September 6th, 2012, 22:26
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
NAP now and try to out grow them but don't come over sounding too amiable on the email. Be neutral, I would say do a short back and forth with role playing (so you don't appear super serious or long winded since we've seen that doesn't do well) and then sign it. Don't mention anything about 2T warrior or give out unneeded info because it shows our insecurity if we bring up something instead of letting them bring it up.
I think it will lead to a more interesting game if we be friends anyway. We might even get to see Sommer hang himself and have them asking for help.
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
September 6th, 2012, 22:30
Posts: 12,335
Threads: 46
Joined: Jan 2011
antisocialmunky Wrote:I think it will lead to a more interesting game if we be friends anyway. We might even get to see Sommer hang himself and have them asking for help.
See, I agree with this. We're so worried about CFC forming and controlling a big alliance against us. Why not create a big alliance with them instead and perform the ultimate backstab later on? I'd rather be on the inside than the out. Maybe we should just say: "T100 NAP you got it!"
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”
September 6th, 2012, 22:41
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
t100 NAP is not great. First of all we haven't defined "NAP", secondly we haven't discussed a settling agreement yet and don't even know where or how close they are.
Experience shows that hastily-signed long NAPs can end up making the parties enemies instead of friends. Better is to sign shorter NAPs so that there is the possibility of punishment in case one party does underhanded stuff. Deterrence -> no underhanded crap -> good relationship.
We should say, we prefer shorter NAP initially until borders/definition of NAP are figured out and so there is time for solid trust to develop, but respect that you might be worried about war chariots. And offer them an immediate NAP to turn <100 but long enough they should feel safe from chariots.
September 6th, 2012, 22:54
Posts: 3,916
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2011
Ruff_Hi Wrote:quick response (draft, not sent yet) ...
Caledorn and I know each other. We are currently playing a pbem game (+1 other human) together and locked in a 'to the death' modern war.
He is the one that played a full round of the pbem using the admin password to see if he could trash an army of mine. That is bad, but I think he is fairly young (mid 20s - sorry to all others here in their mid 20s - :D) - he did offer to resign from the game - an offer I turned down, preferring to play on.
That said - all of his diplo in the other game can be trusted. He is thoughtful in his diplo and doesn't snap to judgement like some other CFC players. I would consider him a good (from out put of view) CFC diplo guy.
Finally, he is located in Sweden, Norway, Belgium or some country at GMT-1 so if we settle on something now he will see it in his morning.
Calanthian, not Caledorn. Caledorn is the dude with the pig avatar.
September 6th, 2012, 22:55
Posts: 1,075
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2010
I agree talking about the 2 turn warrior wouldn't help us much I think. For all they know it might be bluster trying to cover a weakness that's there one chance to kill a major threat.
I don't think RP is a good idea though- if they had initiated with it, it'd be one thing, but see no reason not to be what we are (and what they already know we are), a logical, no no-sense team that'll respect them if they respect us, and I just don't see how RP would be a better option than that.
Quote:t100 NAP is not great. First of all we haven't defined "NAP", secondly we haven't discussed a settling agreement yet and don't even know where or how close they are.
So propose a short one with the stated intention for both sides to sign a longer one as we figure out reasonable borders. As Sullla said, we need that NAP now, not after going through however many days/weeks of negotiations.
We know map dimensions correct? Can we deduce from that and the direction of the warrior where they might be?
September 6th, 2012, 22:55
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2006
Nicolae Carpathia Wrote:Calanthian, not Caledorn. Caledorn is the dude with the pig avatar. oh ... oops.
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.
September 6th, 2012, 23:02
Posts: 1,075
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2010
I'd also add a sentence about how we're excited to see them, and then send the draft we have so we have a quick response to them imo.
September 6th, 2012, 23:27
Posts: 6,660
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2004
I also hate long NAPs, but we are not exactly in a great negotiating position here. I would personally be fine with a Turn 100 NAP. That's what, 70 more turns? We're probably far enough apart that we won't see too much tension before T100. Just make sure that both sides agree not to rush a settler right up to the other's borders and it should be fine.
Again, there will be plenty of time to fool around with negotiations later. Right now, we want to get an NAP in place before they have time to move up and scout our capital. We can't afford to waste time doing 3-4 exchanges of emails. Speed is a priority.
September 7th, 2012, 00:15
Posts: 3,916
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2011
Hmm, can we bring our Xenu back towards the capital, and delay the road up to MM for a turn (delaying the corn by 2 turns  ), so our workers aren't exposed outside our borders?
Better to delay our growth slightly, not take any harsh risks, and end up in a better diplomatic position. Better to not have them see it as license to pink dot us and end both our games in medieval warfare. We can catch up in growth later.
Besides, no plan survives contact with the enemy 
September 7th, 2012, 00:40
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
Nicolae Carpathia Wrote:Hmm, can we bring our Xenu back towards the capital, and delay the road up to MM for a turn (delaying the corn by 2 turns ), so our workers aren't exposed outside our borders?
Better to delay our growth slightly, not take any harsh risks, and end up in a better diplomatic position. Better to not have them see it as license to pink dot us and end both our games in medieval warfare. We can catch up in growth later.
Besides, no plan survives contact with the enemy
That would be pretty silly. Especially as they've already offered a NAP.
|
