Posts: 17,496
Threads: 78
Joined: Nov 2005
Does tge current deal expire at beginning of t175 or end of t175? If it's not been clearly defined before then we should define it here and have the new deal starting either on t175 or t176.
I don't think we need the WPC clause. If CFC eats WPC then they have an unweildly border and we are no longer the world villains
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
Posts: 15,355
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
(July 16th, 2013, 14:57)Ruff_Hi Wrote: 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.
When I say "deal expires on TurnX" I read that as "it no longer has any effect on TurnX." So a NAP that expires on T200 means you can declare on T200. That is how we interpreted the NAP with the German team when we declared on T150.
Do you want us to explicitly interpret it differently here? It sounds like that's what you're saying, I'm just trying to clarify.
Posts: 2,852
Threads: 20
Joined: Feb 2011
I don't see how it can hurt us to ask for it. At a minimum, we'll gain some more information if they do object to a WPC defense clause.
Active in:
FFH-20: Jonas Endain of the Clan of Embers
EITB Pitboss 1: Clan/Elohim/Calabim with Mardoc and Thoth
Posts: 15,355
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
(July 16th, 2013, 14:59)pindicator Wrote: Does tge current deal expire at beginning of t175 or end of t175? If it's not been clearly defined before then we should define it here and have the new deal starting either on t175 or t176.
I don't think we need the WPC clause. If CFC eats WPC then they have an unweildly border and we are no longer the world villains
Along the same lines. I read it as very clearly expiring ON T175. There's precedent for this too. CFC says they will give us the 10T of marble on T165. Since we receive the benefit on T165, 10 turns worth of benefit would be T165-T174, meaning cancellation is now allowed on T175. That means that on T175 (during the turn), the marble, stone, and spice gifts would all stop.
I think that's the easiest way to handle it. We can specify that in the deal if we want.
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
I'm interested in getting WPC protection in there for reputation reasons.
July 16th, 2013, 15:02
(This post was last modified: July 16th, 2013, 15:04 by pindicator.)
Posts: 17,496
Threads: 78
Joined: Nov 2005
I'd also like to say that if we're legitimately afraid of CFC running over WPC then we use my previous suggestion of us being able to opt out if CFC passes us in total cities. If we're not afraid of that then leave mention of WPC out
Edit: Seven has a good point, but CFC and Apolyton/CivPlayers are just going to view protection like that as us staking out future conquest.
Now we could claim to have an existing deal in place to protect WPC...
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
Posts: 2,852
Threads: 20
Joined: Feb 2011
(July 16th, 2013, 15:02)pindicator Wrote: I'd also like to say that if we're legitimately afraid of CFC running over WPC then we use my previous suggestion of us being able to opt out if CFC passes us in total cities. If we're not afraid of that then leave mention of WPC out
This would be counterproductive to every other reason that we'd want a WPC opt-out.
Active in:
FFH-20: Jonas Endain of the Clan of Embers
EITB Pitboss 1: Clan/Elohim/Calabim with Mardoc and Thoth
Posts: 4,090
Threads: 28
Joined: Jul 2008
(July 16th, 2013, 14:41)Jabah Wrote: 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 ?
From a geographical standpoint, I doubt it. No matter how they do it the border will be quite cramped. Heck, CFC will have long and vulnerable borders with both us and Univers if they take all of WPC's land, and if Univers is in on the split it gets even worse.
CFC also has quite some way to go, through rough terrain (jungles and some forests) before they can even reach WPC's cities, and then they must go as long again until they even reach the WPC core (WellPlacedCity, Hill to the Sky, and North River). In comparison, Univers is next door, and culturally dominant on the border, just us and the Germans.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
Posts: 17,496
Threads: 78
Joined: Nov 2005
(July 16th, 2013, 15:04)Ellimist Wrote: (July 16th, 2013, 15:02)pindicator Wrote: I'd also like to say that if we're legitimately afraid of CFC running over WPC then we use my previous suggestion of us being able to opt out if CFC passes us in total cities. If we're not afraid of that then leave mention of WPC out
This would be counterproductive to every other reason that we'd want a WPC opt-out.
Can you elaborate? I'm not seeing it
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
July 16th, 2013, 15:06
(This post was last modified: July 16th, 2013, 15:07 by Jabah.)
Posts: 966
Threads: 18
Joined: Apr 2004
I thought we wanted to add a clause about aggressive and damaging espionage missions (from a 3rd party team against us) being a possible exception in case we had to declare war to make them stop.
However I have no idea how (1) to write it, (2) to proove it (if it happens) and more important (3) to have CFC accept it 
I guess we will have to deal with the spy owner after T200
|
