Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[Gold Ergo Sum]

Wouldn't that be absolutely ideal for us? Those teams would sit around and burn units and waste time conquering with shit units, while we draft a monster army and take the spoils against their ragtag remains?

[Yell0w]

I agree with SevenSpirits.
I think we should send them a message back clarifying that we agree with them on proxy-wars and that they can move their missionary through our territory if they want.

[Sullla]

Clarifying that we want to resign Open Borders and no proxy wars: yes.

Telling CivPlayers they can freely move missionaries through our territory: no.

There's no reason to suggest such a thing, and it could easily backfire later. Let's not be silly.

[Ceiliazul]

Can (did?) we offer in-game map trades with people this turn? Maybe before we start the Lib fireworks?

At least WPC and Spain, also CivFr would be peachy. On CivFr's diplo we can chat that our map includes updated maps of CFC for extra incentive...

[Yell0w]

Clarifying that we want to resign Open Borders and no proxy wars: yes.

Telling CivPlayers they can freely move missionaries through our territory: no.

There's no reason to suggest such a thing, and it could easily backfire later. Let's not be silly.

[...] It sure seems likely that the missionary is headed for the german city. It's possible they were planning to move through our territory, like we moved through theirs, in order to get there faster via roads and de-jungled tiles. From their message I take it that they aren't going to do that now, though. (And in any case, I think we'd actually be OK with them moving through there this one time, sort of as compensation for us breaking the agreement earlier.)

We should clearly re-open borders with them.

Edit: My personal preference would be to send a quick message back to civplayers saying they can send the missionary north through our lands if they like, as a kind gesture and to lessen their ability to hold our own minor breaches against us later.

That sounds like reason. We actually moved through their territory. Though as I understand you took every measure to ensure they don't see this. Still would be a gesture, if a little + from CivPlayers is worth them seeing this part of the map.

[SevenSpirits]

Telling CivPlayers they can freely move missionaries through our territory: no.

No one suggested this.

[Tyrmith]

I think we should send them a message back clarifying that we agree with them on proxy-wars and that they can move their missionary through our territory if they want.

Is what Sullla was referring to I think.

[SevenSpirits]

I think we should send them a message back clarifying that we agree with them on proxy-wars and that they can move their missionary through our territory if they want.

Is what Sullla was referring to I think.

That's a quote out of context. Yellow was referring specifically to letting that one missionary through on a specific path.

[Bigger]

I think we should send them a message back clarifying that we agree with them on proxy-wars and that they can move their missionary through our territory if they want.

Is what Sullla was referring to I think.

That's a quote out of context. Yellow was referring specifically to letting that one missionary through on a specific path.

which is what Sulla was objecting too. Don't you think you're splitting hairs and being a bit argumentative?

[NobleHelium]

No, Sulla was objecting to allowing CivPlayers free reign to move missionaries through our territory. That's why he said "can backfire later." There would not be a "later" if it applies only to one missionary.