February 18th, 2013, 02:16
Posts: 3,916
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2011
As long as they don't settle that stupid fucking city in our face as a springboard to fork 3 of our cities, I don't mind giving them a few resources for a massive NAP.
Of course, it depends what they're after. Are they just after the Stone for a late 'mids run? That can be dealt with, if we gift it T106 or whatever. They certainly don't need a city there, considering they don't even have enough workers in the area. 3WT to road the stone, then what, 8WT to quarry it?
Are they intending to force our culture outwards? In that case, we'd damn well make the Stone+Spices deal contingent on them not settling there.
February 18th, 2013, 02:29
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
(February 18th, 2013, 02:16)Nicolae Carpathia Wrote: Are they intending to force our culture outwards? In that case, we'd damn well make the Stone+Spices deal contingent on them not settling there.
Seems pretty obvious we can consider that absurd city placement breach of NAP.
February 18th, 2013, 02:36
Posts: 3,916
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2011
I dunno about that, was that in the original terms?
February 18th, 2013, 02:51
Posts: 4,090
Threads: 28
Joined: Jul 2008
(February 18th, 2013, 02:29)SevenSpirits Wrote: Seems pretty obvious we can consider that absurd city placement breach of NAP.
Then we need to tell them that before they settle the stupid city, in simple words. ("Not acceptable" are not simple words, it's just blunt diplo speak.)
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
February 18th, 2013, 03:00
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
(February 18th, 2013, 02:36)Nicolae Carpathia Wrote: I dunno about that, was that in the original terms?
Original terms are vague and open to interpretation.
February 18th, 2013, 03:03
Posts: 2,569
Threads: 53
Joined: Jan 2006
(February 18th, 2013, 01:34)SevenSpirits Wrote: For the record I think what they are doing, asking for free resources in exchange for the NAP and then planning to settle as far in our face as possible, shows that they are completely unserious about being our friends. We might want to re-evaluate our diplomatic goals in light of this. CFC looks to me like a poorly-run civ with hardly any in-game ability to hurt us, but inclination to be our enemy politically despite any NAP. So a NAP with them doesn't really benefit us. It may just benefit them and helps them hurt us.
That is not to say that we should give up on them, but let's not get caught up trying to appease them at high cost.
I am with Seven on this one.
Also surprised how eager we are to bend over for a 45turn extra NAP (130->175). We are the team with the tech lead and the massive production and whip potential, no? Do you really think CFC will cheer for us when the shit starts hitting the fan because we have done everything possible to help them now? They are still playing to win this game.
Attempt a T200 NAP at least. And tell them that if they settle there, we will rethink what is on the table right now.
Don't forget WE started this current round of negotiations way ahead of the NAP ending turn. They are probably interpreting this as a despairing move, hence all the demands.
mh
February 18th, 2013, 04:08
Posts: 2,265
Threads: 54
Joined: Aug 2011
(February 18th, 2013, 02:06)Bigger Wrote: oh come now, WPC clearly wants to be our friend 
From their acting they want to be our vassal in all but name 
February 18th, 2013, 05:09
Posts: 2,788
Threads: 10
Joined: Oct 2009
Perhaps point out to them that when our borders pop on t107 they will lose the stone resource anyhow and tell them that if they plant there we won't gift them stone (ie they won't get any stone from t107 until their own borders pop). Obviously try to do it in a nice way that antagonizes them to the least extent possible, but maybe just say our gifting you stone as part of them NAP deal is contingent on not settling there. In essence, use diplomacy to make it so that spot doesn't actually help them get stone in the short run (obviously in the long run they'll culturally control the tile). The problem with that of course is it may jeopardize the NAP discussion.
February 18th, 2013, 05:18
Posts: 4,090
Threads: 28
Joined: Jul 2008
We need to send that to them. Hopefully it will act as the bucket of cold water they need to start thinking over there.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
February 18th, 2013, 06:05
Posts: 3,916
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2011
What we could do is imply that the border pop could happen even earlier, thanks to a timely religion spread. Why, it's probably natural!
The carrot is that this could potentially connect the stone even earlier.
The stick is that if you piss us off, we could potentially cut off the stone for a longer length of time.
|
