Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[scooter]

Is 25 turns the right length for this deal? I feel that we'd need longer to get caught up on our infra, even if we only build an insurance army and don't have to use it. Definitely would need longer if we're in a serious war, needing to draft like crazy. Assuming CFC is willing to give us longer, anyway.

We would still have the option to crush CivPlayers with rifles if this Apoly/CP war happens, right? Just as long as we're declared upon rather than declaring?

I'd love it to be longer, but CFC has expressed numerous times that they don't want to sign a long NAP with us unless it heavily benefits them, because they are afraid of us doing exactly that - getting so caught up on infrastructure/tech that we blow past them. Makes sense. So the T200 number is just a compromise that we'll take a short stopgap NAP with them so we can both consolidate and then see where it leaves us. The added benefit is that for us, it's a 25T insurance policy on a full-blown 3v1. Every turn we can avoid that happening the better. At the moment that's the best we can do. When we get closer to T200 (or whenever the global situation suits us) we'll do whatever we can to get a new insurance policy. I just mean that if we floated T230 instead of T200 it would be a flat "no" from CFC unless we were paying them for it significantly.

[pindicator]

Yeah, I'm all for dropping the clause on our side or modifying it to take effect only if CFC passes us in total number of cities

[Jabah]

Just throwing random worrying ideas...

Regarding CFC and UCiv, don't you think there might be another option which would be CFC AND UCiv quickly conquering WPC, leaving CFC with a bit more land (just enough to catch us) and a good and bigger friend which might be trouble later for us since they both will have a longer border with us ?

Do we know if (anf or how long) WPC has NAP with CFC and UCiv ?

Giving CFC a free war with our NAP might be a bit too much in that case ?

[scooter]

Yeah, I'm all for dropping the clause on our side or modifying it to take effect only if CFC passes us in total number of cities

Hm. This makes sense to me. What are the chances they would actually pass us prior to T200? I figure pretty small, so I'm halfway inclined to not include that, just in the interest of not being a barrier to CFC agreeing.

[scooter]

Okay guys, here is my first extremely rough draft. Feel free to try to poke holes in this, I know you guys are nothing if not extraordinarily skilled at thinking up ways deals could be abused against us . Also, the content is about right to me, but the layout here is not very neat. If someone with better organizational skills than me wants to organize this into a more coherent layout, please feel free.

1) Current Deals
A) All current deals are still in effect until their expiration on T175.
B) These cannot be canceled in any way except for the opt-out clause in Section 2A-B

2) Opt-out Clause
A) If at any point during the length of this agreement (expiring on T200) Realms Beyond declares war on another team, CFC can choose to opt-out of all current agreements with RB if they believe it's in their team's interest to do so.
B) The window for this is 3T. Example: If RB declares war on a neighbor on T168, CFC has until the end of T171 to notify RB that they would like to opt out of their agreements with RB. After the 3T window is closed, the agreements can no longer be canceled unless RB declares war again.
C) The opt-out does not apply to any other wars. This means none of the following qualify: on-going wars, wars in which a 3rd party declares on RB, wars in which CFC is involved in, or anything else that does not explicitly follow section 2A-B.
D) This opt-out clause takes effect immediately upon agreement of the deal by both sides.

3) T175-T200 agreement
A) NAP agreement from T175-T200, which goes into effect immediately upon the previous deal expiring on T175.
B) EP agreement to target EPs at other teams as long as both sides are able to view graphs. RB and CFC will not run EP missions against each other.
C) No NAP loopholes or exploitation. This includes:
-No gifting (or trading) units, gold, or strategic resources to a nation the other side is at war with. If such deals are in place prior to a war, they must be canceled if a war begins. Example: If RB is trading iron to a neighbor of CFC and a war breaks out between that neighbor and CFC, RB will cancel the trade immediately. Note: Brand new trades must wait 10T to cancel, so if advance warning can be provided, it must be followed. If it is not provided, then the deal must be canceled on the earliest possible turn. Also, health resources and non-strategic luxuries are not covered by this provision and are free to trade.
-No doing damage to land/units/resources that the other has claim to, even if cultural borders allow it (pillaging around recently captured/razed cities)
-No granting Right of Passage to and/or aiding an army that has the intent of hurting the other party.

I know for sure I am missing things, but this is a good core I think. Fire away on input.

[Sullla]

The chances of CFC passing us in cities are almost zero; we're going to be a dozen cities up on them at the end of this war, and we'll be settling even more cities in the polar islands. I agree that it's not worth trying to insert that into an agreement.

[pindicator]

Yeah, I'm all for dropping the clause on our side or modifying it to take effect only if CFC passes us in total number of cities

Hm. This makes sense to me. What are the chances they would actually pass us prior to T200? I figure pretty small, so I'm halfway inclined to not include that, just in the interest of not being a barrier to CFC agreeing.

Yeah, i know they won't pass us. But i figure it's a bone to throw to the diplo crowd at CFC that likes to "win" diplo deals
I trust your judgment as to whether it should be in there or not

[darrelljs]

2) Opt-out Clause
A) If at any point during the length of this agreement (expiring on T200) Realms Beyond declares war on another team, CFC can choose to opt-out of all current agreements with RB if they believe it's in their team's interest to do so.
B) If at any point during the length of this agreement (expiring on T200) CFC declares war on WPC, Realms Beyond can choose to opt-out of all current agreements with CFC if they believe it's in their team's interest to do so.
C) The window for this is 3T. Example: If RB declares war on a neighbor on T168, CFC has until the end of T171 to notify RB that they would like to opt out of their agreements with RB. After the 3T window is closed, the agreements can no longer be canceled unless RB declares war again.
D) The opt-out does not apply to any other wars. This means none of the following qualify: on-going wars, wars in which a 3rd party declares on RB, wars in which CFC is involved in, or anything else that does not explicitly follow section 2A-B.
E) This opt-out clause takes effect immediately upon agreement of the deal by both sides.

Suggested edit highlighted in red/bold.

Darrell

[Ruff_Hi]

Why do we want to carve out war declaration on WPC?

Also, can we tighten up the end points of these arrangements? Say 'EOT T200' instead of 'T200'. We also should be very careful that the end of the T175 NAP exactly meshes with the start of the T200 extension. In fact, I would classify this new NAP as running from the end of the T175 NAP to the EOT T200.

[scooter]

Hm. Maybe we should talk about the WPC angle. I do agree that CFC running over WPC is a much bigger concern to me than them messing with UCiv. They could do it pretty easily I think. The border is a bit more awkward, but it could be made to work.

So while you're pouring over that deal, what do you guys think? Are you concerned that CFC would be too strong if they tried to hit WPC during this time?