Alright. So my thought last night is to call them on this a bit - be willing to walk away from the OB agreement. Maybe we benefit more than them today, but is that really true once we get full routes with CFC? I'm not so sure it is. That could be a way of convincing them. Out of principle, I don't think we want to be paying them for this. We don't NEED their routes. Let's call their bluff - I bet they accept anyways once they see we don't care about them enough to pay them for the routes.
(FWIW, I do think what they want is a War Chariot or two. That wouldn't even necessarily be a bad trade. We could always use such a trade as a way of insisting they sign a longer NAP - we can't go giving them a couple military units only for them to use them on us. Just something to keep in mind here.)
Their strategy is actually pretty transparent here after that message. We are the #1 team to them. They want a deal with us, but because they are behind us, they want to make sure they benefit more than us. However, they have no real idea what is fair to ask, so they're trying to get us to make the first offer of concessions - then they can bargain off that. I actually think that's a pretty sane strategy by them. Let's not get taken by it.
I think an approach vaguely like this is best:
1) Tell them we don't want to pay for them because we are about to pick up routes from other civs too. We estimate that we won't benefit any more than they will. In fact, we're willing to pass on OB if paying for them is required. They can feel free to make a concrete offer, but until then, we'll have to pass.
2) Revive the border arrangement idea.
(February 6th, 2013, 09:44)scooter Wrote: 1) Tell them we don't want to pay for them because we are about to pick up routes from other civs too. We estimate that we won't benefit any more than they will. In fact, we're willing to pass on OB if paying for them is required. They can feel free to make a concrete offer, but until then, we'll have to pass.
2) Revive the border arrangement idea.
I couldn't agree more... with the whole message scooter! I am all for giving them a unit or two, but we need: longer NAP and settling agreement. OB is nice, but not a must have imo.
Basically, I think they want to play the bargaining game, so we may just have to roll with that. I could definitely see the conversation playing out like this:
RB: Sorry, I don't think we need to pay for OB because <insert a few reasons>. If you want to offer something concrete we'll consider, but we're generally opposed to paying for OB - besides you'll have to wait very long for a tank :P. At the very least, how about we agree on Border Provision X?
CivPlayers: Okay fine we want 2 War Chariots. <avoids answering about border agreement>
RB: We're willing to give you the 2 WCs for the Open Borders, but it also must come with a NAP through T140 <explain reason on using them against us> and Border Provision X. <indicate this is our best offer>
CivPlayers. Deal.
Could be wrong, but something vaguely like that is what I imagine they're trying to do right now.
Alright, first draft. Let's get cracking on this. I'll have thoughts/questions below:
Draft to CivPlayers Wrote:Decebal,
First, I agree that Right of Passage is an issue that can be separately discussed. I'm going to assume in our conversation that Open Borders is strictly for routes, and we can deal with Right of Passage later if we want.
Our players have estimated that we will actually not benefit any more than you will. The reason for this is we are about to connect a route with a couple other teams too, so a lot of our routes will be taken up by other teams. Yes, we would certainly profit a little extra from routes to some of your bigger cities, but a lot of our routes will come from other teams too. This means our position is that we would rather not pay for trade routes to you. Besides, you will have to wait quite a long time for that tank . If you have a concrete, reasonable suggestion I am always willing to listen, but we don't think paying a large amount of hammers for routes is really necessary right now when we can just get them elsewhere.
I don't want to totally shut things down though, so how about we consider a simple border agreement? I think we have a well-defined border between us, and I'd like it if we could keep it that way. I would propose that neither of us settle any more cities between our borders. There are a few dead tiles between us, but they would be very weak cities, and it would only strain our relationship. I think it's best we both just maintain this border and settle elsewhere. Are you interested in agreeing to this?
Thanks,
scooter - Team RB
1) Slipping in "a large amount of hammers" into the end of the first paragraph is meant to be a subtle invitation for them to offer something concrete if they still won't do straight-up. Like I said - trying to setup to maybe "concede" 1-2 chariots in exchange for the other things we want. If you don't like the way this is done, I'm open to wording it differently
2) Let me know if the general language slipped into being too formal/wordy/BS-y again. I tried to avoid it, but there was just more to say here.
3) I'm not sure about the wording on the border agreement in the second paragraph. I just kinda dislike it. If somebody has a more concise way of putting that, I'm all ears.
Do we want to say we are already getting trade routes from couple of other teams and are in process of getting from more teams? Also, if we can reasonably estimate that they are not getting any routes at this time, we can call that.
Regarding border agreement, don't we want to settle a city in the North West of Brick by Brick? How does that affect this deal?
I like the message; I have no complaints about the content. Minor comment: You're missing a comma between "suggestion" and "I."
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
(February 6th, 2013, 11:25)scooter Wrote: Alright, first draft. Let's get cracking on this. I'll have thoughts/questions below:
Draft to CivPlayers Wrote:Decebal,
First, I agree that Right of Passage is an issue that can be separately discussed. I'm going to assume in our conversation that Open Borders is strictly for routes, and we can deal with Right of Passage later if we want.
Our players have estimated that we will actually not benefit any more than you will because we are about to connect trade routes with a couple other teams. a lot of our routes will be taken up by other teams. Yes, we would certainly profit a little extra from routes to some of your bigger cities, but a lot of our routes will come from other teams too. This means our position is that we would rather not pay for trade routes to you. Besides, you will have to wait quite a long time for that tank . If you have a concrete, reasonable suggestion I am always willing to listen, but we don't think paying a large amount of hammers for routes is really necessary right now when we can just get them elsewhere.
I don't want to totally shut things down though, so how about we consider a simple border agreement? I think we have a well-defined border between us, and I'd like it if we could keep it that way. I would propose that neither of us settle any more cities between our borders. There are a few dead tiles between us, but they would be very weak cities, and it would only strain our relationship. I think it's best we both just maintain this border and settle elsewhere. Are you interested in agreeing to this?
Thanks,
scooter - Team RB
1) Slipping in "a large amount of hammers" into the end of the first paragraph is meant to be a subtle invitation for them to offer something concrete if they still won't do straight-up. Like I said - trying to setup to maybe "concede" 1-2 chariots in exchange for the other things we want. If you don't like the way this is done, I'm open to wording it differently
2) Let me know if the general language slipped into being too formal/wordy/BS-y again. I tried to avoid it, but there was just more to say here.
3) I'm not sure about the wording on the border agreement in the second paragraph. I just kinda dislike it. If somebody has a more concise way of putting that, I'm all ears.
A couple of edits in the trade routes paragraph. I feel like the first draft says the same things twice, and contradicts the position we're trying to hold that open borders benefits both teams roughly equally. The border agreement paragraph is a bit awkward, but I'm not sure how to reword it. Overall, I like the sentiment, but I'd favour being a tad more direct given who we're dealing with. I doubt we'll be able to sneak anything past these guys by using flowery language, unlike say WPC.
I'm concerned that ot4e is about to miss the turn. Were civplayers waiting for our response before making moves? That could imply hostile intentions. I think its more likely they just didn't realize Germans and wpc made peace and shortened the timer. 48 hours with no logins is odd.
--
Best dating advice on RB: When you can't hide your unit, go in fast and hard. -- Sullla
