Thanks for the input. Adapted a few things into it and sent - final copy in the tracker thread.
|
Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves
|
|
December 23rd, 2012, 02:59
(This post was last modified: December 23rd, 2012, 10:33 by mostly_harmless.)
Proposed message to CFC:
"Hi, we have a scout unit approaching your border from the direction of the oasis. Can you please tell us whether there are any barbs in the way?" mh
"You have been struck down!" - Tales of Dwarf Fortress
--- "moby_harmless seeks thee not. It is thou, thou, that madly seekest him!"
With the Tree Hugger axe providing cover for the Spear, there is no need for us to ask the Germans for right of passage, is there?
mh
"You have been struck down!" - Tales of Dwarf Fortress
--- "moby_harmless seeks thee not. It is thou, thou, that madly seekest him!"
FYI - I'm out of town currently and will be for the next 60 hours or so. If a message comes in that requires a quick answer, somebody else will have to do it. I'm not expecting anything like that given the general slowness of everybody, but I thought the heads-up would be good.
While we're twiddling our thumbs here yet again, do we want to send off another round of messages to the other teams? Obviously there's nothing much going on right now in terms of hard diplomacy, but talking with the other teams is almost always a net positive. It's been a few weeks since we sent anything (and since we received anything). Time for some more friendly "how are things going" messages?
Our first NAP runs out on T100 - with CFC. What do you think about pushing for a longer NAP with them? I figure of all places we could be aggressive, it likely will not be with them given our distance from them and their lack of settling in our direction. They've been particularly bad at responding in a timely manner lately, and I'm hoping something more concrete like that may help. Thoughts on NAP length?
For reference - our German NAP is til T150, and our WPC NAP is through T100. I'd like to get in a round of extensions, but I'd also like to stagger them a bit. Perhaps CFC extension through T125. We could try to lock that down and then decide what to do with WPC.
A 25-30 turn additional NAP with CFC sounds good. But no more than 40, I think (ie up to T140).
We should probably formally tie in some more clauses to the NAP treaty, eg about EP spending. I'm a little unsure about the settlement agreements. The one we have right now is a little loosely worded, and while I doubt they can beat us to taking Alemanni, they can treat that city and the rice-cow cities as breaking our existing agreement. On the other hand, I'd rather have them get the cities as fait accompli.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
That's going to have to be part of it. Our current settling agreement is a bit vague. If I could be given maybe two settling breakdowns, I could use that to work it into the deal. They would be: 1) What we would like and 2) What we're willing to settle for to avoid making them unhappy. (it's possible those could be the same)
|
