 |
| |
|
|
GodKing
|
 |
Detroit
Feb 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
It appears that we will be signing a formal alliance with PAL. Con suggested (rightfully so IMO) that we start a thread asking the team as to what EXACTLY we want to see in an alliance.
As many of our team is also asking for time in making the formal alliance with PAL, this is most likely the way we can do it without causing them to be afraid that we are just screwing around with them.
So, please post, in intimate detail, you suggestions for the formal alliance.
Some important points (again, IMO)
All techs will be traded between the teams, within say 5 turns of researching it. Techs will be researched fairly evenly, so that each team will do roughly the same amount of tech points.
We will be partners in all military actions, and each team will coordinate and act together, including when and how to attack our joint enemies.
We get all lands south of the “isthmus” as described to us by PAL, and as much area north of it as reasonable to assure parity between the teams. This will need to be adjusted based on the size and shape of the world, as determined by mutual exploration.
Wonders construction will be coordinated between the teams.
Resources will be shared between the teams (lux and strategic), however, we reserve the right to withhold ivory until we have constructed Zeus (this is subject to discussions and changes I would say, as on emperor any lux is very much desired and needed for happiness reasons.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kloreep
|
 |
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
Thanks for starting this GK. 
quote:
Originally posted by GodKing
All techs will be traded between the teams, within say 5 turns of researching it. Techs will be researched fairly evenly, so that each team will do roughly the same amount of tech points. |
Yes, we should keep a tally of how many tech points each team has done to use as a guideline.
Also, I think we should just say techs will be traded immediately after completion unless something else is agreed to. (IE, not trading a non-critical tech so the other teams have a harder time researching it.)
quote:
Originally posted by GodKing
We will be partners in all military actions, and each team will coordinate and act together, including when and how to attack our joint enemies. |
Agreed. Make sure this states explicitly we must agree on targets. We may also want to explicitly state that once CDG is gone, the mission of the alliance will be to prepare to kill one of the other two - BAT or GWT.
quote:
Originally posted by GodKing
We get all lands south of the “isthmus” as described to us by PAL, and as much area north of it as reasonable to assure parity between the teams. This will need to be adjusted based on the size and shape of the world, as determined by mutual exploration. |
I'm not sure how much we can negotiate this right now. PAL said they had ample land, but did not give any specific figures... we really need to explore each other's land ASAP.
quote:
Originally posted by GodKing
Wonders construction will be coordinated between the teams. |
quote:
Originally posted by GodKing
Resources will be shared between the teams (lux and strategic), however, we reserve the right to withhold ivory until we have constructed Zeus (this is subject to discussions and changes I would say, as on emperor any lux is very much desired and needed for happiness reasons.) |
I'm not sure if we'll even be trade-connected before Zeus, so the point might be moot. And I wouldn't use as strong language as that... just say we don't want PAL building Zeus. Leave the ivory out of it, although it will still be implied.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donegeal
|
 |
Apolyton's Resident Law Enforcement Officer. Founder of the Glory of War, Champions of Apolyton!
Jul 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
Regarding sharing techs:
quote:
Techs are to be gifted as Accepted when requested from the other member of the Poly PAL Alliance (or whatever name we give to our Alliance). |
This way, neither team may dictate to the other when techs are to be given. I have always been uncomfortable with the tech situation that Poly has with CFC in the other game because it gives the impression that we know better than them when they need something.
Regarding Military action:
We should try to set up "Co-ordinated Military Chat" times during conflict. I'm not sure how things went with RP/GS, but when two teams who are allied in a conflict that play right after one another play their turns in char together, AMAZING things can happen. And I might add, we do play our turn right after PAL.
Further, after CDG is defeated, I agree that building up for an invasion of the other continent should be our priority, as long as we BOTH send out an equal number of suicide galleys (unless one of us gets the Great Lighthouse) to find the others. Hmmm... the Great Lighthouse... this gives me an idea... I'll talk about this a little later.
Exploring eachothers lands is a must and it should be done unmolested by the other. Additionally, we should leave any and all barbarians be so PAL can try to farm workers from them. Yes this includes any Barb camps as well. We should just share the gold gotten from the camps (ie: if 25 gold is gotten, they give us 12, they keep 13; if 50 then 25 apiece). They will probably argue this point, but the chances are that most of the barb camps are going to be in our territory because they are REXing so rapidly. We will be the ones putting up with barb camps in our lands, not them. We could get rid of the camps, but are leaving them for worker farms. Hmmm... gives me another idea. Let them keep all the gold but they let us capture any Barb slaves made in our lands (or let them keep them but we give them orders for what and where to improve).
Regarding Wonder Construction:
We have reserved Zues's. It is ours. We can build it at our leasure. We will not need to restrict the trading of Ivory with PAL as they will have agreed with the sharing of Wonders. The other wonders will need to be disscussed. They will need to tell us that they want the Pryamids... er I mean they will need to tell us what Wonder they want that they wern't willing to tell us about before.
Now that we are on the subject of Wonders... I suggest that we ask them to let us build the Great Lighthouse. Why? We would then be the ones to build the suicide Galleys and they could use those shields for something else... like workers. Workers that help improve our lands (they are industrious... why not we let that trait help us both?). Additionally, if and when we contact the others, it would be wise to have the team with Ancient Cav to have a rapid fleet to send them on. Plus, the other continent might not be reachable without the benifits of the Lighthouse. If this is the case, again, it would be wise to have the team with Ancient cav be the one to wage an offensive.
Regarding Resources:
If either team in the Poly-PAL alliance has an extra resource that the other doesn't posses (and that resource is wanted), it will be given to the other team without restrictions (ie: no GPT or techs to go along with the deal. Just flat out gifted). As this is an alliance, DO NOT keep track of which team is giving more to the other with regards to resources. We act as if we were one nation needing two sources of the resource to distribute it to everyone.
Hmmm... well... its kinda long, but it has some good ideas I think.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
Long long long circling chat on this subject:
PART 1
quote:
Kloreep> 12Opinion poll: Should we switch to CB or stay on IW? The poll does overwhelmingly faver the alliance
* Kloreep slaps Arnelos_IDLE around a bit with a Trokhilos idol
* Kloreep slaps E_T_cleaning_house around a bit with a Trokhilos idol
* Kloreep slaps WIA around a bit with a Trokhilos idol
Arnelos_IDLE> ?
Arnelos_IDLE> hmm...
Kloreep> Only reason not to switch is in case we can't get IW from PAL for some reason
* Arnelos_IDLE references his question about why the poll needed to be conducted NOW in the thread
* WhiteBandit has joined #c3cisdg
* Kloreep sets mode: +o WhiteBandit
Kloreep> Kloreep> 12Opinion poll: Should we switch to CB or stay on IW? The poll does overwhelmingly faver the alliance
WIA> I don't think there's a helluva lot of different options - certainly none better
WIA> To Arn, that is
Kloreep> Arnelos: On why it needs to be decided soon...
Kloreep> I agree this is a little rushed
Kloreep> But we really should get back to them before they meet CDG
Kloreep> If we want an alliance, that is
Kloreep> Which it looks like we do
WIA> How so? THere has been a few days of discussion already. We know the alternatives.
Arnelos_IDLE> WIA - the problem is developing information
Arnelos_IDLE> for instance, take the CB issue
Kloreep> WIA: Rushed compared to how alliances usually develop more slowly
WIA> THis is a very different sort of game, and PAL a very different sort of 'team'
WIA> Not sure I know what you mean there, Arn
Arnelos_IDLE> Why is it that we're going to switch to CB on the basis of agreeing to an alliance rather than agreeing to an alliance because PAL actually came through for us?
GK-PBEM> baaa, why wait. What is all the time needed for. Now, if we do not switch, we are just wasting time. Also, the poll said 19 for alliance and only 2 aganst
Kloreep> Arnelos: ?
Kloreep> Not quite sure I know what you mean
Arnelos_IDLE> It's a matter of how to think about the issue
Kloreep> You mean you think we should wait for IW to be sent to us?
Arnelos_IDLE> In part, yes
WIA> Well I have no problem with us staying on IW, but if we are going to ally (which it looks lile we are), we should make as much from that alliance as possible
GK-PBEM> Why waste the time?
WIA> IW is a key in this game, and I daresay if we agree to broadly cooperate with PAL via an alliance they would accept we wanted IW more quickly
Arnelos_IDLE> :sigh: It's not the actual move that worries me, it's how we're doing it. I think we trust PAL too much without actually going through the steps of them demonstrating a worthiness for that trust.
WIA> I have less of an opinion on the research change matter, but am dead certain on agreeing to cooperate with them
Kloreep> We have every reason to trust PAL now, I think
Kloreep> They could use an ally
Kloreep> We could use one too,
WIA> They have already gifted us two techs unbidden, on the idea that we would accept and respond in kind.
Arnelos_IDLE> Perhaps I missed it, but what reason does PAL have not to stab us?
Kloreep> And we can both use the elimination of CDG
WIA> If that ain;t goodwill I don;t know what is
Kloreep> It's after CDG I grow more concerned about trust
Arnelos_IDLE> precisely
Kloreep> But what is there that would convince you to sign the alliance?
Arnelos_IDLE> which begs the question... why jump into this course without fulling considering the potential consequences?
WIA> We're not going to drop our guard, just agree on something that will benefit both of us
GK-PBEM> who said completely to trust them.
Kloreep> The after CDG situation is circumstance - us alone, with only one player needed to go from the game
WhiteBandit> eh
WhiteBandit> does PAL know we want to ally with them?
GK-PBEM> I don't think anybody completely trust them. We will watch our back 110% of the time.
WIA> They know we're considering it, I hope
Kloreep> They know we're considering it
Kloreep> I don't think they know much more
Arnelos_IDLE> Think about it... we help PAL take down CDG and then PAL takes us down... game over: PAL, GWT, and BAT proceed to next round. We need a solid means of preventing that outcome before we agree to put the noose around our own neck.
WhiteBandit> i personally would have rather killed PAL and let the weak teams live. :-/
Kloreep> Agreed
WIA> What noose?
WIA> We're agreeing to work with PAL, not allow them into our borders
Kloreep> But I think delaying and not choosing an ally is an even thicker noose to put around our heads
Kloreep> Between "certainly" and "maybe, we'll consider" I'll pick certainly for an ally
GK-PBEM> We will want to scout out their lands. We will have to let them do the same, but withing reason is all.
Arnelos_IDLE> PAL is going to be a powerhouse while we're not going to be as strong as them. By helping them to remove CDG, we remove what help we would receive (as minimal as it might be) in the event PAL turned on us. It's very much a noose if PAL decides to take us both out.
Kloreep> Still, Hoplites herp
Kloreep> Our reputation helps
Kloreep> By removing CDG, and doing so with PAL, we also remove the possibility of a PAL-CDG alliance
Arnelos_IDLE> That much is true
WIA> So Arn, you're saying that PAL will only become stronger than us? Despite the widespread belief Poly is a powerhouse if given time to grow and develop?
Kloreep> I agree with Arn there
Kloreep> We will never match PAL. Perhaps in a fight due to Hoppys, but not economically
Arnelos_IDLE> of course, if our fear is a PAL-CDG alliance, why not take down PAL? CDG would be a minor threat without PAL. PAL remains a major threat even without CDG.
WIA> I thought PAL were warmongers, and less organised re: development
GK-PBEM> CDG has something we will shortly need - land near our home.
Arnelos_IDLE> WIA - PAL is playing an agricultural civ on a flood plain with a flood plain+wheat tile... they are growing by leaps and bounds... what do you think?
Kloreep> PAL has experts pretty much everywhere is my sense. Like poly
Arnelos_IDLE> We're great builders, but we're not THAT great
WIA> It is Poly's amazing organistion that is our strength. I challenge you to find someone anywhere with the staggering dedication to detail that we have seen in MoI stuff before
GK-PBEM> Pal is expert in the early game - the way they play they hardly ever see the industrial era.
Arnelos_IDLE> If we ally with PAL, we better pray for a GWT-BAT war
Kloreep> I doubt this game will see the Ind regardless of PAL
Kloreep> If nothing else, it will end in an inter-continental Cav war
Kloreep> Same if we ally with CDG
Kloreep> Unless we want to backstab them.
WIA> If we ally then we gain a friend that we fear ATM. If we don't then we are gaining no guarantees. Which sounds safer?
GK-PBEM> I see a major issue - everybody assumes that there will be a war on the other continent.
Kloreep> GK: Yep
Arnelos_IDLE> that, or we need to sign an agreement with PAL that *explicitly* outlines that both allies promise to take down GWT/BAT if CDG goes down and the game isn't over yet. Even then, it's going to be a big trust issue.
Kloreep> Yes, it'll be the two continents vs each other unless someone backstabs
Arnelos_IDLE> if not, remember: NO ALLIANCE SURVIVES VICTORY. If the purpose of the alliance is to take out CDG and GWT and BAT do not fight... the alliance will die and we're up for dinner next.
GK-PBEM> That discussion has already started - and they agree that we will team up, probably to destroy the germans (who PAL dislikes with a passion)
WIA> So? If PAL or we take down CDG then there's not even a former alliance!
WIA> We'd be up for dinner ANYWAY by that logic
Kloreep> Unless we allied with CDG
Kloreep> But I don't like our chances there
WIA> At least with an alliance we have a chance to work with them, learn about them and potentially get them on side
Kloreep> Attacking PAL is a bad idea for the same reason we really don't want PAL to backstab us
Kloreep> They are simply in a better position
WIA> Is that what you are countenancing as a vialbe alternative, Arn? Allying with CDG instead?
WIA> Or no alliance at all?
GK-PBEM> and they are further away.
Arnelos_IDLE> I'm honestly just playing devil's advocate here
Arnelos_IDLE> I think we're rushing into the decision
Kloreep> And I see your points
Kloreep> But PAL is basically calling the shots here
Arnelos_IDLE> If we ally with PAL, I want us to cover our bases
Kloreep> I honestly think our best chance is to ally with them, work with them... and hope we don't end up next to such a superpower next game. 
WIA> Of course. I'd never accept anything less than caution at all times
Kloreep> Yes, this is a military game
GK-PBEM> Go solo - no - PAL will make an alliance one way or another to just have the benifits of 2 teams researching and so forth. It is PAL's way. Why not with us instead of CDG, where we will probably have to fight them both.
* WIA is now known as WIA_BRB
* conmcb25_sleepimg has joined #c3cisdg
* Octavian_X has joined #c3cisdg
* ChanServ sets mode: +o Octavian_X
Arnelos_IDLE> GK - allying with PAL is sensible if they can be trusted. What I think we need to work on is ways to lock in that alliance... ways to ensure it survives beyond the death of CDG. We know that that is the glaring weakness of the PAL alliance.
* GK-PBEM sets mode: +o conmcb25_sleepimg
Kloreep> Yes
GK-PBEM> agree. So, any ideas?
Kloreep> If the other two civs ally, we don't have nearly as much incentive for PAL later in the MA
* conmcb25_sleepimg is now known as conmcb25
WIA_BRB> And we can only work on strengthening an alliance when there is one already.
Arnelos_IDLE> if PAL truly despises GWT, that's an idea
GK-PBEM> they do.
conmcb25> Ho Hum
GK-PBEM> (at least they appear to)
Kloreep> Hi con & Oct
Arnelos_IDLE> we could explicitly agree with them that the purpose of the alliance is take down first CDG, then GWT.
conmcb25> i already said this
conmcb25> we keep akeing sure there is a common interest
conmcb25> a common goal
Kloreep> Con, OctX: Opinions on switch research this turn? We do have an overwhelming majority for the alliance
conmcb25> and F-P hates the germans
GK-PBEM> I would not specify GWT until we know what the map looks like and where they are at
Arnelos_IDLE> lay down provisions by which we would seek out GWT's location, build up a cross-continental force, and then move to take GWT down. The point is... any alliance agreement with PAL *must* include that or something similar.
conmcb25> Until we know, GWT is a common emough foe for me
WhiteBandit> oct - add me to auto op fool! :P
Arnelos_IDLE> we could always include a provision for switching targets to BAT with mutual acceptance by both allies
Arnelos_IDLE> point is... having a *target* would be nice
GK-PBEM> I would word it along the lines of "jointly explore and asses as to who to take down after cdg, preferably gwt if the other two civs are about equal" or something similar.
conmcb25> Fine somebody write up a provision then
* MasterZen has joined #c3cisdg
conmcb25> I think you are getting way ahead of yourselves
* Kloreep sets mode: +o MasterZen
Arnelos_IDLE> most certainly not
MasterZen> ello
conmcb25> Arnelos you said today it was way too early for this and now you want to take on the other continent
conmcb25> Either have a vision or dont
GK-PBEM> no, I don't think so. We are talking about an alliance for the entire game, and the distruction of two teams IS this entire game.
conmcb25> But you cant have it both ways
Arnelos_IDLE> The *whole reason* why I think it's too damn early is that we haven't thought about WHAT COMES NEXT
conmcb25>
Arnelos_IDLE> If we're going to do it, which YOU insist on, we better as hell prepare for what comes next
conmcb25> um you haven't thought that
conmcb25> PAL and some of us already have
conmcb25> did you read the chat?
Arnelos_IDLE> besides... I don't trust PAL
* Octavian_X is with Arnelos at this point.
conmcb25> F-P already said the common goal should be to talk the French into backstabbing the Germans
Octavian_X> I do think we're rushing into this entirely too early.
conmcb25> I dont either
GK-PBEM> Con,hurry up and send me the green game so I can get around to founding my city already... 
Octavian_X> For one, I'm disturbed that we've only really heard F-P.
conmcb25> But the alternative to for us to be surfing at he end of a viking surfboard
Arnelos_IDLE> hey OctX... the guy taking over for Samuel (MFCamillus, I think) needs the password for PBEM Tourny Game #5
Octavian_X> ok.
conmcb25> OK Arnelos if we dont ally with PAL tell me what the alternative is?
WIA_BRB> He's playing Devil;
Octavian_X> We wait. We gain trust.
WIA_BRB> s ADvocate, con. I just asked that
* WIA_BRB is now known as WIA
Arnelos_IDLE> The alternative that exists is to ally with CDG against PAL. The logic is that CDG presents less of a threat later than PAL does. I'm honestly not proposing that so much as playing devil's advocate. I'm not fully convinced that the PAL alliance strategy is the superior one.
GK-PBEM> They will not accept waiting IMHO. They will simply make alliance with CDG and go against us in the long run.
WIA> Do we have any reason to trust CDG more?
Octavian_X> Start small - NAPs and such with PAL. I'm not convinced going to ally right away is the best move we can make.
Arnelos_IDLE> I think we're rushing into the decision without fully considering the implications.... at least, that's what I see.
Octavian_X> And, do we even have a reason to fear CDG?
Kloreep> I think it is, if only because alliance with CDG means attacking PAL... the neighborhood super-REXer, soon to be super-power because of it
Octavian_X> Berserks not counted.
Octavian_X> Remember, they did screw up their Immortal advantage in the PTWISDG.
Kloreep> No reason to fear CDG
Kloreep> We could use their land, though
Arnelos_IDLE> CDG sucks
GK-PBEM> Do we trust cdg getting beserkers? I don't, as our land is better for them rather than PAL's land.
Arnelos_IDLE> I'm not worried about them even WITH berserks
Kloreep> And I _do_ fear a PAL that does not see an ally, or at least use, in us
WIA> SO does anyone think we can make CDG NOT suck?
Kloreep> Trade team members?
Octavian_X> They will suck no matter what.
conmcb25> yep we sure can
Octavian_X> We simply use that to our advantage.
Kloreep> 
GK-PBEM> only way would be to take their team over.
conmcb25> same way we are making our allies powerhouses right now in the ISDG
conmcb25> 
WIA> Yes... an advantage is allying with APL and telling CDG to suck on THAT
Octavian_X> How about this, con...
conmcb25> I agree we should put the alliance off
Octavian_X> We start small with PAL. Don't go for the alliance right away, start with a NAP or something.
* GK-PBEM is now known as GK
conmcb25> Sure no problem
conmcb25> I agree
* GK is now known as GK_waiting_green_game
conmcb25> Lets cancell the poll and start a NAP poll instead
Octavian_X> No disagreement there.
Kloreep> Start a new poll with more options
conmcb25> Your a consul DO IT
GK_waiting_green_game> I disagree, as I don't see PAL going for it.
Octavian_X> Once we know our full situation (map of whole continent), we should think about alliance.
conmcb25> Go ahead and delay
Kloreep> I see some risk in delaying PAL
Kloreep> On the other hand, do they want to ally with CDG any more than we do?
Octavian_X> It they won't take a NAP, than they probably shouldn't be trusted that much anyway.
Kloreep> After all, without their NAP, they'll be cranky
conmcb25> Pal doesn't believe in NAPS
conmcb25> Not in this game
GK_waiting_green_game> They want it all, or they will probably not want anything (althoug I think they will lie to us in the meantime to string us along until the big attack).
Arnelos_IDLE> con may have a point there
conmcb25> But you guys go ahead and continue to disiillusion your selves
Octavian_X> They them that we do.
Kloreep> Yes, what GK says
Octavian_X> We shouldn't be bending over backwards to accomindate PAL.
conmcb25> The minute we say, we dont think its the right time
Kloreep> They want it all, because they want an ally
conmcb25> They will make the offer to the Vikings
Octavian_X> Even with beserkers, I have no fear of CDG.
GK_waiting_green_game> we agree to an alliance, but we demand an equal alliance. Everything must be equal or it isn't an alliance.
Kloreep> Oct: Yes, but I fear PAL
GK_waiting_green_game> I do.
conmcb25> And then it will be PAL and CDG against us
conmcb25> s
Octavian_X> You guys have no taste for fun.
Kloreep> GK: I don't think they said anything less
Kloreep> Though I agree with Arnelos on including longer-term seek and destroy goals in the agreement
GK_waiting_green_game> I fear beserkers big time in this game. Look how much coast we have. Look how close they are to us. Beserkers are a bad thing to have against us.
Arnelos_IDLE> We can just stall for time. con can say (truthfully) that we're currently debating it. Support for an alliance (game-long alliance) with PAL is very strong, but we're trying to work out precisely what we'd like to see. con could bring some of the issues to PAL for discussion with them... that would tell PAL that we *DO* intend to ally with them AND give them a window into that we're taking this very seriously... an alliance with them.
conmcb25> Fine arny
conmcb25> Delay to PAl means no
Arnelos_IDLE> :sigh:
Arnelos_IDLE> listen to what I just said
conmcb25> and they will do the same pitch with CDG
Arnelos_IDLE> read the whole post, con
conmcb25> and MRex will jump at it
Octavian_X> Do you really want an alliance with someone that demands everything just the way THEY want it?
Arnelos_IDLE> :sigh: read my whole friggin' post... I'm telling you a way out of this
conmcb25> I did
Arnelos_IDLE> Alliances are not simply "ok, we're allied"... they take time to negotiate
conmcb25> this is not the ISDG
Arnelos_IDLE> Start that process
conmcb25> This is not dealing with CFC
GK_waiting_green_game> We have 5 game turns to decide. Lets post some of our concerns back to FP (formally) and ask for a formal response. Tell them we are seriously in favor of the alliance at this time, but members of our team demand some answers before committing.
Octavian_X> Arny has another point. I want to see some terms to this alliance.
conmcb25> It took three hours to get them to agree for us to finish our tech deal
Kloreep> GK:
Arnelos_IDLE> We ask PAL what provisions they'd like... we ask our team what provisions they'd like... we discuss... we work on them. Point is, once we're on the road to signing a long-term alliance agreement, we're on the right track.
Arnelos_IDLE> it will take time
Arnelos_IDLE> point is... we WANT time
conmcb25> You want time
conmcb25> I want to get this game going in the right direction
GK_waiting_green_game> Will someone please explain why we WANT time? I do not understand that need.
Arnelos_IDLE> the chances that PAL and Apolyton will want the same exact provisions are extremely remote anyhow... if we really want the same exact things, that's even a good thing (though perhaps worrisome if it means that PAL is just stringing us along)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
PART 2
quote:
* UnOrthOdOx has joined #c3cisdg
Octavian_X> Arny is right.
Kloreep> Also, I would like to point out Togas asked for us not to sign the alliance till he got back from Japan
* GK_waiting_green_game sets mode: +o UnOrthOdOx
Kloreep> The way we're going, he's going to be sleeping off the jetlag still when we come to a decision
conmcb25> he left a week ago
conmcb25> he should be on his way back
Arnelos_IDLE> He'll be back late this week
conmcb25> he sadi one week'
Kloreep> Yeah, I think he comes back tomorrow or friday
Arnelos_IDLE> May 7-8, I think
Kloreep> But he'll have to catch up...
conmcb25> Fine poll isn't done til thursday
Kloreep> And sleep
Kloreep> The poll basically _is_ the decision unless it's re-polled, I thought
GK_waiting_green_game> We have 5 turns. We are on turn 2 now.
conmcb25> Fine somebody post a thread about delay and what provisions you want in the alliance
Arnelos_IDLE> con - point is... let's say we do decide, "ok, we want an alliance with PAL"... that's all well in good, but what form will that alliance take? What precisely will be entailed? When will we strike? How much can we trust that it will survive past the death of CDG? What will we do with PAL after that point? Both *teams* need to discuss and communicate about these things, not simply their mouthpieces.
Kloreep> I think we've pretty much decided on the alliance
Kloreep> But provisions would be good
Kloreep> And we can give Togas a little more time
conmcb25> Go ahead
conmcb25> Delay as much as you want
conmcb25> Start a thread
Arnelos_IDLE> con - we're not delaying for the mere sake of delay here
Arnelos_IDLE> besides, it's questionable whether we're even going to delay
Octavian_X> We want a delay so we don't jump into this carelessly, and so that we don't jump into this because PAL is stringing us along.
* conmcb25 wonders if Arnelos actually read the chat
Arnelos_IDLE> :sigh:
GK_waiting_green_game> OK. Here is an idea, con, can you write a formal letter to FP on, say, thursday or so, telling him the results of our poll (yes most likely) but then asking for exact provisions that are to be included in the formal alliance. Tell him that our team is demanding a written contract/document and that time will be needed to work out all the nitty gritty.
Arnelos_IDLE> con - What I'm trying to suggest (that you aren't reading) is that we can *use* the time that would otherwise simply be "delay" time. Start working on what form the alliance would take.
Arnelos_IDLE> GK - EXACTLY
Kloreep>
* Octavian_X agrees yet again.
Kloreep> We can tell them we want the alliance, hopefully reassuring them
Kloreep> And also tell them we need to work out details
conmcb25> Im not doing jack **** until I see a thraed started and I see some sort of provisions decided upon and posted
Arnelos_IDLE> huh?
conmcb25> Maybe not decided but at least posted
GK_waiting_green_game> Fine, con, I can post the thread.
conmcb25> Well Arnelos what do you want that was not already discussed?
conmcb25> Post it in the thread
GK_waiting_green_game> Doing so shortly. Btw, you now have the balderdash game as well as the green game!!!!!
Arnelos_IDLE> I already sent both
Arnelos_IDLE> I was drawing up my Balderdash post when this discussion started and distracted me
conmcb25> You guys need to have SOMETHING because the minute I say we need to work out the "nitty gritty", the response is going to be OK what do you propose
conmcb25> This is not a "nitty gritty" team
conmcb25> if you want "nitty gritty" we will ahve to propose it
GK_waiting_green_game> I understand. Give me 10 and a thread will be started.
* Octavian_X wants nitty gritty. If PAL really wants to ally with us, they will too.
Arnelos_IDLE> in that case, our solution is that we can work out the nitty gritties on our end and propose them to approve/disapprove if they want. that works.
* conmcb25 expects to see a lot of input in that thread from OCT_X and Arnelos
conmcb25> OCT_X did you actually read the chat?
Arnelos_IDLE> con - calm down, man
Octavian_X> Not tonight. I really should be studying for the AP World History Exam tomorrow.
Octavian_X> hehe
conmcb25> I am calm
Octavian_X> yes, I did.
conmcb25> They already laid out what they wanted and what the direction was
conmcb25> Do we know what date we want to attack CDG?
Kloreep> Not really
conmcb25> Duh
Kloreep> As we don't know the date for the completion of our core & resource cities
conmcb25> neither do they
conmcb25> So thats why what was discussed was "attack when mutually agreed to by both parties"
conmcb25> Or some wording similar to that
conmcb25> We share all techs
Octavian_X> I'm sorry, I'm just not ready to do anything and everything that PAL wants.
conmcb25> They already said they did not want to count points
Kloreep> Oct: You object to share all techs?
conmcb25> And since they are already twice as large that will probably benefit us in the long run
Octavian_X> I've no objection there. That's not a bad idea, so long as it doesn't get unbalanced.
conmcb25> When CDG is gone we paln on finding the others and coinvinve the French to go against the Germans
conmcb25> Thats the :STartegic plan'
Octavian_X> As a side commentary, I just want to note that I'm a bit suprised (even at myself) that there's not a lot of confidence that we could challenge PAL by ourselves.
conmcb25> We can mess with the wording of the last one
conmcb25> But what else do we need?
Kloreep> Oct: They simply got a better start
Arnelos_IDLE> OctavianX - if PAL didn't start with a floodplain with wheat tiles... there would be more confidence.
Kloreep> If we had a better starts and/or better trais and/or more offensive UU and/or they didn't have a good start, I might consider it
Octavian_X> That true, I suppose.
conmcb25> They are only twice as large right now, no problem
MasterZen> hey UnO
* conmcb25 has left #c3cisdg
Octavian_X> It doesn't mean they've got good access to other resources, though.
* conmcb25 has joined #c3cisdg
* ChanServ sets mode: +o conmcb25
Arnelos_IDLE> con - the problem I think we have right now is that you're about 10 miles ahead of the rest of the team in terms of the talking you've done with PAL and how much you trust F-P. You need to give some time for the rest of the team to catch up to you, especially on trust.
Kloreep> Oct: True, perhaps not. Want to bet our game on it?
WIA> So what has PAL demanded that doesn't advantage us also?
Kloreep> If they are horse-less and ironless we might stand a chance
conmcb25> Thats what I want to know/
Kloreep> But I bet they have at least one of the two. 
WIA> By saying 'yes we'd like to work close with PAL than anyone else', we aren't betting the farm. ALl we're doing is saying we are willing to work through close negotiations.
Octavian_X> And, that, unfortunately, is ture.
WIA> The specific implications can be worked through after we have told them we are keen
conmcb25> OK OCT_X, what provision of the a;;iance dont you like?
WIA> This is no legal document where we need to work through every niggly detail. That's what we do once we have given them their answer
Octavian_X> Just that. Nothing has been laid down is concrete.
WIA> Then what is the problem?
WIA> The poll says 'alliance' but I really think everyone is reading too much from that word
Arnelos_IDLE> We can always agree, right now, (in principle) to an alliance and tell them the vote result (massively in favor). We can then work out the actual agreement before an alliance is *signed* and both sides promise to abide by what is signed.
Kloreep> Agreed with Arnelos
Kloreep> No problem with telling them we like it in theory
Octavian_X> Again, agreed. I'm going against what the people have voted for.
Kloreep> Just tell them we would like to work out specifics before we sign on with full commitment
Octavian_X> *not
GK_waiting_green_game> http://www.apolyton.com/forums/show...threadid=114236
GK_waiting_green_game> thread started
WIA> Again, all we are agreeing to is cooperation with them. Where have they given us an unacceptable list of things we must do by saying 'yes'
conmcb25> Thats what I want to know MWIA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Arnelos_IDLE> the problem is the word "alliance" in the poll
WIA> Yes. To so many here it seems it means something very restrictive.
* conmcb25 laughs at the jumoir lawyers in this chat
* UnOrthOdOx has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Arnelos_IDLE> "jumoir"?
WIA> To me it means an agreement to start working together closely on ways to advance
Arnelos_IDLE> "alliance" to me means what it says: alliance
WIA> French word. You don;t want to know what it means, but it tends to belong in front of the word 'lawyer'
WIA> So what is an alliance to you, Arn?
conmcb25> ya Arn
Arnelos_IDLE> Within the context of the discussion thread linked from that post? A *commitment* to side with PAL against CDG
conmcb25> Thats it?
Arnelos_IDLE> It's the commitement that people are shy to make right now
Arnelos_IDLE> *commitment
WIA> Is that the sticking point with others here?
* WIA points at everyone else
WIA> Just want to know what the specific reluctance is about
GK_waiting_green_game> I dont get it myself.
Arnelos_IDLE> as I said, not everyone has had the chance to fully hash out this discussion including the future elements as you probably have with F-P, con. You trust F-P a lot, that's obvious, con. You've talked with him about some of these issues, that's great. But the *team* has not fully hashed them out, not even in that discussion thread.
Kloreep> I want to make sure we agree on how this alliance is going to work before committing, yes
conmcb25> Right out of the poll:
Kloreep> We already have some stuff basically sorted out, like tech
conmcb25> What yes entails in a nutshell:
conmcb25> -Tech Cooperation
conmcb25> -Choke then kill CDG after Republic.
conmcb25> -Allies for the game.
Kloreep> Looks good
Kloreep> Let's add more
Arnelos_IDLE> a lot more
conmcb25> Sure go to the chat
conmcb25> a LOT of it was already discussed
Arnelos_IDLE> and agreed... I don't want to make a commitment until I know what *all* an alliance entails. Yes.
Arnelos_IDLE> con - WITH F-P
Arnelos_IDLE> not with the team
WIA> I have no issue with any of those. Further cooperations can surely be worked out once we have agreed to that much
conmcb25> Three members of hi team were present
Kloreep> Posted in GK's thread
Arnelos_IDLE> wonderful. How many members does our team have again?
conmcb25> The alliance terms are being discussed right now with CDG
WIA> Let's just sodding well tell them that we have voted YES, and based on those three things
conmcb25> But I can almost guarenttee you that most of what F-P proposed was ALREADY discussed.
Arnelos_IDLE> with whom?
conmcb25> They dont sea lawyer **** to death like we do
conmcb25> His team for Petes sake
Kloreep> con: "lawyer ****" I see unresolved includes decisions on war post-CDG
Kloreep> There is some stuff that needs to be worked out
conmcb25> Unless F-P says, I would ahve to check that with my team, he already has the approval to speak.
Kloreep> Nothing deal-breaking, but it'll need to be on the table
WIA> That is the sticking point, IMO. Poly DG teams are used to having to scrutinise the fine print and having loads of time to decide. We are dealing with a very different team, and we may not have that time
WIA> But then we are not agreeing to things we have not discussed.
conmcb25> And he did not speak in the first person when he delivered his alliance ideas.
* conmcb25 wonders again if Arnelos rad the chat
Kloreep> Yes, I think PAL had scrutinized the alliance before they proposed it
Arnelos_IDLE> con - here's my problem: If what you say is true, then F-P has been doing a lot better at making sure his team was behind it than THIS TEAM has.
conmcb25> OBVIOUSLY
Arnelos_IDLE> so we need time for THIS TEAM to catch up
conmcb25> No we dont
Arnelos_IDLE> as a leader, that's your job
conmcb25> Do you want the deal or not?
Arnelos_IDLE> :sigh:
Arnelos_IDLE> this is about consensus building on your own team, con
GK_waiting_green_game> TIME - what for? Please explain to me why we need so much of it. Read the chat. Think. Make a decision and go with it. Do not nitty gritty all the ****ing details, just go with the general consepts and move foward.
conmcb25> No Arny this is about making a decision
Arnelos_IDLE> :sigh:
Kloreep> con: Do you disagree with telling them we agree in principle while ironing out the remaining details?
conmcb25> The team we are dealing with is not going to wait around for us to "figure out more nitty gritty"
Arnelos_IDLE> con - yes, why do you disagree with that?
MasterZen> question to con: why is it necessary to give a definitive answer NOW?
Kloreep> We still have 3 turns
conmcb25> The team we are dealing with alrady thru mutual discussion laid out some pretty good strategic provisions
Kloreep> Until an answer is even necessary
Kloreep> Some
Kloreep> More would be good
WIA> If all we go for is a consensus then we could take the poll result and just use that. But we want to make sure that any concerns are addressed.
Kloreep> Again, I think we've decided
WIA> Even by the minority who voted no so far
conmcb25> What dont you like about the plan and what are your alternatives?
Kloreep> But what PAL layed out will not be complete post-CDG
Kloreep> I like the plan
Arnelos_IDLE> WIA> If all we go for is a consensus then we could take the poll result and just use that. But we want to make sure that any concerns are addressed.
Kloreep> I don't have alternatives, I have a few _additions_
GK_waiting_green_game> I understand wanting to make sure you get the consepts. But wtf are we worring about the little BS for at this time. Look big picture. Talk big picture. Agree or disagree BIG PICTURE. The move forward and go and figure out the little ****. Leave that for those who like or care about that stuff.
conmcb25> Ok then post them
Kloreep> PAL's three points do not address where the alliance goes post-CDG, for instance, though that was discussed informally
Kloreep> GK hit on the major ones
WIA> Surely additions can be decided with them separately?
conmcb25> Im all for adding things we think will make this a fair deal
Kloreep> I'm thinking if there are others now
conmcb25> BUT I dont want to use that as an excuse for delay
Arnelos_IDLE> con - why the DEVIL do you want to rush, though?
conmcb25> Make up your minds and lets move forward
Kloreep> We are moving forward
Kloreep> A few days ago we didn't know if we were for the alliance
WIA> Exactly. Additions to the already discussed points will take time. That is why I think we should agree to what we have and table further ideas AFTER that first hurdle
conmcb25> Because if we dont Arnelos this game will be decided for us
Kloreep> Now we know we are, and the question is what _sort_ of alliance
conmcb25> I TRUELY believe that
Kloreep> con: I think we still have some turns
Arnelos_IDLE> con - here's my question... how much do you want to rush? How soon do we have to make this decision before it's all doom and gloom to you?
Kloreep> I believe PAL would prefer to ally with us
Kloreep> They're not going to dismiss us out of hand just because CDG shows up
Octavian_X> Tell me, thnen, is it really worth it if PAL would just as soon ally with anyone else?
conmcb25> Sure they would
GK_waiting_green_game> we have to this weekend in all reality. They will look for an answer this sunday or monday.
Octavian_X> That tells me that they aren't committed to us as we seem to be to them.
conmcb25> But delay will mean "NO" to them.
conmcb25> That tells me we are stupid
conmcb25> They want to win this and goto the next game
conmcb25> and take some good friends along
Kloreep> That tells me they are if they are going to go up against poly with Hoplites just because we don't jump-to
conmcb25> They have there strategic vision and are going for it
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
PART 3
quote:
Kloreep> Again, I think we could tell them we agree in principle this very moment, and certainly when the poll closes
conmcb25> If we say we need to think about it they will go with second best and wont look back
conmcb25> Its a team of MP guys
conmcb25> Come on
Kloreep> Again... we can tell them we agree in principle long before the weekend
Kloreep> And have some proposals for the actual alliance going to them soon as well
GK_waiting_green_game> hoplites are just pikemen. We kill pikes all the time, with sword, MI and knight. No problem. and they will have 2 times the cities by that time, with 2 times the army in all probability.
Octavian_X> I'm not coing to come on. If we're going to make the sacrafice of being with them for the entire game, they need to sacrafice the patience of dealing with us now.
conmcb25> Then vote no
conmcb25> If we need more time we just tell them no
WIA> Octy - you want to be able to attack PAL sometime in the future?!?
Kloreep> "No" in the poll is worded as no to the alliance, IIRC
conmcb25> Ano with a we would like to think about it more and consider an alliance in the future.
GK_waiting_green_game> then vote no and in the discussion of alliance thread, say we want an understanding of taking time to make decisions in the future Octavian_X
MasterZen> see this is what I don't understand. Why do we want to rush and say yes right now? Keep them waiting. Give out the signal that being allied with us is a PRIVILEDGE and that we need time to think about it. Let US be in the driver's seat. Diplomacy is like women, you don't want to ignore them, but you don't want to suck up to them or else they'll use you like a dirty rag.
WIA> Diplomacy is like friends. If you piss them off they will find new ones!
conmcb25> Fine then we tell them no, we are still thinking about it
Kloreep> MZ: The driver's seat would be hard to get in to.
Octavian_X> I agree completely with MZ.
conmcb25> No problem, I can do that
Arnelos_IDLE> ..... This is a useless false dichotomy (sp?): conmcb25> Then vote no
Arnelos_IDLE> conmcb25> If we need more time we just tell them no
Kloreep> But I agree we're being too paranoid about how quickly they'll abandon us
conmcb25> Then we just tell them we need more time to think about it
WIA> They have offered. We can either accept, reject or delay until they get annoyed with us. THEY stuck themselves our for us, remember, with those techs . It';s time we showed them whether we want to cooperate or not.
GK_waiting_green_game> we are, have been, and probably always will be paranoid. That is just one of our normal traits of the "poly civ"
WhiteBandit> well let's speak in language F-P can understand: "**** you dirty *****es, we'll tell you when we're damn well ready!" :P
Kloreep> Con: Again, we can tell them we agree in principle
conmcb25> I can do that 
Kloreep> If they're MP guys who are not big on the details, I bet they'll be okay with that
conmcb25> WTF does that mean?
WIA> WB - that's Lucky language, not F-P
Kloreep> Okay, be more specific then
Kloreep> "We want to sign the alliance, but would like these provisions as additional parts of it first:"
WhiteBandit> not when F-P is attacking you
conmcb25> But thats rushing into it KLO
conmcb25> We DONT want to do that
Arnelos_IDLE> lord god, con
Arnelos_IDLE> stop being such a *****
Arnelos_IDLE> I'm getting at my wits end with the inane sarcasm
MasterZen> jesus christ, why all this over-inflating PAL and F-P's capabilities? This is a PBEM FOR CHRIST SAKES. ALl of us here have infintely greater SP and PBEM experience than PAL does.
GK_waiting_green_game> 12 I still think we should send them a formal note, telling them we agree in principal to the idea of an alliance, we will want a formal document / contract of such, and here are some of the basic ideas we would like included (as indicated in the thread I just started). We then go from there.
conmcb25> Ok fine
Arnelos_IDLE> We're all saying the same damn thing
conmcb25> In four days Im just a mouth
Kloreep> Tell me when people stop talking past each other here
Kloreep> In the meantime, I'll be elsewhere
conmcb25> Whatever you guys want to do is fine
* Kloreep is now known as Kloreep|idle
conmcb25> I just need to tell PAL something in three turns
conmcb25> If GK's idea is it, then OK
GK_waiting_green_game> OK. I am going to bed, as I have to get up in 5 hours. Yuck, I hate getting up at 4:30. One of the reasons I never joined the military.
conmcb25> But unless we tell them something "concrete" dont plan on getting IW
GK_waiting_green_game> We should tell them something concrete. tell them the vote is yes, but now we have to work out the major details. later we will have to work out the little details.
* WIA thinks that the  smiley and the  one too will be used a lot in the threads...
Octavian_X> I'm going to get any studying done tonight...
GK_waiting_green_game> Night all.
* GK_waiting_green_game has quit IRC (Quit: )
Octavian_X> g'night
WIA> I have a question: are these concerns at least partly because this decision seemns to be being made faster than in other DGs, and in particular the ISDG>?
Octavian_X> When it comes down to it, that's one of my concerns.
WIA> Not to say it's too fast, just faster. I really think that this is a mindset we must be prepared to expedite in circumstances like this.
WhiteBandit> depends on the person really. my concern is that by allying with PAL now, we are making it infinetely harder for us in game 2
Kloreep|idle> Wow, civil discussion
Kloreep|idle> WB: I agree PAL will be a problem in game 2
Octavian_X> I don't like jumping this fast into deals like this, and I hate even more having to jump through another's hoops.
* Arnelos_IDLE nods
Kloreep|idle> But they're quite powerful now. We'd be risking our own skin, severely so, if we tried to take them out now.
WhiteBandit> that's why we'd need an alliance with CDG :P
Octavian_X> Other than deny us a few techs, there really isn't very much they can do right now.
WhiteBandit> i honestly think the situation is too soon
WhiteBandit> if PAL has better land than CDG, then it's obvious we'd want that
WhiteBandit> granted, their gifting of techs goes a long way in terms of diplomacy
WhiteBandit> but still
Arnelos_IDLE> but do we want to be "bought" merely with free techs or with a tie to our own long-term interest... and, it being an elimination game, our *survival*?
WhiteBandit> exactly
Kloreep|idle> Agreed with Arnelos
* Octavian_X concurs
Kloreep|idle> I don't see why that accepted tech thing is seen as such a big deal
Kloreep|idle> It's good, certainly
WhiteBandit> that's why i like your stipulations of tying it down if we're going to do it
conmcb25> Ok so what is the lternative to PAL?
Kloreep|idle> But no indication of long-term trustworthiness
Octavian_X> CDG. 
Arnelos_IDLE> con - we're not necessarily talking about an alternative... you're thinking FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR too much in "all yes" or "all no" false dichotomy here
Kloreep|idle> They're not much of an alternative...
conmcb25> No Arnelos what is the alternative?
conmcb25> Dont just throw rocks give us an alternate plan
Kloreep|idle> And once again we talk past each other. Fun
Arnelos_IDLE> if we don't accept EVERYTHING PAL sends to us WHENEVER they send it to us on WHATEVER they send to us... that doesn't mean we're going to not *end up* dead.
conmcb25> That plan could be see how things develop and go from there
conmcb25> Ok Arnelos then propose a better plan then what was laid out in chat
WhiteBandit> oh geez
conmcb25> and lets go back with that
WhiteBandit> don't use that excuse to justify your position
Arnelos_IDLE> con - this is my point. this is going to take a little time
conmcb25> I dont need an excuse
WhiteBandit> just because someone can't come up with another/better plan at the moment doesn't mean your plan is good / the best.
conmcb25> Its a good plan
conmcb25> I just want to know what the alternatives are
Octavian_X> Mine as well. Just becuase a plan doesn't present itself right away doesn't mean it won't show up in the future.
WhiteBandit> the alternative is crushing PAL with CDG that way we take a weak opponent along with us into game 2
Arnelos_IDLE> con - exactly... we want to know what hte alternatives are... and we want to discuss them... that's the MAIN reason for taking time.
conmcb25> Then the paln is to wait and see what develops
Octavian_X> In a nutshell, yes.
conmcb25> Or wait and see what our alternatives are
conmcb25> I can but that
conmcb25> buy that
WhiteBandit> and by "see what develops" we mean: "discuss alternative proposals"
WhiteBandit> we're not sittin idly on our butts :P
conmcb25> Why not both?
conmcb25> Seriously
conmcb25> Doesn't one lead to the other?
* Arnelos_IDLE wonders what con thinks we're doing
conmcb25> Discussing alternatives aren't we?
conmcb25> Using cation?
conmcb25> caution?
conmcb25> Thinking things thru before doing?
conmcb25> Am I close
Arnelos_IDLE> you're getting warmer
conmcb25> Ok great
Octavian_X> 'Tis the Apolytonian way to discuss things to death so we can be absolutely sure that what we're doing is the best.
conmcb25> Then we jut tell them on firday or saturadya we need more time to think about it.
conmcb25> whenever the five turns is up
Arnelos_IDLE> There's an awesome quote from Pericles' "Funeral Oration" from Thucidydes "Peloponesian War" on that subject ;p
conmcb25> Are you going to share it?
Arnelos_IDLE> I gotta go dig it up
conmcb25> That is an alternative
conmcb25> We can tell them we agree in principle but want more time to evaluate
Arnelos_IDLE> found it
Arnelos_IDLE> "Instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all." - Pericles (from the funeral oration in Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War, circa 460-455 B.C.E.)
Octavian_X> My sig is about to change, I think...
WhiteBandit> i think we kinda agree on that about 20 minutes ago ;P
conmcb25> Sure we need to discuss it
conmcb25> We better launch another poll
conmcb25> Mine is black and white
Octavian_X> Good idea.
Arnelos_IDLE> what we need is more discussion of the particulars
Arnelos_IDLE> we've already agreed, it seems, on the overall
MasterZen> here's one more:
conmcb25> So what should this new poll ask?
Arnelos_IDLE> we don't need a new poll yet
conmcb25> Specifically?
Arnelos_IDLE> we need a discussion thread
Kloreep|idle> GK's already posted one
conmcb25> We have one on the provisions of the alliance
conmcb25> Or do you want something else arne/
Arnelos_IDLE> I think the poll we just conducted said pretty loud and clear that most of the team agrees, in principle, to the idea of allywing with PAL. The question still up for grabs is precisely what that should entail.
conmcb25> ?
conmcb25> Ok looks at GK's thread and see if that will suffice
Arnelos_IDLE> Kloreep - I've been too busy debating in here to visit the forum in the past 2 hours
conmcb25> http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...411#post2952097
Kloreep|idle> Arnelos: Didn't say you were ignoring it or anything
conmcb25> here she be
Kloreep|idle> Was just telling you one had been opened
Arnelos_IDLE> yeah
Arnelos_IDLE> anyhow, I have another PBEM in my box
conmcb25> We could offer maybe a better explanation to GK first post
Arnelos_IDLE> doing that, then forum
conmcb25> How do you log threads?
conmcb25> Do you have to have "logging on at the beginning?
Kloreep|idle> ?
Arnelos_IDLE> no, but otherwise you need to manually copy-and-paste
Kloreep|idle> Use Buffer
Kloreep|idle> Buffer|Save as...
conmcb25> So if I hit the logging command it would pick up this whole thread?
conmcb25> or the buffer save as?
Kloreep|idle> No, the logging command won't pick up what's come before
Kloreep|idle> Buffer|Save As will
conmcb25> OK got it thanks
Kloreep|idle> Or Save & Log As if you want to keep logging what's going on now
conmcb25> We may want to post this
conmcb25> at least the secind half
Octavian_X> Certainly wouldn't hurt.
Arnelos_IDLE> assuming anyone wants to sift through it, that is
Octavian_X> crap... BRB, reboot.
* Octavian_X has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
conmcb25> Do we want a second poll or not?
Arnelos_IDLE> no, not yet
conmcb25> One that says something like we maybe rushing into this thing to quickly, would you prefer us to tell PAL that we agree in principle to an allaince but need more time to evaluate our options kind of thing?
Arnelos_IDLE> by the time that poll has a *result*, we'll already have delayed, won't we? ;p
conmcb25> We could do 48 hours
conmcb25> They would both end about the same time
conmcb25> and its only a Tweak really of the first poll
conmcb25> I dunno, what do you think?
* Octavian_X has joined #c3cisdg
* ChanServ sets mode: +o Octavian_X
conmcb25> We give PAl the "provisions" and say we need another week or something
Arnelos_IDLE> I honestly don't think we need it. Besides, what are we going to tell PAL if we move forward? "We agree to everything you want. We have nothing more to discuss"????
conmcb25> ??????
conmcb25> I think you are missing my point
Arnelos_IDLE> In other words, the details need to be worked out *regardless*, no?
conmcb25> Reguardless of what?
conmcb25> If we delay or not?
Arnelos_IDLE> whether we call it delaying or not
conmcb25> Arnelos
Arnelos_IDLE> frankly, I see the entire issue of "delay" or "non-delay" as almost entirely academic. We're probably going to spend some time working out the details.
conmcb25> They are going to want an answer
Arnelos_IDLE> We have one
Arnelos_IDLE> What are you asking? When we should give it or whether?
conmcb25> Using the provisons as a "delay tactic " wont work
Arnelos_IDLE> this is my point... I think calling it a "delay" is a merely academic distinction
conmcb25> I guess I dont know what you want?
Arnelos_IDLE> It's going to happen even if we don't tell them that
conmcb25> How?
* conmcb25 reminds Arnelos this is NOT Apoly we are dealing with
conmcb25> Ok look at this way
Arnelos_IDLE> The point is that we're going to want more provisions than currently exist. Working out such provisions and figuring out what the team wants will take time. Even if we told PAL that we agree to their alliance, yipee! It's still going to take time to work that stuff out. I fail to see why we need to even couch that as a "delay". Why not just tell them we agree in principle and we're working on the provisions "already".
WhiteBandit> that didn't stop us from doing proper diplomacy with other teams
WhiteBandit> is it really that difficult to send an email that says "we agree in principle, we'll send you a draft proposal with our thoughts shortly"?
Arnelos_IDLE> bingo
WhiteBandit> i mean i can do it
Arnelos_IDLE> I fail to see how that even qualifies as a 'delay tactic'
WhiteBandit> i have plenty of diplomatic experience.
conmcb25> So you dont want to give them provisons this weekend?
Arnelos_IDLE> con - we haven't even discussed it internally yet
WhiteBandit> we'll give them the provisions when we agree what provisions should be on there
Arnelos_IDLE> bingo
WhiteBandit> it's a matter of not having discussed it, that's all
Arnelos_IDLE> don't put the cart before the horse
conmcb25> White Bandit would you like to take over as ambassador?
Arnelos_IDLE> :sigh:
conmcb25> Whats he :sigh: for?
conmcb25> Look Im having a hard time figuring this out, I really am
conmcb25> Im trying to ask questions and be Civil
Arnelos_IDLE> ok
conmcb25> So I can understand
WhiteBandit> not particularly as i don't have the time to devote to ambassador duties
conmcb25> And Im told, hey I got experience, Ill do it.
WhiteBandit> (i guess i do have the time, as evidenced by sitting here right now, but blah, just so much stuff on my plate)
Arnelos_IDLE> I perceived the implication in your question to WB that "oh, you think you can do the job better? Fine, you can have it."
conmcb25> No my implied staement was maybe IM not the guy
conmcb25> Maybe I am too close
Arnelos_IDLE> I'd say that you get along very well with F-P
conmcb25> Im 43, I dont live for my ego
conmcb25> If it aint for the team, then I will step down.
WhiteBandit> 43!!??
WhiteBandit> i'm surprised you live at all!
WhiteBandit>
conmcb25> almost 44
WhiteBandit> hehe
WhiteBandit> joking of course
WhiteBandit> i'm just a hot headed young whipper snapper
conmcb25> Ok you guys are going to have to come up with a timeframe
conmcb25> F-P is gonna ask me: "How long?"
WhiteBandit> i personally don't see any problem with you sending an email off to PAL tonight that says something along the lines of "we agree in principle, we'll draft up a proposal with our thoughts and send it to you soon"
conmcb25> And yes WB I can do the Ill have to check with my team routine
Arnelos_IDLE> con - to be completely honest, I think you get along with F-P (in particular) very very well. That's a very good thing for PAL liking our team because they perceive (correctly) that they have a pro-PAL person advocating what PAL wants on our team and a pro-PAL policy. That's good as long as our policy is indeed pro-PAL.
conmcb25> Arnelos do you want to restate that last sentence?
Arnelos_IDLE> huh?
conmcb25> I think the team is Pro PAL
conmcb25> The poll is pretty clear on that
conmcb25> I think
Arnelos_IDLE> yes, but what I see is that when we QUESTION that stance... something which we should always be doing (questioning what we're doing rather than just blindly moving forward on it), you *harshly* react to it.
Octavian_X> The poll was a bit too black and white to be really decisive, imho.
conmcb25> Well guys this is a BIG Decision
conmcb25> Again if we want to do something different then lets do it
Arnelos_IDLE> and big decisions should be approached with plenty of questions, discussion, debate, and consideration
conmcb25> Lets lock the poll and try something else
conmcb25> Then why dont we launch a poll about delaying?
conmcb25> In answer to OCT_X
Arnelos_IDLE> maybe that's what OctX wants. Octy?
* conmcb25 wishes we would have had this discusion two nights ago before I set up the poll
Arnelos_IDLE> heh
Arnelos_IDLE> I wasn't around
Octavian_X> Me? I'd like to see more discussion to fully explore everything involved.
Arnelos_IDLE> same here
Arnelos_IDLE> of course, discussion takes time
conmcb25> Thats great OCT_X but you aren't answering the question.
conmcb25> I think we all know that and most in this chat agree
* Arnelos_IDLE is now known as Arnelos
Octavian_X> I did answer the question. Screw any more new polls for the moment, and just discuss.
conmcb25> Discuss what?
conmcb25> Right now we have a poll that says ally with PAL
conmcb25> Thats what the team said
Arnelos> we are NOT going back over this
conmcb25> Im just suggesting if we believe a delay so we can discuss is good then we ask the team
Arnelos> I'm going to go read the forums
* Arnelos is now known as Arnelos_forum
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
PART 4
quote:
conmcb25> Right now we are on a path to an alliance
WhiteBandit> i don't know why we have to delay anything though
conmcb25> We are going to say yes, and oh btw if you accept these provisions
WhiteBandit> we can just transparently discuss it
WhiteBandit> just keep them posted on what we're up to
conmcb25> OK WB discuss what?
conmcb25> Alliance?
WhiteBandit> discuss how we'd like the alliance setup
WhiteBandit> yes
conmcb25> Or just provisions?
WhiteBandit> err the provisions of the alliance
conmcb25> OK
conmcb25> Thats fine
Octavian_X> I'm sorry, I just don't know how much more of this I can handle. I'm just gonna reiterate my position in the forums and get some sleep.
conmcb25> Thanks because Im still not sure what you really want
conmcb25> and how it can change things
Octavian_X> One more time.
Octavian_X> I want to hold off on giving a decisive answer to PAL. If they really want us as allies, they will understand. We should use that time to discuss with them and with ourselves about a possible alliance, and possible alternatives.
conmcb25> Please post that in the forums
conmcb25> BUT we have already decided
conmcb25> The provisions need work
conmcb25> If you reallt mean what you just said we should poll a delay or not for further discussion
conmcb25> Of the Actuall yes or no to an allaince, not the provisions
WhiteBandit> we don't have to delay anything though
WhiteBandit> if he gets antsy, tell him we have 50 people and that's a lot of damn opinions to debate through
WhiteBandit> not deciding on an alliance for 3 - 5 turns isn't going to drastically affect anyone
conmcb25> No OCT_X is saying IMHO we should discuss more before we decide yes or no, much less the provisions
WhiteBandit> considering no one will be able to wage an effective war for 20 turns anyhow
Octavian_X> 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.
Octavian_X> 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
* Octavian_X wonders if the second line was cut off...
conmcb25> Must have been this makes more sense
Octavian_X> '11 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.'
Octavian_X> Well, thanks to this, I've sucessfully lost previous studying time.
Octavian_X> good night.
* Octavian_X has quit IRC (Quit: I've left. Isnt' that right, Cactus Chef Playing 'We Didn't Start the Fire' on a Flute?)
conmcb25> [23:12] Arnelos_IDLE> yes, but what I see is that when we QUESTION that stance... something which we should always be doing (questioning what we're doing rather than just blindly moving forward on it), you *harshly* react to it.
conmcb25> I still need to react to this
conmcb25> Well thats true
conmcb25> and we have launched a thread for further discussion.
conmcb25> and we are going to tell PAL that we are working on extra provisions and we agree in principle.
conmcb25> So are we OK now?
Arnelos_forum> I see no reason why not
conmcb25> OK
conmcb25> Im going to bed
Arnelos_forum> cya
conmcb25> Ill play the save in the morning
conmcb25> If anyone has any input, place it in the turn thread
conmcb25> I lost it, what is the command to save this again?
conmcb25> Buffer something?
MasterZen> buffer/save as
Arnelos_forum> con - do you want me to post a log of this chat?
conmcb25> Sure
Arnelos_forum> ok
Arnelos_forum> that'll take a little while, but I'll get it up
conmcb25> It saves it as a text file, huh?
* conmcb25 is going to begin taking bets on how long it will be before my nickname is BF junoir, if it already hasn't happened 
* conmcb25 has quit IRC (Quit: )
* MasterZen has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
* WIA has only half caught up..
WIA> There are a lot of quotes being thrown around. let me give you another one: "He who hesitates is lost"
WhiteBandit> yes
WhiteBandit> but "Good things come to those who wait"
Kloreep|idle> "Absence makes the heart grow fonder"
Kloreep|idle> "Out of sight, out of mind"
Kloreep|idle>
Arnelos_forum> "Oh, shut up already" 
WIA> "Just do it!"
WhiteBandit> "nice shoes, want to ****?"
WhiteBandit> hmm
WIA> "You've got the whitest teeth I ever wanted to..." wait, wong chatroom
WIA> *wrong
WhiteBandit> haha
WIA> It's been too long since I did an update for that damned gameshow...
WIA> I have writer's block
WhiteBandit> hehe
WhiteBandit> you just have to write!
WIA> Fortunately I have immunity, so I've got 10 turns to think
WIA> So Dubs, where are you on the alliance thing?
WhiteBandit> i'm for it overall, mostly playing devil's advocate... part of me feels it's still too soon to jump into things
WhiteBandit> there's a few issues to sort out
WhiteBandit> we a gaurunting PALs survival to game 2
WhiteBandit> which will make that harder for us
WhiteBandit> but cdg isn't the most compitent partner in the world as we've noticed
WhiteBandit> so with them on our side, there is no garuante we would live
WIA> This whole too soon thing - I think that is a mindset we got onto with the ISDG and PtWDGs. This will be a faster game. We are in it to survive, and if we are with PAL we have the best chance of surviving. If not, we are against them, and we are on the same continent as them. Not good.
WhiteBandit> i'm of the opinion that this won't be a faster game though...
WIA> We have always had loads of time to think, but not now, not with PAL. They do not subscribe to the intricate nature of our team workings, and they are impatient. We have to respond or we will lose them.
WhiteBandit> turns are moving faster, but i don't think this is going to correlate to major wars anytime in the ancient age
WhiteBandit> yes, but that sets up a very dangerous precedent
WhiteBandit> we will have to put up for the impatience for the REST of the game
WhiteBandit> do we want to do that?
WIA> Besides, agreeing to an 'alliance' is not agreeing to allt hat much, right now. We are agreeing on a few things that few have issue with anyway, and anything further can be discussed later, as the ideas turn up. This is more symbolic, and general.
WIA> It's either put uo with their impatience with them as friends or try to deal with them as NOT our friends. I know which one will help us survive better.
WIA> THis is a golden opportunity to basically ensure we survive, or one we will curse ourselves for throwing away due to indecision.
WIA> Discussion is great. Procrastination is NOT.
WhiteBandit> but there's a difference
WhiteBandit> we aren't procrastinating
we are figuring things out
WhiteBandit> procrastinating is waiting until the last minute to decide
WIA> Will PAL see it that way?
WhiteBandit> I don't think we should do things just ebcause another team won't see it that way
WhiteBandit> Will CDG see our alliance with PAL as a friendly gesture?
WIA> F-P knows what sort of options are discussed by Poly, and if we delay for long he knows we will be discussing the alternative - allying AGAINST PAL
WIA> Our number one is to survive.
WhiteBandit> Then we'll survive. delaying an answer by a few turns won't affect anything game wise
WIA> What other teams think and do does not concern us unless it effects this goal.
WhiteBandit> is there anything wrong with sending them an email that says "in principle we agree to the alliance, we'll send you a draft proposal and our thoughts shortly"
WhiteBandit> ?
WIA> How can you know that? PAL has been very forward, and difficult to haggle with in chat. How will they react to us delaying an answer they clearly want badly, and where they have given to us as a gesture of goodwill!
WIA> It would be like a slap in the face
WhiteBandit> I don't know that. I'm asking you what your opinion is on that.
WhiteBandit> We're setting ourselves up for a very dangerous precedent by that logic. Then every single time PAL wants an answer, we'll have to give them an immediate answer
WhiteBandit> i'm not comfortable with that
* MasterZen has joined #c3cisdg
WhiteBandit> let them be slapped in the face then
WIA> Re: the email. A draft proposal? This is not an alliance where we have our relationship tied down for good. This is merely where we agree on a few token things - the essence is that we are agreeing to cooperate, and showing that with one or two preliminary deals, nothing ironclad.
WhiteBandit> then why have an alliance at all?
Kloreep|idle> We need to tie down a relationship
WhiteBandit> why not a simple nap and tech treaty?
WIA> WHy do we need to tie down a relationship at all?
WhiteBandit> We don't. We have hoplites. :P
WIA> We';re jsut saying we agree to cooperate with them
Kloreep|idle> Because if they backstab us after CDG, I want to be a full-blown treachery
WIA> Why should we delay that?
Kloreep|idle> I'm not saying delay saying we'll cooperate
Kloreep|idle> But get a full alliance as well
WIA> This is the thing. When everyone on Poly sees 'alliance', they think of some overblown permanent agreements that have somehow been preset. That is not the case here. 'Alliance' in this case just means we intend to preferentially work together to ensure our survival
WIA> I don't understand why so many seem to think of an alliance as some fixed agreement.
WIA> Preferential cooperation is all that it is
Kloreep|idle> We should have an alliance if we can...
Kloreep|idle> Better odds for survival the better we cooperate
WhiteBandit> and by preferentially working together, we will be attacking others together and tech trading as well
WhiteBandit> i just want a lot of stuff wrapped up
Kloreep|idle> Yes
WhiteBandit> and agreements as to what happens after certain goals are accomplished
WIA> Tech trading - well we will tech trade with anyone usually - so what's wrong with agreeing to that?
Kloreep|idle> Make sure we agree on everything beforehand
WhiteBandit> when cdg is gone, what then?
* Donegeal has joined #c3cisdg
WhiteBandit> is the alliance absolved?
WhiteBandit> or do we just not discuss it?
WIA> Attacking others, we will be doing that anyway, so why not agree to collaborating with one of the strongest teams around? That way they are not attacking US
Donegeal> hello...
WIA> Hiya don
Kloreep|idle> Yes, collaborate
Kloreep|idle> And _ally_
WhiteBandit> WIA - i agree completely
WhiteBandit> hence we don't even need an alliance than
Kloreep|idle> Sign a far-reaching agreement to go through the game together
Donegeal> whats going on?
WIA> So what issue is there with what the poll says?
Arnelos_forum> Ok, I now have a log of this
WhiteBandit> if we're going to be doing all this stuff anyway, then how is an alliance advantageous to us?
Kloreep|idle> Don: I think we're arguing over something we all basically agree on
Arnelos_forum> I'll post when this discussion dies down (at some point) or I go to bed... whichever happens first
WIA> Don - this is a discussion on whether to agree to cooperate with PAL's ideas to date
Kloreep|idle> WB: I'm not clear on what you mean here...
Kloreep|idle> Ah, you mean accept PAL's current terms now
Donegeal> oh... what ideas? Were they on today?
Kloreep|idle> And tack on the rest later if they'll agree
WIA> WB - the word alliance is unimportant. Ignore it. Just look at the specific proposals we are agreeing to.
WhiteBandit> sure, i agree to it, but i want something long term. that is my beef
Arnelos_forum> WIA - I'm with Kloreep on this (actually, I'm the one who brought it up several hours ago): If we're going to sign an "alliance" with PAL, we need to be concerned about what happens after CDG bites the dust... which means we need to tie down the alliance with terms that stipulate what HAPPENS after CDG bites the dust.
Kloreep|idle> Same here WB
WIA> Sure, and we can work on that.
WhiteBandit> then let's do it
WIA> SHould we rule out short-temr cooperation just because we haven't figured out long-term stuff yet?
Kloreep|idle> Hence I think we should sign something that, among other clarifications, lays out how we plan to play this game out
WhiteBandit> kloreep is right. we are arguing on something we all agree about :P
Arnelos_forum> 4The alliance *isn't worth it* to me unless PAL won't attack us after CDG dies
WIA> We'd miss out on important tech trades
Kloreep|idle> Yep, exactly
Kloreep|idle> Post-CDG could be bumpy
WhiteBandit> WIA - no, we're not rulingout short term cooperation
Kloreep|idle> We want to get them to commit to full alliance continuing afterward if we can
WIA> But we're deliberately discussing delaying it
WhiteBandit> no we're not
Donegeal> I posted some things to this regard in the forum...
WhiteBandit> we're discussing the proposals
Arnelos_forum> oh man... I am *so* not going back over this
Kloreep|idle> Delay _as long as necessary in order to get a full alliance that extends past CDG_
WhiteBandit> once it's done, we'll get it back to them
WhiteBandit> we're not deliberately delaying anything
WIA> There has so far been 2 dissenters and a couple of abstentions on the poll for agreeing to the few proposals to date. It is this very poll that is being discussed as 'we should delay before saying yes to them'
WIA> Horrible wording there... sorry
Donegeal> Arne... PAL won't attack us after CDG unless they are positive that they can beat us before BAT or GWT falls.
WhiteBandit> err yeah :P
Kloreep|idle> Yes
Kloreep|idle> But we can't count on BAT and GWT being at each other's throats
WhiteBandit> anyway, what is the problem with sending them that email
WhiteBandit> so they know we got their offer and we're receptive to it and currently discussing it
WhiteBandit> we keep them posted
Donegeal> what e-mail?
WhiteBandit> that is far more advantageous then getting back them in 5 days and saying "oh yeah, still discussing it"
* Arnelos_forum is about to post the log of this lengthy chat
Arnelos_forum> this is almost certainly going to take more than one post
Arnelos_forum> and I wonder how many people would bother spending the time to read it, to be honest
Arnelos_forum> since we go in circles above for about a full hour at one point
WhiteBandit> an email that basically says "We agree to this in principle, we'll send you a draft proposal with our thoughts shortly! just keeping you infomed"
Donegeal> why wouldn't we send it?
WIA> THere's a critical failure to communicate somewhere here, Arn, for sure.
WhiteBandit> who knows
WhiteBandit> i think we should
WhiteBandit> and everyone else thinks we should
Donegeal> who doesn't?
* Arnelos_forum chuckles
WhiteBandit> all of us evidentially
|
Cutting off the discussion at this point. If someone else really wants to post the rest, go ahead. I'm too tired and I need to get to sleep.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
Well, now there's 4-5 hours of my life I'll never get back.
On a more serious note, here's what I think the consensus of the chat was:
We need to send PAL a message saying that we agree with being allied (and that the team has voted heavily in favor of teaming up with PAL) and we're working on a draft proposal to send to them.
That gives us some time to figure out what we (AS A TEAM) actually want in such an alliance and how we think we can tie it down so that PAL remains committed to it even after CDG bites it (which is the major concern of many of us).
Frankly, from my perspective, the alliance is not worth it unless we can be reasonably sure that PAL will not attack us after CDG goes down. So, at least to me, if we're going to sign an alliance with PAL, we better make **** sure that we have some way of improving the chances that if GWT and BAT don't fight each other, PAL and Apolyton will go after GWT and/or BAT rather than fighting each other. That's a deal-breaker to me and it seems to some others in the chat as well.
Once we have, as a team, a better idea of exactly what we want from an alliance, we can have our FAM write up the actual document and submit it to PAL.
If there is any need for negotiating those provisions, we'll need to provide our FAM with what we consider expendable and what we do not consider expendable. After that, the issue should be in the hands of the FAM to negotiate with PAL on the terms.
Once negotiated terms are finalized at least between the FAM and PAL, the FAM and the Consuls can present the final treaty for a ratification vote by our team.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donegeal
|
|
Apolyton's Resident Law Enforcement Officer. Founder of the Glory of War, Champions of Apolyton!
Jul 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
Here... what do you think of this?
Poly/PAL Alliance
I. Members
- People’s Army of the Ladder.
- Apolyton.
II. Technology
- Research goals will be discussed to insure that the same technology is not being researched by both Civilizations.
- Known technologies will be gifted as accepted when officially requested.
- Neither team may give, share, trade or otherwise, any technology to another team unless approved by both.
III. Military Action
- Co-ordinated War Chats.
1. During times of war, have a designated time to come together as an Alliance to co-ordinate Military moves between both teams to maximize any and all possible strategic advantages.
2. Military moves will include all front line units and any workers/settlers designated to the war effort.
- Exploring
- Each team may explore all the lands of this continent without interference from the other.
IV. Wonders
- The People’s Army of the Ladder agrees to not build the Statue of Zeus.
- Apolyton agrees to not build __________. (PAL had indicated that there was a wonder that they wanted to build)
- All others will need to be discussed.
V. Resources (Strategic and Luxury)
- If either team possesses a surplus of a resource that the other does not have, and that resource is officially wanted, it will be given as accepted.
- Any resource officially wanted will be considered officially wanted until it is made officially unwanted.
VI. Borders
- To be determined upon completion or near completion of exploration of this continent.
VII. Treaties
- Both teams in the Alliance must approve any treaties with a team not in the Alliance.
- Any number of treaties may be entered into between Alliance members so long as they do not violate any of these Alliance rules unless specified and approved by both teams.
VIII. Goals
- The elimination of Creative Design Group team.
- The elimination of a second team that is NOT part of this alliance.
- Both PAL and Apolyton must agree this second team to.
Yes, it will need to get all tidied up with vbcode, but the basics are there. There was alot left out and it was done intentionally. This could be the basic document. Specific treaties, like ROP's or how to deal with barbs and barb camps (or worker/worker jobs) and the like can be done as individual treaties.
really this would just affirm that we are allies.
Let me know what you think. I have reasons and explanations for everything in there. Just ask.
[Edit 1] Surplus added to the wording of Article VA. Thanks WIA!
[Edit 2] Vbcode added for clarity.
Last edited by Donegeal on 05-05-2004 at 18:58
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
I suggest we do not try to micro manage who contributes what to the alliance.
1) This alliance is unlikely to end in a backstab due to the nature of this game. We will eliminate CDG, then we only need to wait or seek out 1 of the other 2 civs. I also think it likely all of us will want GWT dead so that even makes it less likely.
2) This game will end shortly, any "sharing" we do that is unfair will not have long term consequences.
I say we agree to:
a) full tech parity (tech is shared asap amongst the team) unless its determined to be beneficial to the team effort not to share a tech for some reason (and both sides agree)
b) Cooperation in determining our research goals. ie) Avoid duplicating research and thus wasting research points.
c) Splitting the continent as close to 50/50 as we can. Rather than saying where the line is drawn we'll generally agree to try to keep the city/tile counts about equal. Again no hair splitting/micromanagement here because it just doesn't matter in this game.
d) Coordinated military attacks.
e) Unit information disclosure where appropriate. (locations & counts)
f) Sharing intelligence
g) Worker trades.
h) Sharing excess resources.
i) Sharing strategic resources even if not excess. If we have 1 source of iron or saltpeter, then I see no reason not to take turns using it to upgrade.
Regarding gold, I wouldn't work it into the deal. I think its easier just to hang onto our gold for upgrades and rushing, and them do the same except where its really in both our best interests to do otherwise.
Thats everything I can think of.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kloreep
|
|
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Exploring
- Each team may explore all the lands of this continent without interference from the other. |
Might want to add exploration moves should be coordinated inside other's territory, so that worker moves etc. aren't messed up.
quote:
Apolyton agrees to not build __________. (PAL had indicated that there was a wonder that they wanted to build) |
We should make sure to fill in that blank before signing, though I think it's a good bet they want the Pyrs.
quote:
VI. Borders
1. To be determined upon completion or near completion of exploration of this continent. |
I agree with wervdon, add that the continent should be split approximately 50/50.
quote:
Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
quote:
Originally posted by Kloreep
Yes, we should keep a tally of how many tech points each team has done to use as a guideline. |
... (Kloreep knows exactly what I would LIKE to say...) |
Don't let me stop you. Especially if I'm elected; I don't want to start hearing the term "hungry man".
And actually, I think there's a "point" here for not keeping track of that, considering PAL will likely be the powerhouse for a while here, including on commerce. So I'm quite fine with it not being explicitly written in to Don's document.
quote:
Originally posted by Donegeal
Hey... actually... I would prefer to forgo all this legalese as well, but then I'm not the entire team. Honestly, I put this stuff together so that I have a stong influence in how it looks at the end when the peaceniks get ahold of it. Its just my idea of a compromise with them (as I know that this team wouldn't go for just saying yes or no).
Yeah, I know that saying what I just said will probably hurt my chances in the upcoming election, but I'm not going to hide behind legalese....
Hit with Club! |
This politicking man should not be allowed in office! 
Seriously, this is exactly the sort of framework we need. Thanks for helping kick this off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
Knowing that PAL is not a team that likes to take time or worry about details, let's just send over an official delegation and swear and affirm a game-long alliance with them, a total and complete partnership with a unifying goal of both of our teams making it to the next round. Let's be allies in spirit and in deed. The words and documents are going to mean little to these guys, what will matter to them are our actions and our oath.
Let's keep this simple and very uncomplicated. Tell them that we will be brothers and allies, gloriously celebrate our union and then always put that union above any future squabbles and differences of opinion we may have.
For example, I want to sign a second NAP with CDG after this one runs out. We may want to sign a third, too. We need to keep CDG in the dark about all this for a time -- as much time as we can. And when they do start to figure it out, we should honestly tell them that PAL made us a very good tech offer but it was with a no-trade to CDG. We will need to let them down gently, but in the end, we will need to keep CDG from mobilizing too soon to attack us.
Because we, not PAL, are going to be the target of any CDG attack. PAL is just too far away to be pratically attacked. We are too close to be ignored. We need to buy time with CDG and we DO NOT need PAL telling us that we can't sign NAPs or that we can't be peaceful with CDG during our REX period. We don't need to be bound by an alliance, we need to be liberated by one.
And to that end, I propose that we make this alliance broad and bold and general enough that each of the powers remain autonomous and united only in a grand, broad cause.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
What I posted in the other thread:
The minimum agreement consists of:
Tech Sharing.
Game long NAP.
Agreement to cooperate to take out CDG post republic.
Agreement to take out one of the foreign powers if necessary to end the game.
I'd like to see us add at least:
We get to build zeus for use in the CDG war.
Beyond that I could care less whats in writing and what we deal with "on the fly".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wooglin
|
|
Amen Brother Togas!!
|
|
| |
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 08:03
|