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
    If we include the info about the gold, they may be pretty upset if they believe it's RB's capital, as I'm pretty sure plako didn't give any teams gold in the BFC of the capital. Now OTOH, if they have gold near a city too (as would not surprise me) they may figure out that it's not the capital on their own. So the question is basically what we want them to think - whether it is RB's capital or not, if I'm thinking straight here now ;)
     
  2. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,029
    Location:
    On the one spin
    I think this is how they will think. I would if I were in their shoes.

    Better not mention the tundra until we know whats south of it... That is UNLESS we are going to just say "Hey, are up against Tundra to our south so we have to expand North. Please keep this in mind and try not to box us in or settle in our direction if you have room to settle away from us."

    Remember, honesty, honesty, honesty.
     
  3. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    I understand we appreciate a fast response time from our rivals. Shouldn't we return the favour and reply WPC? IMO, tell them where RB is and share at least something about our own land so we can start to build up our reputation.
     
  4. grant2004

    grant2004 Citizen

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    America
    I agree. They haven't fully agreed to the contact sharing agreement, but they did share that they haven't met anyone, and plenty of map information. We can tell them about RB before they accept the agreement, and leave any other teams we meet until after they've agreed formally. I'm in favor of reciprocating information about the tundra south of us. It will be a good opportunity to begin establishing negotiations on what our border should look like. Perhaps we can pencil in a temporary line at the half way mark until our teams both gain more knowledge of the area and can renegotiate a permanent border.
     
  5. RegentMan

    RegentMan Deity

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,951
    Location:
    Washington State
    I posted this in the RB thread:

    Do we want to build up an RB-like relationship with them? Telling them things right now seems odd when they won't let us explore efficiently.
     
  6. 1889

    1889 Mayor of H-Marker Lake

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Devil's Punchbowl
    They have given us a great deal of info already. It may be they were just being cautious on initial contact as we were when we put all out EPs on them.
     
  7. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    We should get a response sent to them soon. It's been four days since we received their response to our initial message, and they were very quick to answer us. If we wait much longer they may think we aren't all that interested in cooperating with them after all..
     
  8. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,029
    Location:
    On the one spin
    That is really not good... 4 days? Cmon, at least send them a "We are talking about a response, and should send you something soon" message. Please send that right now at least. :(
     
  9. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Guys, guys, you are heavily misinterpreting my proposal. I am not saying to tell lies to other teams to get them start war. I am saying to tell only truths to our two neighbors and then leave/hope that their suspicious nature start creating monsters out of what is otherwise perfectly normal feelings and fears. I am surprised Captain Sommers speaks about lies, as he can best of all here attending to attest that in my whole career as diplomat/politic in my games (and I do that a lot) I never told a single lie. Feeding my enemies own fears? Yes, I do that. Making my adversaries come to wrong conclusions about my intentions? Yes, I do that. Confusing my rivals and making them do what I desire? Yes, I do that. Keeping my real intentions and plans in secret? But of course!

    But lying? Never.

    To the question what will happen if RB tells what we told about them, but even better! WPC will look at RB as gossip girls, as we will be already told WPC of our fears. Thats the beauty of all this - you not only tell how you feel to the one party, you tell this to BOTH parties, and what you told both parties is the same! How much more open and honest we could be? We are only relying to RB creating their own monsters. Which will benefit us of course, but well, we cant forbid other teams fear other teams, could we? About the "what if RB and WPC exchange exact messages" situation, what then? We are telling RB what we felt and though about WPC? Whats wrong with that? Of course, the more we delay sending the message to RB (it must be first, remember), the more we stretch in the time the whole thing and make it less convenient.

    This is one of the principles of diplomacy and politics I always try to follow as much as I can:
    "Truth well told." We tell only truths, but "select" them so, that they serve our goals. Just as in real life, in Civ MP I like to use the principles of Emotional intelligence, which is the ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups. Here we use Social skill – managing relationships to move people in the desired direction.

    Of course, this whole thing is worth if we want to be seen by our two closest neighbors as the best possible ally. Which thing must be decided on higher political level.

    Also I wanted to address Regentman's expressed opinion that we should aim for stronger alliance with RB. I would like to ask what he saw trough the years in reading Sulla's website? Isnt it a despotic and highly skilled in diplomacy and gameplay dictator who will usually find a way to win any game? How good this will make us in allying with such a team/leader who will be the only potential threat so far for us? Where is the logic? What strategy this pursues?
     
  10. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I at least am waiting to see if we send first RB a message about our fears connected with WPC. Otherwise, WPC are not expecting an answer for anything, as they asked nothing. My desire is we send them their part of the message (we are happy to be friends, because we feared you in first) despite we first send a message to RB or not. Of course sending WPC message automatically cuts the chance to send the part to RB, as then it would be hypocrisy. :)
     
  11. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,029
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Ok if the delay in responding to WPC is part of a plan to talk to RB first then that is fine. However, I will repeat that there should be no deceptions and scheming right now. It is way too early for that. Right now we need to establish trust with other teams not suspicion. If 2metra thinks we can achieve that by telling ONLY truths (no implying things that we don't know, and no implying things that we know is false), then I am fine with that.

    And yes I can vouch that 2metra is an honest player and diplomat:)

    However, I still don't like the idea of even implying things that are false because that will be seen as lying too, regardless if it is "technically" a deception or not.
     
  12. grant2004

    grant2004 Citizen

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    America
    My big concern about the strategy is this idea of telling WPC that we didn't feel comfortable with their request to not go near their borders, their leader and civ choice etc. I think the assumption that you're making that honesty on this will ingratiate us with them is incorrect. It's better to honestly tell them that we're excited to work with them based on their latest communications.

    If I were them and I received that kind of information, I wouldn't feel comfortable with it, no matter how well you describe the change of opinion to feeling like they are a good group to work with. The way I interpret a democracy game is that opinions like that don't really change for the whole team. Each team is comprised of a large set of players, most of their individual opinions are constant, but there is a group of that can be swung to one side or the other. If I were told that a team had one opinion of me originally, then changed it, it would indicate to me that there were still a substantial minority who didn't trust me. It would also make me wonder how easily it would be to swing the group who changed their minds back to not trusting me.

    If we want them to think we're the best team to ally with. They have to know that we're a solid ally, not someone who has inner doubts and fears about their team which could be exploited by another alliance.
     
  13. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    My biggest concern is telling RB that we consider WPC paranoid and unwelcome because of their do-not-come-close-to-our-borders.. "We start and describe to RB our first impression of WPC as paranoid and unwelcome for not allowing us to come closer than 1 tile from their borders (which is not even entirely untrue, as this was the first thing we saw from them)." If WPC ever hears about that, it doesn't really matter how we try to explain things to them. The result will be the same: WPC will think we are trying to make RB turn on them. So even if it is a semi-truth (as we do indeed consider WPC overly protective of their border), it's still slandering about another team.

    My suggestion is that we let RB find out about that semi-paranoia themselves, as WPC is certain to give the exact same clausule towards them, and RB will most likely then proceed to comment or ask about it to us. Alternatively we can ask RB if WPC enforced that policy on them when the time is right if we don't hear anything about it. If WPC did not enforce that policy on RB, we will know that WPC is being paranoid about us, and that they don't want us to see their cities (most likely because they believe we're going to run an espionage economy).
     
  14. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,029
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Correct:)
    Correct again:D
    Yes, yes, yes... this is exactly what we should do:goodjob:
    Exactly right :thumbsup: and this is something to remember. Teams are already greatly in fear of our Espionage power. They are smart to fear it because we can use it later, but for now we must put their fears to rest.
     
  15. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    I dont even think WPC are aware of how powerful an espionage economy can be, neither they are aware we are planning to use one (I am not aware either :))

    Well, guys, if you really feel we must just tell nothing of importance to either WPC and Rb, then so be it. I will wait for some more input and then write simple message to WPC, saying well.. almost nothing :)

    I still believe pro-active approach is the way to make successful diplomacy, but this is a democracy game, if the team wants it the other way, the other way it will be.
     
  16. RegentMan

    RegentMan Deity

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,951
    Location:
    Washington State
    I'd rather side with an evil I know than an evil I don't. They are also 100% on any deals they make. If we have a 100 turn NAP with them, we can leave token defenders in our border cities with them and not break a sweat. We should either work to eliminate them first or ally with them for the long haul.
     
  17. grant2004

    grant2004 Citizen

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    America
    I don't think the right answer is to say nothing. I just don't think it's a good idea to say that we don't trust them because of the requirement to stay a tile away from their border. In my opinion the right thing to say to them is that we have met another team, we may choose to share the direction and location of them, or possibly leave that for when they formally accept the information sharing agreement. I would also tell them a little about our land, that we do also border tundra. Maybe suggest that we aren't certain tundra is located only at the poles. and that we think Plako might be trying to deceive us with the way he's constructed the map. Although we don't have any proof of that yet. I'd go as far as to raise the topic of a negotiation on determining a border, with a suggestion that we draw a temporary line at the halfway mark between our capitals.
     
  18. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    I agree with this. Sulla can't be despotic in this game. He's playing on a team with more than 50 people, and we can assume that at least 30 of them are actively participating in discussions.

    This sounds just like what I would suggest we tell WPC. :) Also, since RB has asked us to tell WPC where they are at, we should also include that RB's NE border is 7 tiles SW of where we made contact (and use that as a leverage to suggest that maybe we can share future contacts with eachother as well if they are interested).

    So that means we're going to tell them a whole lot. Just not anything negative about RB.
     
  19. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Well, here comes the Team part. You dont know WPC, but other team members do know them, namely me and Sommers. I dont know how well you know RB and if you do know them why you are not afraid of them. I can say I play in 4 games at WPC and I am at the top in all of them. To me this means I know what I can expect and how to handle/tackle those guys, while I cant say the same about RB.

    Will come to this a bit later - I remember something about how they attacked and crushed one of their neighbors while those neighbors was thinking they have a NAP with RB in the last ISDG. But let me read how it was exactly.

    Working to eliminate them first is definitely a good idea :) "First" does not equal "immediately" or soon. But ally with them for the long term? Why would we? Are we sure we can beat them in the final phase? Sommers had one idea, but I am not 100% sure she is so easily doable against someone who is aware and who will be most probably ahead of us in GNP.

    Discussion yes, but the important decisions are made by few rated top in their respective areas. If Sulla says something is good for the team, no one argues with him. If SevenSpirits says something is best for MM, no one argues with him. If Kyan says a diplomacy is good, no one argues with him. This is how the Team part in RB works. They have unique system of spoiler threads, where anyone can see how well one plays and they know a lot about everyone of them strengths and specialization. They have ranking for themselves and they know how strong anyone plays. Those considered lesser players only listen and learn when the big guys speak. This all I know from one ex-Rb player, who happened to be my good friend. Of course, he never was a part of the RB team for this ISDG, but he knows RB for long time and from the inside.

    It is still too early to make firm plans, but I can say that to me allying with them long term looks that equals second place. Of course we want peace with all our neighbors initially, but dont fall for this trap indefinitely.
     
  20. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,029
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Of course we are planning to use all the weapons at our disposal as the need and opportunity arises (except lies ;))

    We can still be pro-active, we just do it by being nice and making friends who trust us rather than trying to turn teams against each other which will happen anyway but backfire on us if we try to force it.
     

Share This Page