Relations with CivPlayers

[kjn]

A few screen shots.



The city of Tlaxcala. Note that there is, as far as I can tell, only the one road leading to the city (from the southwest), and no signs of development to the east or north (where there is a plains cow). The city is defended by a single unpromoted warrior, with max fortify.

However, I'm fairly certain that CivPlayers has enough cash for an emergency upgrade to an axe. We are #6 in funds according to APTmod data (ie 5 teams has more gold and 3 has less), and the graphs shows that both the Germans and WPC has less gold stockpiled than we do.




A flying camera shot of the mountains to the north of the lake and BbB. Note that we can send our W1 axe through that pass and unfog a northern route. Maybe not the best from a pure scouting perspective, but I think we will need to assess that route at once - and we could need the unit against CivPlayers too.




The graphical picture of the diplo relations. CivPlayers and the Germans have met, but have no formal relation.

[Ceiliazul]

If they are paying attention, they'll see the same border edges from BbB that we see on their Southern city.

[Sullla]

Here's what I have in mind: let's try to negotiate a deal where... they let us raze their white dot city to place our own city in the initial planned spot. We could offer them a settler and other things like say a spice or gem... We get our dot map, they get a stable border etc. If not I would seriously consider aggression. It is my impression that they would suffer more than us in a war, but a closer look at the situation is needed to fully evaluate if it's worth.

There are never going to agree to this. Would we? "Hey we just showed up on your border, how would you feel about us razing one of your cities? We'll gift you a settler later, it's all cool!" Keep in mind that most of these teams haven't played anywhere near as many Pitboss/PBEM games as people here at RB have done. Elaborate razing/settling agreements that aren't a big deal here could give off a terrible impression with other teams. I think this is a poor way to approach the situation.

Don't get bent out of shape about a hopeful dotmap failing to materialize. As others said, we can always try to run a road to Brick By Brick from the north, or treat it as an island city if all else fails. Do not do anything that gets us into a war with CivPlayers. We emphatically do not want to be fighting anyone right now. We want a smooth buildup to T150, and then a series of easy wars against technologically backwards teams. We do not want a battle against one of the top teams in the game before T100. We want to avoid playing this game in Commodore style. Commodore's games are great fun to read, but there's a reason why he almost never wins in a free-for-all environment. Picking early wars with strong neighbors is simply a losing strategy.

[kalin]

@Sullla: I see what you are saying and I don't disagree. We should tread carefully, but I don't think we should start by offering concessions. You do have a good point about overly complicated agreements, so scratch the suggestion of razing their city. If we want to avoid war at all costs we should work out a border agreement that would include a city 5S of BbB. We should be open about it if that allow us to avoid war which is something we want.

Kalin

[Old Harry]

If they are paying attention, they'll see the same border edges from BbB that we see on their Southern city.

Isn't the peak giving us one further visibility? I'm just imagining it from this pic, so could be wrong:

[Ceiliazul]

Agree with Sullla. No war if a NAP deal (including no settling cramped cities) can be had.

[scooter]

We should tread carefully, but I don't think we should start by offering concessions.

What concessions do you mean here? I don't think I saw any ideas of offering concessions up front.

Generally agreed with Sullla. If we can do this peacefully, we need to. There's too little to be gained from aggression here. Further, swinging around the axe as leverage IS aggression.

[kalin]

We may have to be willing to "pay them off" them to be honest. Not offering it up front, but being willing to do so if things seem sour. Like I said, I don't think they're going to be happy about this at all, especially when BBB looks so exposed like it will.

Scooter you said it well above. Nobody said we should start by offering concessions, I just said it just in case

Also, is BbB that exposed given our ability to reinforce by galley?

Kalin

[scooter]

I'm going to respond to this here, it's getting tricky to have this conversation across 2 threads.

I understand opening with niceties, but we need to get to an agreement quickly, while the axe gives us some kind of leverage. Even 2t is too long, imo.

How about, "Unfortunately, I see we face an immediate puzzle on our combined border, as our dotmaps clash pretty badly. Would you be interested in a quarantine zone along the river for say 20t while we work out a long term plan? No military or settlers move out of either of our culture in this sensitive area. If you accept, our axe will head directly away from your front city."

Here's the thing, aside from a NAP, I'm not sure what deal we need with them here right this second. We obviously need a NAP, but right now we have a show of force in the area and they do not. They'll probably want a NAP. I really don't like the last sentence in particular - that pretty clearly reads like a threat.

I realize that they could stall us and try to attack us in 10T, and we'll have missed a window where we could have started the conflict on our own terms. I think that's a worthwhile risk though, given that we're significantly better off with a NAP.

[waterbat]

scooter, i think your draft is great and can be sent forthwith.

I could be convinced to remove the point about seeing the borders in the fog - it pings on my scumdar.

Further points on the discussion - i see i was about to crosspost the same sentiment that we in no way want a war.

I agree with the sentiment that we should negotiate now before CivPlayers has much knowledge of the situation. For example, if we wanted a border type agrement - how about proposing the river as a nice natural border? When they come back with "we have already settled past the border", we try to establish white dot as the eastern most they would settle.

Old Harry makes a great point and its how i'd be leaning too - get more cities in the area for support tactically as well as to strengthen the legitimacy of our claims on that land.