February 16th, 2013, 23:58
Posts: 13,214
Threads: 25
Joined: Oct 2010
I'm not really thrilled that you basically interpreted their offer as a gift of spices and stone and accepted it, even if that's what we're willing to accept. Since that wasn't even their original offer - they wanted a gift of stone and a spice for wine trade.
February 17th, 2013, 00:04
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
(February 16th, 2013, 23:58)NobleHelium Wrote: I'm not really thrilled that you basically interpreted their offer as a gift of spices and stone and accepted it, even if that's what we're willing to accept. Since that wasn't even their original offer - they wanted a gift of stone and a spice for wine trade.
They wanted something more in return for the wines.
If you know what I mean.
February 17th, 2013, 00:08
(This post was last modified: February 17th, 2013, 00:08 by NobleHelium.)
Posts: 13,214
Threads: 25
Joined: Oct 2010
Okay, I reread it and you're right. Earlier I misinterpreted scooter's followup statement as modifying the message to mean that the spices would be a gift for the wine. That's actually an audacious request, to ask for spices and offer wine...but have the wine be a separate trade. I would be offended by that under normal circumstances.
February 17th, 2013, 00:32
Posts: 886
Threads: 4
Joined: Feb 2006
(February 17th, 2013, 00:08)NobleHelium Wrote: Okay, I reread it and you're right. Earlier I misinterpreted scooter's followup statement as modifying the message to mean that the spices would be a gift for the wine. That's actually an audacious request, to ask for spices and offer wine...but have the wine be a separate trade. I would be offended by that under normal circumstances.
Yes.
They want stone+spice for free.
They offer a NAP to T175 and first offer on any surplus resource trades. Wine is the first of their surplus resources.
Frankly this IS a rather audacious and blatantly one-sided request. The ONLY reason we should be considering the offer is if we think we will have the game effectively won by T175. If not we should have a longer NAP.
Also we should confirm the NAP does NOT include ROP for hostile troops and close all the other fun NAP loopholes.
February 17th, 2013, 03:47
Posts: 4,090
Threads: 28
Joined: Jul 2008
(February 16th, 2013, 23:18)scooter Wrote: Ok, draft to WPC. Here's their original message for reference:
Just one comment: we need to include a bail-out clause for both of us, if we get involved into another war before T150 (like them with CFC or we with CivPlayers).
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
February 17th, 2013, 04:12
Posts: 4,090
Threads: 28
Joined: Jul 2008
As for the dealings with CFC, I think they're demanding too much given how slowly they expanded towards us, and that they've failed to miss that we've hooked up wines ourselves already.
I think something like this outline could work:
We will send them stone as soon as we have a surplus source available. We can connect the stone T111 (if I get the micro correct), if they help to road it first (we might be able to speed it up to T109, if we send the missionary to Starfall), otherwise T113.
They will demand a spice resource from us, which we will continue to send them for the duration of this deal (T175). (The demand since that locks them into a 10t peace with us.)
They will send us their first happy resource that we lack for the duration . (They get +1 happy earlier from wines this way anyway. But I'm certainly willing to accept their first surplus happy. And if they manage to hook a high-value happy, like silver or fur, then we can switch to sending them gems instead, but don't tell them that yet.)
They will provide us with marble for 10t, if they manage to connect the resource, at a time of our choosing but with a reasonable beforehand warning (say 3t).
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
February 17th, 2013, 04:32
Posts: 13,563
Threads: 49
Joined: Oct 2009
Kjn, I think we'd rather be less confrontational and get a neighbour that's locked into peace and likes us to boot. The "marble at the time of our choosing" is probably a dealbreaker.
(February 17th, 2013, 04:12)kjn Wrote: (The demand since that locks them into a 10t peace with us.)
Feels like I'm debunking this every day - that only works vs. AIs.
I have to run.
February 17th, 2013, 04:38
Posts: 13,214
Threads: 25
Joined: Oct 2010
(February 17th, 2013, 04:32)novice Wrote: Feels like I'm debunking this every day - that only works vs. AIs.
Screenshots or it didn't happen. 
February 17th, 2013, 06:32
Posts: 1,716
Threads: 10
Joined: Oct 2009
We could offer to send a missionary (the one that no longer needs to spread religion in the Covenant) to Starfall immediately to speed up the border expansion and get the second Stone resource hooked up a little faster? It probably won't speed it up for a turn or two, but it may make CFC more receptive to letting us keep our Stone and/or take it as a sign we're willing to work to make the deal work. It also has the hidden benefit of making our cultural borders stronger against the city they're going to plant.
We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
February 17th, 2013, 06:57
Posts: 4,090
Threads: 28
Joined: Jul 2008
(February 17th, 2013, 06:32)SleepingMoogle Wrote: We could offer to send a missionary (the one that no longer needs to spread religion in the Covenant) to Starfall immediately to speed up the border expansion and get the second Stone resource hooked up a little faster? It probably won't speed it up for a turn or two, but it may make CFC more receptive to letting us keep our Stone and/or take it as a sign we're willing to work to make the deal work. It also has the hidden benefit of making our cultural borders stronger against the city they're going to plant.
Not until we know if we got a spread in Seven Tribes.
CFC's failure to expand does not constitute an emergency for us.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
|
