Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[NobleHelium]

Pink dot is a much better spot that red. If we plant red we are going to have a dead zone in the middle of our empire.

[Lewwyn]

Pink dot is a much better spot that red. If we plant red we are going to have a dead zone in the middle of our empire.

This is ridiculous. You would rather risk turning a friend (or at the very least a noncombatant) into an enemy over a dotmap. It is not like we're wasting any good tiles. Nothing that is really going to hurt us or make virtually any difference at all.

[NobleHelium]

CFC is not our friend. I have not decided whether I think pink dot is worth the risk or not yet. However, I do think that their claim on the oasis is bullshit and pure diplomatic manipulation, because they are clearly not in a position to settle it anytime soon like they claimed.

If they had not made their bullshit claim, would you likewise be afraid to plant pink dot?

[Lewwyn]

CFC is not our friend. I have not decided whether I think pink dot is worth the risk or not yet. I do think that their claim on the oasis is bullshit and pure diplomatic manipulation, because they are clearly not in a position to settle it anytime soon like they claimed.

But why alienate them at all when it doesn't matter? Its not worth the risk because not even important. As long as we get the corn and the fish that's all that's really important because those are the important resources. We'll have our own source of stone and the oasis is just an okay tile in the desert. Their city will be shitty ours will be great. And we get to be magnanimous.

[NobleHelium]

I edited my post.

[Lewwyn]

If they had not made their bullshit claim, would you likewise be afraid to plant pink dot?

But they did make the claim. If they said nothing then it would be fine. But they did and it really is not unreasonable given how close their capital is to the site. it is obviously in the middle of these areas. We signed a NAP with them. We WANT the NAP, and we want it to continue. The value of that greatly outweighs the value of pleasing dotmap.

[waterbat]

agreed that their claim on the area is BS given that they told us they were settling it and have not done so for 20 turns. I think we would do better calling them out on that fact as a negotiation tactic than just decided it is invalid and settling there.

Here's how it should go:

RB: hey, we noticed that you havent settled the site you indicated some 20 turns ago and are a little concerned your diplomatic exchanges were only meant to delay us from considering settling in that area which can be claimed by either your civ or ours - it is equidistant from our capitols, after all.

CFC: <insert some BS excuse as to why they couldnt settle>

RB: that sounds reasonable, thanks for the explanation. our agreement states "no settling past the oasis" and we will be honoring that agreement by settling that area in the next few turns.

when they ask us for specifics, we tell them we are settling 1S of the oasis.

they obviously did us a small wrong by telling us they were going to settle and then not following up. I think we can use that wrong to get that settlement site. As part of the diplo we can even offer them a gift of stone.

[Lewwyn]

Let me just point out one last thing here. You can't make this decision in a vacuum. The opponents are people and their reactions have to be considered when making this decision.

[Azoth]

Lurker chiming in here.

It seems that Pink Dot would be a better fit for the dotmap,
but Red Dot would be an acceptable compromise for the sake of peace.
In that case, it makes sense to (re)negotiate for Pink Dot, and take Red Dot at the first sign of serious resistance.

I'd send a message to CFC, roughly as follows:
Hello, CFC. (Exchange pleasantries.) Let's talk settlement agreement.
You haven't settled your Oasis city yet. You must have found a better site elsewhere.
Some of our members are interested in the area. It avoids a dead zone in our empire.
We've agreed not to settle there. But we wonder if, as a favour between friends, you'd let us settle 1S of the Oasis.
We'd be happy to gift you Stone in exchange. (Maybe by Turn X?) And then the desert between us could be a natural border.
If you're up for it, let us know. If not, I guess we'll look elsewhere.

Practically speaking, CFC will want to settle the Grassland Pig, the Grassland river Cow, and the Wine/Rice/Horses region
before the Oasis city. Not to mention any number of cities in other directions. So they might just concede the spot.
Otherwise, it's a chance to demonstrate that RB honours its agreements by retreating to Red Dot.

Obviously, I wouldn't send the message until Brick by Brick is settled, because otherwise there might not be a choice
BUT to settle Pink Dot. But after that, I don't see the harm in trying.

EDIT: So what Waterbat said, but nicer.

[waterbat]

yeah NICER is good - but i wouldnt be saying "we;ve agreed not to settle there" because we didn't do such a thing. Also I wouldnt be asking them permission (as in "you'd let us") to do anything. Tell them what we plan to do (pink) and that verify it isn't against our agreement.

The key there Azoth is that pink isnt breaking any agreement. We did indicate that we would let them settle nearby 20 turns ago - but we were given the indication that they were about to settle it.

Lewwyn is correct - I expect there reaction to the above would be to enter negotiations. this is where the stone comes in or renegotiation of the settlement line. or hell! maybe we decide we back off and LET THEM settle where they want and we go for the red site. In this way, it is they owe us the favor. We pardoned their obvious delay diplo BS. We let them settle their original site.

But Instead of entering negotiations, they might just be hacked off


Anyway - in no way am i advocating just settling the pink dot - but i do think we should take advantage of their diplomacy fumble. - perhaps we get pink dot out of it, perhaps not.