30-08-2005 07:40									#1
	Other aspects of CBR proposal Inflate your Upload Space

quote: --->About the exchange of technologies: The Brazuca civilization proposes the exchange of Bronze Working by our Alphabet. --->About the Screens: Other thread --->About the agreement of maintain units at least 1 tile from the borders: Beyond concretize this deal, we’d like to increase somewhat in the style of exploration: We’d like that the curraghs have free passage by the cultural borders of the nations. Of course we should debate more about the matter, it’s only a demonstrative of our intentions. ---> The Brazuca civilization would like to include in this "package deal" a peace treaty, with duration of 50 turns on average. We find this an interesting topic it to be analyzed, for that we’ll be able to grow and develop our nations in a complete way, and may this bring joy and brotherhood to our peoples. --->The Brazuca people would like to ask priory to register our agreement in the UN. The Brazucas citizen are a little fearful, and despite of knowing that a feeling of cooperation between our peoples exists, insists on the idea of prevent any possibility.

Does anybody have anything they feel vehement about those issues? We've discussed them all.

The most likely hot issue is the 50 turn peace. Is there serious and numerous opposition to this idea?

For myself, I see little problem. I can't see us being ready for any attack before turn 75 or 80.

Let's get this thrashed out and then poll each clause starting in 2 days.

	30-08-2005 08:10									#2
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I dont like NAP's and would like to see if the FAM, can talk them out of it. Or offer some other guarantee that we dont want early war.

Say we give 50 turns of peace.
Say on turn 45, CBR want a 50 turn extension.
We decline.
**insert warning bells here*

If I was CBR, I'd immediately start beefing up my border if anyone refused a NAP extension.



Agree to it if we have to, but I would rather see the whole thing dropped.

	30-08-2005 08:33									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Could there not be reasons for delaying the ratification of an extension?

The biggest problem with going sans NAP is that in a three civ situation, someone is going to be attacked. I've never seen it not happen.

Who gets attacked when two have an NAP and the third refuses them?

	30-08-2005 09:03									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

As long as we can work any NAP extension process, so that we are able to control that and have the upper hand, then I'm o.k. with it.

E_T

	30-08-2005 09:13									#5
	Suffering from ads?

We may have to live with the consequences of breaking an NAP.

What we have to consider above that, IMO, is the consequence of going NAPless in the early stage.

	30-08-2005 09:33									#6
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I have no problems with breaking NAP's.


What if we have a 50 turn NAP. - Everything goes sweet.
After 50 turns, no one bothers to renew it. - Even sweeter.

Then on turn 70, they want a 20 turn NAP.
And we have war plans starting on turn 80.

Thats 10 turns we have to duck and weave & hide our military buildup... at a time when they are wondering why we are refusing/delaying to sign.

I'd rather just *try* to sell the GS way of a no NAP policy. Then, they wont even ask for it.
They may go for it... they may not.

Aro can be unofficially sounding them out now. We are friendly, but we have a no NAP policy.

If they balk, fine, we send them a NAP and break it later if we have to.

	30-08-2005 09:45									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The GS way was when there was a three team continent, we were able to wall an island, and we were intending not to inhibit ourselves from any course of action when the poo hit the fan.

It was a very different situation.

	30-08-2005 09:53									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Hot_Enamel Say we give 50 turns of peace. Say on turn 45, CBR want a 50 turn extension. We decline. **insert warning bells here*

This is why I'm against an NAP. I've seen around here people saying our diplomats will stall CBR should this situation arise.

How?

	30-08-2005 10:41									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by RegentMan This is why I'm against an NAP. I've seen around here people saying our diplomats will stall CBR should this situation arise. How?

You can stall a while asking for amendments to a NAP. You may ask that it accompanies an trade of techs or gold or both. You can ask that it also includes a border agreement or a Multual Protection Pact (MPP). You may ask for a map a luxury or a promise from the other Civ not to build a certain Wonder.

There are many differing stall tactics that can be used that do not only include slow responses to emails.

However, none of them will make the other team completely 100% comfortable with you because in fact they are looking for a certain level of comfortability. If they were not, then they wouldn't ask for a NAP. Well, unless, they planned to break the NAP and take YOU by surprise.

I'm with the school of thought that we say we'd rather not enter into a NAP with anyone until we know the full situation on our landmass. We back that up by saying that a NAP limits our actions in case of unforseen actions by other teams and until we know more fully what the situation is we would rather leave all our options open. We'd consider a NAP after we gather further intelligence about our landmass and whom is here or not here with us.

Now a good way to really catch a team off guard is to offer the above and then wait 20-30 turns to really see what lays before us and then tell them we'd be OK with signing a NAP. This would then signal to them that we are comfortable signing a NAP with them and thus harbor no intentions at that time against that would be war like. But we really just stab them right in the middle of the NAP, right after the shift production towards safe growth since they have a fresh NAP.

	30-08-2005 13:42									#10
	Put an end to popups!

You know, I think H_E may be on the right track if we do decide that we don't want a NAP. We say we'd rather not sign a NAP because we think they're useless or whatever reason we have to cite. We do, however, want to form a partnership with them, agree to things that help both of us out, talk about joint long-term goals, etc, etc, etc.

They say they still want a NAP. We sign it just for them. Might not be such a bad signal to send.

'Course then we have the problem of being NAPed. That said, we've given them fair warning what we thought of NAPs in this "last man standing" game of Civ the first place (though hopefully not put quite in those terms).

	30-08-2005 17:32									#11
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I do not like breaking any treaties!
And I will not support a NAP if we intend to break it!

The first 50 turns are ok. They will probably ask for more and we can stall them...breaking treaties is just a tabu for me. That is perhaps old-fashoned but I want to play a fair game and not use tactics like these.
Even if we get a disadvantage and lose.

	30-08-2005 18:04									#12
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Arnelos You know, I think H_E may be on the right track if we do decide that we don't want a NAP. We say we'd rather not sign a NAP because we think they're useless or whatever reason we have to cite. We do, however, want to form a partnership with them, agree to things that help both of us out, talk about joint long-term goals, etc, etc, etc. They say they still want a NAP. We sign it just for them. Might not be such a bad signal to send. 'Course then we have the problem of being NAPed. That said, we've given them fair warning what we thought of NAPs in this "last man standing" game of Civ the first place (though hopefully not put quite in those terms).

Oooo!! I like. Me thinks that Arney has been drinking MZ's "Evil Plan" tequilla.

	30-08-2005 19:01									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Regarding Currachs entering our territory, I have only 2 points to make:

1) they inform us prior to entering our territory, including where they intend on going.
2) This applies to only Currachs, not to other naval units. Units capable of transporting military units will be considered a declaration of war (unless special permission is granted before hand).

Regarding the tech deal, I suggest we each state that the other team cannot trade the tech for the next 20 turns (enough time to meet up with any other neighbors we might have I hope, and keep bronze out of their hands in case we decide to kill them).

	30-08-2005 19:02									#14
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

to GK

	30-08-2005 21:18									#15
	Remove this text

I agree, GK.
Just for the records, my feelings about NAP's are the same, Poly-Akryll. I just don't like breaking treaties.

	30-08-2005 21:28									#16
	Support Apolyton

We shouldn't go for any war before find other Civilizations.
We shouldn't go for any war before we get Monarchy or Republic (Monarchy is better for warmongers, I think...), in order to avoid a despotic GA.
We shouldn't go for war by breaking treaties, because our rep will be very damaged, no matter what my friends here are saying.
So, IMHO, we can afford 50 turns of peace, and 5 turns before the end, our army will be ready and so on.

I don’t see why we should break a NAP or any treat. It’s not necessary…

	30-08-2005 21:52									#17
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

There are times when you just have to go for broke.

Imagine if we found out that CBR was about to hook up iron to do a mass upgrade, and we knew that we were going to be the attacked party, and we had the ability to take their iron before they could do the upgrade. I would break that treaty the instant I could, if i knew that we had better odds of winning the game if we broke the treaty and attacked CBR than if we waited for the treaty to expire.

	30-08-2005 22:04									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Krill There are times when you just have to go for broke. Imagine if we found out that CBR was about to hook up iron to do a mass upgrade, and we knew that we were going to be the attacked party, and we had the ability to take their iron before they could do the upgrade. I would break that treaty the instant I could, if i knew that we had better odds of winning the game if we broke the treaty and attacked CBR than if we waited for the treaty to expire.

I would do the same, if I were playing against the AI. But with human players…
Of course, I’ll bless any dirty way to obtain this iron (or anything else) without break any trait. There’s a lot of clever ways to achieve what we want, without any spot in our Rep. A lot of work for Master Zen...

Including make them break the deal first…

	31-08-2005 00:47									#19
	Suffering from ads?

I'm with Krill here. Afterall, if they're building an offensive force in order to attack *us* and we can clearly see that, the treaty is alreadly totally meaningless, no?

I don't want to get into a situation where we fall on our swords simply for the sake of adhering to an agreement that our opponent clearly doesn't care about.

Let's approach NAPs and other written agreements in a cutthroat winner-takes-all game like this for what they really are: even written on paper, they are ultimately handshake business arrangements whose only collateral are the ties of mutual self-interest. We're signing temporary agreements with people who we KNOW intend to kill us and likely won't hesitate to violate such agreements themselves... we need to stop looking at them like marriage vows.

	31-08-2005 01:07									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Arnelos I'm with Krill here. Afterall, if they're building an offensive force in order to attack *us* and we can clearly see that, the treaty is alreadly totally meaningless, no?

I can't discuss against facts.

quote: I don't want to get into a situation where we fall on our swords simply for the sake of adhering to an agreement that our opponent clearly doesn't care about.

Nobody wants that. And I think this isn't possible, not with the team we have here.

quote: Let's approach NAPs and other written agreements in a cutthroat winner-takes-all game like this for what they really are: even written on paper, they are ultimately handshake business arrangements whose only collateral are the ties of mutual self-interest. We're signing temporary agreements with people who we KNOW intend to kill us and likely won't hesitate to violate such agreements themselves...

You're probabily right... But you only break handshake business arrangements if you have well-justified (and well-documanted, just in case of processes and tribunals ) reasons.
All I'm asking is a good and decent reason to do that...

quote: we need to stop looking at them like marriage vows.

Ops... People breake marriage vows all the time, I can assure you.

	31-08-2005 01:22									#21
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Arnelos I don't want to get into a situation where we fall on our swords simply for the sake of adhering to an agreement that our opponent clearly doesn't care about. .

agreed. However, I am not comfortable signing up for things we intend to break...