February 19th, 2013, 11:34
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2006
I scoop scooter twice in one day ...
Quote:Greetings Scooter,
I hope we can agree on the following: as I said previously turn 110 NAP is fine. Also, starting from then, NAP is considered valid unless denounced with 10 turns in advance. (i.e: that means one side can attack the other no sooner than T120  ) We would also like to use the land between our nations. As you have very well pointed out, that land is rubbish, so there shouldn't be anything to negociate for, right?
Regarding the OB, I'm still working on that. The 2 workers were merely a suggestion, I'm open for anything that would show us your good will and that would give me a leverage into trying to convince our High Council to sign the agreement.
Since you have started out the military discussion, I feel obligated to continue them as questions arise in our War Ministery. You do have, as you have kindly pointed out, one of the largest armies in the world. Do you plan any attacks in the future? Can we get involved as part of that plan, would it give it any added value? Could we count on you for any military actions?
I look forward to hearing your answer. If you feel that there are things that we should discuss directly, I will try to make time in my busy schedule. Just let me know.
Best wishes,
Decebal
I have finally decided to put down some cash and register a website. It is www.ruffhi.com. Now I remain free to move the hosting options without having to change the name of the site.
(October 22nd, 2014, 10:52)Caledorn Wrote: And ruff is officially banned from playing in my games as a reward for ruining my big surprise by posting silly and correct theories in the PB18 tech thread.
February 19th, 2013, 11:39
Posts: 2,585
Threads: 43
Joined: Apr 2008
My first thought is that Decebal is not a good diplomat!  since we got the NAP, I'm happy. Not sure what he means about the land between us. Seems slightly contradictory.
February 19th, 2013, 11:40
Posts: 13,214
Threads: 25
Joined: Oct 2010
Shitty evasive response from CivPlayers.
February 19th, 2013, 11:43
Posts: 2,569
Threads: 53
Joined: Jan 2006
You know what? I am leaning towards walking away from this deal with CFC. Let them settle their stupid city right next to the stone and see how that will fail miserable. We still have a NAP with them until T130. Anyone here really think CFC will not renew that and instead start being hostile?
With Globe Theatre in Eastern Dealer (was it?) we will control that region and might even flip that city.
We started out with the good idea to casually feeling out CFC about an NAP renewal way ahead of time and ended up being strong armed and rushed into nothing but concessions, concessions, concessions and concessions.
They get to settle the aggressively placed 1S rice spot and we did not even get a NAP til T200.
You realize that this leaves us a meagre 20 turns to attack and clear the situation with the Germans before we have to reinforce our eastern borders!
As I am sure we will agree to the deal, the funny thing would be if they were not going for the Pyramids at all, and we are prevented from building it on the side, even if it is still there in 30 turns or so.
mh
February 19th, 2013, 11:44
Posts: 4,090
Threads: 28
Joined: Jul 2008
I'm not sure the Spanish will be a weak target for CFC. They may not have many cities or much pop, but they do have catapults and I assume some MP experience with warfare-oriented games. With plenty of barracks, AGG, and CHM they will also get their units well promoted from the start and promote them quickly, as long as they survive. Ie, CFC will either need overwhelming numbers or a really strong edge in quality in order to not run into a buzzsaw.
In a way, our goal with this deal is playing an entirely different meta-game from CFC here. CFC goes diplo first, and wants to secure alliances, set up 2-v-1 situations, and get as favourable trade deals as possible. It's a diplo-first approach to the game.
Scooter's and Sullla's diplo strategy here is asymmetric with this. We don't care if deals are favourable on the terms to the other part when it comes to resource trades or the like, it's all about keeping us on a rapid in-game growth curve as long as possible. it's a Civ-first approach to the game.
Also, there is another way to view the treaty. Who will lose anything if the NAP is broken ahead of time? Not us. But CFC will suddenly find themselves bereft of stone and happiness.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
February 19th, 2013, 11:45
(This post was last modified: February 19th, 2013, 11:46 by scooter.)
Posts: 15,301
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Hey guys, how about this on the marble:
Draft to CFC Wrote:Caledorn,
One issue we do really need to see added to Section 5 is this:
5.5 Team Civfanatics agrees to give Realms Beyond a 10T loan on marble at some point during the NAP. This can be arranged around CFC's builds to be a 10T window in which they will not be using the marble. RB would like this window to start no earlier than T120 and no later than T150, but we will otherwise attempt to be flexible. Both sides will make good-faith effort to be accomodating on this loan.
I want to give them pretty clear parameters. I would really like to see input from those highly involved in the turns (turn player + microplanners) on if this date range seems about right. Thoughts?
I think we're close enough to a deal that we can afford to press them a bit on this. Our one bit of leverage right now is they really want this thing signed THIS TURN, so we have some wiggle room to insist on a minor issue like this. I'd like to do this quickly (sent when I get back from lunch), so immediate feedback on this would be greatly appreciated.
(also: )
(February 19th, 2013, 11:34)Ruff_Hi Wrote: I scoop scooter twice in one day ...
False! Check the tracker thread. :P
February 19th, 2013, 11:47
Posts: 2,585
Threads: 43
Joined: Apr 2008
(February 19th, 2013, 11:44)kjn Wrote: Also, there is another way to view the treaty. Who will lose anything if the NAP is broken ahead of time? Not us. But CFC will suddenly find themselves bereft of stone and happiness.
Best argument for this deal I've heard yet!
February 19th, 2013, 11:48
Posts: 4,090
Threads: 28
Joined: Jul 2008
Go ahead. Though they don't have marble yet (even if I imagine they just whipped another settler in Mantra).
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
February 19th, 2013, 12:21
Posts: 1,285
Threads: 2
Joined: Jun 2009
Thinking more about this what's the rush signing the agreement? We still have NAP until T130, and CFC was not cooperative. MH pointed out very well that we offer a lot for this NAP. Can CFC really attack us meaningfully? Can't we attack the Germans and still protect our eastern flank?
Speaking of Civplayers, they sure ask a lot of questions... We are probably no longer interested in OB with them, anyway.
Kalin
February 19th, 2013, 12:35
Posts: 10,063
Threads: 82
Joined: May 2012
Um I'm surprised no one else noticed it, but their proposed third clauses are very specific about a third party gift only excluded if they are at war with us - id say we want to make sure we're not open to rules lawyering here, and make them be more specific about no gifts to hostile third parties.
Also, I'm not seeing anything to stop hostile third parties using their borders to attack us.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
|
