Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[Shoot the Moon]

They've clearly done some reading in our threads (at least I don't think the term pink dot is widely used outside of RB). Not saying that is good or bad -- we would almost certainly do the same thing in their situation -- but something worth keeping in mind.

I generally like the message they are proposing as well. Getting a settling agreement with them could be nice, especially seeing as the direction we are promising not to settle aggressively just happens to be the one we've explored the least. Right now if there were to be a settling race between us they would probably be at a large advantage based on map knowledge, so I see no reason not to take them up on the offer (and there's also no reason to be antagonistic this early as that accomplishes nothing but slowing both of us down).

[novice]

That seems like a pretty ideal response from CFC.

[mostly_harmless]

Hold you horses on a settling agreement until we know more of the map. At least wait until we know where horses and copper are located.
I think there is no harm in admitting that we have not scouted all the way to that oasis.
Also, who is to settle near the oasis to grab it (provided its a valid city spot)?

mh

[kjn]

The dreaded settlement plan!

I wouldn't put too much weight of them using the pink dot term. Sirian and Sullla has used it for a long time, and they're two of the most influential and widely read Civ players. We've also run several SGs over there, even if the last one was quite some time ago. I'm going to assume that almost every team has knowledge of Sullla's Apolyton and PB2 write-ups.

I agree with m_h on that a general settling agreement now would be poor. They'd have an advantage right now based on superior map data, while we hopefully can make up for that advantage thanks to faster expansion.

Put another way: a general settling agreement changes the dynamic of the game away from the Civ empire growth and management model, and towards a diplomacy-based game. Settlement races is a very valid part of Civ - just as much as wonder races or the Liberalism race.

I'm open to discussing specific city placements, but I think they should be on a city-by-city basis and come with clear time limits. If you aren't expanding fast enough to claim a spot, then sucks to be you.

[Azza]

I think we should agree in principal to the idea of the settling agreement, but we don't want to get locked into an agreement based on very limited map knowledge. I get the feeling that the proposal is because they specifically don't want to be pinkdotted by us, rather than trying to take advantage of us, but we definitely need more info before agreeing to anything concrete.

[kjn]

The real answer to a pink dot threat is to expand faster. I made a tentative schematic map over the area between CFC and us:



Ie, any cities approaching the oasis will likely be in the second ring of cities. We have four or five quite valid and strong city locations in our first ring, and that should keep us occupied for quite some time. Assuming ten turns between each city settlement, we will be busy with our first ring up to T75 or so.

The Apolyton demo game pink dot was only made possible by the confluence of several factors:

1. RB got crappy land with poor availability of resources in their starting area
   
2. RB managed to gain superlative scouting and map info
   
3. The Templars played a wholly passive game
   

If they are decent at C&D, they should already know that (1) isn't true. They can probably already work out that they are the ones with better map knowledge of the area between us. And even if we had plans for a pink dot, it is only possible against a passive and non-expanding opponent!

[Ruff_Hi]

I also acknowledged receipt of the email ...

Team CFC,

Your email has been copied to our discussion thread and is under review / consideration.

Ruff (acknowledgement bot for Team RB)

[Ruff_Hi]

screenshot with signs ...

The Oasis line also lines up with those 3 mountains (a natural barrier) but note that the 3 mountains would eat into 'our' land allocation.

[Sullla]

That is very good news. It was important to get their response before they moved this turn and saw an empty capital. No, they couldn't have walked into it unopposed, but best to have them on record with an NAP before temptation struck.

While I also hate the whole border agreement stuff, this is relatively palatable. For now, I would say three things:

1) We agree that both teams won't try to "Pink Dot" the other. No really aggressive early game settlements.

2) We are generally amenable to a border agreement, however...

3) We haven't scouted in CFC's direction (true since we haven't scouted in any direction!) and want to explore a bit more before making any final decisions.

Since I have been told that I am terrible at this diplomacy thing, I'll let someone else try to draw up draft messages.

[Ruff_Hi]

It would seem that CFC and RB are playing a similar game (expansion at home). As such, I think that we can agree not to 'pink dot' each other. I am not adverse to a border agreement based on the knowledge given.

However, the part I don't like is ...

The bottom line in our suggestion is that we talk openly with one another about settling in each others direction.

If we say 'yes' to the border agreement, then we need to talk to them about settling MM. I think that we should push back and request a modification to this ...

counter-offer: we talk openly with one another about settling a city that will have the oasis-column in its BFC.

That way, we can settle without discussion / mentioning anywhere West of the spice column.

Now, other factors:

• do we put a turn limit on the agreement?
  
• do we just take their oasis equi-distance comment at face value?
  
• or do we say that this agreement is subject to the accuracy of their revealed info?