We don't even need to just refuse, just point to worrying about CFC and CivPlayers and say that at this point in time we don't think it'd be wise to avoid with those two civs making us nervious and then kick the can to some indeterminate later point in time.
|
Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves
|
|
Well, not CFC. We aren't worried about them at all
 What you're saying is that we should do a polite refusal and distract them with stories of Civplayers (the scary blazing MP guys) acting aggressive towards us.
Sending a missionary is OK in my book.
As for their other proposals, just say we have a long-running NAP with WPC, and that we still have plenty of room to expand, so currently see no value in war. As for the happiness resources, I think we can offer them happiness for GPT 
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
(March 12th, 2013, 02:40)kjn Wrote: Sending a missionary is OK in my book. Sending a missionary should take a bit of the sting out of refusing to trade happiness resources for health ones and to commit to an alliance. That, and preventing the germans from converting to Buddhism would be an added bonus.
We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
(March 11th, 2013, 22:44)Sullla Wrote: 3) There is little benefit to us and potentially a great deal of harm from concocting some sort of fake alliance plan with the Germans. I would strongly advise not going down this route. Personally on the attack plan we should be writing something like, "we are not ready for war right now. Currently we have a lot of work to do on our land and our breakeven research rate is quite low. Adding new cities at the moment would not work." It says nothing untrue, yet it is not giving our position away either.
Travelling on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.
 (March 12th, 2013, 06:31)Brian Shanahan Wrote: Personally on the attack plan we should be writing something like, "we are not ready for war right now. Currently we have a lot of work to do on our land and our breakeven research rate is quite low. Adding new cities at the moment would not work." Sounds like WHEOOHRN to me... (March 12th, 2013, 07:28)nabaxo Wrote:(March 12th, 2013, 06:31)Brian Shanahan Wrote: Personally on the attack plan we should be writing something like, "we are not ready for war right now. Currently we have a lot of work to do on our land and our breakeven research rate is quite low. Adding new cities at the moment would not work." Well I'm trying to say "we're not really ready for war, here's why: XXXXX". But my language needs to be fixed up.
Travelling on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.
March 12th, 2013, 09:08
(This post was last modified: March 12th, 2013, 09:08 by antisocialmunky.)
 (March 12th, 2013, 08:52)Brian Shanahan Wrote:(March 12th, 2013, 07:28)nabaxo Wrote:(March 12th, 2013, 06:31)Brian Shanahan Wrote: Personally on the attack plan we should be writing something like, "we are not ready for war right now. Currently we have a lot of work to do on our land and our breakeven research rate is quite low. Adding new cities at the moment would not work." You could be honest say something like "We feel like your civilization wouldn't be on the winning side of any war unless you work on your expansion and economy. Here are some missionaries to help you do that. Maybe we can talk about it in 50 turns?  "
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." “I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
Two drafts to consider:
Draft to Apolyton Wrote:Apolyton, Not much to discuss in that one. If there are objections speak up, otherwise I'll send it pretty soon. Here's this too: Draft to German Team Wrote:CivForum.de, Fire away on this one. |
