|
Octavian X
|
 |
Probably buried under piles of Literature, Biology, or Government homework
Jan 2002
time: 23:22
|
|
Save's in, along with quite a message from F-P.
Apoligies for the weird characters (at least I'm seeing some). I think my browser is acting up...
quote:
Please find the savegame attached, and here is our reply to the missive sent by Togas a few days prior. - Fried
********
Esteemed brother Togas and citizens of Apolyton:
We appreciate you coming to us with your concerns, that we may better allay them now in smaller form then later when they may be insurmountable. We will deal with the issues you present one at a time, and then propose a few actions – rather than just intentions – so that we can put these concerns to rest one at a time.
1) Borders – Your nation wishes to see the border just south of Crudetown, while we were expecting Meeting Mountain to be the original border. Clearly, we both have a problem with the other’s idea, so perhaps if we simply divided the disputed region in half. This would have the benefit of splitting the luxuries evenly; we would supply you with silk and you supply us with wine, while we both have furs and ivory of our own. Our nation, it seems, would prefer to keep Pumpkinville as our own, but would have absolutely no problem with you settling in close proximity to the township.
2) Regarding CDG – we forsee no problem with the three objectives you have stated. We will of course hold the towns to give to you as soon as possible, as razing them would be counterproductive to the alliance, and we find it most unlikely that CDG would be able to retake them. Because none of CDG’s cities have culture, flips are also a non-issue.
3) Our relationship – this, we suppose, is the crux of the issue and effectively draws back upon the points above. The problem as we see it is one of misunderstood identity. MP has always been a realm – at least to those outside of it – of ruthless warmongering, of vicious, bloody battles that come to a horrible conclusion. This is ironically a common misunderstanding. MP is in truth scarcely more bloody than SP – it is simply that the conflicts are direct, quick, and final, rather like the battle with CDG will be. Frivolous or ill-advised war is one of the hallmarks of the least intelligent MP members, and none of same are in control of PAL. As is our custom, we will tell you plainly how we see both sides of the “post-CDG continent” issue.
Attacking Apolyton: Yes, it is certainly true and possible that after going for CDG, we could direct our troops to race along the south coast, outpacing your troops returning home, while roaring in a new force of newly built troops on the constructed trade road, and the consequences for this would probably be pretty devastating. (A hypothetical plan the diplomat came up with just now, not a long-term plan we’ve been considering.) Examine what that would accomplish, however – PAL would have immediately seriously alienated the only team we have any real friendly ties with, and suddenly set our continent into flames at a time when building would be wise. The success of the war is also something that would come into question. Were we to strike, the immediate damage would probably be significant, but the ultimate success is another matter. We can have hordes of quick, light troops, but lacking iron, you bear both the more imposing defender, and the more sure attacker in swordsmen. Horsemen are fine in the field, but hoplites behind walls make quick work of horsemen. So it is rather likely that we would take perhaps two or three cities at most, and then you would hold firm. Shortly thereafter, you would begin fielding medieval infantry, and then knights. Our lack of iron would become a serious issue at that time, and the war would go most poorly for us – we would probably end up trading cities for time while attempting to research muskets. SHU/GWT would arrive to see a continent locked in a bitter stalemate, and then would pick and choose their targets. Yes, we could choose this road. This is not, however, what MP is about – we view this as a very unwise and risky war, and whatever else MP is about : we do not pick our battles unwisely.
Peace with Apolyton: In this outcome, after the CDG war ends, we cede their cities to you and retire to our lands and to the power of our traits to develop them. Our cities are quite large, and so we have both reason and desire to secure the last luxury on the continent – your wines. Peace grants us this resource far more swiftly and certainly than war. We benefit from a research partner who is both solid in traits and skilled in infrastructure. APO/PAL would be the ones to make contact overseas, rather than vice versa, which puts both our teams at a great advantage over our peerage. Lastly – and while we hold no illusions, as you do not – about the nature of the finals, it is still both prudent and cunning to have a team that you are at least on good terms with in that environment. One of the basic tenants of MP: The AI may not remember the last game, but a human does. This is something that I think most non-MP folk do not realize about MP. Are we brutally direct? Absolutely. Do we serve our own aims? Unquestionably. Those aims, however, need not diverge from yours. When we realized that there were three teams on this continent, we immediately realized the benefits of removing one. Our leaders remember the unpredictable nature of CDG in the past, and the self-serving, but predictable in that regard, behavior of Apolyton.
The ultimate truth is that a war between APO and PAL would be absolutely unclear in outcome, because our skills and troops are very different; indeed, our tactics and views on attack and defense are different. You may view this situation as “Big Dog, Little Dog” but we view it as “Quantity vs Quality.” Your troops are better; we have, and can produce, much more. Therefore it is not prudent for either PAL or APO to engage in such a war, but to band together to strike at what is almost certainly a diplomatically tense continent - the likely strained relations of SHU and GWT. There, we will find our victory and advancement.
These are our genuine thoughts and intentions. You are correct, however, in that actions, not words, rule the day. Let us, then, speak of actions.
You express concern about our barb hunting misleading you. You may investigate the barb camp with your own eyes – it is directly south (3 tiles) of the colonized silk. It has produced two horsemen (both slain) and a warrior which still guards it. Our slave hunter was unfortunately located by Wtibia, and is in the process of relocating while we commission another to “forage” in the Wtibia region. As of this writing, a third barbarian horseman has spawned in the camp. "Restless" barbarians indeed!
You express concern about the trade road. While this road – and the wines we hope to acquire from it – are very important to us, we certainly have no wish to alarm you. Indeed, we are only building this road because we were under the impression it was desired. If you will recall, this road was originally agreed upon as connecting at Meeting Mountain, but when it was clear you would not be able to fulfill your side of the arrangement immediately, we took it upon ourselves to help out, lending what slight excess we have to spare. You may choose to think of this road as a vulnerability, but we considered it an asset for you - now your expansion to the north-northeast, after CDG falls, will be much swifter. While you may not need the silks immediately, we would certainly like to grant them to you at the earliest convenience, so there is no possible mix-up that wastes your time and resources later.
Here, then, is an action I would propose. Allow us to continue the road, but you may take any units you wish – hoplite, warrior, archer, sword or horse – and blockade it in as many places as you wish, as long as it is not on the route to and from Pumpkinville (for obvious reinforcement reasons.) You say that your workers are overtasked at the moment and that more wines are unlikely – then I would propose this action: Allow us to pay for an embassy, and grant us right of passage. Our two workers – unescorted – will follow precisely the route you tell us to follow, with no deviation, and allow us to hook up the wines. This seems to be a relatively “safe” operation – true, an embassy does allow a certain degree of vulnerability, but this goes both ways. We, unlike you, have a great deal of coastline to defend and coastal cities, and thus are far more at risk for a sudden naval strike that is well-informed about the contents of a city. Also, consider that you have deferred mapmaking and have (at least as far as we know) only one coastal city, which we have not even a clear access to, and neither of us plans to build a harbor shortly – but our empire runs high on lux because of our need for another luxury. If we seem overeager, it is only so that we can turn down the lux rate and increase our research, to further our mutual goals. If such an agreement is unacceptable to you, allow us to transmit to you two workers by trade for the express purpose of hooking up the wines and then returning them to us in good health.
You express concern about a post-CDG arms race. I’m not sure that this is likely, as we would probably only build troops if we suddenly found ourselves weak to you and you gave us a glib explanation of some kind, but this is the action I would propose to solve the problem. Once the war is completed, let us move all non-garrison or barb-removal troops (the contents of both war stacks) to an agreed upon location, where we can monitor the size of each other’s stack. Further, let us both choose locations in each other's territories, subject to agreement, where we can monitor our neighbor's lands. A combination of a sentinel net and an in-territory monitoring system would probably do a great deal for peace in both our empires. (We are suggesting warriors or spears for such a purpose, obviously.) I’m probably talking on the order of 8-10 sentinel units, but PAL feels that the support costs incurred are trivial in comparison to the safety of our alliance. Would such a system be foolproof? Absolutely not. Would it be possible to circumvent? Very probably. It is, however, an action, a step in a direction of trust. We would also humbly and politely point out that we have already shown you considerable trust in the area of our core cities, and also our newest expansions. It is not the nature of the betrayer to show such trust. It is ironic that you feel threatened by PAL when we consider ourselves only slightly your military superior, and view askance our ironless future. I think both sides, in this regard, may be being influenced by the most worried and paranoid members too much. A conflict between us serves no reasonable reward and far too much risk when together the results of this game are admittedly longer, but far more assured.
We also offer this action if concern about excessive troop buildup is an issue: if you feel that CDG may be slain now, let us do so, NOW, and so move more readily into the far more important stage of infrastructure. We would need perhaps 3 or 4 turns to move all the needed pieces into place – 5 turns at the most – but then we could be ready to strike. The choice is yours, but PAL stands ready. If CDG's defense is as thin as some of our members believe, in 10 turns CDG could be a thing of the past, and we may get on to the business of monitoring each other's strength in a safe and cordial manner.
You express concern about our OCN. I think somewhere, misinformation has occurred: we are not, in fact, over that value at the present time. Even if we were, there is a good bit of space between the OCN and the “true” OCN – the point at which new cities become genuinely detrimental. Our next city IS in fact likely to go up in the “canal region” as we refer to the northlands, but you must remember that every four turns, a new settler issues forth. The northlands will be FULL soon, even with the hosting of guest Anthea. She’s been up there quite some time. Hoping for a passing vessel from another landmass and “first dibs” at a contact, perhaps? You see, we are not fools, but we understand that your team serves their own interests, and do not object, so long as those interests do not seem counter to the alliance. You must also realize that the distance from our capital is actually not so far to the lands in the southwest, and this is much of their appeal. I do think that dividing the area of disputed lands in half, however, would satisfy us and we could consider the matter closed. We have some serious concern about the equal sharing of luxuries on the continent, but other than that, we are relatively open to negotiation.
Lastly, you express concern about our construction efforts, which is a bit puzzling. Surely you are not suggesting we abandon the Pyramids – which we strongly suspect, from the size of the Sumerian capital, we may be in competition for – so close to its completion? Our Golden Age has long been planned for, and our many cities will benefit tremendously from this wonder - and thus, indirectly, so shall you. To abandon it now would be truly bizzare move - we have no desire to see them in the hands of Sumeria, nor to lose our well-planned-for Golden Age. If you are suggesting a future build, we are very happy to inform you that the Lighthouse is indeed planned, and planned for the very city in which the Pyramids will be completed. (Perhaps if an embassy is established and the Pyramids are completed, you would like to verify this for yourselves?) Once the war with CDG is completed, our focus will absolutely be on infrastructure and exploration – anything else would be foolish, and counter to our mutual interests. We had considered another wonder as well elsewhere – perhaps the Library as a defensive build, or the Workshop as a financial measure (the upgrade costs without iron will be brutal, to be sure.) We look forward to working together with the diplomats of Apolyton on such future constructions - we are unsure as to who is dropping the ball, as Con has always fulfilled that role most admirably for us. Any question or concern we have addressed to him has been resolved in a quick and professional manner, and he does Apolyton credit.
To close, a personal note: On my time with the PTWISDG team, one thing we discussed early on was to play upon the Apolyton reputation as peaceful builders. A team’s perceived reputation does much to its diplomacy, but I think unfortunately the perceived reputation of PAL is perhaps TOO dramatic. Think of us not as a bloody berserker, but as Sun Tzu. Are we skilled in war? Never doubt it. Are we afraid of war? Not in the slightest. Do we engage in war foolishly, where the outcome is uncertain and the rewards less so? Never.
PAL has nothing to gain from APO’s demise except a seriously tarnished reputation. We consider the game largely won if our alliance remains intact. We would have a technological lead, “Free cities” for you and of course our large empire, wielded by two strong builder teams against foes that must have some discontent between them. Why would we choose to win with dishonor, when we can win with fellowship and dignity?
At some point, esteemed brothers of Apolyton, trust must be extended and established. We have extended all that we can see possible - you have a complete map of our lands, have had repeated opportunities to strike at our cities, and could easily trade your map to the other continent when the time came; and yet we continue to extend our trust to you. If you fear us now with our horses and empire, though we have done nothing to alarm you, what will you think when we are building our fleet to invade the other continent and are marshalling an army of cavalry? Will you fear us then, as well, though we have done nothing to earn your distrust? Our "nature", Apolyton brothers, is to use force as a means to an end - not to use force for the sake of it. Our end, as we have declared, is to go into battle alongside Apolyton, that we may at least have a cordial acknowledgement in the finals, if not a friendship of sorts.
A true friend is one you may place your back against when the blades flash in your face. We feel that we have offered our back to you already, and will continue to do so. We hope that by the time the blades of GWT and SHU flash, your back will be firmly set behind ours.
Sincerely,
Your Steadfast and Reliable Brothers of the People’s Army of the Ladder |
"strange symbols" fixed - ormuzd
Last edited by ormuzd on 23-09-2004 at 23:33
|
20-09-2004 06:01
within one turn.
|