 |
| |
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Persia's logical military option in that case would be to wait until they get Monarchy from us, change governments, and then attack.
|
They don't get Monarchy from us. If everything is fine and peaceful, we go for The Republic instead and skip Monarchy. Given that we're Religious and they're not, we are definitely advantaged in case of treachery.
If we begin trading techs now and they plan to attack us anyway (say, because their landmass is small on the other side of the chokepoint), their logical military option would be to take what the can until they've amassed enough Immortals.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
And Persia would have to be either very trusting or suicidal to go along with the deal. Imagine the backstabbing possibilities they would face if we have Monarchy and they haven't even started researching a more advanced government.
|
We could agree not to research Warrior Code, letting them research that Monarchy prerequisite. Still, I agree the deal is in our favor. But you seem to arguing for both sides here: you're convinced that peaceful and trusting is the way to go, but you do not think that anyone will be foolish enough to play along.
I'm not against tech trading at all. I just feel that taking things slow trade-wise while we're REXing is safer. We do not need Mathematics, Alphabet, etc. at this point in the game, so why research them? Let's prioritize what we need in case we go to war with Vox, and offer deals once we're set up.
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 02-01-2003 at 11:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
Dominae, you're suggesting that we spend the time for two prerequisites of Monarchy that have little use otherwise and then DON'T research Monarchy if all goes well? That seems seriously wasteful.
I think peaceful and trusting is the way to go within limits. The key is to maintain a balance where neither side would have such a large advantage as to make war more profitable than peace.
A deal where one civ researches Republic for both is less militarily dangerous than a deal where one civ researches Monarchy for both because Republic is less useful as a military government. I'd even be willing to let Persia be the one to research Republic if it wouldn't slow things down significantly and if we're in a solid military position because if they refuse to follow through on the deal, we could threaten to attack (and probably blow at least a turn or two of their GA) while they're in anarchy making the switch. And then they'd be caught either staying in Despotism after the anarchy or trying to fight as a Republic (and I bet war weariness kicks in a lot faster against human opponents than against AIs). Contrast the pain of such a war with the mutual prosperity if they follow through on the deal and there's a strong element of self-interest to encourage trustworthiness.
Nathan
Edit: Note that this discussion is in the context of if we and Vox are the only two civs on the continent, although much of the same theory could apply to another research partner if we can find one.
Last edited by nbarclay on 02-01-2003 at 12:01
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Dominae, you're suggesting that we spend the time for two prerequisites of Monarchy that have little use otherwise and then DON'T research Monarchy if all goes well? That seems seriously wasteful.
|
Mysticism and Polytheism are required techs, making researching them hardly wasteful. At the moment, there are very few techs that we really need, so getting closer to Monarchy is the safest choice.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
I think peaceful and trusting is the way to go within limits. The key is to maintain a balance where neither side would have such a large advantage as to make war more profitable than peace.
|
What sort of research vectors and trades do you propose?
I do not like crafting our long-term strategy 2 turns after contacting our nearest neighbor. As was already mentioned, Vox is unpredictable. I'm not comfortable starting to research Alphabet at this point, even if we could potentially benefit from trades later on.
The best-case scenario is that Vox thinks as you do, and we get a life-long trading partner. I'm highly doubtful this will happen. More likely we trade for a few techs here and there until either of us decides to attack. We're potentially crippling ourselves if we trust in them too much so early on.
Also, although extended tech-trading is very powerful, there is definitely something to be said for being alone on our continent. We jump into The Republic, get a FP up were the Voxians are (somehow!), concentrate on infrastructure, build fewer units. In short, our Economists would have a field day in this situation. I'm certain we could not manage to research tech twice as fast (as we would be able to do if the Voxians were still partners), but hopefuly somewhere as close.
Finally, we've been debating this point for quite a few posts now. Unless we have additional points to make, perhaps we should open this up to everyone else in the form of a poll.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Dominae, you're definitely making me think, so we aren't to a point where we've said everything there is to say. I started a response and then started thinking of new angles while I was editing it, and then thinking of new angles to those angles while editing my edits, so I'd better put the whole thing on hold for a while until I have more time for it.
|
Same here! I sat down and tried to think of the best ways we could split the tech tree, and, not knowing their intentions right now, it wasn't easy! If they answer us and seem very friendly, I'm all for your plan. If we continue getting the cold shoulder, we need to do some more planning.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:23
|
|
I did not want to post a new thread for this. It is a crash course in some of the subtleties of diplomacy. I wanted to post it in full here before it got edited in the ISDG forum. Here it is in the original from a master of diplomacy.
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
It's about time this society resurfaced. I'm more than happy to be the first one to bring it back.
Today's discussion topic is: How to be successful in foreign affairs in a PBEM setting..
First off, it needs to be noted that there seem to be distinctly different styles of head to head play. Some PBEM games are tactical wars with very little correspondence and little active diplomacy. Some games (like the PTW team game) are filled with interaction, propoganda, complex negotiations, and ripe for a situation where the Machivelli Society can prosper.
I'll start out with 4 things I've learned, and some examples of each.
1) Tech deals can be negotiated far before tech is actually received.
While it's far easier and less confusing to line up tech trades after you get a tech, it's far more productive to line up "orders" for your tech turns before you get it. Not only can you ensure that you will receive the fastest possible gain from your tech trades, you will also beat your competators to market if you can get firm deals with other nations for your work before your work (and their work) is ever done. Better yet, if you can get a firm deal to receive someone else's tech you can often get another deal to resell their tech to a neighbor or a nation that is lazy in their own negotiations.
Despite the many things Lux Invicta did in the foreign policy world that were arrogant and foolish, Trip's agressive future tech trade schemes were initially very sucessful, and allowed Lux to function on a minimal research budget while keeping at pace with the rest of the world around them. He also kept his contact with Vox well hidden and pawned off Vox's research as his own to his unsuspecting neighbors.
His mistake was in not blocking the one square that allowed access to Vox. GoW discovered this square, got contact, and destroyed Lux's scheme by releasing the knowledge to others.
2) ANYTHING can be negotiated. Ignore the limited framework Fraxis gives us and get creative. You can negotiate borders, settlement treaties, embargos, information trades, non-trade clauses, research pacts, or even demand that units not cross certain land areas.
We got into an international "scuffle" with GoW in the PTW game when a GoW warrior, doing a casual scout/mapping trip, crossed into an area we had claimed as our domain. Despite the fact that this is perfectly acceptable in the game, we were still "annoyed" by it and were able to use their refusal to leave as a legitimate issue that needed to be resolved. We were later able to bargain for their removal as a pre-condition to carrying through a deal they had counted on doing with us.
Anything can be negotiated.
3) Phrase agreements in ways that favor your agenda.
An "alliance" can be phrased in such a way that it is only activated under specific terms .... terms that you determine. Say you don't want your neighbor to use the alliance as a  to go to war? Put in that the alliance is only triggered by one of the allies getting war declared on them by another team. Say you don't want to go to war with X nation -- put in a clause that voids the alliance if you ally goes to war with that nation.
In the PTW Game we created an alliance with Lux Invicta that was purely defensive and was voided if Lux started a war. We then slipped word to Neu Dem at the brink of war that our alliance would be activated if Neu Dem declared war, but not if Lux did. As fate would have it, Lux started the war and Spain was able to escape untouched. (sidenote: The alliance was also due to run out in a turn, and we had purposely stalled negotiations ... see point 4)
4) Active ambassadors are a MUST, as most business need to be tended to quickly, but stalling tactics are extremely simple and effective in PTW.
Don't want to cheese off that neighbor's about his lame proposal or that deal you don't really want to make? Don't get back to them. Forget to respond. Respond late with vague language. Assign someone else to handle a "complex renegotiation" and then act annoyed when that person hasn't yet written back. Stall. Prolong. Bring up other issues and try to tie them to the deal. There are endless ways to very politely say "no" without saying no. Letting deals die while pretending to be reworking them is an excellent smokescreen for a top secret military attack (Pearl Harbor, anyone?)
In the PTW game Trip very persistantly kept on me about redoing the alliance between our nations and I told him we wanted to renew and that I had assigned it to jdjdjd. I told jdjdjd explicitly to add new provisions, make up new terms, and stall like mad on the deal. Jdjdjd also wasn't exceptionally active at the time due to RL work issues... a normally bad trait for an ambassador, but a good trait in this situation... and for three days I was covered because "Jdjdjd should have done that yesterday..." and "I don't understand, jdjdjd is usually very on top of these things. If he doesn't write you by tomorrow, let me know" and so forth. The process was successfully stalled, the treaty would have run out before our intentionally slow reneg process would have concluded.
These are a few examples. Please post other ideas and examples that you have observed ... from your own successful ploys to ones used by your clever opponents.
--Togas |
Do we all still think that RP is a totally straight forward and above board team? Are any of us still under the illusion that any of the teams can be taken completely at their word? Do any of us think that we should labour under the liability of being completely forthright and prompt in our own responses to other teams?
Whatever the case may be, it is an interesting case for our diplomats to discuss.
Enjoy.
Last edited by notyoueither on 19-02-2003 at 12:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
zeit
|
 |
Meet my blade!
Sep 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
Togas' little guide was more than obvious- it almost seems like a lesson in human relations to mars people. I see no point in posting as a guide, maybe he is just sharing his fun in doing real diplomacy, as opposed to dealing with the AI.
RP, like any other team, plots to take advantage of other teams in this great game, when possible and seems profitable. Failing to do so in our negotiations, just for the sake of not making a fully "mathematically balanced" agreements (like Nathan keeps pushing for), is IMHO wrong, and somewhat naive. After all, we are "logical" and we don't act upon simple rules which can be summed up, not with the current knowledge we have on decision making processes and behavior. The conclusion is not, as some migth believe, that we should use the tactics Togas suggests, and it doesn't make the codex DeepO suggest irrelevant or a mistake. On the contrary- we should push for publishing codex, as in this uncertainty that surrounds human relations, there is room for someone who keeps his word, and presents itself as honorable. What we in fact has to realize is that there is no point in being fair for the sake of it, not trying to barter, or exploit human weaknesses when we think it will do us good, like Togas said, it simply works (in that sense that it can bring profit, when you look at the larger picture).
Nathan often says that a deal is unfair (for Vox), and that if they accept it, they will realize they were "screwed" and they will hate us. This was true, if people used logic and cold reasoning (maybe they wouldn't have agreed in the first place, but let's assume they have, and then things have changed), but that is not the case, obviously. Certain attachments towards a deal, a civ, an ambassador, or any other psychological process can lead a team to sign a treaty that favors the other team, stick with it, and not necessarily be upset.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
Well, I have to agree that it is pretty standard guide to diplomacy, we have been doing that for a long time. What makes it interesting though, is the examples given, as normally, you never see what's behind the curtains.
Does it change our relation with RP? Not at all. They have only shown that they keep to their deals, but are 'creative' when negotiating it. One thing I don't like is that they told ND not to attack until the NAP with Lux ended, so that they didn't need to get involved. That's not a secret deal anymore, and is certainly one to remember for our codex.
If by tonight the Codex hasn't been updated by anyone, I'm going to rephrase it myself. Sure, it won't be as good as when someone else does it, but it's not that I'm totally ignorant when writing texts, it's just that most of the times I'm too lazy for it 
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-01-2003 10:27
|