Niccolò Machiavelli's Thread

[novice]

Should we move up the other two axes, will it strengthen our negotiating position?

[plako]

They see them so I don't think it makes a difference. If we don't get a deal we'll move them, but moving e.g. towards north might be more beneficial assuming we don't try to attack 2 archers with 3 Axes.

[plako]

Got this joke offer .

Lewwyn: Hey, we would sign peace and gift you the city for 2 settlers and an agreement not to settle further north. Legit offer, not a joke.

I'll counter offer, but say I won't have full mandate from you. Just get some progress in negotiations, despite of their ridiculous offer. I'll agree 2 settlers, but delivery dates T75 and T100 and move the border so that we'll have more in the middle. I'll include also NAP until T100 so that delivery of 2nd settler is "secure" for them.

[plako]

Sent this (directly to Lewwyn from my personal account):

I don't have full mandate from my team, but I'll try to counter offer something that I assume they could approve:

* We gift 2 settlers 1st on T75 and 2nd on T100 (Naturally meaning also NAP until T100)

* Border line that neither of us can settle on top of or over is

- desert gold tile north from Losing and following tiles east from it E-SE-E-E-E and following tiles west W-W-W-W-NW-W-W

I think this would be pretty good deal. If they want 2 settlers, they had to wait. Probably won't accepted though. Border deal is probably too much for them to accept.

Everyone: How much would you be willing to bend from here or is this already too much?

[pling]

If they really aren't happy with the border deal, do we offer them 1 Settler & something more to their tastes border-wise? (Which is hard to do without giving up the marble/copper city :-/)

I don't really have any constructive thoughts - I don't have much of a feel for what's a good deal or not, so I trust your judgement on that.

[DaveV]

Is our game already down the toilet because of their early attack on us? I thought this attempt at a city raze was more about teaching them a lesson than winning the game. If so, I don't see any point in taking any deal that favors them. In other words, I think we should take a very hard line in negotiations.

Edit, after reading the turn reporting thread: killing their two workers will hurt them almost as much as razing the city. We can make their lives miserable with choking and pillaging until they crank out some axemen or chariots. Oh, that's right: they won't be able to build chariots!

[darrelljs]

I'm with Dave, I'd rather take a very hard line in negotiations and make with the war.

Darrell

[plako]

Krill himself. Not looking like we would get a deal. I might have been too agressive. Darell - wanna try with Krill?

me: hi

Krill: Plako...you mind if I cut to hte chase?

me: sure - Like it that way

Krill: That offer is insulting

me: Yours too

Krill: You want us to give you a city now, leaving you at 4 cities, and use at 2.

me: If you fuck our game you certainly isn't gonna get best of it

Krill: fine, if that's how you guys want to play it.

me: I'm always up to negotiate. Don't see any counter offer
And no you're not gonna get best of it

Krill: any deal that sees us giving you a city gives you an immediate benefit
fine then
axes don't fair very well against archers on hills

me: Sure. We won't attack, but city will be useless nevertheless

[darrelljs]

He's not online; in fact since the whole brouhaha with the civfanatics demogame I haven't seen him on that account.

You have to keep something in mind with Krill; he's a borderline sociopath (and I mean that with all respect) . He has zero desire to make friends, and anything he does diplomatically is designed towards getting what he wants. I'm tired of Krill getting away with bullying about as much as I'm tired of rego getting away with manipulating. I say we go full AW.

That said, if people want to try peace, I'm willing to make the effort .

Darrell

[plako]

His active gmail is krill.krill