Well, Germany is north of us but CFC's fighting enemies on their eastern side. North -> East for us is shorter than East to West is for them. You don't even have to invade, just the threat of a 2nd front would probably force them to slow the down and divert troops west.
Also, on a less hypothetical note, if we join with CivFR, then CP probably will have to ally with CFC. Need to figure out what to do about that.
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
Wait, so the story we're getting from CivFr is that their merchant was going to CFC as per a previous agreement, and then CFC declared war over it and didn't kill the merchant? If that's a backstab, it's either an incredibly incompetent one, which doesn't even seem worth considering, or it's a completely halfass one, which I suppose they might do if they think they can patch stuff up down the road, or if there was a misunderstanding between them about whether the merchant mission was agreed to or not.
It seems unlikely that CFC or CivFr actually lose any trade routes from a fake war.
That said, this kind of grand conspiracy also seems rather unlikely.
If it's true, it represents an enormous opportunity. But this smells fishy. I'd want to see some dead units before we give CivFr anything more than sweet talk.
(June 9th, 2013, 15:23)antisocialmunky Wrote: So they can fight a 3(.1) front war? If we violate (in their view of 3.1), then what are they going to do?
Case 1: They hate us more than they do for gifting elephants to Civ Span (they probably have the same complaints that we have against them now) and stay silent because they want the NAP.
Case 2: They cancel the NAP over the NAP violation and we start attacking them because they hate us and are fighting 3 civs at once.
If you want to be pedantic, the cancellation email with CFC's big 'Chaos is a ladder' thing and what we heard from CP about CFC recruiting allies to attack RB constitute a violation of 3.1 because we are assuming war on T175. We've talked about declaring on T175 preemptively. That's about as much as 'actions which will lead to a declaration of war between the members of this pact for the duration of the pact'' as that vague self serving NAP rage quit clause and you can probably get without an NAP break. I suppose the vague wording could imply you can't have actions that lead to a war during the pact but that's a pants wettingly stupid tautology.
So if someone feels like spending a month debating CFC whine, we could declare on CFC on CivFR's side right now.
If we weren't otherwise occupied, I think it would be hilarious.
Reposting the map, I think we need to try to work with CivFr accept that CP geography will naturally drive CP and CFC together. Trading maps with CivFr for more map info would be nice.
Also it might be useful to get an updated and better resolution overview map the next time someone logs in.
If our aim is get CFC to divert troops from their front line, we could ask them about their recent actions and why they don't constitute os #3 NAP violation. Say that while most of RB doesn't think it does, the lawyer component of RB are arguing that it does. This could threaten a NAP violation and could cause them to react.
I have finally decided to put down some cash and register a website. It is www.ruffhi.com. Now I remain free to move the hosting options without having to change the name of the site.
(October 22nd, 2014, 10:52)Caledorn Wrote: And ruff is officially banned from playing in my games as a reward for ruining my big surprise by posting silly and correct theories in the PB18 tech thread.
(June 9th, 2013, 15:52)Zargon Wrote: Wait, so the story we're getting from CivFr is that their merchant was going to CFC as per a previous agreement, and then CFC declared war over it and didn't kill the merchant? If that's a backstab, it's either an incredibly incompetent one, which doesn't even seem worth considering, or it's a completely halfass one, which I suppose they might do if they think they can patch stuff up down the road, or if there was a misunderstanding between them about whether the merchant mission was agreed to or not.
It seems unlikely that CFC or CivFr actually lose any trade routes from a fake war.
That said, this kind of grand conspiracy also seems rather unlikely.
If it's true, it represents an enormous opportunity. But this smells fishy. I'd want to see some dead units before we give CivFr anything more than sweet talk.
Also the biggest red flag is that even killing the merchant doesn't directly help CFC. It make very little sense for them, especially when they are already are in a hot war.
Could ask the Spanish to confirm if they saw a merchant from CivFR pass by. Could also ask CFC and see how well rehearsed the stories are if there is conspiracy.
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
2. CFC persuaded one of the stronger but less diplomatically focused teams with poor English language skills, that they should go into a phony war, attacked at least one of their units, and all in the hope that they could accomplish what?
Occam's Razor, people.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
(June 9th, 2013, 15:23)antisocialmunky Wrote: I suppose the vague wording could imply you can't have actions that lead to a war during the pact but that's a pants wettingly stupid tautology.
Actually that's exactly how I interpret it, and it's not a tautology. It's a ban on:
* alt-clicking their name
* saying yes to a "are you sure you want to declare war (e.g. by trespassing in their closed borders)" prompt
* declaring war on a nation they have a defensive pact with
(June 9th, 2013, 15:52)Zargon Wrote: Wait, so the story we're getting from CivFr is that their merchant was going to CFC as per a previous agreement, and then CFC declared war over it and didn't kill the merchant? If that's a backstab, it's either an incredibly incompetent one, which doesn't even seem worth considering, or it's a completely halfass one, which I suppose they might do if they think they can patch stuff up down the road, or if there was a misunderstanding between them about whether the merchant mission was agreed to or not.
The way I see it is that CivFR thought there was an agreement to cash in the merchant. CFC didn't think they had an agreement. An overly rules lawyery member of CFC decided that the best way to stop this merchant was to declare war, then contact CivFR about it, saying "We don't really want war, but we didn't agree to the merchant and this was the only way to stop it". They didn't kill the merchant because that would have been an actual act of war. It was a little bit like the way we cancelled Open Borders with CivPlayers over the buddhist missionary, but scaled up.
Anyway, the most important thing is that CivFR has not joined the anti-RB bandwagon and are open to be persuaded to our side. Now is the time to do some diplomacy, both sending messages to CivFR and to WPC, telling them about the developments.
We should also send a short message to CFC saying something like:
Quote:Hi Caledorn,
We noticed you are now at war with CivFR - that took us by suprise! Mind if I ask why?
Regards,
scooter
Reason being: (1) Why not? and (2) If we don't ask them why they could assume that we've been asking the same question to CivFR and improving our relationship with them. Which is true, but not what we want CFC to know.
Also, I'd like to send something like this to WPC:
Quote:Hi WPC,
We've had some interesting information from CivFR about being declared on by CFC. It was a disagreement over a great merchant apparently. Needless to say, CivFR were not happy! We thought we'd check with you guys if you've had much diplo with CivFR? We haven't had much, but with this info and the fact that they seem open to working with us, we wanted to chat more with their team and see what options were available for cooperation in the future. Given our relationship with you, we just wanted to run this by you first.
Regards,
scooter
Also, we need to draft something relatively quickly to CivFR to take advantage of their current outrage. Don't really want to tackle that one myself.
