06-05-2003 00:28									#271
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Togas My thoughts on each: Sign a new one May discourage CDG from picking us as their target May give us additional time to prepare for the "inevitable" conflict. May give CDG additional time to stack up immortals. May be signed in bad faith by CDG so that they can try to catch us "off guard". Will limit our ability to strike CDG first using any sort of agressive plan like what Fried-Psitalon is proposing. Would have to be broken by us if we want to ally with GCA against CDG.

This might give CDG more time to stack immortals but also us to prepare our defenses, it will also give us time to set up our first layer of border cities which will be a further detriment to a CDG attack. As long as we keep our interior secure, we have no need to fear. On the other hand, CDG's interior is vulnerable to a stack of pillaging mercs. Also, they will not catch us off guards as this treaty does not prohibit us from having our lookouts for example, or hoarding units ourselves. As for first-strike, dammit, that's what I've been advocating too but most people on the team feel it is unnecessary... so, now we defend and we build because that is what the majority wants ok? We can't switch from defensive to offensive just like that when NO geo-strategical situation has changed whatsoever when F-P made his first posts or when I made my initial Evil Plan threads, we make a long-term strategy and we keep it. Frankly, I think our defense can be rather powerful, earlier than CDG's offensive can too.

quote: Do not sign a new one May stir up fear in CDG that we plan to attack them, causing them to overreact and attack us first (if they weren't planning to do so) May cause CDG to try to attack us sooner than if we signed a 30 turn NAP. Will give us the freedom to attack CDG at any time and not take a rep hit (other than the typical rep hit for starting a war) May cause CDG to try to ally with GCA to protect themselves from us. --Togas

If we don't sign one it will only be IMO because CDG never asked for one. If they fear us they will ask to renegotiate, true also if they want to cover their backs if they want to go after GCA. They may also use it to judge our attitude, if we don't ask for one that might signal to them that we are up to something.

What I would do is wait a couple of turns after the NAP expires to see if CDG takes the initiative. If they don't we ask for one anyway and see what their response is. If they do, we take it. Having a NAP does not mean we should be any less prepared for war though.

	06-05-2003 00:30									#272
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Togas- Trip and I were wondering if you could send a message to Elucidia that we are gravely concerned about the apparent military buildup we are witnessing? That might be a good signal as to whether or not they are interested in another NAP, as well as a host of other things. Basically, ask them to lay their cards on the table or we'll do it for them, type deal. Thread with that discussion is here:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...760#post1968760

	06-05-2003 00:50									#273
	Increase Your PM Length

Also, the longer we wait, the farther CDG gets behind in the tech race. We could also ask that CFC have an unofficial embargo with CDG (not sure if this would work) and/or GCA, that way they won't be able to get techs off of us.

	06-05-2003 00:56									#274
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen What I would do is wait a couple of turns after the NAP expires to see if CDG takes the initiative. If they don't we ask for one anyway and see what their response is. If they do, we take it. Having a NAP does not mean we should be any less prepared for war though.

Pretty much what I think. Let's wait - if they approach us and ask us to extend the NAP or sign a new one, we would express our strong concerns about their "moves" northwards and might even ask for some guarantees - 'cause if their desire to sign an NAP (to cover their back before going to war with GCA) would be honest, they'd be likely to accept some (and as it would be THEM approaching us with an NAP proposal, I do not think they would be surprised if we wanted some sort of a de-militarized zone or something... they pushed their conditions last time, we'd push ours this time).

But whatever they do, we shall be preparing for the war that WILL eventually come - probably a defensive one, since that is what we would be best in (swords cut through immos just fine... and even if the slow immos actually get to attack fortified mercs, they are less than impressive), I believe. If they attack us, we would be prepared. And if CDG attacked GCA, we'd still not fall that much behind, as both CDG and GCA would be spending resources on military, too. Plus, we would be ready for the moment both of them would be exhausted from their war... and us ready to strike.

Yes, I would wait.

Re: F-P/Trip's idea to send a message to CDG... the problem IMHO is, that whatever they "lay on the table" can but need not be true. We would not be any wiser. Deeds, not words... that's what will tell us most.

Another thing to consider... do not laught at me, it's true... the only direction CDG can expand PEACEFULLY is to the North... I know that "peacefulness" does not fit well with their military buildup - I just say that they can place one more crappy city to their South and that's it. So even if they plan to attack GCA, they would still expand northwards...

EDIT: and speaking of this... expanding along that river is their best direction to expand in. Best commerce, best defendability.

CDG knows we (can) have iron. CDG knows we (can) have mercs able to cover wounded swords. They are weird, but would they be SO dumb to attack us under these conditions? GCA is agressive on the CDG/GCA border (they built a temple in their border city - see the map).

I would wait and watch them very closely. But I would be very careful provoking them in ANY way - they may very well be only PICKING their target right now.

	06-05-2003 10:46									#275
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Vondrack makes a very good point, and one that I believe we will follow in the end. We should let the NAP die and give it a turn or two to see if CDG contacts us about renewing it. If they don't within 3 turns we should contact them anyway and try to work out another deal, perhaps for 20 turns.

Trip tells me that we cannot fight CDG for at least 20 turns with our current military. I have to also determine what terms we're willing to accept in a Non-Agg and what terms we're not.

Frankly, I just want peace, but I'm rather sure they'll want another settlement agreement and probably some border agreements as well, to keep our warriors from watching their movements.

I have very low expectations for this next Non-Agg as it may be even harder for us to negotiate than the first.

--Togas

p.s. We would certainly put our cards on the table, so to speak, if we negotiated with them, letting them know that we know what they're doing. As F-P states, it may help dissuade them from picking us as a target.

	06-05-2003 11:19									#276
	Suffering from ads?

If they know we set up the embassy, I assume they are not foolish enough to know that we know

But, it doesn't hurt to make it clear to them that we mean business and that they'll be murdered if they try something funny.

	06-05-2003 14:54									#277
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

hi ,

, .... if cdg goes after gca , .... well there is the saying ; if two dogs fight for a bone , the third one walks away with it , .....

have a nice day

	06-05-2003 21:09									#278
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

For once in my life I actually agree with panag....

	06-05-2003 22:03									#279
	Increase Your PM Length

Have we sent CDG a note to let them know we killed a barb on their border and will be moving away?

	06-05-2003 23:09									#280
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Have we sent CDG a note to let them know we killed a barb on their border and will be moving away?

Nope.

But I can send a short note to Kentonio if you'd like. I'll be idling in chat, catch me there to discuss.

--Togas

	07-05-2003 01:07									#281
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Can't chat from work.

It might be a good idea. I note they are sitting on the save again.

	09-05-2003 10:45									#282
	Full PM-box? Change here!

CDG has sent us a short request asking to renew the Non-Agg. This is a positive sign and we will shortly enter negotiations with them in good faith.

This is a rough draft of what I am expecting to ask for in our next Non-Agg:

Standard Non-Agg language

20 turns instead of 30.

Same reneg period starting 5 turns before.

Keep the old settlement line we agreed to. (It favors them but we have no plans to settle on "their side" anyhow).

Make sure they do not camp on iron on our side of the settlement line.

Make sure they do not force us to remove the warrior screen.

Insert a seemingly harmless clause that states: "Both teams promise not to perform any hostile acts for the duration of this agreement" ... then later state in fine print, "Any violation of this treaty by either party voids the treaty." THEREFORE if they perform ANY hostile act towards anyone ... not just us ... they break the treaty as they promised not to perform ANY hostile acts. This shall be known as the "loophole" in our private discussions.


If you have any other suggestions or points to make, please post them.

--Togas

	09-05-2003 10:51									#283
	Remove this text

WOW! CDG actually sent US a message!

I'm still picking myself up off the floor from that one...

CDG Message

I think we should make them stew a bit, we shouldn't respond too quickly. Maybe 3-4 days.

I think a renewal for ~30 turns would be good. We stipulate that they stay away from the SE iron (not telling them about the Iron up North). We keep the "no settle" line in the same spot.

A plan also would be to include a "No Hostile Acts" clause, in case they go after GCA and GCA desperatley asks for our help, then we can go after CDG if we choose. The clause wouldn't specify whom they would have to be hostile towards, it could be anyone that would trigger the clause.

	10-05-2003 01:09									#284
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Vondrack made a good point. We agreed to not settle more than 5 tiles NW from Apolyton. We'll either change this to 6 tiles or remove it entirely. Please let me know which you prefer.

--Togas

	10-05-2003 01:14									#285
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Change it to 6 tiles if possible but IMO that will be rather suspicios as they will know we are planning a settlement there. Anyway, it helps both ways so they might agree on it anyway.

Also, I'd stick with a 20 turn deal.

	10-05-2003 01:27									#286
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I would prefer getting rid of the clause completely - I distinctly remember CDG told us the line was not meant as a basis for future mutual borders. At the moment and for the foreseeable future, such a line would actually be restricting us, not them.

If they want to REX, we will want to outREX them (and with up to two granaries, we would be in a position to do so).

If they want to wage war, the line will be irrelevant anyway - and it would only limit our means of setting up defenses in advance.

	10-05-2003 05:15									#287
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Overall, taking it out altogether would be best. Plus, if they are really planning an offensive, I doubt they would try and piss us off behorehand hence no threat to our imaginary boundary.

	10-05-2003 22:25									#288
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Bigfree was far more pleased with the chat than I was. I spent most of the chat with CDG idling at work due to some telephone calls.

On the issue of the iron, they're playing games with us, asking for a border agreement before they'll leave the iron. Such an agreement is not in our interests and we will not go down that path. Instead we'll have to do this negotiation via correspondence: We send them the terms and then they agree, reject, or modify them.

We will include terms that state that they cannot enter or remain inside our cultural borders. We must immediately plant a city by the iron (with Merc) and make the iron within our borders. They'll be force to leave, or we will happily take the necessary measures to remove them.

They report to us that they get along very well with GCA and tell us "not to worry" about what techs they're researching as they will go along with GCA and not overlap with us .... whatever THAT means.

BigFree believes that the otherwise friendly nature of the chat indicates that they want to have peace with us and that they may be trying to protect their rear while they sneak attack GCA ... but I don't believe it. If those who were active in the chat could post some clues that point to this belief, please do. Here's what I see:

Fortifying on the iron and trying to use it as a tool for a border that would force us to remove our warrior screen.

Reluctance to reveal tech and very unreasonable tech discussions -- saying they're going after Math and not protesting to HBR when they know that they have no horses.

Pretending that they're researching anything at all when we know they are at 0% research

Making a point to tell us how friendly they are with GCA instead of making a point to slam GCA and thereby give them justification for a later sneak attack. Also, by saying they're close to GCA they're hinting to us that GCA "has their back", is THEIR friend, and probably won't like it if we threaten them.

Not protesting at all about GCA's very agressive settlement plan.

--Togas

	10-05-2003 22:53									#289
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

First draft of new Non-Agression Pact with Elucidia:

(BigFree, please borrow this and rewrite as you see fit. Post your draft back to this thread)


Apolyton and Elucidia both agree that there shall be peace between our nations and sign this agreement with the intention of maintaining friendly and beneficial relations.

Both parties hereby promise:

Not to commit any hostile acts for the duration of this agreement.

Hostile acts include, but are not limited to: Attacking, capturing a worker, entering cultural borders without permission, remaining inside cultural borders without permission, pillaging a road or improvements.

CDG will allow the warrior BigFree to travel north through their cultural territory back to Apolyton. CDG shall tell Apolyton the exact path that BigFree shall take, and shall not block this path. Apolyton shall move BigFree in accordance with the instructions given by CDG.

Any violation of this treaty by one party allows the other party to void the treaty and report the offending party to the UN.

This treaty shall last 20 turns after it is ratified by both parties.

--Togas

	10-05-2003 23:38									#290
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I agree that we should negotiate the treaty terms via PMs and emails - the chat was "friendly", but not very productive (I was present throughout the whole chat - somtimes, it was difficult too choose whether to laugh or cry...).

I would only slightly reword one paragraph (it is a bit more general this way):

quote: Not to commit any hostile acts for the duration of this agreement. Hostile acts include, but are not limited to: attacking or capturing units of the other party, entering or staying inside cultural borders of the other party without its explicit permission, and pillaging terrain improvements built by the other party.

	10-05-2003 23:46									#291
	Put an end to popups!

I know that CDG sitting on our iron is a pain, but regarding our city plans, we aren't evening planning to settle ON the iron are we? What is to stop us from settling right next to the iron?

We should also just inform them that we are planning a city site there and they should move. Then we force THEM to make a decision since Morris will be within our cultural borders. Attack us or get the hell away. Then they look like the agressors and not us.

	11-05-2003 01:21									#292
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by vondrack I would only slightly reword one paragraph (it is a bit more general this way): quote: Not to commit any hostile acts for the duration of this agreement. Hostile acts include, but are not limited to: attacking or capturing units of the other party, entering or staying inside cultural borders of the other party without its explicit permission, and pillaging terrain improvements built by the other party.

No. It must remain vague. If we qualify it by saying "of the other party" then we have no loophole.

The loophole exists because if they perform ANY hostile act such as attacking or capturing a worker of ANY nation, that would break their promise.

They are, in fact, promising not to perform any of the actions prescribed for the duration of this agreement ... not just to us.

--Togas

	11-05-2003 01:27									#293
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

WB, this is the current plan, if I am not mistaken - the Iron City shall be our next city, most probably placed SW (1) from the iron itself (that is where I would put it... both if placing it on my own and judging from those few responses in this thread). We'll move our settler, escorted by a Merc, so that Morris does not see it until it is in place - one turn later, Morris will be inside our cultural borders and we demand his unconditional and immediate removal. If they do not comply, we make it clear that we are determined to remove him whatever it takes and another turn later, we simply kill him.

	11-05-2003 01:30									#294
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Togas - sorry, completely forgot about the loophole we want to introduce. Those "...of the other party..." were actually not my focus - scrap them all and use the remaining text. I wanted to cover capturing arty and using the general term of "terrain improvements".

	11-05-2003 18:28									#295
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Togas We must immediately plant a city by the iron (with Merc) and make the iron within our borders.--Togas

If I was on CDG, and had plans to go after us...or at least hamper us long term. I would sacrifice Morris and force our GA.

I suggest we build a couple of cheap archers, and send them with the settler.
When the archers & settler are 2 tiles away, tell CDG that they are being unreasonable..we are settling the city at x, and if they dont move morris, he will be killed.

Or...if we have horsemen available...send a couple of them.

We need a couple of non-merc offensive units to do some possible dirty work. It is a small investment, to ensure we dont get a despotic GA.

Regs

	11-05-2003 22:31									#296
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The Merc at Iron City would only be for it's defense. Archers (or an archer and warrior as VonD has proposed) should be used to pry Morris loose.

--Togas

	12-05-2003 00:41									#297
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Togas: I can have a copy ready on Monday ofr CDG concerning the Non-Agg Treaty and the tech proposal. I'm very busy today with Mother's Day.

	12-05-2003 11:26									#298
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Several members of the team, Dominae in particular, have backed a plan to confront CDG about their military build-up in an effort to show them that a conflict with Apolyton is ill advised. This idea was originally set aside as too confrontational, and we decided instead to first see if CDG would make a move on the Non-Agression Pact.

They did. They contacted us signaling that diplomatic channels were still open and that they were willing to continue negotiations, giving us hope that a more confrontational approach was unnecessary.

The chat was friendly, but gained very little for us and upon further reflection seemed to mean very little. Nothing was acomplished, and we have resorted to sending them a treaty with a loophole in it to maintain the flexibility to attack them earlier.

Discussions continued today in the channel about the CDG situation, further brainstorming what could be done. Diplomaticly, we have gained very little in chat or negotiations with them, and after some debate it was decided that our best chances to actually affect change in CDG was to take a more direct approach.

Either that, or wait and let them wise up on their own. We chose the more active route.

Then, of course, the question became "who is best suited for this task?" We need someone who is trustworthy, not offensive, direct, and can speak with authority. While I have the utmost faith and respect for the members of my staff, I believe it best that we get away from the happy facade of diplomacy and diplomats and send in someone who was more straightforward. Trip immediately volunteered and posted his own MOW thread on the subject to try to garner popular support for sending himself in to "level" with CDG. His offer has been rejected. I have found someone better suited for this job: NotYouEither.

He has had great success with CDG in the past, shows exceptional patience, poise, and a calm, logical approach. Furthermore, he is one of our leaders, not an underling. NYE himself going to talk to them is like the leader of a nation having a one on one discussion with another leader ... and not just sending his Secretary of Defense instead.

Discussions are underway. We'll find a good time and have NYE go in and talk "man to man" with Kentonio about the prospects and possibilities of going to war with us. NYE has seen firsthand what it is like to fight Immortals in his own territory in the Team Game, and he and his team have done exceptionally well against them.

We welcome his support and assistance in this important chat.

--Togas

	12-05-2003 11:38									#299
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Your attempts to politicize everything is really getting old...

I never made an "offer" of any kind. Yes, I volunteered for the job, but my thread was by no means trying to "garner popular support." Frankly, I don't care who does it as long as they can do it, and I think NYE is an excellent choice. I just fail to see the reason to make this game into a competition where you try to "out-do" my efforts in every field and undercut everything I put any time into.

	12-05-2003 12:13									#300
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Will you two just take your gigantic egos somewhere else? Both of you have done your fair share of toe-stepping and for the sake of this team behaving in an orderly fashion I would advise both of you stop arguing and take another long hard look at the Brazilian Women's Soccer Team link passed around in the chat whenever you feel the need to bash each other around.

Trip: Understand that some people might feel they are being side-stepped when you decide to start threads on things that don't directly correspond to the MoW.

Togas: There really was no need to politicize the issue as you just did in your previous post. Some of the language used was very unecessary and offensive.

Now kiss and make up...