Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[Mardoc]

Perhaps add 'no providing scout info to a team at war'.

I don't think I'd worry if CFC takes out WPC. I think we could stay ahead of them if they do that. Same # of cities, but ours are ex-German and theirs are ex-WPC. WPC's land can't be all that well developed, so CFC would have a similar amount of land as us, but later. And with fewer villages/towns to conquer. Look what it's done to our tech rate to absorb Germany - and this is with really well developed territory conquered. At minimum, I can't see them profiting from a WPC war until after T200. And, well, there's no way WPC is an ally of ours anymore.

Count me as one more vote for 'yes, it's worth it even if it frees CFC to go conquering more'.

[scooter]

I'm interested in getting WPC protection in there for reputation reasons.

This is a nice point IMO. If WPC complains to someone about the land split, CFC knows we went to bat for them during the NAP extension negotiation. I kind of want to put it in, and then if CFC haggles us on it, we can consider removing it if we think it's a deal-breaker for CFC.

[darrelljs]

There are numerous reasons to add the WPC clause. As Ellimist states, their reaction will give us insight into their plans. As Seven states, it can help our reputation (or at the least "we couldn't betray our close friends" gives us the pretext to ask for the clause). Looking at Ruff's map, I much prefer they go through UniverseCiv because a) it will potentially increase tensions with CivFr, b) the cost will be much higher (albeit so will the gains), and c) WPC as a buffer state is of value to us.

Darrell

[darrelljs]

Just to be clear, I suggest we put the clause in the initial draft, but I agree we should drop it to get the deal signed. Some people on CFC like to bargain, so putting clauses in that we don't mind dropping won't hurt .

Darrell

[SevenSpirits]

Agree with darrell.

[scooter]

Ok, agreed for sure. We'll put that in the next version of the draft, with the understanding that we'd like to have it in there, but if we need to drop it to get CFC to sign we'll do so.

Other thoughts on the draft?

[kjn]

If one party of this agreement has ius casus belli, then the other party of this agreement may not declare this agreement canceled.

If a third party declares war on one party of the agreement, it is ius casus belli, the other party of the agreement may not cancel this agreement. If a third party conducts a blockade, or causes civic or religious unrest against one party of the agreement, it is also ius casus belli.

[Ceiliazul]

We *must* state that 3rd party actions such as active spy missions are cause for a war dec and do not allow them an out. Otherwise before the ink is dry they'll tell CP and others that its open season to spy bonk us.

if we declare war they have 3 turns to declare the NAP void. Or some other number, I just don't want them to try to finagle some series of actions from 10 turns ago as reason to void the NAP. This way they can't hold a sword over our head while they organize a pile.

[Azoth]

We might want to explicitly state that Open Borders with third parties at war with CFC are allowed even though rights of passage for hostile armies are not. (In the same way that health and happiness resources may be be traded even though strategic resources may not.)

[scooter]

We *must* state that 3rd party actions such as active spy missions are cause for a war dec and do not allow them an out. Otherwise before the ink is dry they'll tell CP and others that its open season to spy bonk us.

First, I'm not sure how to put that in a way that they'll accept. Besides, it's not like they can't do that now.

Second, we're waiting on Apolyton to send a formal proposal, but Apolyton expressed interested in us with CivPlayers mutually banning missions like that. So I'm doubtful that'll actually happen.