Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[kjn]

Also, CivPlayers are up to 84 EP with us now. We have 28 on them (7t). They've lowered the tempo (was 74 last turn, with a +14 increase) to +10 per turn, but they're still outspending us significantly.

So we have the following issues with them right now:

• They have researched a tech with high military but zero economic significance
  
• They are spending a majority of their EP on us, even after getting graphs and research visibility
  
• They are demanding concessions from us from an OB treaty for trade routes only
  
• They are stalling on border discussions

One or two of them might be no cause for worry, but all of them together?

I'm not particularly worried about our core, but I am worried about Brick by Brick, and losing that city would be a pretty severe blow. The stone won't be that big a loss (though denying it to CivPlayers is good), but the horses would be quite bad, and it'd mean that we'd have to spend far more on military to protect Horse Feathers and Gourmet Menu.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

Blank

[darrelljs]

I guess we can't keep up with their EPs due to their UB? I like GES's draft, and I think mentioning HBR is important because its a hard data point that we aren't going to be caught unawares.

Darrell

[Ceiliazul]

I suggest we send CivP's a diplo response like this:

Dear CivP:

Given your distinct lack of willingness to work with us as equal partners, your recent discovery of HBR, and your whipping spree, our team is beginning to think you have hostile intentions.

We strongly suggest that if you do a check of current soldier counts before committing to war. if you are looking for a target, you would do well to turn your attentions elsewhere.

If we are drawing the wrong conclusions, please let us know... we really do want to be friends. We are still open to a medium-term NAP and mutual trade routes.

Sincerely,
RB

Got rid of "check our high population", we don't want to draw attention to how much we're winning by. Also added the last paragraph as an alternative path.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

It is pretty obvious we are winning. I think we should press that we could whip half our pop and still be equal to their numbers.

Also, if we are going to mention an NAP at all, it should basically say "We remind you we have an NAP until T120 at the earliest as well. Any attempt to break this, and we will be sure that the rest of the world finds out about your lack of trustworthiness."

[novice]

Does it make sense that they would sign a NAP to t120 with us if they're planning war? Do they need that long to prepare? (Honest question).

Since they teched HBR before meeting us isn't it more likely they're preparing to attack someone else? Didn't they mention having close border issues with their other neighbours?

Let's try to figure out if they have other targets without burning all bridges in the process.

[scooter]

Man, you guys are breathing fire . Best response here will be firm and slightly cold, but we're not burning bridges here.

Let me try to draft something now.

[Ceiliazul]

There has never been a bridge to burn between us, they have downright ignored or thrown back in our face every topic except the first initial NAP. As for t120, that sounds like just enough time to get a couple of elephants in each city.

Their EP spending (which they are modulating but contnue to focus on us, is as clear an indication of their target as their diplo has been.

[scooter]

How about this:

Decebal,

I understand that you're trying to get yourself the best deal possible, but we would rather use two workers to complete the road to our other neighbor who will give us the routes for free starting next turn. All of our other neighbors are willing to sign OB at no cost, actually. We would still like trade routes with you because it would still be financially beneficial, but it's not significant enough of a gain to us to be worth giving up two workers. If you insist on payment, then we are going to decline Open Borders.

Please do let me know what you decide on the border agreement. We're still interested in making that arrangement so we can avoid unnecessary tensions.

Thanks,
scooter - Team RB

[scooter]

There has never been a bridge to burn between us, they have downright ignored or thrown back in our face every topic except the first initial NAP. As for t120, that sounds like just enough time to get a couple of elephants in each city.

Their EP spending (which they are modulating but contnue to focus on us, is as clear an indication of their target as their diplo has been.

Probably. But what we cannot afford is to be insulting. If they would like to take us down a peg, that's one thing. However, Person A that makes a rational decision that they would like to take the leader down a peg is still a person that can be convinced otherwise (or will change their actions when the situations changes). Person B who is insulted by a condescending leader and is more interested in hurting them and/or "getting revenge" is much more dangerous and damaging.

(examples of "Person B" is littered throughout MP games here that have allowed any sort of diplo. PB7 had several variations of this and is probably the most applicable example.)

If they're going to be a problem for us, we'd prefer they be A and not B. I can work with A and play damage control. If we push them into being B, we just have to brace ourselves and expect the worst.