|
Are you, in fact, a pregnant lady who lives in the apartment next door to Superdeath's parents? - Commodore |
|
Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves
|
|
July 16th, 2013, 23:32
(This post was last modified: July 16th, 2013, 23:35 by pindicator.)
 CFC Extension Offer Draft 2 Wrote:2) Opt-out Clause I'm guessing this is what you meant by "on-going"
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player 
It generally seems good. Perhaps a little wordy, but that's better than being unclear.
Nitpick: I don't like your definition of 3T window - it's really 4 turns the way you've phrased it (example: T168, T169, T170, T171, closed)
EitB 25 - Perpentach
Occasional mapmaker (July 17th, 2013, 08:52)Mardoc Wrote: I don't like your definition of 3T window - it's really 4 turns the way you've phrased it (example: T168, T169, T170, T171, closed) Sort of. But it depends on where we/they declare in the turn timer. Early in the timer yeah it's basically 4 turns, but late in the timer and it's definitely just 3. That turns out to be about a week, and I think a week to discuss the merits of canceling the NAP is reasonable. (July 17th, 2013, 08:34)scooter Wrote:(July 17th, 2013, 07:58)novice Wrote:Quote:wars in which CFC is involved in Wait, isn't this highly relevant? If CFC declares war on someone and we decide to declare war on the same party, should CFC get to cancel the NAP?
Civilization IV: 21 (Bismarck of Mali), 29 (Mao Zedong of Babylon), 38 (Isabella of China), 45 (Victoria of Sumeria), PB12 (Darius of Sumeria), 56 (Hammurabi of Sumeria), PB16 (Bismarck of Mali), 78 (Augustus of Byzantium), PB56 (Willem of China)
Hearthstone: ArenaDrafts Profile No longer playing Hearthstone. 
(July 17th, 2013, 09:56)NobleHelium Wrote:(July 17th, 2013, 08:34)scooter Wrote:(July 17th, 2013, 07:58)novice Wrote:Quote:wars in which CFC is involved in As of right now, if CFC declares war on WPC, we get to cancel the NAP. If they declare on anyone else, we do not. Pretty simple right?
I think putting in a WPC protection clause with the treaty will be quite worthwhile, if only to get their reaction to it. On the other hand, here is the border area between CFC, WPC, and Univers.
 Looking at this, a conflict between Univers and WPC seems very likely - there is tons of overlap in their southern border, and Univers can pretty much attack directly into WPC's core (much like we could with the Germans). A conflict CFC-Univers is also quite possible - only one real border city for each team, but here again there is tons of overlap. Do note that Univers is close to tech parity with CFC in military tech, and the difference in number of cities and pop is so small as to be irrelevant. Ie, if either team attacks the other in the near term, it will be monumental war of attrition on both sides. But CFC-WPC? There is quite a bit of empty land (filled with jungle and forests) between them that's largely unappealing - good enough tiles, but no rivers and hardly any resources. Then the borders will be very awkward for CFC after a war, and if Univers joins in it will be even worse. So CFC would gain a bit of poorly developed land, and make their borders much much longer and harder to defend.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
 (July 16th, 2013, 17:43)kalin Wrote:(July 15th, 2013, 02:30)kalin Wrote: 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. FYI I didn't miss this, but I'd really rather get the CFC Treaty discussion out of the way first, especially since it might seriously impact how we handle UCiv. Anyway, I'm very close to sending the current draft to CFC with 1-2 of the minor suggestions that were made. If anyone feels there is more time needed for discussion, please speak up.  edit: also yes I generally agree with kjn's point about the geography being a potential issue. This is why I'd say we should be willing to drop the clause if CFC makes it a sticking point. |
