Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[sooooo]

If they don't honor their end of it, are any of the other teams even going to care? They'll find some way to spin it and try to make it out that we're the bad guys and everyone else will form an opinion based on who can spin things better. If they think it will help them, they are very likely to do such a thing to try and smear us, regardless of how faithfully we carry out our end of things.

But my point is that they are honouring their end of it. We agreed mutually agreeable, and it seems that that's not possible. But in the end it's their blimmin marble, they should surely get the final say!

And I haven't found them obnoxious, arrogant or "dicks". Most of the obnoxious, arrogant and dickish behaviour can be found in this thread!

[Azoth]

I don't really see what the problem is. CFC is insisting that "Either (we) take the marble within the next 5 turns (t140-145), or we will have to waive our original agreed deadline and re-arrange our deal." Note that they're not threatening to renege on the Marble loan at all. They're just saying that the T150 deadline might need to be waived. So let's do that. Write back to CFC saying "All right, let's renegotiate. When will your Marble projects be finished? T160? How about a 10-turn loan from that date?" That gets us the Marble when we might actually do something with it (the Hermitage, maybe even a Hindu Mandir) and further commits CFC to peace when we'll be in the middle of our German war.

[Mardoc]

Right now, they're trying to bluff at us with an inferior hand. We need to call or raise. Or pretend to fold and then stab them while their pants are down.

I think I'm missing your point, then. Don't we win by keeping them at the table, even if we lose every pot?

I agree with the main point here, but I don't think they're all that interested in winning at diplomacy with us. To them, winning at diplomacy will be when they convince other teams to attack us. Anything that happens directly between the two teams is a sideshow that isn't going to change anything that matters.

What makes you believe this? They'd already lose two resources by declaring on us, and they have every reason to believe they can get more by continuing to talk. I could believe, in their shoes, that just one more concession will result in all they need to catch up to us.

Plus even if this is their goal, surely they'll change the urgency if we start threatening them. And having nasty e-mails they can quote to other teams would help.

And, anyway, delay is all that matters here. There will come a point where we can beat any dogpile. We're not yet there, but more time will give us more troops, who have more XP, and more tech, and...

Threatening e-mail proposal

How does this help anything? Either they cave, and we get Marble at our convenience while they repair the Power deficit, or they don't and...um? We admit we were bluffing? Abandon our war of German conquest to go throw maces into crossbows and catapults?

I don't see any point in making threats we're not willing to carry through.

[SevenSpirits]

IMO it's time to change the subject entirely and talk about a NAP extension.

[Ellimist]

Right now, they're trying to bluff at us with an inferior hand. We need to call or raise. Or pretend to fold and then stab them while their pants are down.

I think I'm missing your point, then. Don't we win by keeping them at the table, even if we lose every pot?

They aren't willing to honor their side of their agreement to us. We can't trust them.

I agree with the main point here, but I don't think they're all that interested in winning at diplomacy with us. To them, winning at diplomacy will be when they convince other teams to attack us. Anything that happens directly between the two teams is a sideshow that isn't going to change anything that matters.

What makes you believe this? They'd already lose two resources by declaring on us, and they have every reason to believe they can get more by continuing to talk. I could believe, in their shoes, that just one more concession will result in all they need to catch up to us.

Being magnanimous is generally good, as well as causing other teams to become reliant, but I don't think this situation warrants it. They aren't going to attack us before 170 regardless of what we say to each other, and we have little reason to believe that the attack that they may eventually launch can be delayed diplomatically.

Plus even if this is their goal, surely they'll change the urgency if we start threatening them. And having nasty e-mails they can quote to other teams would help.

Sterilize it. Use legalese or something. "Are you attempting to default on your obligations? yes/no"

And, anyway, delay is all that matters here. There will come a point where we can beat any dogpile. We're not yet there, but more time will give us more troops, who have more XP, and more tech, and...

Threatening e-mail proposal

How does this help anything? Either they cave, and we get Marble at our convenience while they repair the Power deficit, or they don't and...um? We admit we were bluffing? Abandon our war of German conquest to go throw maces into crossbows and catapults?

I don't see any point in making threats we're not willing to carry through.

Because we know, in general, how they're going to respond, and it puts us into a better position for the next move.

We don't care about the marble/resources right now and they do, and they most certainly care about the NAP right now. So whether they say "yes, we're defaulting," (doubtful) or "no of course not, let's negotiate," we can take them back to the negotiating table and we'll start with a stronger hand. Then, we can offer them another deal for a NAP extension, and no matter how the deal eventually turns out, they see it as MORE of a victory than they would otherwise because they went into the negotiation with a weaker hand and still ended up with another sweetheart deal.

Also, we'll go into it this time with very low expectations of what to expect from their end of the deal, which means we'll have a better understanding of what we get out of it than we did last time.

[scooter]

I think putting our faith in CFC honorimg a NAP is probably a fallacy. They will attack when they want to regardless of any agreement if they feel they can manufacture a "reason".

Huh? If we actually believed this, why would we sign a NAP with them? I just see zero evidence for this attitude.

Why not cancel now or play hardball now? Lure them into a sense of security, let them think their plans are catching us off guard. Keep your enemies closer, and all that

Because the longer we don't have to worry about them, the longer we pull away by A) swallowing our weak neighbors, B) being ahead in the snowball, and C) being apparently better at Civ than they are (I don't know how to make this non-arrogant, sorry, it's just that the evidence suggests it so far this game).

-----

I'm not going to multiquote the stuff Ellimist is writing, but this continued insistence that they are going back on their agreement or something is completely crazy. They are not. They have broken nothing.

[Ellimist]

IMO it's time to change the subject entirely and talk about a NAP extension.

+1

[dazedroyalty]

I'm not going to multiquote the stuff Ellimist is writing, but this continued insistence that they are going back on their agreement or something is completely crazy. They are not. They have broken nothing.

I will agree with this as well. I would not put it past CFC to break a NAP but no more than I would put that past any team if they come to a realization/perception that all hope is lost otherwise. However, every indication from this game is that they will try to squeeze every advantage they can but that they will not break deals. I anticipate they will try to organize enemies to attack us but they will not attack us directly when a NAP is in place.

[sooooo]

I don't think it's time to discuss a NAP extension yet. It's not even turn 140 and our NAP expires T170. Give it some more turns (say turn 145) because teams will be more willing to negotiate something that isn't so far into the future.

[kjn]

On the contrary, I think this is an excellent time for a NAP extension, provided we tie it to them getting out of the marble clause they chafe under. They get something they want, and we get something we want.