 with the option to lengthen it at any time. We are up to exchanging map info and any other kind of information. We would also like to assure you that we will not attempt any provocative settling in your direction.

    Awaiting your reply, friends.

    2metraninja on behalf of Team CFC"
     
  15. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    Excellent, 2metra :)
     
  16. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    Trying to move this discussion here:
    They will find us soon enough anyway. I wouldn't put too much effort on disgusing our starting location. Our warrior wanders in from SW and continues on to NE. They do not know that this is our first exploring warrior. Even if they know we've met another team their first assumption is not likely going to be that we're located south east of them. Anyway, I believe we're putting too much weight on the fact these guys have dog soldiers. We are not their closest neighbours. So if they really plan to go on a Dog Soldier rampage, we're not likely going to be their prime targets anyway.
     
  17. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    It would be very nice to get map info from WPC to know where other teams are located. I believe it's likely that WPC has explored far to the north and east. They have 5 warriors, having been built on turns 8, 20, 31 and 36, plus their starting warrior. They only have 2 cities to garrison, so they could be exploring in three directions, and they haven't gone the short distance SW to meet RB. Still, my paranoid side would feel better if we don't bring up map info ourselves.
     
  18. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    WPC are not stupid. RB are stronger and closer to them than us. I dont see why they would want to be hostile towards us and friendly to RB.

    I already said that, but you anyone would want as allies those who they can out-tech and out-grow. Even if WPC want to rush someone, all the logic says they would prefer to rush RB while being friends with us.
     
  19. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    I wouldn't go so far as to say that since no one responded to your previous thread that the team as a whole has decided to cede all decision making to you and our diplomats. I know that I never have time to respond to every post on here.

    Putting "too quickly" in quotes tells me that you still don't get it. When I called you out on this previously it wasn't grumbling, it was a clear rebuke. You sent that message off in a matter of hours without allowing for input by the team and that was wrong.

    Anyways, here we are in another first contact situation and it seems that team members do have some input to offer now.

    Sure, lets negotiate a NAP. But can we please decide the duration as a team? You just said that the only thing left open was the duration...

    The difference between a T100 NAP and a T150 NAP is pretty significant. All i'm asking for is a day or two of discussion so we can mull things over and come up with what we want to do as a team.

    No, i'm going to bring it up now. Your insistence on having me wait to raise objections until after a unilateral action has already been done is insulting.
     
  20. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I also think that as we are almost pure democracy as of now (I would love to say my thoughts on that too, but will do so in the constitution thread) there is a good reason Cav to want the team to have chance to have its say about ANY binding agreement the diplomatic department is about to offer to other team.

    I also agree that the duration of the NAP is important thing, but we must think of it as "the duration which we would like to offer" rather than "the duration of the NAP". WPC might just say: this is too long for us, we want it shorter. Or: "This is too long for us, they want to trick us something, we must not accept", Or: "This is too short, they are planning something on us!" Or:"This is too short, we must ask for longer to be worth signing a NAP at all".

    With my experience in pitbosses, I can say a 50 turns NAP is considered solid and long NAP, showing good intentions. Longer like 100, 150 or 200 turns NAP means the other considers you a major power, just as himself and actually they are asking for you two to divide the world (or the local area) and meet each-other just after the dust settles to settle the final winner matter. So I wrote turn 107, because it is somewhere in the 50's range (now we are somewhere in the 45-50 turn already, right?), it sounds mysterious, and it is a good number in the numerology :D (not absolutely sure about the last one)
     

Share This Page