Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[Ellimist]

CFC's team is like our team, they don't just make play decisions or send messages without deliberation and discussion.

Their message is a test to see what they can still get away with. For what end-purpose did they send it? I don't know. Are they planning something else underhanded? I don't know. Are they just trying to assess the damage from their violation of the agreement? I don't know.

They're looking for information from us on what our next move is going to be. The last thing we want to do is reassure them that their diplomatic actions had no consequences. They do not show any courtesy or respect toward us, and they don't show any fear either because of our NAPmongering and letting them get away with stuff earlier. I'm not criticizing those earlier decisions, but that's how they've responded to them.

Let's not say anything we'd regret, or that would give them any indication of our next action. Use nonverbal signals and very few words. I'm not saying that we need to pick up the diplomatic chessboard and toss it across the room because we got outplayed. But let's play this next move as if that is an option.

Signalling weakness will only invite more trouble later. We want to avoid being either whiny or a punching bag.

[Ellimist]

Elimist, i think we are pretty similar in our thinking. Just differ on how best to send that message

Agreed.

The difficulty is that their message can't really be taken seriously. Almost any response we send will set us back further.

Do we accept their stated words or ignore/forgive? Do we explain for them what they did wrong or demand compensation? Do we threaten them or tell them the deal is off? None of these is going to lead us toward somewhere we want to go.

We need to reject their message itself and "force them to make an offer we can't refuse," as BGN put it.


We currently have a NAP with them that they will feel free to violate as soon as it no longer appeals to them. Why would they? They have no incentive to do so other than future dealings with us.

If you seek peace, prepare for war.

[pindicator]

I wonder if CFC considers their marble obligation fulfilled now that they offered the gift..

[spacetyrantxenu]

I wonder if CFC considers their marble obligation fulfilled now that they offered the gift..

If they do then we'll consider it fulfilled when we help ourselves to an additional source of a similar resource. Like stone from that ill-advised city they built up on our eastern border.

No, because it wasn't offered at a mutually agreed upon time. Even their retarded lawyer can't miss that one, although he might try.

[fluffyflyingpig]

Why do we think CFC is friendly or there are bridges to burn? Outside of the lopsided NAP we had to pay for, what am I missing?

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

We may still need CFC to be friends down the line - let's not burn any bridges here.

I don't think any message proposed so far is burning bridges. Currently, there is no bridge. The only possible way we end up with a bridge involves acknowledging that.

This isn't true. We are not at war, that's a start. We have diplomatic relations, there's another. We have a NAP that both parties are abiding by. We have resource deals. We may need resource deals or NAPs in the future. We don't need to be BFFs, but I'm fairly sure that sometime down the road both teams will need cooperation from the other, so let's try to keep relations as best as they can be given the game circumstances.

Why do we think CFC is friendly or there are bridges to burn? Outside of the lopsided NAP we had to pay for, what am I missing?

The fact that we are not at war with CFC is not a benevolent act on their part, it is a rational attempt at self-preservation, the same as it is for us. The only bridge that exists is one of mutual tolerance for the other team because it is not convenient to destroy the other team. Yet. Further cooperation beyond this is ad hoc at best. It is and will continue to be in our mutual interests to remain at peace, until one or the other of us decides that peace is no longer a winning strategy. All the sweet deals and inducements on our part will do nothing to change this when the time comes.

In light of this, I prefer not to let them get away with their poor-faith adherence to our contract not to kill each other. They act like they just connected marble and then, out of the sky, here comes the Taj Mahal, pure magic and surely without any thought or actions that made the resource available immediately (and coincidentally) preceding a cascade of overflow for the purpose of building the wonder pronto. Marble was simply not available earlier because they did not want it to be available earlier, for the completely rational game-reason of building the Taj. Fine, and fair enough. But, when your contract not to kill us or die at our hand stipulates a "good faith effort" to adhere to this specific point, the act was poorly done and a breach of the intent and spirit agreement. Further, I strongly recommend we not let them shove our noses in shit with their spike in the end zone "take the marble now" offering. We don't need it, it doesn't help us, it doesn't hurt them, and it's just fucking rude. If we accede to every low offer they make and don't protest when they don't even live up to the terms they've outlined, we should expect nothing less than continued shenanigans and uneven treatment.

I strongly object to some of the purely rational approaches to just gloss over CFC's diplomatic failing. Sometimes you get more by leaving the negotiating table then by sitting at the table and hearing the same old song and dance. We're drafting hard, and whipping hard in the coming turns. CFC will see this and reach out to us soon, and if they don't, they can sit in the dark and wonder. What again is the rush to appease these guys?? Gently asking for this and trying to find the most unoffensive/softest way to say that is getting us nowhere. We have maintained peace to the critical point in the game where going to war actually becomes profitable. If they want to set a wrecking ball in motion, so be it. As I said earlier, they've given up long term investments to secure the short term goal of landing Taj. We've built up broadly and invested in our economy and future expansion and economic growth. We have massive populations to draft into units and have our military infrastructure (HE, Globe) in place and developing. What again do we have to fear? This game is going to space anyway, not to a domination victory. We need to keep a strong economy, expand to new land, and spike the wheels of an adversary or two along the way. I say if CFC wants to get spiked, we give them what they want. There is no reason we should always be the team that blinks when playing chicken. Our car is bigger, drives faster, and will fucking wreck them if they don't get out of the way. Don't blink first.

[fluffyflyingpig]

Also worth pointing out, CFC has a paper thin military and was on wealth builds for the past dozen turns in most cities. And we just swapped to nationalism.

Also, their Taj was much more of a coordinated chop job than a overflow cascade.

[kalin]

I agree with what seems to be the majority of not answering yet to CFC.

@Scooter: if you get cornered in chat or we feel we have to send something, we can answer with the truth "Our team is carefully considering our response".

Kalin

[darrelljs]

Well put sooooo.

Darrell

[Lewwyn]

Why not just say:

Dear CFC,
We'll take the marble later.
RB