14-11-2003 04:12									#1
	FA: CFC Alliance Drafting Thread Inflate your Upload Space

I have completed the first draft (rough) of a potential allinace with CFC. Please review and give comments, suggestions, etc.

Preamble:

Apolyton and Fanatiku hereby fully agree to this historic treaty in spirit and in deed, we fully agree to the following terms of this alliance.

I Full Diplomatic Cooperation (United Front)

Neither nation shall help the enemy of the other in any way.

Neither nation shall plot against the other with any foreign nation.

Both nations shall respect the laws and customs of the other, and shall treat each other will respect and courtesey.

Any grievances between players or representatives involving both teams shall be diplomaticly handled by the leadership of both teams, and if the matter cannot be solved internally, both teams pledge to keep the individuals in conflict apart in order to further the greater good, which is the continued well-being of this alliance.

II Tech Cooperation

Both nations pledge to share with the other what tech is being researched and what tech is planned to be researched.

Both nations will faithfully attempt to never cross-research or compete by researching the same tech.

Both nations prioritize trades with each other, prefering trades with an ally than with another party.

Both nations will accept in trade a tech that is of equal value or of value that is not less than 75% of the value of the greater tech. If one of the techs is less than 75% of the value of the greater tech, the nation with the less valuable tech must compensate by including gold in the deal.

The amount of gold shall be determined as follows: 10g for every research point needed to bring the lesser tech to 75% of the value of the greater tech.

Neither nation will resell technology aquired from the other without express permission from the nation who first aquired the technology.

III Right of Passage

Both nations agree to allow the naval units of either nation to travel in the cultural borders of the other nation.

IV Homeland Protection Doctrine

Both nations agree that no other nation shall have cities or units on our continent.

Should another nation land units on our continent, build cities, or aquire cities, both nations are bound to use whatever means necessary (including diplomacy and force) to remove them.

Any exceptions to this rule must be explicitly agreed upon by both nations.

V Non-Aggression Pact

Neither nation shall enter the land inside the cultural borders of the other without prior approval.

Neither nation shall attack any unit of the other nation.

Neither nation shall pillage the improvements of the other without prior approval.

Neither nation shall intentionally block the movement of the other.

VI Shared Intelligence

In times of war, when both nations have a common enemy, all military intelligence about the enemy shall be freely shared.

Should only one of the nations be at war, the other nation shall perform intelligence gathering and espionage for the other, which shall be fully compensated by the nation at war.

VII Military Defense Pact

Should either nation be attacked by an outside party, the other nation is bound by this treaty to declare war on the attacker and remain at war until the alliance has negotiated a peace settlement or until the attacker no longer poses a direct threat to the ally.

Once at war, each nation pledges to fully commit itself to the cause of war and to use all means at their disposal to promptly prosecute the war.

Any cities captured by an enemy and recaptured by an ally shall be returned to the original owner of the city at a reasonable time.

VIII Luxuries and Resources

Luxuries shall be traded evenly, 1 for 1, to the other nation.

Resources shall be traded evenly, 1 for 1, to the other nation.

If one nation posesses more luxuries or resources than the other, a reasonable and fair compensation in gold or tech shall be worked out to facilitate the exchange.

IX Separation of Agreements

This alliance agreement does not preclude both nations from making additional deals, agreements, or pledges outside this agreement. Should any of those additional deals, agreements, or pledges be violated or broken, this agreement shall remain intact.

X Termination of This Agreement

This agreement shall not end until the following takes place:

1) An issue or disagreement within the alliance rises up that cannot be resolved by a complete and faithful negotiation by both sides.

2) After negotiation has failed, either side may propose a "No Confidence" vote within their nation, regarding their faith in the alliance.

3) Should a majority of the people of either nation vote that they have "No Confidence" in the alliance, the other nation must immediately be informed of the decision.

4) Within the following 5 turns, if a new alliance cannot be negotiated and agreed to, the alliance will terminate at the end of those 5 turns.

Should either nation intentionally break the terms of this agreement, the other side may automaticlly declare "No confidence" in the agreement. 5 turns after declaring "No Confidence", if a new alliance is not formed, this alliance shall then terminate.

	14-11-2003 04:18									#2
	Inflate your Upload Space

I like it. It should make CFC feel good about it's neighbor's.

	14-11-2003 04:23									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

EXCELLENT.

Just one thing:

We should make it quite explicit that before one nation declares war on another, it must consult with it's ally. This will prevent, for example, crazy ass Goonie from declaring war on GWT if it's galley crosses its territory and bind us by treaty on declaring war ourselves.

War should only be declared after diplomacy fails in the case of aggression against us, we cannot be allowed to be dragged into conflict by this treaty without being consulted first.

	14-11-2003 04:24									#4
	Put an end to popups!

I also think it is well written. Hopefully they will keep border claims and stuff from messing up this document. Excellent Togas!

	14-11-2003 04:29									#5
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

This is more of a defensive pact. We're only bound to act if they get attacked. But I could make it more specific.

One thing that's included is mention of only one of the nations being at war, and the other helping out with investigations. There's also mentions about not aiding the enemy of your ally.

However, we should come up with some language about averting war.

And maybe add some language about keeping this alliance secret, and not letting CFC blab about it or threaten with it.

--Togas

	14-11-2003 04:31									#6
	Increase the size of your Attachments

oh and also, perhaps it would be easier to understand the tech part if we mentioned it the way the editor does, as trade rates.

That 75% could thus be better written as 125 (re the editor's AI to AI trade rate)

rewritten:

quote: Both nations will accept a Trade Rate of 125 regarding technologies. This implies any techs whose value is 25% greater or lesser than the other may be traded without compensation. If the cost difference of these techs is greater than 25%, the nation with the less valuable tech must compensate by including gold in the deal. The amount of gold shall be determined as follows: 10g for every research point needed to bring the lesser tech to 75% of the value of the greater tech.

	14-11-2003 04:33									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

good rewrite on the tech trade issue.

--Togas

	14-11-2003 07:03									#8
	Military Defence Pact Full PM-box? Change here!

1. IIRC, in single player games, we can only sign Military Defence Pact after the discovery of Nationalism ? Are we in violation of game play here ?

2. Quote from Togas,
"Should either nation be attacked by an outside party, the other nation is bound by this treaty to declare war on the attacker and remain at war until the alliance has negotiated a peace settlement or until the attacker no longer poses a direct threat to the ally."
"Should only one of the nations be at war, the other nation shall perform intelligence gathering and espionage for the other, which shall be fully compensated by the nation at war."

This seems to be some conflict in the 2 paragraphs. I mean, if we are at War with another nation, the other nation will sooner or later attack our troops, unless they decide to turtle forever. So, there is nobody to conduct any intelligence for us.

Do you actually mean "Should an outside party declare War on either nation, the other nation is bound by this treaty to declare War on the attacker......" ?

	14-11-2003 07:56									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Good write up and good comments, hopefully this will be "goonie-proof".

I like it.

	14-11-2003 08:24									#10
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Will we be signing this before or after our borders are officially laid down? Disputes over this matter could very well jeopardize the health of our alliance if we enter into it too quickly. In other words, I think we should only show this to them once: 1) the war with GCA is over, and 2) the land void between our nations is filled.

Edit: I was under the impression that we already had a border agreement with CFC, but the whole mess with Goonie makes me think that that's not over with yet. He was probably not lying when he stated this many of his team were not happy with it.


Dominae

	14-11-2003 10:20									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I like it but I somewhat share Dominae's reservation about the timing of signing this agreement while borders are still up in the air.

	14-11-2003 10:55									#12
	Got spare money?

A few thoughts:

Need to change the wording on the pact so that it's a purely defensive alliance. Maybe change it so that the ally is only brought into the war if the other nation is invaded by a 3rd party. Being "attacked" is too vague.

With regards to the border dispute, my thinking is this:

E_T has asked us to do our best (Goonie or not) to keep the peace with CFC for a time after the GCA war has ended so that our REX plans and expansion can be completed unhindered.

CFC will soon have Riders and be tempted to use them against us.

Tie them into an alliance and we may well get the period of peace we need, and some Rider protection along the way.

Tie them in, and they may be less hostile or likely to go ballistic when the border issue doesn't go their way.

Also, we follow the age old addage: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

And if the border issue never works out, at least we have a 5 turn warning before the alliance expires and they come after us.

--Togas

	14-11-2003 11:02									#13
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Rider protection against who?

GWT and CGN will be doing a fight to the finish on the other continent; CFC will not be repelling any invaders anytime soon. The only use for Riders in this game is against Apolyton.

I hate to say this, but: this proposed alliance will not give us what we seek, namely a useful tech trading partner in CFC, nor will it give us peace of mind while we build up. CFC will attack us at the most opportune moment with their Riders, because that's the only option left for them. Our best defense against this is not an alliance, but the control of Balance of Power.

I'm not against the idea of an alliance per se, but what Togas is implying is that it's more important than our border treaty. I think this is a big mistake.


Dominae

	14-11-2003 11:13									#14
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Perhaps you should actually read my posts and not simply put your usual bitter spin on them.

This PROPOSAL in rough draft form has been presented as a means to tame the wild hairs and trigger fingers of CFC, and buy us some security while we negotiate the important stuff like the border agreement, and while we undergo our REX plan.

But thanks, anyhow, for your strong vote of confidence.

--Togas

	14-11-2003 11:15									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Noone is saying this is more important than a border treaty. IMO, we should try and nail both thing simultaneously. This alliance proposal is our card so that CFC doesn't start *****ing about other border things, the intention is to prove that despite we get the territory, they should feel safe...

...for the time being

	14-11-2003 11:37									#16
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Togas Perhaps you should actually read my posts and not simply put your usual bitter spin on them.

Ah great, another one who hates criticism.

quote: This PROPOSAL in rough draft form has been presented as a means to tame the wild hairs and trigger fingers of CFC, and buy us some security while we negotiate the important stuff like the border agreement, and while we undergo our REX plan.

quote: Tie them into an alliance and we may well get the period of peace we need, and some Rider protection along the way.

I guess I misunderstood "tie them into an alliance" as meaning we would actually go through with it within the next few turns (at the very least before the end of the war with GCA). But I guess you meant "tie them into negotiations concerning an alliance". If so, what do we do if they agree to it right away? Then we're left with my initial objection, namely, that they'll be pretty sore when we claim BoP for ourselves.

I'll get out of the diplo discussion now, as I always seem to get people angry when I talk about this stuff.


Dominae

	14-11-2003 11:40									#17
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Oh and, just because I'm feeling particularly fiesty tonight:

quote: Originally posted by Togas But thanks, anyhow, for your strong vote of confidence.

Does a "vote of confidence" mean that I should shut up and agree that whatever you say is best?


Dominae

	14-11-2003 15:04									#18
	Increase the size of your Attachments

A very well written document Togas.

But with the knowledge that I too risk the wrath of the FAM, I would not be sending it.

Make individul deals if we must...like tech and alike. But locking down alliances against foreign invaders and non-aggression pacts are not worth it.

Please remember.. we broke a NAP & a border agreement (iirc) with GCA. Our word on these issues are not worth very much.

If I was Goonie or any ani-poly Fanatican, this document would provide me with a wealth of ammunition.

"A NAP ???? Ha !!! We all know how Apolyton values NAPs !!! This document is worthless and only sent so that we will lessen our guard"


Plus the timing is just off like Arnie said.

Some specific points....

Part I. If there is a strong anti-poly movement in CFC, this gives Goonie an opportunity to say he cant work with MZ, WB or Togas.

Part II is excellent

Part III needs to be expanded...what if CFC sends a stack of 5 Caravals along our coast ? Do we have no right to tell them to go away.

Part IV. I doubt we need.

Part V. Poly does not have a good enough record to say we will honour it

Part VI. Will be seen as though we are trying to save Oct's A$$...The Pet of Apolyton who got in trouble for sharing intel

Part VII. We dont know the future. GCA may kick our ass. We become a poor nation who may request foreign help against CFC.
Or simply we may not have the military to help CFC if they get attacked.
Stay away from MPP's

Part VIII. Who is more likely to have the most luxery ? I cant check the save. If it is us, then why lock us into this ?

Part IX. Legal speak that I guess should be included.

Part X. Why I hate NAP's. No-one is going to give a 5 turn warning that a NAP will be broken. Therefore the aggressor has no choice but to break this agreement & take a reputation hit.
And as a member who believes that nothing will stop CFC from using their riders in a war against us, I think Poly should attack first. I dont want to give them a 5 turn warning, so that means we break yet another treaty.


So.... sorry, but I would not send it.
Again..well written, but I dont see it mending our shaky relationship with CFC.

Last edited by Hot_Enamel on 14-11-2003 at 18:58

	14-11-2003 22:56									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Hot_Enamel Please remember.. we broke a NAP & a border agreement (iirc) with GCA. Our word on these issues are not worth very much. If I was Goonie or any ani-poly Fanatican, this document would provide me with a wealth of ammunition. "A NAP ???? Ha !!! We all know how Apolyton values NAPs !!! This document is worthless and only sent so that we will lessen our guard"

Not entirely the case.

When you backstab someone, the diplomatic fallout occurs when other teams are not in line with the backstabbing. So, since CFC was well aware of what we were going to do, and had huge interests in us doing so, there cannot be a rep hit from them since in effect they were accomplices in the crime.

A backstab is never a backstab when other teams want you to do it. Under these circumstances the only team which will hand you a rep hit is the one that is being backstabbed, and by that point that team's opinion is not precisely relevant anymore.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the last NAP with GCA was signed before we did the CDG agreement, so CFC cannot further accuse us of treachery.

In the end, CFC must understand that by being on our side, they have in effect married the devil. It's like Macbeth: "I am in blood stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er"

	14-11-2003 23:08									#20
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Perhaps it would be better to make this treaty only apply for a number of turns? Renewable after every 40 turns or so, so at least we can possibly plan for an attack if we want to strike first. . .

I do like many of Hot Enamel's ideas though. Very good.

	15-11-2003 02:49									#21
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

MZ...

IMO, CFC & every other team knows that Apolyton does not honour NAP's.

CFC know the reasons why, but we are not dealing with an appreciative team. There are Anti-Poly facions in CFC. It wont stop these anti-poly members pointing the fact out again, and again, and again.

	15-11-2003 03:05									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I, too, believe that we DID take the rep hit with everybody, even with CFC. The fact that we're ready to ignore an NAP has been made abundantly clear. Every team, CFC included, now knows that breaking an NAP is an option for us. It does not matter CFC knew why we did it. They will know that once they get in our way, we can/will do it again.

Either you honour all your NAPs/treaties or you don't. No middle ground.

Personally, I consider NAPs virtually worthless.

	15-11-2003 03:27									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I share the concern of Arnelos, and some of what Dominae has said.

This is a tricky situation, and I would like to consider things very carefully.

	15-11-2003 03:32									#24
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

As for Poly attacking CFC in the near future... we've had that debate, people. It's not on.

Now what we have to do is negotiate the rapids of this situation to ensure that we get what we need. What we need is a peaceful CFC on the other side of 2 chokepoints.

Let's focus on getting that and stop the eternal invasion of the war vs CFC that is invading every thread where diplomacy with CFC is discussed.

	15-11-2003 03:42									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Re-Read NYE.

Deleted

	15-11-2003 04:06									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Two points:

• How do we know if CFC sees Poly to have broken a treaty or suffered a rep hit? Do we have proof of them saying this?
  
• Please define "research points" very clearly (e.g. in terms of the costs displayed in the editor).
  

	16-11-2003 07:31									#27
	Got spare money?

Haven't thought too much about some of the major points in Togas' document, but overall it looks pretty much good enough to send as is, with maybe one or two sections to be rethought.

Reading Hot_E's analysis, I'd like to thank him for the criticism - this is surely what anti-Poly people at CFC would be thinking, and is a set of extremely useful points.

Part III: what if we just made sure each team knew that there would be a ship(s) moving through their territory? When searching for a way to the other continent we cleared a Galley to go through CFC's culture radius - why can't we just keep doing this? It's going to be a rare incidence by any means. If it becomes more frequent later we can make changes.

Part VI: perhaps we should skip this bit, and put in something waffly about expecting the other to aid with military intelligence where possible, rather than make it a concrete obligation.

Part VIII: We have more lux and will do so forever more, barring incidents. This is why it is a good idea to include this. A small amount of benevolence will help. We can afford to be benevolent, and in order to gain CFC's trust we MUST be giving.

Part X: no reason not to put it in. We just can't take it for granted. If the fact it is there and has been agreed to stops CFC from attacking us without warning us, great. If not, then as long as we have stayed careful, we will not really lose out. It can only help us, not hurt us. At worst it's only useless, not harmful.

	16-11-2003 12:45									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen Not entirely the case. When you backstab someone, the diplomatic fallout occurs when other teams are not in line with the backstabbing. So, since CFC was well aware of what we were going to do, and had huge interests in us doing so, there cannot be a rep hit from them since in effect they were accomplices in the crime. A backstab is never a backstab when other teams want you to do it. Under these circumstances the only team which will hand you a rep hit is the one that is being backstabbed, and by that point that team's opinion is not precisely relevant anymore. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the last NAP with GCA was signed before we did the CDG agreement, so CFC cannot further accuse us of treachery. In the end, CFC must understand that by being on our side, they have in effect married the devil. It's like Macbeth: "I am in blood stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er"

Sorry MZ, but I gotta agree with H_E on this one. When you backstab someone and violate treaties, EVERYONE notices, whether they're currently your friends or your enemies. Everyone, even your friends, come to realize that agreements of a similar nature with you are only worthwhile as long as you have an interest behind them. Otherwise, you will likely disregard them as you have disregarded similar agreements.

This is ok if they believe you have an interest behind such agreements with them and thus that can calm the tendency toward paranoia. That said, however, the inclination to fear that you will do to them what you have done to another is not easily dispelled.

I'm rather sure that part of the discussion at CFC right now is whether they will be next after GCA. Part of that discussion is undoubtedly based upon the concern that when it was no longer in Apolyton's interest to continue its NAP with GCA, we broke it and attacked them without warning.

	17-11-2003 01:42									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The thing is that our backstab was backed by another binding treaty, mainly that done with CDG and CFC upon the former's collapse. CFC in effect, put it in writing that what we did was acceptable. Therefore they cannot complain about what we did since in a way it has their signature on it.

One thing is encouraging or turning a blind eye to a backstab, in that case I totally agree that despite attitude they definitely notice. But I think this case with CFC is a little bit special since they are accomplices. They were the ones who insisted we attack as soon as possible, they were the ones on the verge of collapse, and they knew very well we had a NAP with GCA.

That being said though, of course the anti-Apolyton lobby over there will use this as well as any excuse to say they are next on our hit list.

Last edited by Master Zen on 17-11-2003 at 01:48

	03-12-2003 10:44									#30
	Support Apolyton

*Bump*

As the end of the GCA war comes closer, this issue needs to be resolved. Most of us seem to agree that our best future policy is to seek and maintain an alliance with CFC. If that is the case, then this needs to get done, and despite our past broken treaty with GCA, nations forgive nations when it's in their best interest. The history of the world is full of broken promises after broken promises, yet nations still continue to sign treaties. Why? Because it provides some small piece of security and stability. People and nations seek order and certainty.

Secondly, and equally important, if we create a relationship or bargain that CFC finds to be in their best interest, and values, they will not want to damage it if they do not get BoP and the southern GCA lands, as some of them clearly want.

The way to keep them pacified is to give them something more valuable -- a true alliance with tech, economic, and security benefits -- than the land the think they want. You don't go to war with your ally and friend as easily as you go to war with your neighbor. You also don't break an alliance immediately after signing it.

My hope is that by roping them in and "marrying" ourselves to CFC, we will keep disagreements like BoP from breaking us up. We will also have a stronger position to bargain from (and to stand firm on) if we know they won't risk losing the alliance over the issue.

--Togas