Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[mostly_harmless]

Can we try to buy 5-10 more turns of NAP for dropping the out-clause?
Even if we don't think we will need the option to opt out, on paper it is a big deal to drop this for just one team. We could try to get a few more turns NAP for it, maybe.

mh

[kalin]

Is UniversCiv still lacking spices? Can we gift them spices as a sign of good will while we are talking? We don't lose anything, they gain something and we start by us giving them something.

Scooter did you see the above? If yes, what do you think?

EDIT: Also, I am furiously catching up, haven't quite finished yet, but I want to say asap just in case that I am concerned about CFC running over WPC!

EDIT 2: I caught up with the diplo discussion and I am still of opinion that we should have the WPC clause in. I am also thinking that we shouldn't drop it easily or amend it so that CFC cannot take over WPC completely.

Kalin

[Ruff_Hi]

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.

There has been confusion about 'NAP to T170' means. I'm ok either way (ie can declare on T170 or T171) but I would like to be explicit about it. That is ... 'NAP to T200' means 'NAP to EOT T199'.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

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.

There has been confusion about 'NAP to T170' means. I'm ok either way (ie can declare on T170 or T171) but I would like to be explicit about it. That is ... 'NAP to T200' means 'NAP to EOT T199'.

Since we are the ones pushing for the NAP, in this case I think it makes the most sense to word it however we can to maximize the duration of the agreement. So, if we agree to a T200 NAP, our interpretation should be that no hostile actions may commence until 201. Presto, our 25 turn extension is now 26.

[Shoot the Moon]

In regards to spy missions, could we possibly just put in civic/religion switch missions? We could just phrase it as "for the purposes of this agreement, any third party that performs a civic or religion spy missions against RB is considered to have declared war on RB."

[Zargon]

In regards to spy missions, could we possibly just put in civic/religion switch missions? We could just phrase it as "for the purposes of this agreement, any third party that performs a civic or religion spy missions against RB is considered to have declared war on RB."

I like this. We probably wouldn't be in position to retaliate even if that did happen, but it puts forth the concept in a non threatening way that we view those missions as acts of open war and will respond accordingly. It serves that purpose even if it doesn't make it into the final agreement.

Also, hasn't every single NAP we've been a part of this game been understood to expire at the beginning of the stated turn rather than at the end? I don't know that I want to dicker over a single turn.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

This is CFC we're talking about. Clearly they don't mind dickering. I think they actually enjoy it. What's the harm in subtly negotiating for an extra turn of peace if the cost is zero?

[scooter]

Okay, here's round 2. This is basically the same thing, but I've added the WPC clause, clarification on end date, and added "no tactical scouting info to 3rd party" to the loopholes section.

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.

[Cyneheard]

"Pillaging in the BFC of currently captured/razed cities", not "around".

[Shoot the Moon]

Couple of thoughts:

Should we tie in open borders for the length of the agreement? And then should we ban using said open borders to pass intelligence on to other teams the other team is at war with?

Are we planning to include a similar provision regarding first choice for resource trades that was found in the previous NAP?