Diplo with Gilllette

[zakalwe]

New thread, since the clock is off...

Hi again,

To elaborate, a city 1E of ivory is the only way we can dotmap the south without blocking out valuable seafood. The tile 2E of ivory is a peak, and 2E 1S would leave the seafood unreachable. So we cannot really budge on that. Consider that there is lots of good land in the north, including a marble resource right outside our borders. We're not claiming any of that land.

From our point of view, what you're asking is essentially that we halt any and all expansion in your direction, while allowing you to peacefully settle another 3-4 new cities all along the borders of our existing cities. So we really don't feel that we're being unreasonable.

This is pretty hardball, and just clarifies our stance and doesn't actually offer anything new at all. It's the right stance to take if we think they're just fishing for bonus concessions. But if we fear that they might not be bluffing, we could leave the door open for further concessions with a third paragraph. (I.e. we grab something in the north instead, or some other kind of concession.) Or maybe just offer some token concession, for their pride. A fast worker on the turn that we settle the ivory city, for example.

Bad news. M3 and Gillette have NAP. I think we need to offer a concession like a fast worker to get that spot:

me: hi

hitanykey: Heya.

me: any news?

hitanykey: Typing on phone so may be slow.
News on what?

me: ok. np. I'm probably equally slow from my keyboard
Just about anything. Gongrats on GLH btw.

hitanykey: Thx. Oh just realized I didn't send the email I drafted up.
Gillette okayed a nap between us until T100.

me: ok - we're still having discussions

edit. Aargh clock is again on wrong time. My message is now way back there. This was my new version of the message. Not gonna rush playing this turn:

To elaborate, a city 1E of ivory is the only way we can dotmap the south without blocking out valuable seafood. The tile 2E of ivory is a peak, and 2E 1S would leave the seafood unreachable. So we cannot really budge on that. Consider that there is lots of good land in the north, including a marble resource right outside our borders. We're not claiming any of that land.

However since our primary goal is to maintain peaceful relationship we're ready to come forward. What would be enough to make the positioning acceptable. We could e.g. gift fast worker when we settle the city in question.

I like the 1st part not so much 2nd. 2nd argumentation is hard to justify, when we consider where the fair border would be.

The fair border would be further west in the north. Besides, the point is that we've already settled up to the border, while they haven't.

Anyway, perhaps a better strategy is to "counter-offer" something even more unpalatable in the north.

[zakalwe]

How about this:

To elaborate, a city 1E of ivory is the only way we can dotmap the south without blocking out valuable seafood. The tile 2E of ivory is a peak, and 2E 1S would leave the seafood unreachable. So we cannot really budge on that. Consider that there is lots of good land in the north, including a marble resource right outside our borders. We're not claiming any of that land.

We feel like we're already stretching quite far by allowing you to peacefully settle 3-4 future cities all along the borders of our existing cities. Still, we recognize the mutual benefit in a diplomatic agreement, so we don't have to rush our settlers out. What would it take for you to accept our ivory city? We could perhaps gift you a fast worker when we settle the city, to sweeten the deal?

[novice]

Why would we offer them a worker?

We gain little from the deal as suggested by Gillette. If we're not getting the ivory spot we don't need a NAP + border deal at all, we can just settle the spots we're being offered, no way can Gillette beat us to those. If Gillette wants to rattle sabres, let them. We'd rather they rattle sabres than coins.

Simply put, the ivory spot is the price Gillette needs to pay for being allowed to settle the rest of their border uncontested.

[zakalwe]

You're right, Novice, let's not be swayed by Plako the dove here.

Back to my original hardball message then?

Hi again,

To elaborate, a city 1E of ivory is the only way we can dotmap the south without blocking out valuable seafood. The tile 2E of ivory is a peak, and 2E 1S would leave the seafood unreachable. So we cannot really budge on that. Consider that there is lots of good land in the north, including a marble resource right outside our borders. We're not claiming any of that land.

From our point of view, what you're asking is essentially that we halt any and all expansion in your direction, while allowing you to peacefully settle another 3-4 new cities all along the borders of our existing cities. So we really don't feel that we're being unreasonable.

[plako]

Alright. Anyone else willing to say their opinion? I'll send Zakalwe's message soon unless my approach gets support.

[plako]

Message sent as is.

[plako]

It seems you've better read of the situation than I.

As a gesture of goodwill I have already moved our scouting warrior south west. We hope to quickly conclude these negotiations and sign the NAP.

Thanks for finding that map. Please accept my apologies, as I'd got the wrong end of the stick about the original settlement agreement. Having counted tiles between our capitals I see that the map divides the land evenly between us.

As you say you've already settled up to this boundary, so we can see why you think it would be reasonable for you to expand further. But we had understood that both teams wanted to push borders against the other teams so this boundary wouldn't be a big issue and we could come back and fill it in at our leisure. I'm sure you see our point here as well.

With things as they are I don't think we are in a position to say no to your Ivory city, but as you are CRE you're going to have the better of the border. I think that we can fit the hill 1w of our desired position into our dotmap, but with your cultural advantage that could cause us trouble. If you want to say that the land to the north with the marble is ours (provided we beat M3 to it - which is not guarenteed) it may take us longer than t105 to get our border secure.

So to cut to the chase:
- We'd like a NAP to t115 instead of t105
- Can you assure us you won't be building any extra culture (artists/wonders - libraries are obviously not a problem) during that time in your border cities?

T115 should be ok. Had to discuss with M3 before that and they can settle marble although it will be a challenge for them to settle behind the lakes.

[novice]

That's great!

Seems like a good deal to me, if we can get M3's approval. We need to find a good way to reassure them with regards to culture, though. We can promise not to push culture in the ivory city. As for not building any cultural wonders in our gold city...

So maybe something like:
We promise not to push culture in the ivory city, and we might even give them some head start in the culture race there, depending on when they're planning to settle their city. As for not building any wonders in our other two cities until t115, that's not really something we can promise.

[zakalwe]

Yeah, great news. The only delicate matter is the pyramids.

How about:

Hi, we're on board with a NAP until EOT115. We promise to not deliberately push culture in any of our border cities. I.e. no artists, theaters, etc. We don't want to tie our hands in terms of wonder building for such a long time span, but we do promise not to build wonders just for the sake of culture.

So to recap:
- NAP until EOT115.
- We settle 1E of the ivory, and 5N of our copper mine.
- You settle 2W 1S of the ivory, 2W 1N of the deer, and 4W 1S of our copper mine.
- You also settle the marble area in the north and the rest of the peninsula in the southwest. (We're flexible here. Just stay 4+ tiles away from our cities, and it's fine.)
- No deliberate culture pushes.

If this looks good to you, we have a deal.

Do we want to get technical about turn order? Having the NAP end at the end of our turn isn't ideal.

[zakalwe]

Edited the above slightly, with some more details.

Also, thanks for another nice report, Pling.