Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[Fintourist]

Oh, that's a nice proposal. Yeah, let's start planning, but not commit to anything. We want to attack exactly when we feel that we are ready and it will profit us the most. So let's consider at least following in the negotiations:
- T150 will be only a rough estimate for the aggression, let's see how things look in 40 turns
- We won't attack if we someone else is attacking/threating us
- We only attack if Germans look weak enough
- For us it's probably better that both teams attack separatly and the one capturing the city keeps it (by T150 we will have a chance to build catapults by ourself as well)

And let's not become so close friends with WPC that we can still attack them after we have absorbed the German lands...

Of course one possibility is to keep WPC as a friend providing a safe border while we eat CFC or Civplayers.. Too early to say if that would make sense in 80 turns.

I truly trust our micro team that they can create a message where we sound enthustiastic but won't promise anything

[Qgqqqqq]

Wow so theyll build the units that suicide
I think we can afford to secede some of the clnquests, as they're economy will be very weak and they would be a very secure ally.
I think Fin caveats are appropriate, except the if they look weak one, as that reeks of backpedalling.

[Sullla]

The offer from WPC is nice, we certainly want to agree to that while being vague about the specific details. Ideally, we'd see things go down in much the same way that Speaker and I worked with Sleeping Moogle to attack Adlain in Pitboss #4; Moogle sent a lot of units but we ended up getting nearly all the cities (or would have, if the game had lasted longer). A lot can change in 50 turns, so let's be friendly but not overly committed.

I'm much more interested at getting a response back to CivPlayers at this point. Seven's initiative has apparently not worked out, so it's back over to you, scooter. Let's try to get them a message of some kind today. I think that their team had absolutely no idea that we were going to have a trade connection ready so soon; hopefully that's what they meant when they wrote "we see no benefit to opening borders." If we weren't going to allow scouting, and there was no trade route, then indeed OB would be rather pointless. We now have a working trade connection in-game, so let's push on them anew to accept an Open Borders request. It's definitely worth extra income to their team as well. Hopefully they accept, and if not, then we can try to push a connection to CFC soonish.

Time to earn your (non-existent) pay, diplomats.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

This is getting a bit ahead of ourselves, but I'd still rate WPC as our #2 target for acquisition after the Germans, regardless of them being cooperative. I just think they'll be a softer target then either of CivPlayers or CFC. I might be persuaded to feel a little bad about it as we twist the knife in their back.

[scooter]

Alright, I kinda liked ASM's thinking on flipping it back on them, so here's my stab at a new CivPlayers draft. Feedback welcome here - this message is top priority. I'm sure there will be a wide variety of opinions here, so don't hesitate to share yours.

Decebal,

Thanks for your honesty on the issue of Open Borders. Similar to some of your team's skepticism in signing OB, a couple members of my own team are unsure of whether or not your intentions are peaceful. We all hope so, but it's easy for doubt to trickle in. I personally am not too worried that we'll come to agreements, but I would like to try to understand your goals a little better. Do you view us as a realistic trading partner long-term? Do you see any issues that would divide us? I won't be offended by any answer of course, but with some communication I hope I can understand your team's goals and aims a little better.

In case it was not clear, we do not intend to enter your borders upon signing an Open Borders agreement. We would be happy to include a no-scouting clause since you seem to desire one. Our main desire is for both of our teams to get trade routes from Open Borders. We have a trade connection between our teams now, and we would both profit from getting boosted international routes instead of only domestic routes. If you are not interested in profiting from international trade routes that is okay, but I wanted to make sure that was not a source of confusion.

Thanks!
scooter - Team RB

While you discuss, I'll draft up something more official to CFC since we need to alert them to the new city we are settling.

[SleepingMoogle]

The message is good, but it sounds a little too blunt for what it's meant to convey. This part feels like it needs to be toned down a little, or perhaps cut from the message altogether:

'Similar to some of your team's skepticism in signing OB, a couple members of my own team are unsure of whether or not your intentions are peaceful. We all hope so, but it's easy for doubt to trickle in.'


I also would change 'We would be happy to include a no-scouting clause since you seem to desire one.' as it sounds a bit accusatory. How does 'We would be happy to include a no-scouting clause if you prefer this to be part of the agreement.' sound instead?

[Tyrmith]

If we want to stall specifically the division of the German lands we can express our reservations about splitting up land we haven't seen yet.

[kjn]

If we want to stall specifically the division of the German lands we can express our reservations about splitting up land we haven't seen yet.

Stalling 50 turns in advance?

Talk about selling the skin before catching the bear.

[Tyrmith]

I'm talking about the message to WPC. We might want to tell them we're interested, but not commit to dividing up the land this early in the game.

[kalin]

I say we should concentrate on the CivPlayers message for now. I agree with SleepingM in principle that the message is a bit blunt. Unfortunately I am not sure I have a better alternative. Below is my suggestion.

Thanks for your honesty on the issue of Open Borders. In case it was not clear, we are fine with having a no-scouting clause. Our main desire is for both our teams to get international trade routes from Open Borders. If you are still not interested, it is okay but I wanted to make sure that everything was clear.

Similar to some of your team's skepticism in signing OB, some members of my own team are unsure of whether or not your intentions are peaceful. [NAP AND SETTLING AGREEMENT DISCUSSION HERE?] I hope that with some communication we can both understand each other's goals and aims a little better and come to a mutually beneficial agreement.

Scooter, I tried to make your version more concise, and restructured the message to have the OB issue first, then (if we want) add discussion about the NAP etc.

Kalin