 |
| |
|
|
Octavian X
|
 |
Probably buried under piles of Literature, Biology, or Government homework
Jan 2002
time: 23:17
|
|
I think I just spent a good half-hour trying to read this thread... (The insight that some at Apolyton wanted to kill us in the PTWISDG was interesting, though...  )
I'm in no way suprised that this has caused tension. It's to be expected on an issue like this, and because of this I'd like to thank GodKing and conmcb25 for handling this situation with PAL - you've both have done very well for our team. Now that I'm on winter break, if you guys need some help, I'd be more than happy to assist where I can.
Anyway, as to my own opinion on the matter - well, it seems to me that simply drawing a line for a border would be the best way to get it over with, and to simply ignore such other conditions placed on the deal. No settlers, no border fortress, no handing over of such-and-such a city. Let them keep their cities on our side of the line for all I care - they get those, we get to trade luxuries, and the line gets drawn at Meeting Mountain, or somewhere similar.
Later on, PAL may realize the cities south of the border are of no use, or we can petition them for control. PAL may feel like giving us a few settlers as friendly neighbors to speed our development. We're still allied with them, so a border fort is unneccesary. My point is that none of those issues are of immeadate importance, at least not in my mind, and are only serving to incite a fight. I bet that if we're willing to make this border issue only about the border, PAL will be more inclined to draw a line close to Meeting Mountain, which is the best place for one in my opinion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GodKing
|
 |
Detroit
Feb 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
HERE IT IS WITH SOME MINOR TEXT CHANGES
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 our 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. Because of the similarities between these proposals, all comparisons between the APO proposal will be with PAL’s #2 proposal.
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.
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. If you need us to resend the picture (it was removed for security reasons, and this forum doesn’t allow us to post pictures), we will gladly either email it to you or repost it in an open thread.
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 this concern, and wish to work with PAL in helping to alleviate it. 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? This is not asked out of sarcasm, but in order for us to understand.
You have indicated that you would not keep military units within it. You can keep your entire army in it if you like. We are allies, and as such trust you to hold up the alliance. Your stationing of troops in Pumpkin is not a concern of ours.
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 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, and 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. In total, 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. This condition is of significant importance to us, for obvious reasons. 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) 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 confuses us. We have always acted under the assumption that we would trade all extra luxuries and resources 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).
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 we withdraw it from the table.
8) You have proposed to us 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 beforehand. 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. We can elaborate on this if you feel it is necessary, but again, the issue of worker and settler trading would be better in another thread.
Thank you for reading all of this. We look forward to answering your questions and continuing this discussion.
GodKing, MOI for Apolyton
Last edited by GodKing on 18-12-2004 at 08:43
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
conmcb25
|
 |
Angmar
Aug 2002
time: 23:17
|
|
PAL reply:
quote:
Gentlemen of Apolyton:
Your most recent proposal seems most reasonable, and we are gladdened by it. We see no problem with the ideas as a whole, and have only a few small "tweaks" we would like to amend before such a plan could be agreed to, but are confident none of these are major issues.
Regarding the specifics of the border: The two city sites we wish to settle are directly ON the silk tile itself, and also the tile which stands three east of that location.
Regarding the settlement of the bay: you have misunderstood; we do not mean that you should not settle ANYWHERE on the east coast; our concern is only for the bay where it is north of Pumpkin. Anywhere south of Pumpkin we certainly understand and have no problem with you settling as you wish.
Regarding Fade to Black - we have no problem retaining the city until such time as you are ready to accept it. This works fine for us, as we were hoping to squeeze one more worker out of there before turning it over anyhow!
Regarding Pumpkinland - we were planning to use this aggressively as a worker factory for the next 20 turns or so, but after that time, we would be happy to begin the construction of whichever buildings you prefer. As long as it is not in the next 20 turns (which we assume it would not be) we would have no problem turning the city over when required, provided our opposite city across the bay is already in place, which it should be.
We hope that these minor conditions are no cause for difficulty, and that shortly we may put the matter of the border behind us.
Sincerely,
The People of the Army of the Ladder |
GK how does there description of city sites dovetail into our plan???????
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ormuzd
|
|
I think we have almost everything we wanted since the start of these debates so long ago.
I don't think we will need a poll about this - it was discussed long enough and I think everyone from the team will agree with this proposal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ormuzd
|
|
quote:
Right guys...
The vote is complete and the decision is to accept this land split proposal.
Allow me to summerise the details so as to ensure we have no confusion. (trying not to repeat max!)
1) PAL city sites shall be on the silk itself and three squares east. These are allowed cultural expansion as gained.
APO city sites are as yet unknown. (we did have screenies but they were removed) Please confirm these in your response.
2) PAL will continue to use pumpkinland for the next 20-30 turns untill such time as the other side of the bay is established or apo build their forbidden palace.
3)APO will keep NE coast from Pumpkin clear from cities until there is no other city places.
4)Fade to Black will be given to APO next turn.
5) Sentries are not needed in each others land.
Provided APO agrees with this (its nothing new i think) then we can consider this sorted, and get on with global destruction. ;D |
What do I not understand? We will not build a city there until all other sites are settled. They will give Pumpkinland after some time (30 turns for example) and we will build our city there. Isn't this the idea?
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-12-2004 22:12
|