 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
GodKing
|
 |
Detroit
Feb 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
OK. I hope this helps. It is a comparison between the proposals.
Regarding PAL’s proposals.
#2 is the closest to what we want. In it they are offering us 4 settlers within 40 turns. We will get Pumpkin (but at an unknown, undisclosed time). Fade to Black will be delivered to us immediately upon acceptance of a proposal, regardless of its current growth and production schedule. The biggest difference from this plan to the one we are proposing is that we would want to settle one city on the line they are proposing as a no settle line. They may also settle closer to that line than we would like.
The proposal to PAL, as generated by me has the following points.
1) Fade to Black would go to us as soon as feasible. We would want to look at the growth and production, and then base our decision on when to transfer off the info thereof. This is of mild importance, as a few wasted shields or food will, hopefully, not make a huge difference in the long run.
2) Our proposal is based off of city locations, not a no settle line. The PAL proposal does not address actual city sites, and therefore there could be overlap and conflict. One of our cities would be on the line PAL is proposing as a no settle under their option #2. I would prefer to have PAL talk specific city sites. Conceivably, we can both settle cities and form a “wall” of cities along the border. I think that converting this discussion into actual city sites is of major importance.
3) Our “border” would consist of 3.5 cities. Theirs would consist of 3 cities. Wider than we would prefer, but acceptable, as it is at an angle that uses the land efficiently. This would also give PAL the silk that they wish to keep a monopoly on. As we are in a trade and trade alike, we don’t really care if PAL has a monopoly. It is just that they are stating that they want it in order to be able to trade the Lux. As it would be our only source of the lux, the fact that they may want to trade it to someone else riles me a lot. But, in truth, it doesn’t really matter that much. PAL was using this argument in regards to Pumpkin as well as it has the ivory around it. However, as PAL did indicate that they would (when they felt like it) turn over Pumpkin to us, it is, in my opinion, a null argument.
4) PAL would produce 3 settlers and 6 workers. The workers can come from captured barbs (they work at the same rate as worker produced by PAL and sold to us). This would allow them to use their UU special ability usefully for both of us. The 3 settlers would be produced within 30 turns. The first 2 workers within the first 10, and the next 4 within 40.
OK. This one is dense, so lets break it down and analyze it some more. PAL was offering us 4 settlers in 40 turns. That is 8 pop points and 120 shields over the next 40 turns. We were asking for 12 pop points and 150 shields, with the first 2 pop and 20 shields in the first 10 turns, the next 6 pop and 90 shields in the next 30 turns, and the last 4 pop and 40 shields in the next 40 turns. One significant point to make is that on our proposal, not all their pop and shield would have to come from their cities. It could be as low as 6 pop and 90 shields in 30 turn (a 25% reduction of what they were offering) if they use their UU and capture barbs for workers instead of producing them.
In regards to the settlers, it would be of major help to us, but of an overall negative impact to the alliance (look at my analysis that I posted earlier). We can live without them. The workers on the other hand will cost PAL nothing to produce if they use their UU, and will be of immense help to us. In regards to the timing, we can work with them on that issue. I am sure they already have some slaves (we know of at least 1 barb and 3 of CDG’s former workers) they can send us soon, and having the pyramids… well, I don’t think 40 turns is too much. But we can and will easily be flexible on this.
5) Pumpkin will stay as a PAL city with up to 5 units stationed within it. It will revert to Apo on the following conditions: a) our FP is constructed (which will be adjacent to this city site) or b) PAL decides to turn it over to us or c) it culture flips to us. PAL stated that they wouldn’t keep any units in it on their proposal. This is conceding already to PAL the unit amounts. For all I am concerned, they can post their entire army in it. Who really cares?
PAL’s original conditions of it being turned over to us were a) APO requests the city and b) PAL felt like giving it up. This is completely unacceptable to us. We want to have it no later than when our FP is produced (and look at where I am proposing our FP… that will be at least 50 turns from now). Our cities out in that area will not be major culture producers – so the risk of it culturally flipping would be small at best. This particular clause is minimal to us. If PAL wants to send it to us sooner, well, that is in PAL’s control. Mute point.
6) Pumpkin will produce items for us, and these will not count towards any settler or worker counts. PAL said as much, but they didn’t specify the fact that they would or wouldn’t count towards any other agreements. Personally, I would like it to start on either a courthouse or market, so whatever. I am kind of neutral on this point. Sure, as it will become our city, we want it producing stuff useful for us in the long run.
7) PAL would calculate a gold amount produced by Pumpkin, and deliver it to us…. OK. This was me being a cheapskate. I don’t really care about it. I always figured this would be the first thing to go, once they called us on this.
8) We would place up to 5 units and a fort on the mountain at the Crudetown line. This is something I never really cared about, but the fact that many people are concerned about security, this was my attempt to appease them. PAL has stated that they would like to have sentinels stationed through out lands, so I never thought this would be crap. However, judging by FP’s post, they feel it is a major thing. Fine. I say that we toss this, and at the same time tell them to toss their idea of sentinels. Fair is fair. Oh, and the number 5 was just a random number, figuring it would match PAL’s force in Pumpkin is all. Truth be told, I never figured we would use this option.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GodKing
|
|
Detroit
Feb 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
So, conclusions, there isn’t much difference between the two proposals. If FP and/or PAL would have actually looked at the proposal and analyzed it instead of posting an attack, they would have found that it is very similar to their proposal #2, with some modifications in terms more favorable to us. It is, and always was, intended to be a step towards the final resolution.
The biggest issue with how FP worded his proposal is that it isn’t based on city locations, but on a general and ambiguous line. The next is the term of transfer of Pumpkin. Their proposal of “just whenever we feel like it” is NOT acceptable.
There is still a bigger issue here. We are, looking and analyzing this in the minutia, very close to a resolution (whether or not PAL recognizes it) for a border. The big issue is our relationship with PAL. I was hoping it would be delayed, or never even come up. But with my post, it has come to a head. PAL has stated the rhetoric from day 1 that they want us to be partners. Obviously, we cannot be equal partners at this time. In their actions, they have stated, time and time again, that they do NOT consider us partners, but that they consider us their servants to be dictated to and told what to do. They need to recognize this dichotomy, and make their position clear to us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
conmcb25
|
 |
Angmar
Aug 2002
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GodKing
PAL has stated the rhetoric from day 1 that they want us to be partners. Obviously, we cannot be equal partners at this time. In their actions, they have stated, time and time again, that they do NOT consider us partners, but that they consider us their servants to be dictated to and told what to do. They need to recognize this dichotomy, and make their position clear to us. |
Where is this coming from?
We have very similar plans when it comes right down to it. You give them a proposal with a bunch of items to prove a point piss them off and thats what your basing this on?
What was the point of this whole exercise? Because the result was numerous steps backwards in the trust department and numerous steps back in the respect department.
They have also said time and time again they are a straight forward group. We gave them back a plan that was less than straight forward. Waht did you expect was going to happen.
And all this when two of the plans we wanted were essentially equal?
I think we would have gotten a lot more mileage out of this if we would have said hey plan two looks cool but we want to take it one step further and discuss exact city sites along the border so we can avoid conflict. And oh btw we probably dont need that many settlers so we want a definate date on the pumpkin transfer, lets say 30 turns from now.
What would have been wrong with that approach? two allies discussing in diplomatic terms a potentially explosive issue?
GK I love ya man but I think we may have taken the wrong approach and it cost us some of the trust we have built up in the mutual forum.
I know what you were thinking because I like you deal with construction contractors, but I dont think this approach will get us what we want.
We should just poll this, do we want to except plan 2?
do we want another plan?
do we want plan 2 with some minor changes?
Or something like that.
Good work on the plans BTW. I just think the approach was wrong, this aint the group to play games with, this isn't CFC or CGN in the PtW ISDG, this is litterally the cream of the crop in Ladder land. 3 of them at one time or another have been number 1.
All Im saying is we need to treat them with some respect, this approach would probably work with the CFC's of the world but I just dont think it will work with Ladder Land.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:17
|
|
I half hate to admit it, but that post of yours, GK, made me laugh. VERY frank.
*Reaming finishes
"Please sir, may I have another?" 
:rotfl: Great stuff. 
Although I have often felt that many in our team have been coming down against PAL rather too hard, having read posts such as Togas' and GK's I have to, to a large degree, agree. I would not have reacted in the same way, but that recent rhetoric of FP's nonplussed me. I don't doubt their good intentions, but some of their guilt-tripping in that post is nothing we should consider more than words.
For example, I think of the free tech we will soon get upon entering a new age, which we will dish out to PAL ASAP (at least that's MY intention). This tech will be worth any two of the techs they mention they have given to us. I also was involved in the early accounting of land on this continent, and even ignoring their bonii (like all those lovely floodplains etc) they have it better off than us, and would seem they want to negotiate to maintain such a huge advantage by allowing us to have only scattered useless islands and deserts/plains, whilst three out of four of their proposals have them keeping all the wheat, and most of the floodplains midway between our two capitals.
I certainly don't like the way that we were given these four proposals, and we had to take one of them, with supposedly no adjustments allowed. However, I don't think this is REALLY the case. A kind but firm word and I believe we can adjust these proposals a little.
Anyway, I like the base of proposal 2. If PAL wants to keep a monopoly on Silk, I have no issue with that, but I want Pumpkinland for two reasons. One, I think it is only fair for PAL to allow us to have one or two wheat and floodplain tiles, especialyl given their huge lead. They should be able to be magnanimous in their enormity. Two, it gives us the monopoly on Ivory. Neither of us should fear much here, as we both need the others' lux, and each having one should help stabilise things, whilst still giving each team the feeling that they are not giving everything away. Kinda like nucelar weapons in the hands of responsible powers (not that I really agree with that, but anyway) - they act as deterrents against aggression, and promote the maintenance of the trade.
If they wish to use the huge food potential that is Pumpkinland for a time, whilst providing us with some of the benefits, sure, why not? That should be US being magnanimous, provided we get it in the end. We need it for FP reasons, they will certainly not need all that food forever, and it helps us to have our own cores without having strange borders and cities dotted around within each others' territories.
And con - more settlers but less land? Doesn't sound too great to me, even ignoring GK's analysis post. Pop is power all right, but I want us to have growth potential (and thus increasing potential) for a long time - more settlers in exchange for less land will just mean we get corrupt cities sooner, and stagnate earlier. Then our advantage slips away as those with more land continue to excel. Apolyton is an excellent team, and that's what I want for us 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
conmcb25
|
|
Angmar
Aug 2002
time: 23:17
|
|
MWIA my point on pop was I would rather have lets say 22 cities built very quickly and developing than 24 or 25 cities built very slowly. Ultimately 25 would be better no question but in this game Im pretty sure we could survive, AND MAKE UP THE GAP BETWEEN US AND PAL A LOT QUICKER with taking one or two less cities but having the city sites we keep built very quickly. But thats a mute point. Our MOI is saying we could use em but we dont need them.
And thats where we are here, its not like the difference in any of the proposals is more than 3 or so city sites.
Like NYE said pop is power, and the quicker we can get built up, the happier Im going to be because contrary to popular belief around here I dont trust PAL.
I just think that different groups need to be handled differently thats all.
You can look at F-P's letter two ways, its either a guilt trip as suggested above or it is a vailed threat. ie they are tired of screwing around and doing this the Apoly way. They want to do this the PAL way. Heres four proposals now make up your goddammed minds kind of thing because your arrogant attitude is starting to piss us off kind of thing.
A lot of us were or are on the PtW ISDG. Remember the war mongers when it came to CFC? You dont think F-P is dealing with those kind of issues right now? Especially after GK's posts at a public forum for our two teams? I think NYE hit the nail on the head, the roles right now are reversed for us folks whether we like it or not. Improvise, adapt and overcome or die. Think a bit about this, this could be what F-P is telling us in between the lines. And I have this about a dozen times but Ill say it again, he is an English teacher, he is wordy and long winded by nature.
But hey if this team wants how we feel about a person on another team dictate policy then thats what we will do. Pride can be a powerful emotion.
Me I dont have any, I dont have the luxury of that, because as I have said several times, all I need to do is survive, and I have a big powerful neighbor to the north.
Last edited by conmcb25 on 16-12-2004 at 17:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GodKing
|
|
Detroit
Feb 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
Just in case some of you missed PAL’s official response to our counter offer, here it is, along with my notes. I had originally printed this up and hand wrote the notes on the margins, but it was interesting enough that I figured some of you might want to actually see it.
quote:
After much thought and careful deliberation, here is the response of the People....
Gentlemen of Apolyton:
Obviously, some significant philosophical differences have occurred between our teams, and these need to be resolved before further progress can be made.
In short, it is time for a reckoning. |
A threat. Great. Wonder what their internal politics are going on about now?
quote:
PAL wishes to enter the next round victorious, and we know that the route to doing so is through cooperation with an ally; one cannot be strong in the face of many, standing alone. We recognize that, as the clearly dominant power on this continent (as well as the game,) in order for us to assist a partner into a status which might result in a nearly equitable contribution, we must give up certain advantages to assist them. We have no problem with this, and never have. We do, however, find certain conditions to be exceedingly frustrating and in need of immediate redress.
|
Tooting their own horn and saying that they don’t like some of the counter offer. To be expected….
quote:
When the nation of PAL offered the four proposals, we were not offering bargaining chips – these four proposals represented long, heated, and serious consideration on both sides of the issue. We presented what we felt were four excellent “best offers.” We presented all of them, even in recognition of the fact that we were not particularly happy with the outcome of at least two plans, because we felt that in recognition of the importance of the alliance, sacrifices would need to be made.
|
Nothing. Long wind.
quote:
What we have gotten in return concerns us gravely.
|
More long wind.
quote:
Instead of a reasoned discussion of this or that proposal, Apolyton has chosen to “mix and match” the best bits of all four proposals for them,
|
Did they even look at it. Jeez, it is almost their second proposal, just slightly modified.
quote:
and then has deigned to add on even more conditions which – especially in the case of the gold of Pumpkinland – we find downright ludicrous. |
Just following your lead, buddy. You’re the ones that added in the settlers to the equation. So what if we followed suite. And ya, it is a bad idea. But if you never ask… [you never have a chance of even finding out.]
quote:
Even though Currency, Construction, and Polytheism have all flowed from the coffers of PAL to the coffers of APO, and despite the fact that assuredly, early Feudal research will be heavily conducted by PAL, you wish to quibble over the produced finances of one town? Such penny-pinching is most unpalatable. |
More long wind. Fine, we never really considered leaving in the gold, it would just have been a nice little bonus is all. Man, what a pain in the science. Doesn’t he realize that before we are half way through the middle ages, we will be giving them more tech than they are giving us. Get real folks.
quote:
PAL has time and time again offered absolutely no threat of military force towards APO – in fact we have, time and time again, done everything we can and then more to prevent APO concerns. |
True. But neither have we. Nice rhetoric.
quote:
In return, APO dictates
|
DICTATE!!! Hell. It is called negotiations….
quote:
to us that they shall place multiple military units in an extremely secure and potentially fortressed location near a key commercial route for our empire? |
Key Commercial Route? WTF? It is the trade route with us. If we do something, it’s because the trade route with us is already screwed. Get real. Don’t they want to place sentinels through out lands? What is the difference? Stop your whining about this little point.
quote:
In return, APO dictates |
there is that dict again. Get real buddy.
quote:
to us the precise disposition of the town that served as the launching point for the entire war against CDG? |
You already said you would give it up. Look at it. Will it culture flip – doubtful. Does it make sense to go to us with the completion of our FP – Yes. Is it a location we told you long ago we already considered ours, before you plopped the city down – yes. Come on. Think about it. [Your proposal said] you would turn it over to us when you felt like it. WTF makes you think that is acceptable.
quote:
Despite the fact that we have repeatedly suggested that we would like to keep our borders very lightly guarded – if at all! – and have for some time allowed your units within very close range of our most important cities… all of this is for nothing. |
We did the same. Don’t try and use this, yet again…
quote:
APO still does not trust us militarily. |
Not completely true. We are cautious with you, as we are not in the stronger seat.
quote:
This gravely concerns the nation of PAL. |
Why? Wouldn’t you do the same? Stop whining.
quote:
There is a saying that those who do not trust are those who are likely to betray. What more can the nation of PAL do? Our patience with tokens of trust is quite exhausted. |
Nice rhetoric. More hawks posturing??!!?? Perhaps we really should be scared. [I] wonder if they even paid attention to my posts when they asked us about this?
quote:
In fact, the only military concern the nation of PAL has ever offered that might have been of concern to Apolyton is the Bay of CDG, which offers a direct route to the heart of our empire. |
Get real. Someone landing in the middle of a swamp, as opposed to landing on your shore directly at the center? Lies. They want the ivory and growth. Tell the truth already. It doesn’t make sense as a military base once they settler their lands. For now, fine, I can see it. And we are more than willing to let them keep it for a while. What is he getting at? Do they want us to be corrupt and unproductive?
quote:
This concern is dismissively referred to as “PAL’s little bay” and indeed, is ignored in your “proposal” as you tell us that the town of Pumpkinland shall become yours as soon as it is wished, and if it flips earlier, c’est la vie. |
BS Lies. Get real. READ THE FRIGGEN PROPOSAL. All we did is determine conditions of transfer, other than “when PAL wants”. Is it too hard of a concept for you to consider?
quote:
The nation of PAL is still committed to an alliance with Apolyton. We still feel that the strongest possible outcome – and the safest – is to work with extreme closeness to Apolyton, united in cause and direction. |
Good. So do we.
quote:
We will not, however, allow ourselves to be taken advantage of, or dealt with poorly. |
Neither will we. I wonder how he would like us shoveling some of it back?
quote:
As was once said before: PAL deals directly, and not in diplomatic games. |
Fooled me. Your original proposals were long winded and clumsy. This response is even more so.
quote:
The proposals we offered you were not bargaining chips – they were fair, equitable, and final proposals, with an eye to the strengths and trust of both teams. We do not wish to thingyer and haggle. |
They never wanted to discuss this! Why even bother having a joint forum? If you want to dictate, then dictate. F*ck that. Why should we even bother.
quote:
Please reconsider our four proposals, and get back to us with a more reasonable and balanced response, recognizing that not only your nation, but ours as well, wishes to serve its own interests, and that these interests are ultimately what must be served.
|
So, that’s it. Choose one and shove cooperation.
quote:
As one united voice,
The People of the Army of the Ladder |
I doubt that. There are probably as many different opinions over there as we have over here. Nice bit of rhetoric to add into the mix though, particularly as they claim to not like it, yet do everything they can to make it.
Last edited by GodKing on 16-12-2004 at 22:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
 I love it. Great analysis, GK. 
F-P's "take it or shove it" attitude deserves to be bashed and acknowledged. But internally, probably not externally. We're going to have to ultimately go back to deal with that sort of attitude for quite some time, so we're going to need to get it out of our system internally, then get back work.
So getting back to work -- instead of asking them what they don't like (and getting them to focus on the negative), I think it's important that we tell them what we are looking for. What's most important to us. And also tell them what we're more than willing to concede. Let's talk positive with them now:
I'm fine with giving up sentries. Let's scratch that entirely. We'll both stop watching each other.
We will respect their concerns about the bay and not build cities there initially.
We will give them ivory and furs and wines forever and above all other teams. Those 3 luxes are locked up and are theirs and will never be traded or sold to anyone.
We have a good plan for a FP and circle of cities about it that we want to follow, and are willing to draw borders around that plan, if they are willing. We are not concerned so much with lines, but with city placement, and want both of our city plans to merge, and not conflict.
They can hold onto Pumpkin for a while if they want, we don't understand it, but we'll cope. We just need it by the time our FP is ready, and we want is building useful improvements and/or settlers.
They can give us settlers and/or workers (slaves) if they choose to, but should not feel compelled to, nor should they feel they need to give them to earn our loyalty or happiness or compliance with them. We ask not for settlers, we ask only for them to allow us to build in a mannor that maximises our potential.
That's it. Let's focus on the positives and on the areas that we agree. Let's get them to agree first, and then slowly understand.
Can we do this?
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
conmcb25
|
|
Angmar
Aug 2002
time: 23:17
|
|
Thats fine GK, lemme work on the wording, in the meantime if you like and have the time lets start sumarizing the bullets we want in it.
Togas gave us a good start, lets make sure we aren't forgetting anything:
This is very rough, and I tried to capture the Togas points and started rewording them.
Again very rough. Lets make sure we capture all the salient points and then Ill do the edit.
1. Sentries-lets just scratch it
2. No problem on the bay we will hold our develop there till lthe end of our REX.
3. We will give you the 3 luxs forever (ivory and furs and wines) , we feel this goes without saying per our initial "share and share alike" agreement
4. We have a good plan for a FP and circle of cities about it that we want to follow, and are willing to draw borders around that plan, if they are willing. We are not concerned so much with lines, but with city placement, and want both of our city plans to merge, and not conflict. With that being said we feel that option two is the closest thing to what both of our teams want. I think our MOI's could agree to a border city plan for both sides utilizing the line as a guide and not a "line drawn in the sand". In other words we get the MOI's together and maybe you get one tile on "our side" and we get one tile on "your side" to maximize the potential growth of BOTH sides.
5. Pumpkin is yours for a period of time, we would like something more definative on when the turnover is. This is the point that confuses us the most, we are already and have already pledged you our extra lux's forever. And we probably need the food power of that city more than you do. Perhaps if you explained why you need to keep pumpkin for a while and approximately how long that will be we can understand and appreciate your teams concerns about keeping it better. We are committed to making this plan work, and if PAL keeping pumpkin for a time has to be part of that plan we will agree, we just need to understand your concerns better.
6. Go ahead and give us settlers and/or workers (slaves) if they choose to, but please dont feel feel compelled to do so. We would prefer that settlers and workers remain detached from the border negotiations. Our main concern is being allowed to develop around a palace and an FP so we can be full fledged contributing members to this alliance. We want to develop to our maximum potential so we can BOTH kick some ass on the other continent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ormuzd
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by conmcb25
Tell them they can decide, regardless of what we eventually agree on, how many settlers to gift us. Eight. None. Whatever. It's their call. |
Wow! I'm already tired and I have read only three topics since yesterday. It seems today was a really hot day...
I agree with this initial post of Togas and it seems this is the opinion of the other more active people here.
I just wonder where are the other team members
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GodKing
|
|
Detroit
Feb 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
THIS IS MY DRAFT. LET US ANALYIZE THIS QUICKLY AND POST OVER AT BANANA EXCHANGE
Here is the official response from team Apolyton to the official response from team PAL.
We want this thread to stay on the topic at hand – specifically, the border between out great nations. If people wish to discuss other topics, please use another thread or emails.
Please bear with us, as this will, by necessity, be a fairly long and detailed post.
Of the four proposals presented by PAL, the second one is extremely similar to the proposal by APO.
The relevant points of the discussion on these proposals are listed below (in no particular order):
1) PAL has based their proposal off of a line. It is our opinion that it will be easier and more beneficial to discuss this in terms of actual city locations. One of our concerns is that our actual city placement may conflict if we do not discuss this in these terms. Neither of our teams would be happy to have two cities located next to each other. Not for security purposes, but because of the inefficiencies involved in such. As you will note from our proposal, it is extremely similar to your second proposal, which is why these comparisons will be made.
2) Per your request, we will not build cities (except for the fur city which was founded last turn) along the bay. Although we do not completely understand why, it will not be a significant issue as we have far more productive sites to settle first anyways. Our generic strategy is to settle productive areas first, along rivers and other waterways second, then in those areas to fill in the gaps.
3) We have a location in mind for our FP. You will note that it is located adjacent to the city of Pumpkin.
4) The City of Pumpkin.
You have indicated that Pumpkin will be turned over to us under two conditions. A) APO requests Pumpkin and B) PAL feels that their security concern is satisfied and they no longer need it. Point B is of significant confusion to us. We do not understand how that city will be providing security to you once you settle the other side of the bay. However, we recognize that PAL has these concerns, and wish to work with PAL in helping to alleviate them. Can you please answer the following: Other than as a staging point and as a visual means of spotting a potential invasion, what purpose does it serve? You have indicated that you would not keep military units within it. We honestly don’t care. You can keep your entire army in it if you like. Our only request on such is that you let us know prior to moving the forces to Pumpkin because it is close to our productive center. In terms of spotting an invasion force, we are concerned that PAL doesn’t appear to trust us to communicate our own knowledge of such to them. But failures of communication, although despised, are not unknown, so we can understand.
Our concern with the transfer of Pumpkin is along several lines. We have requested that it be delivered on the first of three conditions. First is when PAL no longer wants it. As this is completely within your power to control, we doubt that you would have any objection to this. Second is when our FP is built. As already stated, our FP plan is scheduled to be close to Pumpkin. Pumpkin will be a highly corrupt city to either of our civs until our FP is constructed, but once on line, it will have minimal corruption, if it is our city. The city that is due to found our FP city will not be constructed for at least 10 turns. First under construction will be a courthouse, it will probably take 10 turns for it to be at a stage where it can be rushed to completion. Then, it will start on the FP, at an average of 3 shields per turn, it will take 30+ turns to complete. That is about 50 turns from now. We seriously doubt that the opposite side of the bay would not be settled by that point, considering your lovely pyramids. The third is if it were to flip to us culturally. As the area is not likely to be generating significant amounts of culture, we doubt this will be a serious concern. However, we are more than willing to concede on this point. We will not accept it if it were to culture flip to us.
Of final importance for Pumpkin is what it is producing until it is turned over to us. As it will be turned over to us, we would like it to be producing items that will be of use to us. Specifically, we would like to have a market place, harbor, barracks and courthouse. Of course, we understand that it will most likely not be possible to build all of these. However, we specifically would request that it not build cultural items such as temples and libraries, not because these would not be useful, but because the shields would be lost when the city was transferred.
5) The City of Fade to Black you indicated that you would transfer to us once an agreement is made. Our simple request is that prior to transferring it, we, together, take a look at its production and growth, and base its transfer off of the information thus gained. As delaying would primarily be of benefit to you, particularly in terms of unit support and gold, we do not think you would have any objections to this. However, we would not wish to speak for you in this regards. If you feel more comfortable turning it over immediately, so be it. The issue of exact timing is not of significant importance to us.
6) As you have expressed significant concerns regarding the ability to control the trade of luxuries and wanting to maintain a monopoly on as many of them as possible. This concerns us. We have always acted under the assumption that we would trade all extra luxuries to each other first. To us, this isn’t a major issue. We are more than willing to give you the silk south of Crudetown (just look at our proposal. You would have a city directly on top of or due south of it). The wines are located around our capitol, and we have already shown our willingness to trade them with you. You already have furs located within your territory, so the one extra located near the old CDG capitol is mute. The ivory located at Pumpkin is also mute in this regards as you indicated you would transfer the city to us in the future. Is there really any contention on this?
7) We proposed a system where PAL would calculate gold produced in Pumpkin, and give it to us. The rational was included with the proposal. Of course, we readily admit that the idea is absurd, and that it was based on me (as MOI) being a greedy SOB. It was offered in the spirit of “Well, if you don’t ask, you have zero chance, so why not ask? The worse that can happen is that it will be turned down.” We will just assume that the response as given is a simple no to this idea, and withdraw it from the table.
8) You have proposed to us over many discussions the idea of placing sentinels within each others territory to watch what each of us is doing. Although not appropriate for this discussion, our proposal is to simply discard this idea. We will not have any units within each others territory, unless discussed and agreed upon. Same for your units within our territory. Hopefully, we can agree on this. If not, I would suggest that it be discussed in a separate thread.
9) The gifting or purchasing of settlers. In the four PAL proposals, the idea of giving settlers in exchange for more land was proposed. The initial idea of PAL gifting / selling us some settlers was initially proposed by us in a chat, where you mentioned the fact that you would soon be getting the Pyramids. We never intended, nor do we like, the idea of trading settlers for land. To try and keep this short, we would prefer to not include this concept with the border discussion. If necessary, we can elaborate on this, but if necessary we can.
Thank you for reading all of this. We look forward to answering your questions and continuing this discussion.
GK, MOI for Apolyton
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ormuzd
|
|
I didn't sense anything personal.
It's really a long letter, especially the part about Pumkin but I don't think this is a problem because all of PAL's previous official letter were not the shortest I have seen
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-12-2004 05:47
|