Posts: 7,658
Threads: 31
Joined: Jun 2011
Reread my post and it isn't really clear, I meant to say that CFC is surely building its post-NAP coalition right now while they're still protected ny the NAP. We should do the same so we're covered as best we can be when our deal ends.
Posts: 4,090
Threads: 28
Joined: Jul 2008
Some possible responses, in outline:
We did considerable sacrifices in order to send them stone as early as they wanted it, but you still settled quite aggressively against two of our cities, at no need. We would like you to respect what we did for you, and reply in kind.
If you cannot provide marble within the mutually agreed upon time-span, then why should we provide stone or spices to you anymore?
If you cannot provide marble in time, then we will have to ask you to give up something else to us.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
Posts: 1,716
Threads: 10
Joined: Oct 2009
Sounds like CFC is trying to weasel its way out of a treaty they set up themselves, and we are the bad guys if we refuse to play ball.
Problem is, they are the underdog and other teams will probably be inclined to believe them.
We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 8,770
Threads: 75
Joined: Apr 2006
Ask them to meet us halfway and loan the Marble in 7 turns. Nothing more mutual than that.
Darrell
Posts: 7,658
Threads: 31
Joined: Jun 2011
They'll be inclined to believe CFC until the first time they've been deceived by their [s]silvery[/] forked tongue. Not that it helps us for now. Other teams may not have been as used as we have been so far (at least we got our NAP), but surely CFC's diplo style has rubbed someone the wrong way by now (aside from us).
Posts: 6,664
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2004
I'm going to be out during the day today, and I'm sure that this thread will get a few dozen responses in that time, judging by the last time we had an email exchange with CFC. Please don't fly off the handle and over react to CFC's diplomatic douchebaggery. We knew that they would act this way, and we know that they'll continue to act this way, but don't do anything to sabotage relations needlessly. We have to focus on the upcoming German war for now, and we'll deal with CFC later.
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2006
(February 19th, 2013, 08:59)Ruff_Hi Wrote: Section 5. Resources and future agreements
5.1. Team Realms Beyond agrees to gift Spices happy resource to Team CivFanatics starting from turn 103 and keep providing it for free for the duration of this pact.
5.2. Team Realms Beyond agrees to gift Stone strategic resource to Team CivFanatics starting from turn 106 and keep providing it for free for the duration of this pact.
5.3 Team Realms Beyond agrees to not get Pyramids and Team CivFanatics agrees to not get Hanging Gardens.
5.4 Both teams agree to offer first dibs to newly acquired/unused resources to the other team at an appropriate price (happy resource for happy resource or for a price of 2 GPT per city count of the team receiving the resource)
Here is the resources portion of our agreement. I couldn't locate the amended version with the Marble (can someone provide a link?). Do we want to push it so that all resource deals are nullified collectively?
I have finally decided to put down some cash and register a website. It is www.ruffhi.com. Now I remain free to move the hosting options without having to change the name of the site.
(October 22nd, 2014, 10:52)Caledorn Wrote: And ruff is officially banned from playing in my games as a reward for ruining my big surprise by posting silly and correct theories in the PB18 tech thread.
Posts: 6,664
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2004
FYI, CFC offered the marble trade AGAIN in-game, which I have again rejected. I left them a message stating that we would respond to them diplomatically. Hope no one is upset with that, it seemed like the team consensus was not to accept this offer due to the transparently false spirit in which it was offered.
Posts: 1,285
Threads: 2
Joined: Jun 2009
Sullla: I for one think you did good to reject.
I think we don't need marble anymore. I would either ask for something else or propose an amendment to our NAP where we don't give them spices and stone and they don't have to give us marble. Don't cancel the NAP, just the resource deals. Maybe we can then offer spices for sugar to CP?
Kalin
Posts: 15,301
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
This is the portion of the agreement.
Marble Addendum Wrote:5.5 Team Civfanatics agrees to give Realms Beyond a 10T loan on marble at some point during the NAP. This can be arranged around CFC's builds to be a 10T window in which they will not be using the marble. RB would like this window to start no earlier than T120 and no later than T150. Both sides will make good-faith effort to be accommodating on the timing of this loan.
Honestly, they're doing nothing wrong whatsoever.
|