21-06-2003 18:23									#91
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I think what UnO means by our stance regarding breaking lux deals is whether we might attack a civ while we have a lux deal with them, and effectively, whether a lux deal counts as an informal NAP.

	21-06-2003 23:07									#92
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Shiber If and when we forward this suggestion, we should IMHO emphasize that we have no urgent need for Chivalry (hopefully GoW will do the thinking and realize that we may buy it from someone else later instead if GoW doesn't lower the price, and GoW will end up in the same position as we have with regard to Feudalism).

This is a good approach.

Mss

	21-06-2003 23:18									#93
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I would prefer if we did not give them any excuse to withhold chivalry for any length of time.

We already have a deal for it. Let's go through with it.

Something is up. GoW is asking for additions to the chivary deal (NT clause) and pestering for an NAP. They are seeking a safe flank and trying to increase the time that someone is kept away from chivalry. A 10 turn NT is fine, it is the same as we had with them for feudalism.

Also, Nathan made some very good points. We really do not want to face the big horse units while having to research it ourself if everything goes to hell.

	22-06-2003 01:24									#94
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think us suddenly saying we don't need Chivalry all that much would have been a bad diplomatic move- with all the previous talks about trading generally, as well as trading this tech and the growing mutual interest in one another- us backing down would have been seen as an alienating, perhaps even suspicious behavior.

Being inconsistent might be good (or not so bad) for of the teams, for it just doesn't fit in the impression and the expectation of the others.

Like I said- what is done is done. 200 gold for Chivalry is quite fair, and the NDA is reasonable. I think we can be satisfied of the results so far.

One more thing: Those strings attached (further Lux trade, Iron), might actually do us some good- in making sure both teams have something to look forward to, and knowing the other is expecting it too certainly can't do bad to our near-future relations

	22-06-2003 11:12									#95
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Very interesting chat with GoW. It just happened after UnO contacted me in Poly chat.

Very interesting vis-a-vis Lego. The best bit for that would be UnO's question to me:

quote: [22:03] {UnOrthOdOx> Is there any other teams you are close enough to to also bring in on this?

UnO's question struck me as odd. This may be the first mention of such an anti-Lego alliance among any teams. We need to proceed very carefully. No mention of this should be made to any others.

	22-06-2003 11:14									#96
	Remove this text

btw, when is the next official GoW chat?

	22-06-2003 14:38									#97
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither UnO's question struck me as odd. This may be the first mention of such an anti-Lego alliance among any teams. We need to proceed very carefully. No mention of this should be made to any others.

Agree. That was a very interesting chat. It's nice to see how you managed to get as much info out of them as possible without committing us to anything (other than another chat ).

NOTE: GoW claim that their scouting galleys have discoverd Lego's continent to be split in two halves and joined by a one-tile chokepoint - just like our continent, only bigger.

	22-06-2003 15:19									#98
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

There is no scheduled time for an official chat- I did want to schedule one with UnO- at a time that would suit me as well (0300 GMT is close to impossible for me- as I'm in no shape to start chatting when the sun starts to shine and the birds are chirping outside my window...) He didn't say anything about it, though. I'll try again in my next message.

	22-06-2003 20:19									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Well done, nye.

GoW and RP versus ND seems inevitable...

As does a massive IC invasion of Lego. Dominae brought up this subject yesterday in the ISDG forum... we need to put some thought into it.

	23-06-2003 16:50									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

With regards to GoW not understanding / being concerned about our not wanting a NAP with them, perhaps we should send some clarification to them. First draft for comments and ideas:

quote: To explain our position regarding Non-Agression Pacts more clearly. After team discussions, we came to the following positions: All NAP deals we make should be public, since private ones will probably get known of around the grapevine in short order anyway. So secret NAPs aren't an option for GS. NAPs with all three Bob civs would be undesirably, since it would leave us unable to offer any assistance to allies on Bob in the event of a war, and block us from intervening should we wish to do so. NAPs with two Bob civs would be undesirably, since the civ left out would understandably start to worry about our intentions, and be in the unique position of facing a possible 3 on 1 war. It was felt that this would be destabilising on Bob. A NAP with a single civ was initially viewed in a positive light by some, but others felt that this would also have a destabilising effect on Bob, one team essentially having an implicit ally. In addition, we have been approached by another Bob team regarding a NAP. Since, as per the paragraph above, we feel unable to commit to both NAPs, to sign one NAP would mean publically signing a NAP with one team that requested it, whilst declining it with another. This would obiously worsen relations between us and the declined team, not to mention between the NAP and non-NAP team. So, given this situation, we have decided not to sign any NAPs. It is possible that had we been approached only by GoW regarding a NAP that it would have been accepted, but with the circumstances as we see them, we worry that signing NAPs would create more problems than it solves.

The issue for me is whether we want to tell GoW that we were approached by another civ for a NAP (obviously we aren't going to name the civ). I suspect that some people might not be happy with doing this.

	23-06-2003 17:09									#101
	Put an end to popups!

quote: approached by another civ for a NAP

Something tells me they know already.
-
Tru to get neutrality in there perhaps.

	23-06-2003 20:03									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I like that draft, Vulture.

-Arrian

	28-06-2003 01:29									#103
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Hmm...
Check UnO's new message- something fishy is going on. Unless I misunderstood their intentions, It seems to me they are trying to back off from the Chivalry deal, at least for a while- are they getting some heat from other Bobians ([hint] RP [/hint]) for selling us this tech when war is around the corner?

I don't like this at all, and I hope I was able to convey this feeling without being too blunt...

	28-06-2003 03:21									#104
	Get a bigger avatar today!

We need to point out that a deal was concluded, and that we expect our tech. We have np with a 10 turn NT.

If you wish, I can grab MZ for a short chat later on.

	28-06-2003 03:43									#105
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

We do have a deal for 200 gold paid for Chivalry, don't we? I just dug through the GoW contact log and did not find their ratified reply. They did however mention it as 'still being on' in a later exchange about their landing of the two horsemen.

Some things of note. The agreement was for us to send 200 gold half way through their research. Did they ever ask for the gold? When we approached them with different forms of payment, did they decide to take that as a breach?

Things on our side. GoW has a pathetic record with us as far as honouring deals is concerned. First, there was the CoL fiasco. Then there were the faked screen shots. Now...

We should simply shush about alternative payment methods, and insist that they provide Chivalry for the 200 gold, otherwise, we will have to conclude that they do not intend to keep any deals they make with us, and we can proceed from there. Spoken softly, and non-threateningly, of course.

	29-06-2003 03:03									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Let's tell GoW that we understand that they fear an attack, but so do we. If a Bobian were to invade with knights and we were unprepared, we'd be screwed completely.

	29-06-2003 05:03									#107
	Tired of ads?

I think all we need do is stick to the topic. We have a deal. We expect it to be kept.

	29-06-2003 06:12									#108
	Remove this text

I agree. Our philosophical stance re trades / deals is now pretty much accepted as fact.

The communication to GoW should be in that tone: "We have a deal, we expect it to be consummated... what else could possibly happen?"

	29-06-2003 06:22									#109
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Was a deal ever ratified?

I'm not sure it was, but then again, it definitely felt like it...

I agree that not supplying us with the tech now is a serious offense, perhaps even a breach of the agreement.

I havn't gotten UnO's reply yet- but any "clarifying" effort by any of you- via a chat or any other method is welcomed, in order to get the message through: that we find it rather offendingg (if it is true) that GoW is thinking about holding back the tech or something of this sort, at this point, after the deal was negotiated and seemed to be ratified.

	29-06-2003 06:33									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Let's take a unified stand, that we have a deal for Chivalry. Being uncertain and insecure about this can only do us harm IMHO.

	02-07-2003 02:14									#111
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hello. Anyone home? What's up with this Chivalry situation?

	02-07-2003 04:04									#112
	Put an end to popups!

Just chatted with MZ. Shortly after I started, zeit had the same idea. We moved to the GoW diplo channel.

My summary of GoW.

They are looking for a reason to renege on the deal of Chivalry for 200 gold. Unfortunately, all the talk of alternate payment methods almost gave them the excuse to do so.

With all the chatter about NAPs I think it is unlikely that they want to withhold it from us for the reason that we are a target, but that cannot be ruled out. Rather, I think they have no idea what is going to happen on Bob. Thay may have, but they are doing a very good job of concealing it.

I am convinced that we should obtain Chivalry ASAP and brook no delay. I checked the last save I have, 210bc, and they dis not have Chivalry then. We can not discount the possibility of Vox trickery in conjunction with RP and GoW in the near term. We also want to be well positioned in the event that war breaks out on Bob. That means having knights at the ready.

It occured to me during chat, that we might be able to defuse two issues with one document. If we assured GoW that we would neither attack them by ourselves nor join a coalition against them, and they reciprocated towards us, then we would set them at ease and encourage the completion of the Chivary deal, and we would secure our own interests in Northern Stormia.

So, I put it to GS, should we negotiate a seperate and narrowly defined NAP with GoW? I believe it is in our interests that we should. I also believe that it can be done in such a way that no other powers would feel threatened by it, and that it would leave us free to intervene in the two cases we would most need to intervene. Those cases being:

GoW and RP attack ND. We cannot sit by if and when that happened. We would be free to intervene against RP if this happened, and most likely against GoW too, depending on final wording.

ND and GoW attack RP. We would need to join in. It would be imperative that we grab our chunk of South Eastern Bob. We would be free to do so.

	02-07-2003 04:05									#113
	Support Apolyton

Oh, it should have a secrecy clause. We do not want RP to approach us asking for the same deal.

	02-07-2003 04:09									#114
	Support Apolyton

nye, I don;t think you described the limited NAP. I read that chat, and didn't quite get it.

	02-07-2003 04:14									#115
	Full PM-box? Change here!

nye, it didn't read like that to me in chat... perhaps that's just me, though. You said:

quote: would a signed agreement that we would not start a war with you, and we would not join a war started against you help?

At the time, I thought you meant you didn't want to join a coalition, but instead offered a normal NAP: no direct war, and no alliance against you either.

That's different from 'no direct attack, and no joining of coaltions against you' (ruling out a 3-1 war).

Well, anyway, if we could avoid it, I wouldn't sign it. we already have to be very careful with a lux deal: if we sign one for 20 turns, we can't declare war on anyone on Bob for the next 20-turns... and we might want to.

One thing's for certain: Bob is getting awefully nervous. But so are we, it seems

DeepO

	02-07-2003 04:18									#116
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I've said before that I think true no agression pacts are acceptable.

We certainly don't want to have to sit and watch GoW or ND hit the Domination limit as more conventional NAP's would require.

I'm also not so sure we wouldn't want to side with RP if it was ND and GoW vs them. RP has pretty decent territory to defend against Riders/Ansars, and GoW's main body of troops would have to be wildly out of position (in regards to protecting that nice Rivered Grassland they have) to really do any good against RP.

	02-07-2003 04:19									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: [16:21] *notyoueither* mz, under what circumstances do you fear action by gs against gow? [16:21] *MasterZen* I already told you the three possibilities facing the Bobians: [16:22] *MasterZen* GoW vs ND-RP, GoW-ND vs RP, GoW-RP vs ND [16:22] *notyoueither* i'm trying to see if i can find a way to present your case to gs in such a way as we would make an exception to our nap policy [16:22] *MasterZen* under any of the two last ones I see the possibility of GS intervening to maintain a "balance of power" should RP or ND be in the brink of defeat [16:23] *notyoueither* i see. so you really have no idea how things are going to go down. [16:23] *notyoueither* just assumptions that something is gonna happen [16:24] *MasterZen* we might have a "bobian" conference in a few turns... try and gauge the other teams [16:25] *notyoueither* hmmm [16:25] *MasterZen* we know RP is a little paranoid too... what I find suspicious is that they really haven't approached us as of late... [16:26] *notyoueither* that is curious [16:26] *MasterZen* especially since, personally, I think part of their paranoia is towards your team [16:27] *notyoueither* would a signed agreement that we would not start a war with you, and we would not join a war started against you help? [16:27] *notyoueither* with the same reciprocated? [16:27] *MasterZen* that would be highly valued by our team [16:28] *notyoueither* i can see if we could make that fly. [16:28] *MasterZen* we would really appreciate it

Well, under those terms we would be free to lend aid to ND in the event that GoW and RP attacked them, would we not? We would not be joining a coalition started against GoW, we would be evening things up. We would also not be so concerned with GoW anyway, as our targets would be much further South.

	02-07-2003 04:21									#118
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It does however, give us assurances that riders are not about to begin ferrying across the Channel just before Vox exits stage left, and they both tell us to go screw ourselves.

	02-07-2003 04:23									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I was about to suggest the secrecy clause myself before I read your last post NYE. This is essentially what makes such a treaty acceptable by me.
Edit: I'd give it more time, though. GoW don't have Chivalry yet, and if we wait or stall we might learn more before finally signing any kind of treaty.

	02-07-2003 04:26									#120
	Full PM-box? Change here!

It does read somewhat confusing NYE. If you read it as one clause, then it sounds like we would be able to join a war against GoW if the war was started by GoW. If you read it as seperate clauses, it sounds like we can't start a war against GoW regardless of circumstances.

I read it initially as 'we won't start a war against you, but reserve the right to go to war to stop agression on your part', as I think it comes off redundant read the other way. We won't declare war on you (in any case), and we won't declare war on you (in the case of other people declaring war on you).