Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Oh hell yeah.

Hope it has everything to do with close borders.

How should we wrangle this with CFC? Some variation of: the attack is doomed to fail, glad the two of us have a NAP!

[NobleHelium]

Just sit tight and watch. We can say good luck or whatever, but I see no reason to say anything of substance. And why ask for a NAP after war has been declared on a third party if we didn't ask for one before? That makes no sense.

[fluffyflyingpig]

Can we pile on the Germans to improve the turn timer situation? Organize a dogpile maybe?

[kalin]

A bit late but... woo hoo!

EDIT: I like a lot Seven's suggestion to stay neutral. Say good luck as other people also said and leave it there. I am rather indifferent to a NAP with WPC, but wouldn't mind having one. Since we have little intention on declaring on them and we only stand to lose if they do declare on us, then having a NAP cannot hurt.

Kalin

[antisocialmunky]

Just sit tight and watch. We can say good luck or whatever, but I see no reason to say anything of substance. And why ask for a NAP after war has been declared on a third party if we didn't ask for one before? That makes no sense.

Maybe just stay neutral but encourage the other teams to attack the people holding up the turn timer would be the optimal strategy.

That's like taking sides without taking sides because its meta.

[Bigger]

I disagree with all this underhanded scheming.

We don't need to do anything to turn this to our advantage. It's already great. There is no need for us to betray either of these guys in any way, no matter how small. Just wish them both good luck and try to get them to tell us what's going on as much as possible.

The one possible bad outcome to avoid here is that they sign a peace treaty and then one or both come after us. So let's make sure we have short-term NAPs with both teams. Easy enough to set up if we don't have them; offer them 20t of guaranteed peace as a gesture of non-interference with their war.

agree fully

Just sit tight and watch. We can say good luck or whatever, but I see no reason to say anything of substance. And why ask for a NAP after war has been declared on a third party if we didn't ask for one before? That makes no sense.

on advantage: if WPC is confident they don't have to worry about us joining the war on the Germans side, they are less likely to accept a premature peace. I think the longer this war drags on, regardless of the results, the better for us .

[SevenSpirits]

Just sit tight and watch. We can say good luck or whatever, but I see no reason to say anything of substance. And why ask for a NAP after war has been declared on a third party if we didn't ask for one before? That makes no sense.

Well, I personally would have gone for one before.

Doing it now has the additional advantages of:
* Seeming more like we are doing them a favor.
* Not seeming like we are weak.
* Seeming more like a temporary thing due to the war, and not a standard peacetime thing that should continue. I recall the main opposition towards signing a NAP with them was we might want to attack them, and not renewing a NAP would warn them of the attack.
* Making WPC less likely to want peace with the germans.
* Being more necessary: we were obviously not their best target (making a NAP less useful), but the war they started could easily prompt stronger negotiation efforts from the german team. Peace deals could make us the best remaining target.

[Bigger]

Just sit tight and watch. We can say good luck or whatever, but I see no reason to say anything of substance. And why ask for a NAP after war has been declared on a third party if we didn't ask for one before? That makes no sense.

Well, I personally would have gone for one before.

Doing it now has the additional advantages of:
* Seeming more like we are doing them a favor.
* Not seeming like we are weak.
* Seeming more like a temporary thing due to the war, and not a standard peacetime thing that should continue. I recall the main opposition towards signing a NAP with them was we might want to attack them, and not renewing a NAP would warn them of the attack.
* Making WPC less likely to want peace with the germans.
* Being more necessary: we were obviously not their best target (making a NAP less useful), but the war they started could easily prompt stronger negotiation efforts from the german team. Peace deals could make us the best remaining target.

+1

additionally there is the possibility of it being a convenient excuse to stay out of the war without losing diplomatic points should the Germans try to draw us into the war.

[Lord Parkin]

Received from WePlayCiv:

Greetings to team Realms Beyond.

We are pleased about our Open Borders agreement.
Our citizens are happy that they can freely go and experience you country.
Those left home also are enjoying the numerous souvenirs that our travelers bring from far away lands.

In this mindset we desire for greater stability between our people.

We propose a Non Aggression Pact starting from the moment of signing the deal up to turn 100 for starters.
The Non Aggression Pact would end at the start of turn 100 unless we continue it before reaching that point.

Do you agree with these terms?

Looking forward to prosperous relationships between our nations.

Best regards,
Tatu
Foreign Minister of WPC

[Lord Parkin]

Received from CivFanatics:

Hi Scooter / RB,

Full open borders is OK with us. We have proposed open borders in game.