Cheetah
Deity
This is a multichoice poll so that I can get a clear look of what we really want to negotiate out of C3B.
Vote on all the choices you feel are appropiate.
Vote on all the choices you feel are appropiate.
What do we want from C3B Deals?
- Thread starter Cheetah
- Start date
Donovan Zoi
The Return
I want a DMZ, I want trade, and I want to explore by sea.
I do not feel the need to harm relations by exploring beyond their NPB(National Preferred Borders). In fact, the option We do not want to explore by land should be read only in regards to C3B territory. Of course we still want to explore the island to the west, but that does not apply here.
I do not feel the need to harm relations by exploring beyond their NPB(National Preferred Borders). In fact, the option We do not want to explore by land should be read only in regards to C3B territory. Of course we still want to explore the island to the west, but that does not apply here.
Cheetah
Deity
Of course. That only applies for land C3B view as theirs.
NeoDemocrat
MOS MOS MOS
A fair DMZ 
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
Specify 1: I want to go to war, eventually.
Specify 2: I don't like the DMZ, as I want to go to war later. We can't win without their land. Our portion of the continent is too small and they are rude, too.
Specify 2: I don't like the DMZ, as I want to go to war later. We can't win without their land. Our portion of the continent is too small and they are rude, too.
Donovan Zoi
The Return
NeoDemocrat - you voted for every option. What's up with that? 
NeoDemocrat
MOS MOS MOS
Uhm... everything sounds good? Really I couldn't decide so why not
If it is a problem, I'm sorry I didn't mean to be rude or anything like that
If it is a problem, I'm sorry I didn't mean to be rude or anything like that
NeoDemocrat
MOS MOS MOS
Yeah, same kind of deal for me 
We need a strategic advantage, or the ability to create one. As such I support the maximum exploration we can get, and tech trading.
Donovan Zoi
The Return
DaveShack said:
It's one or the other Dave. I can't believe that akots and I are the only ones that can see this. We would make great strides with C3B if we didn't come off as selfish, but that seems to be exactly where we are headed.
We can figure out what we need to know about C3B's landmass by exploring by Curragh. There is no need for us to traipse around up there. Period.
Read the polling option again:
Not only selfish, but also unrealistic. It's no wonder they are rude to us.
NeoDemocrat
MOS MOS MOS
Now that I look at it, I see why they get mad at us 
I still think C3B is not being fair to us. We have given them what they wanted, yet they refuse to give us what we want. We withdrew our northern warrior for no reason, we've let their warrior pass, despite no compensation. We've offered 2 techs for only 1 of theirs (can't remember the details). We've offered a DMZ in between our capitals, which they considered unacceptable.
What have they done?
They have demanded our northern warrior to not do his legal and normal job, they have demanded an answer to their offered a boat-treaty on a moment in time when we aren't able to decide upon yet, they have abused our offer of worker-scouting to demand a worker from us. Perhaps even more.
I think the line is drawn; no more swallowing from C3B.
First thing we want from them is a declaration of their friendship. Our mutual goal should be to defeat the other teams. If such a treaty is signed, we and they have a base to cooperate more. Think of tech-trade, exploration and friendly settling on the land. If they can't commit to that; we have no base to trust them, nor consider them "friendly". If they can't commit; it might be time to think either of war, or (if we are lucky to meet someone else) isolating them.
Considering war: we have our UU, they might not have it. And if they do; pillaging their iron and occupying their Iron-tile will get us far and buy us enough time for our SoZ to get functioning.
What have they done?
They have demanded our northern warrior to not do his legal and normal job, they have demanded an answer to their offered a boat-treaty on a moment in time when we aren't able to decide upon yet, they have abused our offer of worker-scouting to demand a worker from us. Perhaps even more.
I think the line is drawn; no more swallowing from C3B.
First thing we want from them is a declaration of their friendship. Our mutual goal should be to defeat the other teams. If such a treaty is signed, we and they have a base to cooperate more. Think of tech-trade, exploration and friendly settling on the land. If they can't commit to that; we have no base to trust them, nor consider them "friendly". If they can't commit; it might be time to think either of war, or (if we are lucky to meet someone else) isolating them.
Considering war: we have our UU, they might not have it. And if they do; pillaging their iron and occupying their Iron-tile will get us far and buy us enough time for our SoZ to get functioning.
RegentMan
Deity
I totally agree Rik.Rik Meleet said:
Emp.Napoleon
SUPER EMP!
I think we have two choises in the long run:
1. Stay with C3B for the rest of this game and getting rid of 2 other teams (proferlably GCA and CDZ) When we get into the finals we get a really good ally. The pros are that we get rid of possibly both of the teams we really do not like. They bad thing is that we have to put up with C3B and we run that chance that we may be one of the two teams eliminated.
2. Go to war with C3B. We get rid of one team and gain a repuation of power. The Pros are that we get rid of a team, get more land, incense, more iron, and booty. The bad thing is that we may be week for a while after this war, where we could be plowed over. We also do not get rid of one of the teams we don't like GCA CDZ, though the second elimated team may be one of them (or worst CGN.) Then we go to the finals with the two teams we fear or hate and may lose it all.
Thoughts?
1. Stay with C3B for the rest of this game and getting rid of 2 other teams (proferlably GCA and CDZ) When we get into the finals we get a really good ally. The pros are that we get rid of possibly both of the teams we really do not like. They bad thing is that we have to put up with C3B and we run that chance that we may be one of the two teams eliminated.
2. Go to war with C3B. We get rid of one team and gain a repuation of power. The Pros are that we get rid of a team, get more land, incense, more iron, and booty. The bad thing is that we may be week for a while after this war, where we could be plowed over. We also do not get rid of one of the teams we don't like GCA CDZ, though the second elimated team may be one of them (or worst CGN.) Then we go to the finals with the two teams we fear or hate and may lose it all.
Thoughts?
NeoDemocrat
MOS MOS MOS
Option A... WAR IS NEVER THE SOLUTION 
Okay seriously though, we run a much bigger risky by backstabbing them; we need to stick with them and just put up with it
Okay seriously though, we run a much bigger risky by backstabbing them; we need to stick with them and just put up with it
It seems my words are misunderstood.NeoDemocrat said:Option A... WAR IS NEVER THE SOLUTION
Okay seriously though, we run a much bigger risky by backstabbing them; we need to stick with them and just put up with it
What I want from C3B is simply 1 honest statement: C3B and CFC are friends and will work together against the other teams.
If they can, we can open ourselves up to eachother and can cooperate. No demanding northern warriors to leave, no "nogo zones" in the seas, except cultural borders, free trade and sharing of knowledge, Settling in locations which benefit both nations and combined armies for combined operations, perhaps even worker-donation (as they seem to like that a lot).
If they can't or won't or do it half-heartedly, we go and play our game and they can do theirs. Of course, if war benefits us, we'll declare (or sneak) and attack, if it doesn't benefit us; we won't. There is no backstabbing; we've just stopped seeing them as friends and AFAIK we have no "non-attack" treaty. And if we do we can tell C3B that their rejection of the '1 honest statement' implies to us that the "non-attack" treaty is hereby void.
So, to put it simple: "All or nothing".
Emp.Napoleon
SUPER EMP!
Rik Meleet said:
Does that include telling them about SoZ?
Similar threads
- Poll
