PBEM: A Soaring Spirit

[McMonkey]

Corinth - Amphissa captured from the Minor States

Ionians - Elaea & Uskadama captured from the Minor States

Negotiations: Do you guys have any proposals to make in terms of establishing a long-term peace treaty and re-allocation of territory. As I said before, I would like to find a settlement that suits all parties. My only request is to find a solution that will return Corinth to the Corinthians.

 

[Northerner]

No news.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

As a gesture of good faith in the peace negotiations, the Etruscans withdraw from the siege of Naxos.

No world events.

No news from the Athenians.


Negotiations:
I'm interested in a settlement where all three players can look at their long term prospects and think they have a chance of success if they play peacefully. If we can't find such a settlement, I would rather fight everything out now than drag the game on prolonging the inevitable. (I do think that there is a reasonable chance that the war will eventually reach a point where either Sparta or Athens fears the other more than Corinth/Ionia, and peace would follow.)

I think we had a treaty proposal that went a long way to achieving my conditions for peace, but the Spartans objected. Since the Spartans are now interested in negotiations, I suggest Northerner offers an outline for what he thinks is an acceptable peace proposal, and we can work from there.

 

[McMonkey]

I'm trying to get MGE running on my laptop but it's not having it. This is strange as I've always used it in the past. Must have been some sort of Windows update that doesn't like part of the launcher or other vital Civ2 component. Sorry for the delay.

 

[McMonkey]

I propose we begin negotiations by dividing up and exchanging established cities and then look at colony sites and territories second.

Here is my initial division/exchange of existing cities that will lead to a rough parity of numbers:

ATHENS/ETRUSCIA
Current cities: 26
After divisions/exchange: 54
+Sipontum from Corinth to Etruscia
+Andros & Tenos from Ionia to Athens
+Chalcis, Eretria, Cyme & Carystus from Ionia to Athens
+Tanagara & Thebes from Corinth to Athens
- Corinth from Athens to Corinth
+Nora & Aethalia from Barbarians to Etruscia
+Thirteen Barbarian Italian cities to Etruscia
+Two of the Southern Aegean Islands from Barbarians to Athens
+Eleusis, Epidaurus & Tiryns from Barbarians to Athens

SPARTANS/PHOENICIANS
Current cities: 39
After divisions/exchange: 51
+Petra, Enna, Morgantia & Motyca from Corinth to Phoenicia
+Zacynthus from Corinth to Sparta
+Patrae, Aegeum & Sicyon from Corinth to Sparta
-Miletus from Sparta to Ionia
+Cirta, Argos & Hierapytna from Barbarians to Phoenicians
+Two of the Southern Aegean Islands from Barbarians to Spartans

CORINTH/IONIA
Current cities: 68
After divisions/exchange: 53
Gain back two capital cities and give away 17 cities

That still leaves a few cities in the Balkans and Anatolia to decide about, but it's a starting point to agree on in principle or negotiate over.

The cities of Anatolia, the Northern Aegean and the Balkans are slightly more tricky to divide up as they do not fall into obvious spheres.

I will leave it here for now as there is no point looking at colony sites if we can't get a consensus on these major cities.

 

[McMonkey]

CORINTH
No news

IONIA
Pergamum captured

Any thoughts on my initial suggestions for a permanent peace settlement? I'm very willing to negotiate, but to do that I think we need a framework proposal that we can then tinker with to find a settlement that suits all parties.

 

[McMonkey]

Any chance we can sort out these negotiations & revive this scenario chaps?

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I don't know. I feel rather strange about this game and that doesn't make me eager to play.

The logical part of me says that wars and sneak attacks (or the threat of them) are important checks on a leading player or a player spreading his military very thin now to accumulate a big advantage later. Another part of me (perhaps the "moral" part) makes me feel bad for participating in a sneak attack during the "build-up" phase of the scenario, even though it was the logical counter strategy to McMonkey's string of conquests.

Then there is the fact that out of game factors seem to be influencing in-game negotiations. I'll try to explain what I mean.

There are two ways we could be negotiating this settlement. The first is in-game as leaders of our countries. The second is as real-world people trying to decide whether to keep playing this scenario or to play a new scenario to be based roughly on how our existing game has progressed. I'm not sure which kind of negotiation we are having.

If I say that I want a settlement where everyone has a reasonable chance of success going forward, this could be an in-game negotiation that I have simply expressed in new-scenario terms so that everyone understands it ("the Athenians want to establish a balance of power that will last a generation or more"). The Athenians must be better off under a negotiated settlement than fighting things out a few more years, and have proposed something they think everyone else might find acceptable.

If I say that I want everyone to have a roughly equal chance going forward because I want to have fun, then Prof. Garfield is negotiating with Northerner and McMonkey. In this negotiation, Prof. Garfield must prefer to play the new scenario more than fighting to the death in the existing one. If McMonkey wants to play a build, trade, and progress through the tech tree game, then McMonkey might make concessions to Prof. Garfield that Corinth would not make to Athens under the in-game negotiation model. Especially since Athens participated in a sneak attack against Corinth.

If we're following an in-game negotiation paradigm centered on negotiating a "balance of power," then everyone tries to understate their strength in order to get the best deal, since that is the game we are playing. On the other hand, if Prof. Garfield, Northerner, and McMonkey are negotiating a "fair" scenario to play going forward, then the hidden information dynamic of the in-game negotiation model might end up making the scenario more unfair after the negotiation than before. I presume we're playing a game where Athens is allowed to try to cheat Corinth, but that Prof. Garfield should not try to cheat McMonkey. At the moment, achieving both of these things feels kind of difficult, and therefore a little stressful.

I'm sorry if the above isn't very clear, but I'm conflicted about continuing.

I like this scenario and in principle would like to continue, but the "history" I helped create also makes me want to avoid it.

 

[McMonkey]

I'm willing to negotiate in character. Corinth-Ionia expanded too quickly & took too many colonies, threatening to become Hegemon of the Mediterranean in the future. Alarmed by this prospect the Athenian-Etruscan & Spartan-Phoenician alliances decided to join forces to reign in the Imperialistic Corinthian-Ionians. A war was fought. For a while, the outcome hung in the balance & could have swung either way, but ultimately the Corinthians-Ionians ran out of resources and realised that continuing the war would only lead to unnecessary bloodshed for little gain. I decided to offer a peace deal, sacrificing territory for lives & peace. I need to rebuild my trade links to gain the money to build & develop my core territories and accept that there needs to be a rebalancing of the power. This is why I'm ready to offer territory to secure peace.

I don't see why this has to be strange. We fought a war. I lost. Now we negotiate the terms of the peace if the victors are willing. Otherwise, we continue to fight. I'm happy to do both, but I don't see why my enemies would choose to continue the war when they can get what they want at the negotiating table.

I would love to continue this scenario, be it at peace or at war. In the long term, I think it would be more interesting to conclude a peace deal that re-establishes the balance of power & see where that takes us.

 

[Northerner]

Out of character, I feel the same as Prof Garfield.

In character, Sparta will rule the mediterranean.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

News:

Lars Porsena proclaimed Queen of new Etruscan Dual Monarchy.

No World Events.

Athenians capture Eleusis. Athenian Hoplite moves off the resources near Larissa.

Negotiations:

The Athenians and Etruscans propose to compensate for our technological lead by refraining from constructing certain Wonders of the World for a duration specified by treaty, and not through reduced expansion. We propose as a starting point that each of the four other powers may specify one such Wonder, but might trade that right for other concessions during negotiations.

 

[Northerner]

These last few months the Gerousia has sat through an intense Symposia, and little thought has been given to practical matters. The Spartans wish to apologize for how little they have done to answer calls for negotiations.

The proposals as placed forward by the Corinthians are fair and wise, and Sparta accepts, even though she does not know how to even begin implementing them.

 

[McMonkey]

This is good news! As most of the territory to be handed over is from Corinth to other nations I can use the cheat menu to transfer ownership and any units that need to be evacuated will be set to a nearby home city, if you are happy with this approach?

I will refresh my memory of the changes we discussed and post them here shortly so we can ratify a final agreement.

(In effect his will be like a fresh start for the scenario. The initial stage was a victory for the Spartan-Athenian alliance and will go down in the history books thus)

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I propose we begin negotiations by dividing up and exchanging established cities and then look at colony sites and territories second.

Here is my initial division/exchange of existing cities that will lead to a rough parity of numbers:

ATHENS/ETRUSCIA
Current cities: 26
After divisions/exchange: 54
+Sipontum from Corinth to Etruscia
+Andros & Tenos from Ionia to Athens
+Chalcis, Eretria, Cyme & Carystus from Ionia to Athens
+Tanagara & Thebes from Corinth to Athens
- Corinth from Athens to Corinth
+Nora & Aethalia from Barbarians to Etruscia
+Thirteen Barbarian Italian cities to Etruscia
+Two of the Southern Aegean Islands from Barbarians to Athens
+Eleusis, Epidaurus & Tiryns from Barbarians to Athens

SPARTANS/PHOENICIANS
Current cities: 39
After divisions/exchange: 51
+Petra, Enna, Morgantia & Motyca from Corinth to Phoenicia
+Zacynthus from Corinth to Sparta
+Patrae, Aegeum & Sicyon from Corinth to Sparta
-Miletus from Sparta to Ionia
+Cirta, Argos & Hierapytna from Barbarians to Phoenicians
+Two of the Southern Aegean Islands from Barbarians to Spartans

CORINTH/IONIA
Current cities: 68
After divisions/exchange: 53
Gain back two capital cities and give away 17 cities

That still leaves a few cities in the Balkans and Anatolia to decide about, but it's a starting point to agree on in principle or negotiate over.

The cities of Anatolia, the Northern Aegean and the Balkans are slightly more tricky to divide up as they do not fall into obvious spheres.

I will leave it here for now as there is no point looking at colony sites if we can't get a consensus on these major cities.

This division is acceptable to the Athenians. Although Athens and Etrusca must conquer more barbarian cities to achieve parity, this is roughly balanced out by our more advanced government.

 

[McMonkey]

I've been trying to sort something out with this but Civ2 kept on crashing. We may have to just use the old-fashioned method of withdrawing from cities & allowing the other side to march in. This will result in some destruction, but if I cannot get the cheat menu to work I can't see any other way. It's been a bit hectic recently, so please bear with me. It's been stalled for some time, so a few more days won't hurt!