 |
| |
|
|
Shiber
|
 |
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:27
|
|
Proposed response:
quote:
Hi Ghengis,
To expand into the subject of disappointments, we too were disappointed to hear that GoW intends to violate a NAP. Rest assured, we have no intention, interest nor the slightest of will to wage war with GoW, but if a NAP is broken then we may find ourselves without any other choice.
quote:
Your team has purposely accepted Roleplay cities for THE SOLE PURPOSE of preventing our capture of them. This violates the spirit and intent and virtually violates the specific wording of the following document:
|
We (reluctantly) decided to interfere with matters on Bob in order to prevent a situation where a continent more than three times as big as ours (according to the tile count) would be divided between two civs. Our concerns and requests for small territories for strategic defense were ignored, and instead we were presented with promises to go out to Lego Land together in the very far future, but had no assurances.
We were not going to sit idly and forego this game.
Finally, to relate to the comment regarding Elipolis, we'd of course have conquered Elipolis from your hands. We half-expected that Vox would try such a thing with one civ or another, and had already made up our minds before we got to conquering Elipolis. That change would have posed no problem at the time, since we did not have a NAP nor any other agreements with GoW, and IIRC we were still at a technical state of war after we were forced to remove two invaders from our shores. But frankly, we don't see how that situation is any similar to the current one.
Please inform us of your final decision.
Sincerely,
Whoever ends up sending this message out (NYE? MSS? Me?)
|
Last edited by Shiber on 27-07-2003 at 19:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:27
|
|
My thoughts on a response:
-----------------------
GS doesn't take the accusation of breaking an agreement lightly. Here is GS' response to those accusations.
quote:
Your team has purposely accepted Roleplay cities for THE SOLE PURPOSE of preventing our capture of them. |
GS is in control of Bilbao and Toledo, so certainly we do not wish GoW to capture them. Surely GoW realizes the importance cities play in many facets of the game. Part of that which applies to the given cities is gaining control of territory, possible resources, ect.
GS has been able to expand through diplomacy, and lay claim to some of the area deemed of vital interest to GS security as well as give us access to Silks with a cultural border expansion. We realize that GoW also wished to control those areas, but only one team may, and GS was able to secure them without action against GoW. If GS were to make claims on cities currently under GoW control, would GoW feel it was a violation of the NAP to withhold those cities from GS? Such an arrangement wouldn't work of course, as GS could claim all of GoW, and vice versa. This is not what a NAP is, and is precisely what a NAP is designed to avoid.
GS does not feel that it is a violation of the NAP by either team to hold onto territory rightfully claimed, even in cases where the other wishes it could control that territory. A NAP is to give both teams security in holding onto their rightfully claimed territory.
quote:
By denying us the right to continue on our campaign you ARE WAGING WAR AGAINST US. |
GS does not feel that a NAP is an explicit ROP.
GS is denying GoW an ROP agreement. That is all. GoW forces may go around GS territory and continue their campaign. GS realizes that it is an inconvenience to GoW, but it is also an inconvenience to GS if GoW were to pass through GS territory. As it is GS territory, GS has the right to allow peaceful passage or not. GS respects the same right of GoW in determining peaceful passage through the lands of GoW.
quote:
If we had accepted Eliopolis as a gift from Vox before you took it, how would you have felt? |
The analogy is flawed. GoW and GS were already at war by that point, and so GS would have likely just waltzed into the newly available and undefended city. There certainly wasn't a NAP in effect between the two teams.
Hypothetically, if GoW was at peace with GS and had a NAP, we would have respected the NAP and used other routes to pursue Vox. One of the arguments raised for peace with Vox was the realization by GS that other teams would gift cities to Vox to keep them alive. GS was not interested in chasing Vox to the ends of the earth just to see them appear again on the other side.
GS would not have enjoyed the inconvenience of a NAP partner holding Elipolis, but GS realizes the other teams do not exist to do our bidding or try to convenience us. GS expects other teams to honor any agreements made, and to act in their own best interests as allowed by those agreements.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
We (reluctantly) decided to interfere with matters on Bob in order to prevent a situation where a continent more than three times as big as ours (according to the tile count) would be divided between two civs. Our concerns and requests for small territories for strategic defense were ignored, and instead we were presented with promises to go out to Lego Land together in the very far future, but had no assurances. We were not going to sit idly and forego this game.
quote:
Your team has purposely accepted Roleplay cities for THE SOLE PURPOSE of preventing our capture of them.
GS is in control of Bilbao and Toledo, so certainly we do not wish GoW to capture them. GS has been able to expand through diplomacy, and lay claim to some of the area deemed of vital interest to GS security as well as give us access to Silks with a cultural border expansion. We realize that GoW also wished to control those areas, but only one team may, and GS was able to secure them without action against GoW.
GS does not feel that it is a violation of the NAP by either team to hold onto territory rightfully claimed, even in cases where the other wishes it could control that territory. A NAP is to give both teams security in holding onto their rightfully claimed territory.
quote:
By denying us the right to continue on our campaign you ARE WAGING WAR AGAINST US.
GS does not feel that a NAP is an explicit ROP.
GS is denying GoW an ROP agreement. That is all. GoW forces may go around GS territory and continue their campaign. GS realizes that it is an inconvenience to GoW, but it is also an inconvenience to GS if GoW were to pass through GS territory. As it is GS territory, GS has the right to allow peaceful passage or not. GS respects the same right of GoW in determining peaceful passage through the lands of GoW.
quote:
If we had accepted Eliopolis as a gift from Vox before you took it, how would you have felt?
Finally, to relate to the comment regarding Elipolis, we'd of course have conquered Elipolis from your hands. We half-expected that Vox would try such a thing with one civ or another, and had already made up our minds before we got to conquering Elipolis. That change would have posed no problem at the time, since we did not have a NAP nor any other agreements with GoW, and IIRC we were still at a technical state of war after we were forced to remove two invaders from our shores. But frankly, we don't see how that situation is any similar to the current one.
Hypothetically, if GoW was at peace with GS and had a NAP, we would have respected the NAP and used other routes to pursue Vox. One of the arguments raised for peace with Vox was the realization by GS that other teams would gift cities to Vox to keep them alive. GS was not interested in chasing Vox to the ends of the earth just to see them appear again on the other side.
Please inform us of your final decision.
Sincerely,
Whoever ends up sending this message out (NYE? MSS? Shiber?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
|
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:27
|
|
Final?
quote:
Glory of War,
We (reluctantly) decided to interfere with matters on Bob in order to prevent a situation where a continent more than three times as big as ours (according to the tile count) would be divided between two civs. Our concerns and requests for small territories for strategic defense were ignored, and instead we were presented with promises to go out to Lego Land together in the very far future, but had no assurances. We were not going to sit idly and forego this game.
quote:
Your team has purposely accepted Roleplay cities for THE SOLE PURPOSE of preventing our capture of them.
|
GS is in control of Bilbao and Toledo, so certainly we do not wish GoW to capture them. GS has been able to expand through diplomacy, and lay claim to some of the area deemed of vital interest to GS security as well as give us access to Silks with a cultural border expansion. We realize that GoW also wished to control those areas, but only one team may, and GS was able to secure them without action against GoW.
GS does not feel that it is a violation of the NAP by either team to hold onto territory rightfully claimed, even in cases where the other wishes it could control that territory. A NAP is to give both teams security in holding onto their rightfully claimed territory.
quote:
By denying us the right to continue on our campaign you ARE WAGING WAR AGAINST US.
|
GS does not feel that a NAP is an implicit ROP.
GS is denying GoW an ROP agreement. That is all. GoW forces may go around GS territory and continue their campaign. GS realizes that it is an inconvenience to GoW, but it is also an inconvenience to GS if GoW were to pass through GS territory. As it is GS territory, GS has the right to allow peaceful passage or not. GS respects the same right of GoW in determining peaceful passage through the lands of GoW.
quote:
If we had accepted Eliopolis as a gift from Vox before you took it, how would you have felt?
|
To relate to the comment regarding Elipolis, we'd of course have conquered Elipolis from your hands. We half-expected that Vox would try such a thing with one civ or another, and had already made up our minds before we got to conquering Elipolis. That change would have posed no problem at the time, since we did not have a NAP nor any other agreements with GoW, and IIRC we were still at a technical state of war after we were forced to remove two invaders from our shores. But frankly, we don't see how that situation is any similar to the current one.
Hypothetically, if GoW was at peace with GS and had a NAP, we would have respected the NAP and used other routes to pursue Vox. One of the arguments raised for peace with Vox was the realization by GS that other teams would gift cities to Vox to keep them alive. GS was not interested in chasing Vox to the ends of the earth just to see them appear again on the other side.
quote:
If you accept Toledo or any other city beyond Bilbao it may be viewed as an act of war and violation of the before ratified NAP. We do not wish war with GS,
|
We do not wish war with GoW, either. Please inform us of your final decision.
Sincerely,
The People of Gathering Storm.
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
I've made a few more edits, including a couple grammatical things and:
- Changed "promises" to "proposals" in referance to the idea of a joint Lego campaign.
- Added '(if "continue" is the right word when GoW and RP are not even at war in-game yet)' to the section on a NAP's not being a ROP.
- Replaced "IIRC" with "in fact" regarding the fact that we were still in a technical state of war when we took Elipolis. GoW did not offer peace until it was clear that their mercenary services would no longer be required, which was after Elipolis fell.
- Added a paragraph regarding the fact that we already held Toledo in GoW's last turn and explaining that we're merely borrowing New Madrid. I put in a bit of misdirection emphasizing the need to defend our new cities against ND (which is true, since a ND MedInf has been spotted not too far from them if I recall correctly) and leaving out any notion that we might be planning to attack ND more directly.
- Added the idea that we are not willing to give up our sovereignty to avoid war to the last paragraph.
quote:
Glory of War,
We (reluctantly) decided to interfere with matters on Bob in order to prevent a situation where a continent more than three times as big as ours (according to the tile count) would be divided between two civs. Our concerns and requests for small territories for strategic defense were ignored, and instead we were presented with proposals to go out to Lego Land together in the very far future, but had no assurances. We were not going to sit idly and forego this game.
quote:
Your team has purposely accepted Roleplay cities for THE SOLE PURPOSE of preventing our capture of them.
|
GS is in control of Bilbao and Toledo, so certainly we do not wish GoW to capture them. GS has been able to expand through diplomacy, and lay claim to some of the area deemed of vital interest to GS security as well as give us access to Silks with a cultural border expansion. We realize that GoW also wished to control those areas, but only one team may, and GS was able to secure them without action against GoW.
GS does not feel that it is a violation of the NAP by either team to hold onto territory rightfully claimed, even in cases where the other wishes it could control that territory. A NAP is to give both teams security in holding onto their rightfully claimed territory.
quote:
By denying us the right to continue on our campaign you ARE WAGING WAR AGAINST US.
|
GS does not feel that a NAP is an implicit ROP.
GS is denying GoW an ROP agreement. That is all. GoW forces may go around GS territory and continue their campaign (if "continue" is the right word when GoW and RP are not even at war in-game yet). GS realizes that it is an inconvenience to GoW, but it is also an inconvenience to GS if GoW were to pass through GS territory. As it is GS territory, GS has the right to allow peaceful passage or not. GS respects the same right of GoW in determining peaceful passage through the lands of GoW.
quote:
If we had accepted Eliopolis as a gift from Vox before you took it, how would you have felt?
|
To relate to the comment regarding Elipolis, we'd of course have conquered Elipolis from your hands. We half-expected that Vox would try such a thing with one civ or another, and had already made up our minds before we got to conquering Elipolis. That change would have posed no problem at the time, since we did not have a NAP nor any other agreements with GoW, and in fact we were still at a technical state of war after we were forced to remove two invaders from our shores. But frankly, we don't see how that situation is similar to the current one.
Hypothetically, if GoW were at peace with GS and had a NAP, we would have respected the NAP and used other routes to pursue Vox. One of the arguments raised for peace with Vox was the realization by GS that other teams would gift cities to Vox to keep them alive. GS was not interested in chasing Vox to the ends of the earth just to see them appear again on the other side.
quote:
If you accept Toledo or any other city beyond Bilbao it may be viewed as an act of war and violation of the before ratified NAP. We do not wish war with GS,
|
We were already in control of Toledo in your last turn, so your expression of concern over that acquisition comes a bit late. We have temporarily borrowed New Madrid from Spain for tactical reasons; both we and RP would consider it a tragedy if ND could walk into our new cities with a single unit, and the loan of New Madrid lets us get defenders to our new cities more quickly. But New Madrid will be returned to Spain shortly, and we have no plans to acquire any further Spanish cities.
We do not wish war with GoW, but neither are we willing to give up our sovereignty to avoid it. Please inform us of your final decision.
Sincerely,
The People of Gathering Storm.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:27
|
|
Not final...
If we are going to mix and match statements, someone needs to go through and rewrite it all to use a coherant writing style. I was using 'GS' and 'GoW', and it sounds clumbsy when combined with other paragraphs using 'we' and 'you'.
The phrase "We (reluctantly) decided to interfere with matters on Bob" needs to be reworked. 'Interfere' is definitely not the word we should be labeling our actions. It has a negative connotation, and makes it look like even we find our actions 'wrong'. The 'reluctantly' part is superflous and not the truth. I don't think we need to delve into how we feel we've been wronged at all, because it reads like an admission to what they are accusing us of. Read: "GoW wasn't nice to us, so we aren't being nice to GoW."
Just address their points, refute them, and leave it at that.
quote:
GS would not have enjoyed the inconvenience of a NAP partner holding Elipolis, but GS realizes the other teams do not exist to do our bidding or try to convenience us. GS expects other teams to honor any agreements made, and to act in their own best interests as allowed by those agreements. |
I think this should be in the response to the Elipolis analogy, or something of a similar nature. It's the "answer", while the previous paragraphs were more an explaination of it.
--------------------------
It looks like now we should include a request that they withdraw their troops from our territory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
Here's an alternative draft message that I just came up with. My premise is that at this point, we don't especially care whether GoW goes to war with us or not, so we can afford to push a bit.
quote:
Greetings, Glorious Warriors,
We of Gathering Storm have no desire to fight your great nation, but if the price of avoiding war is that we must give up our sovereignty, that is a higher price than we are willing to pay. One key aspect of sovereignty is the power to enter into mutually beneficial agreements with other nations, and your demands for veto power over our agreements with Spain are a gross violation of our sovereignty.
The cities we obtained from Spain are not merely useless baggage with no value other than getting in your way. They are already able to contribute to our nation, and can someday contribute far more with courthouses and the proper tile improvements in place. Corruption in those cities is certainly a problem, but by no means an insurmountable one. Further, with a territory expansion, Toledo can provide us with a source of silks within our own territory.
We recognize that our obtaining those cities through diplomatic means before you could annex them militarily has caused you a certain amount of inconvenience. But the opportunity we were presented with to obtain land for free instead of having to fight for it was too good to pass up. Given your fondness for the letter of the agreement, surely you can recognize that a non-aggression pact is not a “won’t take advantage of any opportunity that the other would find inconvenient” pact. Further, GoW did not shed a single drop of blood in an effort to take those cities (indeed, you are not even at war with RP in-game yet), so it is not as if we were depriving you of prizes of an ongoing battle. That is in stark contrast to what the situation would have been had you obtained Voxian lands after we paid in blood to destroy Vox’s power to hold its lands. Also consider that during our war with Vox, there was no non-aggression pact to limit our ability to declare war if we found your actions annoying; indeed, you were already technically at war with us at the time.
All we are really guilty of is that our diplomats moved faster than your Riders in obtaining land that both of us regard as desirable in spite of its high corruption levels. We have not taken or threatened anything that belongs to you. We have not taken or threatened anything you had any legitimate claim on beyond the mere fact that you wanted to take it in the near future. If Glory of War chooses to declare war due merely to irritation at being outmaneuvered diplomatically, the onus of breaking the non-aggression pact will clearly be on you.
In closing, we would like to make it clear once again that a non-aggression pact is not a right of passage agreement. Your moving through our cities to attack Roleplay is little different from if we moved through your lands to attack Neu Demogyptica from the north, a movement that surely would require more than a mere non-aggression pact to justify. Further, Gathering Storm has a long-standing policy of viewing unauthorized movement of foreign military forces into our territory as an act of aggression against us, as the fate of Mad King Donegeal’s expedition into our lands can surely attest. Our policy of not allowing foreign soldiers into our lands (especially while we are at war) is not merely something we made up on the spot to get in your way. We are willing to overlook your forces’ current presence in our territory, but understand that any further encroachments will have consequences.
Please let us know whether you intend to honor our non-aggression pact or not so we can make our plans accordingly.
Sincerely,
The People of Gathering Storm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:27
|
|
Does this read better?
quote:
Greetings, Glorious Warriors,
We of Gathering Storm have no desire to fight your great nation, but we must maintain our sovereignty. One key aspect of sovereignty is the power to enter into mutually beneficial agreements with other nations, and your demands for veto power over our agreements with Spain are a violation of our sovereignty.
The cities we obtained from Spain are not merely useless baggage with no value other than getting in your way. They are already able to contribute to our nation, and can someday contribute far more with courthouses and the proper tile improvements in place. Corruption in those cities is certainly a problem, but by no means an insurmountable one. Further, with a territory expansion, Toledo can provide us with a source of silks within our own territory.
We recognize that our obtaining those cities through diplomatic means before you could annex them militarily has caused you a certain amount of inconvenience. But the opportunity we were presented with to obtain land diplomatically instead of having to fight for it was too good to pass up. Surely you can recognize that a non-aggression pact is not a “won’t take advantage of any opportunity that the other would find inconvenient” pact. Further, GoW did not shed a single drop of blood in an effort to take those cities (indeed, you are not even at war with RP in-game yet), so it is not as if we are depriving you of prizes of an ongoing battle.
All we are really guilty of is that our diplomats moved faster than your Riders in obtaining land that both of us regard as desirable in spite of its high corruption levels. We have not taken or threatened anything that belongs to you. We have not taken or threatened anything you had any legitimate claim on beyond the mere fact that you wanted to take it in the near future.
In closing, we would like to make it clear once again that a non-aggression pact is not a right of passage agreement. Your moving through our cities to attack Roleplay is little different from if we moved through your lands to attack Neu Demogyptica from the north, a movement that surely would require more than a mere non-aggression pact to justify. Further, Gathering Storm has a long-standing policy of viewing unauthorized movement of foreign military forces into our territory as an act of aggression against us, as the fate of Mad King Donegeal’s expedition into our lands can surely attest. Our policy of not allowing foreign soldiers into our lands (especially while we are at war) is not merely something we made up on the spot to get in your way. We are willing to overlook your forces’ current presence in our territory, but must insist that they retrun the way they came.
Please let us know whether you intend to honor our non-aggression pact or not so we can make our plans accordingly.
Sincerely,
The People of Gathering Storm |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
My goal isn't so much to push GoW into a war as it is to push them to choose. If GoW is going to honor the treaty, we need our knights on the ND front. If GoW is not going to honor the treaty, let them attack now while we have plenty of forces in the area and get it over with, and then we can focus on ND without worrying about nearly so many Riders in the area.
If GoW were inclined to sit still while we and RP take out ND, they would probably already be doing that. Instead, they're behaving as if they are fully intent on fighting RP - unless we keep them from getting to RP, in which case they would be willing to settle for fighting us. (After all, they have to fight someone to trigger their GA.) Either we or RP have to keep enough units on the eastern front to defend against a GoW attack, and if we aren't sure whether GoW will go after us (in which case we need sufficient forces in the area to mount a credible defense against fourteen Riders) or RP (in which case our forces in the area are useless because we aren't allowed to attack, both of us have to worry about keeping strong forces on the eastern front. So I think we're better off pushing GoW to go ahead and either declare war over our actions or accept that what we've done is legal under the treaty if not entirely nice.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-07-2003 18:43
|