February 7th, 2013, 13:21
Posts: 15,314
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Another fast reply from CivPlayers:
CivPlayers Wrote:Greetings scooter,
The tank was a figure of speach, ofc it would be great, but unreasonable
I was thinking more on the line of a worker or two to help us tame the unfriendly land. I will take into consideration your proposal about the buffer zone between our nations so we don't get into cultural territorial disputes in the future.
Thank you kindly,
Decebal
February 7th, 2013, 19:26
Posts: 15,314
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
BEST MESSAGE EVER.
Spanish Apolyton Wrote:Cool! nice to see you. Firsto fo all sorry for the delay in answering. Im in vacations and I connect in time to time. Our early scout also been slow down as he had been the brakefast of an angry lion.
We are glad the exchange knowladge with you guys, We meet CFC as you allready know. Franches are far east from us- And in the north of us you will find UniversCiv, but you would have to go arround a big lack.
see you, and tell us if you are planing any party... we lave partys!!!!!
February 7th, 2013, 23:51
Posts: 15,314
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Sent to CivPlayers:
RB Wrote:Decebal,
I understand that you're trying to get yourself the best deal possible, but we would rather use two workers to complete the road to our other neighbor who will give us the routes for free starting next turn. All of our other neighbors are willing to sign OB at no cost, actually. We would still like trade routes with you because it would still be financially beneficial, but it's not significant enough of a gain to us to be worth giving up two workers. If you insist on payment, then we are going to decline Open Borders.
I'm going to be direct with you - we are concerned that your actions towards us signal aggression. First, you are carefully avoiding any suggestions of a lengthier NAP and border agreement. Second, our team has observed that you just completed teching Horseback Riding, which is an expensive tech to choose at this phase of the game unless you plan on using it on a neighbor. Now, we realize you have other neighbors too and could very well have chosen to tech HBR to deal with another team, but your unwillingness to sign a NAP longer than T120 or commit to any sort of longer deal is a sign that we need to be ready for the worst. If you would sign a NAP through T150 with us, that go a long ways to confirming your desire to play peacefully.
If you are unwilling to sign a longer NAP, just be aware that we are not low on defenses - in fact we have one of the largest armies in the world currently. I do hope we can come to a more firm peace agreement - let me know what you think.
Thanks,
scooter - Team RB
February 8th, 2013, 00:10
Posts: 15,314
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Sent to WePlayCiv:
RB Wrote:Tatu,
I just wanted to drop you a quick line to let you know that we have received and are considering your message. I normally try to be very prompt in replying, but we met multiple teams in a very short time-span and had to discuss a couple more pressing issues as a team. I hope you don't mind us taking a few more days to discuss. You obviously put a lot of thought into your proposal, so I want to make sure we do the same in our reply.
Thanks!
scooter - Team RB
Figured this was just a good courtesy to extend this note to them. I think they'll understand this.
February 9th, 2013, 00:58
Posts: 15,314
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Sent to UniversCiv:
RB Wrote:UniversCiv,
Greetings from Realms Beyond! It's great to finally meet your team. We're getting awfully close to filling out our full list of contacts - just a couple teams to go.
How has your game gone so far? Have you been able to meet many teams? So far, we've met CFC, German Team, WePlayCiv, Spanish Apolyton, and CivPlayers. We're primarily just relieved that the turn timer has sped up a little bit as of late . Are you interested in swapping some geographic info about both of our neighbors?
Thanks!
scooter - Team RB
February 9th, 2013, 00:58
Posts: 15,314
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
From CivPlayers:
CivPlayers Wrote:Scooter,
I can understand your concerns, but you have misunderstood us. We, Aztecs, are very cautious people and we like to weight our actions very well before taking any.
Regarding the NAP, we have not avoided it, we just thought that discussing the trade agreement was prioritary to the NAP. If you are willing, we can discuss both agreements together. As for your concers regarding military disputes, I should express my worries as well, seing your increased armies. Are you preparing to attack someone? Are you under attack? Do you insist on signing a longer NAP to be able to concentrate your big armies on the other side of the map? Or are you planning to attack us?
We are a peace loving civilization, but we don't offer our friendship and support for free or to just anyone. I am glad that we are talking a lot, that you are showing yourself open to discussion and that you feel free to express your concerns, as hard as that is, rather than taking the easy way out. I like that you take time and energy to try and find a compromise suitable to both our civilizations.
I am looking forward to continuing our conversation as I am sure that in the near future I will discover that you are indeed the strong and faithful friend that I feel you can be. We do not give our friendship easy, but when we do it, we are fully commited and we regard our friends as our brothers and sisters.
I will come back to you shortly with an offer that includes both agreements that you have suggested.
Best regards,
Decebal
February 9th, 2013, 08:33
Posts: 4,416
Threads: 34
Joined: Dec 2010
From UniversCiv:
Quote:Hi Scooter!
Thank you for your greetings. We welcome you too I think we've met only a fraction of the other teams, CFC, Zulu, Native Americans and Turks.
I think there is no problem about sharing knowledge - anyway I'll ask my countrymen first, since I'm merely an ambassador
Bye
Yuufo - UniversCiv
PS : please send any further messages to this mailbox if possible, so that my other teammembers can read it too in case!
February 9th, 2013, 19:40
Posts: 15,314
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Sent to WPC:
RB Wrote:Tatu,
Thanks again for being patient as we discussed your proposal. The overall reception to your team's proposal is definitely positive. We would like to see the German team removed from the game, and we like the T150 window pretty well. We do trust you guys enough that we can divide workload + cities up pretty fairly, so that's not a major issue either.
The one primary hurdle we face is that it's kind of difficult for us to sign this in ink when we're still 50 turns away. We have two other very strong neighbors - CFC and CivPlayers - and if for some reason things go sour with them, we need to be prepared to handle that first. I don't have any reason to believe they will attack us, but we're just hesitant to put something in ink when we can imagine scenarios where it might not work. Both of them have shorter-term NAPs with us which expire prior to T150, and neither are in a rush to extend those further right now. As a result, we're treading cautiously right now.
That hesitation aside, we're very interested in pursuing this plan. Our ideal turn number for a war is around T150, and the German team is definitely our preferred target. Here's a few questions we have:
1) How many catapults are you aiming to have by that point? We understand if it's hard to pin down a precise number, but a ballpark target number would be great.
2) How good is your map intel on German cities? We see some of their border cities, but we don't have any real map knowledge of their core. Marching blindly into the fog is something we don't think is prudent, but if you guys have more extensive map knowledge of their lands, that could help remedy our lack of intel. If you are limited in your visibility too, perhaps one of us can get a spy into their lands and map out their cities.
3) This sort of goes along with #2, but do you know where their strategic resources are? That's really useful knowledge to have in an invasion, as it lets us target those resources and disconnect them so it's much harder for Inca to defend themselves.
I think that's all the questions I have for the moment. Thanks so much for being patient with us, and we're looking forward to discussing this further.
Thanks,
scooter - Team RB
February 9th, 2013, 23:02
Posts: 15,314
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Sent to CivPlayers:
RB Wrote:Decebal,
I can understand you being cautious. We're being cautious too - early conflict is almost always a bad idea - just look at how bad it's crippled the German team and WPC. I would like to avoid that kind of mistake.
We don't really care about the NAP length to be honest. Name a date and we'll consider it. I think we've made it clear the three things we're interested in - longer NAP, border agreement, and Open Borders that don't come with a big price tag. If we can't agree to all of those that's fine, but you know what we want. However, we still don't know what you want. Hopefully that will change soon . We're looking forward to hearing your offer on this.
Thanks,
scooter - Team RB
February 10th, 2013, 14:53
Posts: 15,314
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Sent to CFC:
RB Wrote:Ok I have an apology to make - I thought I sent you guys this message on the 6th, and I just now noticed it was still in our drafts . I'm really, really sorry about this! Anyways, here is the full message I thought I had sent:
Caledorn,
Thanks again for directions, and I'm glad we were able to finally be a help to you in return. I think it's been a big boost for both of us. Let me know how things go once you meet CivPlayers. They may be a very small team, but they still seem to be doing quite well in this game.
As a courtesy, I wanted to inform you that we will be settling our final border city in your direction pretty soon.
Thanks!
scooter - Team RB
|