29-05-2003 15:24									#421
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by BigFree Basically, just blowing smoke up their ass. But they are so 'young' they won't catch onto that I don't think.

Until they put their head between their legs and kiss their ass goodbye, that is. Then they'll smell the smoke - but the fire will already be upon them.

	29-05-2003 16:31									#422
	Tired of ads?

I think risking the mis-targeting of CDG's Immortals towards us, rather than GCA, is a pretty serious consequence for something as trivial as a one tile radius or a border we know full well we won't respect when the time comes anyhow. Give them their friggin border so their eyes will be turned away. You start jerking them around on something they expect without warning, and they'll start looking towards us, and looking hard. The border won't last beyond when we want it to anyway, and we won't have any real use for the land beyond where the border will be by the point we'll attack anyhow.

No offense, but there is absolutely no reason to try and score mean points against CDG right now, and all kinds of reason to "Blow smoke up their ass." We want the immortals expended the other way FIRST, and they'll be more hesitant to do that if we start getting diplomatically erratic.

Stick with the plan. It'll work just fine.

	29-05-2003 17:02									#423
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Agreed with F-P. Let's be as easy as possible now. I believe we should be easy to back off to a 6-tile settlement border (one that limits placing cities - and maybe military units - but does not limit cultural boundaries... a border limiting cultural boundaries would be very difficult to enforce anyway, as cultural borders expand more or less automatically). That is what our sims show is the proper extent of our empire prior to launching our attack at Persia.

	29-05-2003 18:03									#424
	Increase the size of your Attachments

All of our plans have taken into account a 6 tile settlement border. Why would we risk our safety for an extra row of tiles to settle on when we will probably not use it? I agree with Vondrack's position.

	29-05-2003 18:43									#425
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I do agree with F-P, Vondrack, & Panzer.

But I would still wait for their response ...BF has already said we want 7...lets see what they say.

Negotiate...but dont go demanding stuff, or we will piss them off.

BF knows what to do. He is good at what he does.

	29-05-2003 20:29									#426
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Hmm, the fact that CDG is now strong compared 'to us makes me suspicious to them again. It seems like they are not, like Trip did in his simulation, focusing on workers but on building up their military. They obviously thought expanding quickly wouldn't help them and wanted to have a strong military. They must have build a lot of units the last couple of turns, because only 15 turns ago they were still weak

Now the question arises why they are building so many troops. Some possibilities:

A. They are feeling threatened because of lying in the middle of the continent and want to make them look an unattractive target.

B. They intend on attacking someone:
B1: GCA, as they are close to them
B2: Apolyton, because they might think we are an easier target than GCA

I just hope it will not be B2, because if they attack us too soon we will not be well prepared. It is not that I am afraid we will get crushed but a long war will benifit GCA and CFC greatly, leaving us in a poor position to win the game. If they build the troops just to defend themserlves I think we are set because we have much more ecomic potential as a result of our better city placement and our priorities of getting more cities up and runnin quickly.

All I want to say with this is that I think CDG is still a very unstable neighbour, which can 'explode' anytime.
The FAM should just make sure they are not close to us when they explode

	29-05-2003 21:43									#427
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Tarquinius They must have build a lot of units the last couple of turns, because only 15 turns ago they were still weak

Can you point me to the specific turn you got that info from? If you're right, I can run some tests to see what they must have built in the meantime.

You're right - they did not build a single worker since we established our embassy. See the Area X thread.

	29-05-2003 22:56									#428
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Hot_Enamel I do agree with F-P, Vondrack, & Panzer. But I would still wait for their response ...BF has already said we want 7...lets see what they say. Negotiate...but dont go demanding stuff, or we will piss them off. BF knows what to do. He is good at what he does.

Thanks H_E.

I do no plan to make them angry or to have them direct or re-direct their Immortals at us anytime soon. The tone of the chat with Loius XXIV indicated that 'he' felt we were justified in asking for the 7 tiles. Let's see what they say.

While we don't want to raise the ire of CDG we also don't want to appear to be any sort of lackey either. If we give them something that they themselves don't feel is 'equitable' then they might be suspicious of us then as well. Like we are planing something and are only placating them in the mean time.

The latest news for the Intelligence service looks good for us and bad for CDG. They really need some worker's to grow with, since they do not have any, they are proving to be making bad choices.

With our building a few NM's on the horizon, our 'weak' standing won't last long.

EDIT: Spelling

	30-05-2003 00:19									#429
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: They obviously thought expanding quickly wouldn't help them and wanted to have a strong military. They must have build a lot of units the last couple of turns, because only 15 turns ago they were still weak

They also might of upgraded some of their warriors to immortals. I'm pretty sure the power ratings take A/D as well as quantity into account. This would also be logical considering their 100% tax rate. And if they are mass upgrading then it also might indicate that whatever offensive plans they have are not much farther off.

	30-05-2003 00:30									#430
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Wervdon - please see this thread for the 'power ratings'.

	30-05-2003 01:09									#431
	Put an end to popups!

There's a few points I'd like to make:

1) We need to behave as though this NAP and border are important to us, and if we put up a struggle to gain land peacefully through negotiation, we'll be happy in the end with what we got ... and believe me. BigFree and I, in the end, will act as though we're happy with the negotiations, and happy that we can peacefully resolve these issues, and act as though it's another major step in our continued cooperation and friendship.

We'll shake hands, take pictures together, and build off of the combined effort to reach that point. We will both have put energy and time into building a relationship ... and people are less likely to ruin relationships that they've invested in.

If we just show up and agree to their terms, sure, they'll be pleased, but there's very little invested into such a relationship, and they could easily assume that we're just placating them, or that we're not being generous, or that we're hiding something because we gave in too easily. Such "generous" behavior on our part is suspicious. It is far less suspicious if we argue for land and then, in the end, accept some settled agreement that we feel is fair for both of us.

2) We COULD just let this thing get delayed and delayed. If not for our constant emails and PMs we'd never even meet. These guys are lazy and sloppy. I do not believe they intentionally stall, I believe that Louis is waiting for people to tell him what to do, and that the others are just assuming that Louis is going to do it and their lack of urgency is a sign that, overall, this probably isn't something they're too worried about.

However, if we do delay it we will not have the full benefit of our continued building relationship with them, and for that reason, I recommend that we keep on them (politely) to show them that it IS important to Poly that we stay peaceful and that we work things out.

3) Border = Border, not settlement line. They're not asking for a Settlement line, so we need to get that idea out of our heads. I suggested to BigFree that we allow 2 of their warriors behind our border, and that they allow 2 of ours to act as observers. We're not going to propose that until after we work out the border line to keep only 1 issue active and dealt with at a time. But I am doubtful that they will agree to that term anyhow.

--Togas

	30-05-2003 02:04									#432
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Togas 3) Border = Border, not settlement line. They're not asking for a Settlement line, so we need to get that idea out of our heads. I suggested to BigFree that we allow 2 of their warriors behind our border, and that they allow 2 of ours to act as observers. We're not going to propose that until after we work out the border line to keep only 1 issue active and dealt with at a time. But I am doubtful that they will agree to that term anyhow.

Question for FAM: how do we expect to solve the problem of CULTURAL borders expanding over the negotiated line? That's something one can hardly control - once a temple gets built in a border town, the border will start and keep expanding... that's why I use that "settlement" borderline term, though what I really mean is: the line should limit the movement of units and placement of cities, but not their cultural borders.

	30-05-2003 02:38									#433
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Wervdon - please see this thread for the 'power ratings'.

I skimmed through it and it seemed to confirm that a rapid rise in power rating for CDG could easily be a result of warrior->immortal upgrades. In fact, if i'm reading that right warrior->immortal is a bigger rise in power rating than building a new warrior.

	30-05-2003 02:52									#434
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Vond, in our border agreement we will state:

"Teams may only move their units within their cultural boundaries and/or on their side of the agreed upon border, unless expressly permitted by the other team to do otherwise. At no time will any team enter into or remain inside of another teams cultural bounadaries unless expressly permited to do so by the other team. No team shall bring units accross the border unless where permitted by this agreement or it is expressly permitted by the teams."

This should cover any eventualities. Sound good to you Togas?

	30-05-2003 03:07									#435
	Increase Your PM Length

Expressly state LAND units. We want to send a galley along the coast - the current wording would not allow us, I think... unless the line is defined as coast-to-coast-only elsewhere.

What is the exact meaning of "and/or"? Is it "non-exclusive" or? Would a simple "or" be exclusive? (sorry if this sounds like nit-picking on my side... it is not - I am not 100% sure what exactly the difference is, so I'm making sure I understand it correctly)

	30-05-2003 03:24									#436
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

"and/or" means that either can be done or justified seperately or together.

"or" means that either can be done or justified but not necceasarily together.

Like units can be inside our cultural boundaries "or" inside our border. Those are seperate things, though the conditions can co-exist, hence I'd like to state it as and/or so that both can exist simultaneously without exception.

I think it is more technical than it needs to be, but we can never be too safe with loopholes.

I can change "units" to "land units." This might alert CDG to something to cause them to oppose it. But I did think that we were going to stipulate that the border's only went from "coast to coast." So our Galley's would be safe for travel then.

	30-05-2003 03:36									#437
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well, the only thing I am concerned about is that we need to be able to have our units (at least non-combat) allowed ANYWHERE inside our cultural borders, which, however, need not be on our side of the negotiated border - which would be the case for the border towns, whose cultural borders would extend beyond the negotiated line.

Basically: being inside one's cultural borders is enough to satisfy the clause.

Is this covered?

	30-05-2003 03:46									#438
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Yes, I believe it is. Maybe someone else can read it and comment on it for another opinion though?

	30-05-2003 03:54									#439
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Wouldn't it be easier to just say:
a) We will not settle any cities across the line (wherever that is defined to be), and they will not either.
b) We will not enter their culture boundries with any units and they will not enter ours.

And leave it at that? If we settle on our side of the line and the culture extends across, then we don't violate a by settling the city and if we don't enter their culture radius, then we don't violate the non-tresspass clause.

	30-05-2003 04:09									#440
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Well since I just noticed our NAP expired with CDG this turn, I guess we are at the moment of truth. Do they truelly want to pursue peaceful relations with us, or was the whole border thing a stall tactic..... I personally wouldn't be surprised to see 4-7 immortals coming our way in the next 4 or 5 turns, nor would I be surprised if they went GCA's way instead. Heck I wouldn't even be surprised if they went through the chokepoint towards CFC's rear. CDG is a very bad neihbor because they are very unpredictable. In any case, I think we'll know pretty soon what their short to mid term intentions towards us are.

	30-05-2003 04:27									#441
	Got spare money?

The agreement is looking good, if perhaps requiring a little more thought to see if we can make it more straightforward in wording (sorry BF!).

As far as culture goes, although of course we should state what we have about it in the agreement, we shouldn't need to worry too much about culture - if they are building few workers they will not likely put many cities in that area, and their culture will not expand far unless they go straight for a Temple build. We will be attacking them before they get on their feet well enough for their culture to start encroaching on the border.

	30-05-2003 13:32									#442
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

From the Army Assessment:
It is unlikely that they have more than 4 Immortals. UNLESS they did a massive upgrade this turn. We'll find out as soon as we've built our units.

	30-05-2003 13:57									#443
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt As far as culture goes, although of course we should state what we have about it in the agreement, we shouldn't need to worry too much about culture - if they are building few workers they will not likely put many cities in that area, and their culture will not expand far unless they go straight for a Temple build. We will be attacking them before they get on their feet well enough for their culture to start encroaching on the border.

Actually, it is OUR cultural borders I am concerned about, not theirs. I just want to make sure we are allowed to legally plop our cities right next to the negotiated "border" (temples being less of a concern - even the first ring of our border cities would be an issue, if we follow the city placement nye, Trip, and BigFree used in their sims).

	30-05-2003 14:02									#444
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well, if it's not in the agreement then it's a loophole we could hold to our advantage (ie more territory that could be claimed to be "ours" for the purpose of troop movements...)

We would not of course have any such issue come up until we are a lot more prepared for war, as we have enough places to settle away from the border, for the moment. If our culture did ever eat into their land, then we would be provoking them and could expect an attack, so we would have to be ready militarily for when that day came.

It could be a good thing for us to leave out, as long as they don't prompt us about it and we are prepared for the (unlikely) event they try to encroach on US.

	30-05-2003 14:19									#445
	Remove this text

To make it clear, we are worried about whether or not we have the right/privilage (according to a propsed border agreement) to send workers or other units accross the stated border as long as they are within our cities cultural border's.

I'm trying to word an agreemnt in a way that would not tip them off that that is what we are after. Though they may be after the same thing and would have the same concerns for their Civ if their cultural border's extended past the actual border.

	30-05-2003 16:38									#446
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by BigFurryMonster Can you point me to the specific turn you got that info from? If you're right, I can run some tests to see what they must have built in the meantime.

I got the info from Trip's MOW thread. There you can see on turn 45 we were strong and on turn 46 we are average. Actually that is 16 turns as we turned weak on turn 61. Our own army size is there too so it should not be too difficult to determine how much they must have built, at least, using your formula, the last 16 turns.

Again I say this would explain why we have pulled ahead economicly. If they do not strike soon we will easily outbuild them

	02-06-2003 03:56									#447
	Inflate your Upload Space

Still waiting on CDG to get back to us on the border issue (7 tiles versus 6 for us) and the chokepoint issue. I will send them a note tommorow if I haven't heard from them by then.

	12-06-2003 15:17									#448
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well CDG isn't too interested in the NAT and the border agreement. Fine by me. They seem to be doing a fine job of shooting themselves in the foot.

It looks as if they will try to settle the border area; to assure themselves of a 6 tile border instead of the 5 tile one I proposed to them way back. The further they settle away from any improved tiles, the less they will be able to produce. As it was 5-6 turns ago, when I was running SIM's based upon what we thought they were capable of, I settled cities in a logical order that at least gave them some towns that could produce moderately. Even with that, it was clear that we could still outproduce them by 2 times, in terms of shield output. With their latest settling tactics, we will soon be able to produce 3 times as many shields as they are!

The only reason we would have to contact them now regarding either the border agreement or the NAT is to alleviate any fears they may have about us. But I don't think that is even neccesary. If they are worried about us, they will contact us and would bring up those issues if they feel they need to.

I would like to contact them to get an estimate on how long they have until Math and Philosophy. And to confirm what CFC has told us about a ROP in case GCA and CFC go to war. Not that we would or wouldn't go to war with GCA, but it would be good intel just knowing if CDG would in fact be willing to go that far. That would say a lot about their relationship with GCA.

So, Togas, have one of your guys get on the line with Louis XXIV. I know how easy he is to chat with; he was always hanging around the chat room whenever I needed him.

It's easier just to PM these guys than trying to get them into a chat. Good luck.

	13-06-2003 06:29									#449
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

A note to CDG may be in order.

We could tell them that there is a city going up right away very near Morris the warrior, and that we did not want to see Morris get stuck as some other unfortunate warriors have.

We might also point out that we are as yet undecided on the final site for the city and needed to take steps to assure ourselves that we are not delayed by someone else occupying the site.

	13-06-2003 08:16									#450
	Put an end to popups!

Also, I am of the opinion that now would be a very good time to grant that border to CDG. With the way they are throwing settlers around, we really do not want them going further than the 5 tile line, 6 maximum.