Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[dazedroyalty]

Wolfratshausen gets replaced one tile north, Wanzleben replaced two tiles south. The new city has sheep, cows, iron, can borrow the dry rice if needed, and should still be able to hold cultural control over the stone (it's second ring for the new city and third ring for Apolyton's city of Bursa). It becomes a middling production city, nothing great, but a solid and defensible location. The hills/peaks region to the northwest becomes the natural border with Apolyton.

We shouldn't cede any territory away to anyone in diplomacy if we can avoid it.

Stone looks like it would be third ring to me (i.e. NW-NW) if we resettle 2 S. I still support that location, tho.

[Sullla]

Good point, this is why I shouldn't try to eyeball a map that's heavily drawn upon. Here's a better screenshot:

[kjn]

Razing and re-settling Wanzleben is fine by me as well - my main concern about the city was that it's aggressive against Apolyton and very hard to defend, but 2S avoids that.

We will have to see how Apolyton acts when we declare on the Germans.

[fluffyflyingpig]

Man, we are way too soft on CFC. We need to take a harder stance at some point.

[NobleHelium]

Sure, razing and resettling 2S sounds good. We don't need a third stone resource.

[Ceiliazul]

Man, we are way too soft on CFC. We need to take a harder stance at some point.

Agree. They are out top rival at this point... it's ok to buddy up to them, but if they aren't reciprocating that's stupid.

[Shoot the Moon]

Man, we are way too soft on CFC. We need to take a harder stance at some point.

No, we really don't. There is no benefit to us that can provide that is greater than having a safe border while we take over the weakling(s) to our north.

[Tyrmith]

Man, we are way too soft on CFC. We need to take a harder stance at some point.

No, we really don't. There is no benefit to us that can provide that is greater than having a safe border while we take over the weakling(s) to our north.

This.

[scooter]

Man, we are way too soft on CFC. We need to take a harder stance at some point.

If someone can demonstrate:

1) What exactly "take a harder stance" means
2) How it helps us win the game

I'd be a lot more open to it.

[Ellimist]

Man, we are way too soft on CFC. We need to take a harder stance at some point.

If someone can demonstrate:

1) What exactly "take a harder stance" means
2) How it helps us win the game

I'd be a lot more open to it.

1) It means we quit ignoring their deliberate provocations and we start dealing honestly with them. They don't respect us because our messages to their team so far have told them not to. Pretending not to see what they very intentionally put in front of us does not benefit us at all. They want to do this diplomatic dance with us and we are completely ignoring their movements. That's not going to give us what we want at any sort of price we'd be willing to pay. Instead we're acting oblivious to their signals and desperate as well.

2) It helps us win the game in the same way that diplomacy will ever help us win the game, but the route we've taken so far with this team has delivered pretty lousy results in return. Maybe those results were unavoidable, but they have done a number of unfortunate things that we could have potentially avoided if we weren't telling them to walk all over us with every message we send them. If we want to make any sort of diplomatic deals with them in the future, or if we'd like them to adhere to the ones they already did, we need to be willing to play their game.

The vibe that our team is sending to CFC is a mix between insecurity and dishonesty/obliviousness. (The only time I can think when we would actually want to send that impression is if we actually were planning an imminent attack on them, which we aren't.)

BGN and others say it better than I do, but we aren't gaining anything at all by continuing to send them nicey nice messages in response to deliberate provocations.