|
Are you, in fact, a pregnant lady who lives in the apartment next door to Superdeath's parents? - Commodore |
|
Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves
|
|
Yes, we want to notify them as soon as possible, but not so soon that they can do anything about it.
Civilization IV: 21 (Bismarck of Mali), 29 (Mao Zedong of Babylon), 38 (Isabella of China), 45 (Victoria of Sumeria), PB12 (Darius of Sumeria), 56 (Hammurabi of Sumeria), PB16 (Bismarck of Mali), 78 (Augustus of Byzantium), PB56 (Willem of China)
Hearthstone: ArenaDrafts Profile No longer playing Hearthstone. 
It depends on whether we land Brick-by-Brick or not. That will be determined on T90 the earliest.
If we land Brick-by-Brick we will likely go for red dot and that should only merit a 1-2t notification, IF we are 100% sure they are not in a position to invalidate red dot. If we lose Brick-by-Brick we want pink dot to at least get the stones. Then we are likely affronting them anyway, so a notification will mean nothing. mh
"You have been struck down!" - Tales of Dwarf Fortress
--- "moby_harmless seeks thee not. It is thou, thou, that madly seekest him!"
I really don't see why we would risk a good relationship with CFC over an Oasis and a stone. If we settle the red then we ensure they don't get the corn or the fish and those are the important resources. Why would we give up a working relationship just to antagonize them over our "better dotmap"? We're already making their city a turd by cutting off the big food resources. Why is it necessary to pink dot?
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”
The proposed pink dot in CFC's direction is just a bad idea. You want a safe border and some sort of friend, and CFC is perfectly lined up to be that for us. If you want to pink dot someone, better be sure it's someone you don't mind antagonizing. The downsides outweigh the benefits, for sure.
WPC never responded to my last email to them a few weeks ago, so let's just send a quick chase-up and see how they respond. It's likely we'll want to extend our NAP with them, though I'd sort of like to hold off until we get something locked down with CFC. Short and sweet draft:
Draft to WPC Wrote:Tatu/WPC,
Perhaps add thanks about how quick they play their turns?
Completed: RB Demogame - Gillette, PBEM46, Pitboss 13, Pitboss 18, Pitboss 30, Pitboss 31, Pitboss 38, Pitboss 42, Pitboss 46, Pitboss 52 (Pindicator's game), Pitboss 57
In progress: Rimworld
Move "Any big news?" Seems kinda extraneous tacked onto the end, so can you put it after the "How is the war going for your team?"
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.” (January 7th, 2013, 09:44)Lewwyn Wrote: I really don't see why we would risk a good relationship with CFC over an Oasis and a stone. If we settle the red then we ensure they don't get the corn or the fish and those are the important resources. Why would we give up a working relationship just to antagonize them over our "better dotmap"? We're already making their city a turd by cutting off the big food resources. Why is it necessary to pink dot? (January 7th, 2013, 09:56)scooter Wrote: The proposed pink dot in CFC's direction is just a bad idea. You want a safe border and some sort of friend, and CFC is perfectly lined up to be that for us. If you want to pink dot someone, better be sure it's someone you don't mind antagonizing. The downsides outweigh the benefits, for sure. kjn's proposed pink dot is not a "Pink Dot" Apo Demo game style. At least not in my book. The current proposed spot 1S of the oasis, labelled pink dot is in the middle between CFc and us and valid by our mutual border agreement. Red dot is even less pinkish and antagonizing. When Caledorn (?) mentioned where CFC intended to place their oasis city, most of those spots he listed would have their BFC extend the mutual border. If the feeling is that red dot is already pushing things with CFC and creating friction, then Focal Point is as far as it gets towards CFC. And that would be ridiculous. My opinion is that pink dot is only on the table if we fail to land Brick-by-Brick. If Brick-by-Brick is settled as intended I advocate red dot, which is entirely feasible by the border agreement and not aggressive towards CFC. They can always put a wine city at the coast that challenges the fish as well. mh
"You have been struck down!" - Tales of Dwarf Fortress
--- "moby_harmless seeks thee not. It is thou, thou, that madly seekest him!" |
. I'm not sure how tuned-in they are right now given how infrequently they log in. Any big news? 
