Drafts for both of those sometime today is my goal. Well, CivPlayers isn't such a big rush. Even if meeting them is only a turn away, that's 2 full days of RL time. Also, I don't want to send a message the absolute second we meet them. That'll make it obvious that we knew they were there and purposely did not meet them. It's almost better in that case to wait at least 12 hours or so.
|
Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves
|
|
I agree with waiting a bit. Just wanted to mention this in case somebody wants to develop some kind of evil masterplans that confuse Civplayers already with the first post..
In the case of CivPlayers, I can actually think a border agreement could be useful to us (unlike the utterly bogus border agreement we have with CFC). They already have a presence in the area and our cities there claim very important resources but are hard for us to reinforce.
That said, we need to get more or less the entire eastern shore of the river, which might be a tall order to get without a real show of force. Especially if we are to be able to get a connection by the northern jungle instead of only the south.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
Alrighty, any thoughts on this?
Draft to WPC Wrote:Tatu, Agree that a border agreement may actually be useful with CivPlayers. The first couple messages we get from them will be pretty crucial to parse correctly when determining their feelings. I'll probably push to try to chat with them a couple times - they're going to need much more careful attention than usual. 
not entirely certain this line is the best one
Quote:[...]so we would really like to get this extension done sooner than later so we can continue in peace. at least not the latter part ... sooner or later is fine, but stating that we would like it to continue our own game (which completely demolish everyone else) might be a bit much Otherwise it looks fien
(I'll wait for any other input that may come on that message)
For those interested in diplo proceedings who are not following the Dotmap thread, I suggest you pop into there and read the last 48 hours or so of discussion going on over there. It pertains pretty seriously to our strategy on the CFC border. (January 23rd, 2013, 09:59)scooter Wrote: Our agreement currently only has about 10T left in it, so we would really like to get this extension done sooner than later so we can continue in peace. What do you guys think about an extension until T140? That should be a nice long window of peace for both of us. Let me know what you think - I'm definitely open to different suggestions. Very good as usual scooter. I'd tone down the message about NAP extension. After all, it's in both our interests to have a NAP. Here's a suggestion: Quote:Our agreement currently only has about 10T left in it. We would like to extend it. so what do you guys think about an extension until T140? That should be a nice long window of peace for both of us. Let me know what you think - I'm definitely open to different suggestions. With CivPlayers, I would wait and see. It's too hard to predict imo at the moment. I am also not sure we want a border agreement. Kalin
January 23rd, 2013, 11:16
(This post was last modified: January 23rd, 2013, 11:18 by Ceiliazul.)
The part Sian quoted stuck out to me as well. I first read "we" as RB. I think that whole bit can be omited:
"...only has about 10t left on it. What do you guys think about an extension to t140?" Love the part about the timer. Perhaps that could be the 2nd paragraph, and you could insert something after our request about t140 being enough time to resolve the german conflict?
With Civplayers I would not commit to a border agreement until Brick-by-Brick has popped 2nd ring borders and we have scouted further south west of Wine City.
I thought the initial WPC message was just fine. Kalin's correction sounds slightly better. mh
"You have been struck down!" - Tales of Dwarf Fortress
--- "moby_harmless seeks thee not. It is thou, thou, that madly seekest him!" |
