(February 18th, 2013, 15:13)scooter Wrote: On the completely minuscule chance that they seriously risked an international incident to speed up the Great Wall by a whole turn and they win it on a coin flip... I think none of us will be too sad to have to settle for failgold.
I agree with the minuscule odds. But aren't we exactly the team that tries to take all the different angles into account? I'm sure there was no enormous harm in posting my worries. Anyways, with the new message from CFC this is more or less all past so let's focus to bigger questions.
PS. Great work with diplo! I hope you did not interpret this discussion at all as critique.
Oh, I was not trying to sound irritated or anything, sorry if it came across that way! I'm all for examining all possibilities. I was just explaining why that doesn't bother me too much.
I've poked Caledorn on chat, haven't heard back from him yet. I'll keep you all posted of course.
Yeah, I don't really care about the GWall insofar as it denies an espionage economy to as many teams as possible. So T105 stone in return for a more favourable deal. That stupid city is the dealbreaker, culture bombs are also bad, offensive EP missions also bad.
Hell, I'd be tempted to say that we're going for the GWall, just to let them know that the EP part of the agreement is in their favour.
I'm happy to leave the NAP until T175 - asking for even more NAP makes us look too desperate. However, it's important that in return for a T105 stone gift that they move that city to 1SE of the rice or further back. And we should add no culture bombs or espionage mission clauses.
CFC Chat Wrote:Caledorn hey! scooter: hey! ok, I have feedback for you Caledorn great scooter: we're largely in agreement with you. i wanted to clarify 2 things first
1) I'm assuming that accepting this and guaranteeing you the stone no later than T106 means you would not settle that location that is very close to our cities, correct? Caledorn yes
if you provide us with the stone there is no reason why we should settle on that suboptimal location to get it ourselves scooter: ok great! thought so, I just thought I would be extra sure Caledorn that's understandable scooter: 2) when we say NAP, can we safely assume this means nothing aggressive at all, rather than simply no war? By that I mean - harmful spy missions or something like a border culture bomb by either of us would be an issue if we understand the NAP correctly
just clarifying that we're both assuming things like that would be off the table Caledorn we would actually like to follow up on discussing the details of the nap with you to make sure that we are on the same page with the NAP
my team has been looking at making a more formal treaty agreement that we can both agree to in that regards, so both our teams can feel that our interests are safe from one another
to answer your question though, yes - we would like the NAP to mean the same scooter: great. yeah, we don't want to be a pain, but I know a lot of people have different interpretations of what would constitute a "NAP Violation" Caledorn yeah, we feel the same way about that, so we thought having something formal to refer to would be in both our interests to avoid any tensions at all scooter: ok that's good! yeah, we would consider harmful spy stuff, cultlure bombs, gifting military to an enemy, etc. stuff like that would not be right for either of us to do
ok cool. are you guys drafting up something more formal along that line or should we do that? Caledorn this is not binding in any way, and may not be in our suggestion for such a treaty, and I have no idea what you guys think about it .. but how would you feel about exchanging wonder plans as well as those things mentioned too, to avoid tensions with wonder building? scooter: that might be a good idea actually. of course I can't commit to that now, but it's something I can bring to my team as an idea Caledorn great
we're already working on a draft, so I will have it ready for you as soon as we're done working on it scooter: I can't promise how they'll feel either way, but I think it's definitely worth considering
ok great
ok, so I do have one more proposal for you guys to consider
and obviously I don't expect you to have an answer right away Caledorn for now any of the mentioned things you have said like no espionage etc can be considered binding (for both of us) until we have agreed to a formal treaty - does that sound okay with you and can you bind your team to that? scooter: yes, agreed. we can definitely consider that portion locked in, and we can take our time on some of the finer points. sounds like we want the same thing. Caledorn great scooter: so, on the stone gift. T106 is of course a given. T105 will be pretty painful if we give it up then and we would generally prefer not to do it. however, we would be willing to guarantee it on T105 if we can get two things: 1) have the NAP run through T200 rather than T175, just to notch up the commitment length and 2) if you'll settle your border city SE of the rice, which would be a very reasonable border city in our opinion.
also, no pressure whatsoever on this. like I said, we are pretty happy with the terms of your last message. this is just a proposal we thought would be worth considering. and I'm guessing you'll have to take it to your team to talk about Caledorn I definitely have to talk to the team about 1)
2) I need to check what the settling location is, as it may be that spot we have in mind
if it is, then no problem .. if it isn't then I have to take it to the team obviously scooter: we were guessing you would either settle 1S of the rice or 1SE, as those are probably the best two spots. this is kind of a way to indicate our preference for SE. but if you do choose to settle 1S of the rice, we can work with that.
We then agreed we'll pop back on for a follow-up chat in a few - he's going to check on their planned settling location.
IMO, if we can get them to even agree to 1 of the 2 provisions, I think we give them T105 stone. But I of course would not admit that to them unless they reject one of the 2 provisions.
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.
Chat with CFC Wrote:scooter: Ok I'm back Caledorn: great it looks as if the spot we intend to settle is 1S of the rice
I hope that's not going to be a big problem. it's clearly within our hemisphere scooter: Ok - to be honest, it's a spot we can live with and we won't complain if you choose to settle it as it's very within your right. However, if we're going to adjust our plans and make a couple sacrifices to get the stone to you on T105 instead of T106, we would definitely ask for you guys to flex it back to SE of the rice.
so if you want to discuss that option with your team that's great. and if it's just not an option, we'll understand.
and we would of course still be good with all other facets of the agreement Caledorn: great
I will mention it to the team and we will discuss it of course scooter: fair enough, and thanks! Caledorn: I'll get back to you within a day I expect on this it shouldn't be a long discussion
we need to get that city settled soon, and it will be either 1S or 1SE of the rice, as those were our preferred locations scooter: ok, sounds great
So in short - they planned to settle 1S of the rice. They will discuss our proposal for getting stone to them on T105. I'm hopeful they'll take this deal.
(I'll lump all of these into one update in the diplo tracker thread soon)
Sigh, CFC is so annoying. WTH do they gain from 1S of the rice? It's quite an aggressive stance... They'd control the desert hill and be able to double-move TS.
(February 18th, 2013, 18:13)kalin Wrote: Sigh, CFC is so annoying. WTH do they gain from 1S of the rice? It's quite an aggressive stance... They'd control the desert hill and be able to double-move TS.
Kalin
you asked a question with one sentence, then answered it with the second.
Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.
