 |
Should we form an allaince with PAL?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes, and everything it entails |
   |
23 |
74.19% |
| NO |
   |
4 |
12.90% |
| Banana_Abstain |
   |
4 |
12.90% |
| Total: |
31 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Octavian X
|
 |
Probably buried under piles of Literature, Biology, or Government homework
Jan 2002
time: 23:35
|
|
I'm abstaining. An alliance with PAL may be good, it may be bad - who knows. Using this poll as a guide, we should continue to discuss things, and the best way to work things out.
It's clear we think we should ally with PAL. We need to discuss further other options, and if we chose to ally with PAL, what would be the best way to go about allying with PAL. It's clear to me that it is not in our best interest just to tell PAL 'Yes, we ally with you and agree to all your terms.' If we plan and discuss effectively, we can get PAL to agree to terms that are much more favorable to us, and that prove the PAL is indeed committed and trustworthy enough to ally with.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
Sure, if we wait forever, the decisions will be made for us. However, we also want to make the correct decision, and fully determing what decisions is correct takes time. In this case, I see a lot of talk by certain people about how great an alliance with PAL would be for ensuring that we and PAL together beat CDG.
That's wonderful... but what happens after CDG dies? "No alliance survives victory": Iron that phrase into your skull if need be. What happens if GWT and BAT don't eliminate one another? What happens if GWT and BAT just team up in the hopes that one of us will wipe the other one out?
The choices then presented to PAL are to team up with us to take on GWT/BAT in a lengthy attempt to knock one of the two of them out of the game or simply to knock off Apolyton on their own continent. The same two choices will be present for Apolyton. If we ally with PAL, we better be **** sure that both Apolyton and PAL either make the SAME choice to fight GWT/BAT or *at least* that PAL does.
I have not seen adequate discussion of that and how we can craft an alliance agreement with PAL or other things we can do during the alliance to help raise the chances of that and reduce the chances of PAL deciding that they might as well knock off Apolyton.
Simply put, we cannot rely on GWT and BAT knocking one of them out of the competition and making things easy for us. It'll be great if it happens, but I'd rather not rely on it.
Now, I know con and F-P have done some idle chatting on the subject, but I haven't seen enough of discussion in here (except in the lengthy chat I just posted in the other thread) on that subject. We need to cover all of our bases before we go rushing into any alliances that have every chance of ensuring our own doom if we don't do things right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
conmcb25
|
 |
Angmar
Aug 2002
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arnelos
I have not seen adequate discussion of that and how we can craft an alliance agreement with PAL or other things we can do during the alliance to help raise the chances of that and reduce the chances of PAL deciding that they might as well knock off Apolyton.
Simply put, we cannot rely on GWT and BAT knocking one of them out of the competition and making things easy for us. It'll be great if it happens, but I'd rather not rely on it.
Now, I know con and F-P have done some idle chatting on the subject, but I haven't seen enough of discussion in here (except in the lengthy chat I just posted in the other thread) on that subject. We need to cover all of our bases before we go rushing into any alliances that have every chance of ensuring our own doom if we don't do things right. |
Hmmm. I guess officially scheduled chats are now just idle chats:
This is from the official chat we had with PAL last saturday. And Im going to add that at any given time three or four members of the PAL team were on, so it wasn't just me talking to F-P or F-P making agreements on his own. (That mistaken judgement was brought up in chat this evening several times)
Right before this PAL pretty much told us they figured out it was CDG with us on the continent and why we should together get rid of the Seafaring Berzerker Threat. You can see the whole chat in the FA thread, but this is the part I wanted to post:
[20:36:28] [FriedrichPsital[PAL]] So PAL gets a safer continent, and a reliable ally.
[20:36:39] [FriedrichPsital[PAL]] We think it likely given the French and German histories that we can convince a backstab there.
[20:36:51] [FriedrichPsital[PAL]] We think due to our shared roots, we are a more stable and likely alliance.
[20:36:54] [(ZIP)Lord_Phan_GS] and we can then mop up the survivor between France and Germany
Because again I believe the perception is that we haven't done any official talking about the future after CDG is eliminated. Well folks we have, and we talked about that as well before we had the chat. I cant help it the English school teacher had that first on his agenda and I had that last on mine  So he brought it up first.
But again, I encourage you to read the chat.
Pal has already told us they want a reliable ally. They told us they want to mop up the other continent with a reliable ally. But if you will all feel safer by spelling that out exactly in some Treaty document thats fine.
But dont tell people this hasn't been discussed. And please dont tell me we need more details, this is about as many details as you are going to get at this point in the game. We dont even know where the other continent is yet.
But please dont tell me this was just discussed in idle chatter, it was discussed and proposed in official chat, with many parties in attendance.
So again, I suggest you read the chat. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
con, as explained in chat, it's all well and good that you discussed this briefly with PAL, but where it NEEDS to be discussed is in here.
Again, I have not seen adequate discussion of that topic and what we are going to actually do to improve the chances of it IN HERE. It's one thing to talk with them about "yeah, we should stay together after CDG dies", it's another entirely for it happen. Let us merely say that my experience has taught me that "friends forever" agreements signed under one set of circumstances (CDG is the mutual enemy we agree to wipe out) do not always survive when those circumstances die out. Frankly, interests change, perceptions change, the whole situation changes. If the situation becomes that it's easier for PAL to bump us off rather than work with us against GWT or BAT, we're screwed.
Again, what we need is some frank internal discussion about ways we can devise to prevent this possibility. Digging our heads into the sand and hoping that PAL is just going to be nice to us forever may not be sufficient.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:35
|
|
Just read the chat in FULL (the one with PAL), and it is clear there are some very important things to note.
1. PAL are fast players, and they are keen on forming a strong partnership with us NOW, not later.
2. They are fast pollers and decisions are made quickly. Their polls are restricted to 48 hours. I daresay their discussions are shorter than ours too.
3. They prize practicality as well as reputation (they pushed for a while to get us to break the agreement with CDG so we could attack them earlier, on the basis of practicality)
From this it would seem we must be careful not to piss them off too much if we want to avoid a war we would be hard pressed to survive. If they find CDG is easier to deal with, they will deal with them. I could see them allying against us, then before 'Zerks arrive taking down CDG. Because at each step it would be more practical.
Several times in the chat both teams acknowledge that the differences between us are like a language difference. This is a relatively easy thing to get over provided we start to see it from each other's POV. PAL has accepted we wanted some (5) days to decide and get back to them. This in itself is remarkable. Let us try and see it from the momentum players' perspective. They clearly want a plan finalised now so they can aim for it. If we move like turtles on even the crucial initial first steps of cooperation we must expect to be passed - as turtles are.
F-P and the others say they have given us a lot of 'bones' so far - this is true, with all they HAVE given us (they are 5 away from IW, they approached us with those two techs and a potential working relationship against CDG). Isn't it time we gave something back? It's not as if we're giving anything to them without a more than compensatory return.
So, as stated elsewhere, an email to them confirming the poll result (or at least stating the result to date, seeing as it is not yet closed) would be a good start. BUT, instead of saying 'looks like we WILL agree, but not until we have everything we want to present to you', why don't we agree to work with them and just say provided we can agree to stay at peace with each other after CDG's demise even if the other teams do not turn on each other straight away? This is the one objection raised to agreeing on what has been discussed with PAL to date that has been clearly voiced. It looks like they are already planning on teaming up against the other two anyway, so this should be met with approval, and will hopefully resolve the uncertainty some here hold towards cooperation with PAL.
It comes down to this: no-one has yet raised an objection to tech trading. There may be a few out there who oppose teaming up on CDG when Republic is attained, but hopefully those fears can be laid to rest if our position after CDG is secure. So let's confirm the first, ask about the second, and bloody well stop needless delay.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
conmcb25
|
|
Angmar
Aug 2002
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arnelos
con, as explained in chat, it's all well and good that you discussed this briefly with PAL, but where it NEEDS to be discussed is in here.
Again, I have not seen adequate discussion of that topic and what we are going to actually do to improve the chances of it IN HERE. It's one thing to talk with them about "yeah, we should stay together after CDG dies", it's another entirely for it happen. Let us merely say that my experience has taught me that "friends forever" agreements signed under one set of circumstances (CDG is the mutual enemy we agree to wipe out) do not always survive when those circumstances die out. Frankly, interests change, perceptions change, the whole situation changes. If the situation becomes that it's easier for PAL to bump us off rather than work with us against GWT or BAT, we're screwed.
Again, what we need is some frank internal discussion about ways we can devise to prevent this possibility. Digging our heads into the sand and hoping that PAL is just going to be nice to us forever may not be sufficient. |
Again we did not just say "we should stay togther after CDG dies." It was specifically discussed that we would stay togther to take on the second continent hopefully by reaching an agreement with one of the two parties over there for a three way gang bang.
Preparing to take on the other continent hopefully with a three way gang bang is the common goal that should bind us. And we should put that in our treaty proposal.
But how exactly you are going to prevent a backstab other than that, Im unsure. Im open to suggestions. And again sorry but I see a lot of people saying we should TALK about it but I dont see any alternatives or additional ideas being posted.
If we want to talk about it and how we are going to prevent PAL from a double cross then lets talk about it.
But lets NOT keep talking about how we should talk more about it. Lets just do it.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2004 08:32
|