Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[SevenSpirits]

Let's accept the NAP and also politely ask them (like, using those words) to not move closer to our borders.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Problem is, if we start negotiating now, it might drag on long enough for them to move their Warrior W-NW and see our empty capital and cottages. We need a NAP in place before they can do that, because a choke to weaken a neighbor would become very appealing at that point.

Yep, that's the point I've been trying to make.

Options:

1) Accept that T100 NAP, keep to the micro plan.

Consequences: Invalidates our primary advantage as Egypt: cheap 2-move axes. Ties our hands. Makes us vulnerable to a Pink Dot, considering the imbalance of scouting information.

2) Negotiate a more reasonable NAP.

Consequences: They interpret it as a threat. They use the time to move closer, notice our vulnerability, try to choke us.

Ways to ameliorate this: alter micro plan to get a quick warrior (before or after settler?). Move Xenu back home to help cover our capital and set up a 2v1, possibly leaving our workers vulnerable outside our borders.

[Shoot the Moon]

Consequences: Invalidates our primary advantage as Egypt: cheap 2-move axes.

The problem with your argument is that that was never the primary advantage of Egypt. The starting techs were the main advantage (as our opening has proven) with the WC being a nice add-on but one we do not need to be set on using. On a map with this high of maintenance costs, we really don't want to be attacking anyone early on, or to be attacked either.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

If we didn't want the option of War Chariots as a diplomatic leverage, we'd have taken France or Sumeria. But we took Egypt for WCs and the excellent starting techs.

[kjn]

The main advantage of Egypt over the other Agri-Wheel civs was the WCs, true, but we saw them as a military deterrent and powerful scouting units, not as a tool for early offensive wars.

[SevenSpirits]

Nicolae, you've been playing too many no diplo games.

[DaveV]

I vote with those that say "take the NAP with no provisions." They are in position to cause us a lot of grief. We should probably spell out our understanding of NAP: no moves that would cause war to be declared?

And I'd love it if we mentioned that at least one of our players wanted to declare war on them for their misuse of affect/effect :mad:.

[nabaxo]

I vote take the NAP. We need it and we're in a better position to take advantage of a long NAP.

[DaveV]

Team CFC:

Greetings and well met!

We, too, would like to put behind us any pre-game unpleasantness between our teams. At least one of our team members wanted to declare game-long vendetta against you for your misuse of affect/effect, but cooler heads prevailed (as we hope they always will).

We accept your offer of a NAP until turn 100 (which we take to mean the NAP expires at the beginning of turn 100). The term "NAP" is thrown around a lot in these games but rarely defined. For now, we will assume the narrowest definition: no actions which would cause war to be declared in-game (i.e., attacking units or violating borders).

With respect to borders: most of our members who have replied think it's too early in the game for such discussions, but we are always open to negotiations.

[zakalwe]

Take the NAP, with no provisions. They proposed it, so accepting it "as is" is by definition the most friendly thing we could do. And friends are good; plenty of time to make enemies later.

After accepting the NAP, ask them nicely if they are willing to stay a tile away from our borders, as an additional trust building exercise. "It would be nice if we don't have to worry about covering our worker." (Note singular, for misdirection.)