19-05-2003 02:14									#1
	Border Agreement? Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

We, as a team, need to voice our opinion on this key issue.

Diplomaticly, our relation with CDG has been our greatest challange. Many people on this team believe that if we handle CDG the right way, they will attack GCA instead of us. We have been working on a new Non-Aggression Pact with them, one which they agree to, except that they are asking very strongly for a negotiated border between us.

We have felt that a border may not help us because we have the ability to REX much faster than CDG and, given time, we could fill up more land than they could.

We also believe that a border will hurt us as we cannot enter their land to observe them and therefore have advanced warning of an attack, and they may want to keep us from being able to use the western landbridge.

They have given up their entire southern expansion room to GCA and will be expanding north, as their northern roads indicate.

The question is: Will we agree to negotiate with them to create a permanent border?

If we do not agree, they may toss aside our entire peace proposal and our overall relations may suffer. They may feel a need to massively expand to the north or simply to go all-out with Immortals to "claim" their land. They may also build cities too close to us.

If we do agree, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by agreeing to something that, in the end, limits us and decreases our security and ability to observe them. If we later went to war with them we'd have to break the border agreement and take some diplomatic hits from entering and taking their land after agreeing to give it to them.

We need your votes and your debate on this important issue.

--Togas

	19-05-2003 02:22									#2
	Remove this text

As a citizen...

I have no problem with a border. I would prefer 5 tiles, not 6. We should also seek clarity on:

We have access to the western land bridge, and they allow us through the choke point as needed, and

the eastern peninsula is ours all the way South. The line extends from coast to coast, not beyond the coast.

	19-05-2003 02:24									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think that that is what they want from us, A Permanant Border. As for what will happen, we can tie that border to a Permenant NAP (or long duration) and have several loopholes for both.

I'll start working on a city placement plan (incorporating our current plans) and see what we can dicker with, if it comes to that.

I would support a permenant border, if they are agreeable to what we want for our cities, too.

E_T

	19-05-2003 02:30									#4
	Put an end to popups!

Permanent NAP would not be good.

We will run out of useful city sites (in radius from capital) first, and will definitely want to keep the option open to 'extend' our borders without breaking an NAP.

	19-05-2003 02:32									#5
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Oh, I agree, but that might be the next thing that they would want, and so we need to be prepaired for that eventuallity.

E_T

	19-05-2003 02:48									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Not now, for sure. We can out REX them; that is why they want it. Maybe in the future, after we've expanded to where we want to be. Plus they are attempting to cut us off from CFC to our West.

We can have a NAT with CDG without a permanent border; we can also get CDG to move Morris off of our iron without it also.

I would only agree to a border with them right now if they showed up with a stack of Immortals 10 deep!

	19-05-2003 03:14									#7
	Increase Your PM Length

Asking for a border agreement with us now is a very clever thing for CDG to do. They are not geared up towards expansion, their cities cannot grow at the same rate as ours and their immortal building project means that they must put "on hold" any major settler building projects. They cannot do Rapid Early Expansion as they are, instead, doing a Rush strat.

By negotiating a border agreement with us, they will certainly be able to argue that each team gets the same total amount of land, even though if each team were left to their own devices of expansion, we would logically end up with more land.

We cannot sucessfully argue that we should get more land given our REX potential. They won't buy it. They will be left feeling "cheated" and "manipulated" and the entire border debate will likely hurt our relations. Therefore, if our goal is to improve relations via performing a border negotiation, we must accept the fact that we ultimately will receive less land than we would if we expanded on our own time, because we will be forced to accept their argument of a 50/50 split.

Let there be no doubt that a border agreement does not favor us in the long term. The question is, does such an agreement favor because it allows CDG to feel "at ease" with us and, hopefully, turn their attention towards invading GCA.

The primary question has to do with if we "appease" them in this mannor to gain their trust and to (hopefully) encourage them to seek a better target.

--Togas

	19-05-2003 03:43									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither As a citizen...

Dominae

	19-05-2003 03:52									#9
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by BigFree Not now, for sure. We can out REX them; that is why they want it.

I think the idea is that CDG is holding a loaded gun: "give us a Border Agreement and everything will be ok between us; out-REX us and we could very well decide to attack you with our Immortals instead of GCA".

Here are my votes:

1. The border agreement should allow us to build all the cities I've marked in the "Some Thoughts on City Placement and Terraforming" thread. Hopefully we will not need to give up city 4, but I suppose we could agree to that as a "final offer".

2. We must retain access to the land bridge to CFC (in terms of city placement) We must categorically refuse any agreement in which this is not true. I propose we reach an agreement with CDG whereby neither of us blocks that area off.

3. Overall, the border agreement is a good thing for us. It (more or less) indicates that CDG will attack GCA instead of us. If you step back and think about it, that's a huge boon given our situation. This could, of course, be a ploy to make us feel secure. We'll have to be on the lookout for this.


Dominae

	19-05-2003 04:17									#10
	Tired of ads?

Discussed in chat. Posted here at the request of Togas.

My thinking is shaped by an opinion that we should attack CDG at some point. That point should be once we have built up a significant military advantage. It could come any time after Republic, and no later than Knights. If they attack GCA, we should go then. For that reason, and in case they still attack us, we should have continuous military production outside of the granery cities. The reasons why I think a border agreement would be good to put CDG at ease are:

1, we outproduce them now, and if we can let the graneries have their effect that advantage will grow

2, we can settle almost as fast as them. they have a wheat, so not quite as fast

3, we have more useful sites to settle, and we can outproduce them military as of about the founding of horse city (if not now)

4, the longer we put off conflict, the stronger we can be in relation to them when we move

5, if they leave us alone it will not be a contest when we move

so...

it is in our interests to postpone conflict, until it is a time of our choosing, or they go after gca and...

we should do whatever we can to make them feel safer. If a border agreement helps delay them attacking us or encourages them to attack GCA then I am in favour of it.

	19-05-2003 05:37									#11
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

What happened to the idea of allowing both CDG and ourselves a screen of warriors inside the others' denoted territory to warn against any impending attack? If we're looking at measures that cost us nothing and put CDG at ease, this is even less opportunity cost-ly than a border agreement. Can we at least put the idea to them in a chat sometime?

	19-05-2003 05:40									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I believe they are insistent on a border.

	19-05-2003 05:49									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

ANd only a border? Because this could work in conjunction.

1. A border that, if troops crossed, results in war.
2. An early warning system that gives even earlier detection of a war.

Was the idea put to them of one or the other, or did we suggest both as well?

	19-05-2003 05:52									#14
	Get a bigger avatar today!

They want a border. They have rejected all other suggestions.

	19-05-2003 06:01									#15
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

OK - a pity. I liked that idea.

Alright - then yes. But how will this cover culture radius expansion? It's not as if they can demand we don't build temples etc, can they?

	19-05-2003 06:05									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Personally, I don't trust them and half suspect this border talk is a direct result of our embassy and knowledge of their build up.

Perhaps we could tie the border to our NAT with them, something like this border agreement is in effect as long as a non-aggression pact exists between apolyton and CDG:

quote: 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. Apolyton and Elucidia agree to not having any units closer than 3 tiles from the outside each other's cultural borders, except where expressly permitted by the other team. 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 30 turns after it is ratified by both parties.

Given that our NAT with them states that any aggressive act is a violation, and that we can void it if they break that..... In effect, it'd let us out of the border agreement as soon as they attack GCA (if they do attack them instead of us).

	19-05-2003 06:20									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt OK - a pity. I liked that idea. Alright - then yes. But how will this cover culture radius expansion? It's not as if they can demand we don't build temples etc, can they?

That would be a moot point, either they or we will be extinguished by the time temples are being built in 2nd ring cities.

Better to not raise it with them.

	19-05-2003 06:24									#18
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Are we yet aware of where they want this border to be?

	19-05-2003 06:31									#19
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

After considering (hopefully) all pros and cons, I would agree to a 6-tile border (right in the middle). We do not seem to have any plans to build cities beyond that line anyway - not before we'd go to war with CDG. So, even if my pride suffers, I would go for a border.

They will pay dearly for behaving this way.

	19-05-2003 06:39									#20
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

IF we go this route, we should ensure that we have access to the landbridge to the west, and not just agree to a line where the old settlement limit was.

We should go into the negotiations with a request for 50% of the land and a route to the west. We'd work out what to ask for, and also decide in advance what is the most land we'd be willing to give up. We would also be willing to agree to neutral land as a last resort that gives us access to the west.

Above all else, if we do this border agreement, we should proceed AS IF we really meant to keep it ... not just give in. If they have any sense in them and see how easily we've given in on this border idea, they'll doubt that we're serious about keeping it. Conversely, by truely arguing and debating and negotiating and (in the end) coming to an agreement, they'll feel that we're invested in this agreement, that we're satisfied, and that we will be happy to stay on our side of the line for a long time. Hopefully, it will give them some long term feelings of security.

--Togas

	19-05-2003 07:04									#21
	Increase Your PM Length

What about an agreement not to settle the the landbridge? They're might give us "access", but have complete control over the area anyway. I suggest keeping it a neutral zone for now.


Dominae

	19-05-2003 07:41									#22
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Permanent border bad....


Why should we give in when we have such an obvious advantage in REXing ability over them? Why did we bother to set up a REXing machine in the first place if we are going to just throw it away by agreeing to treaties which will only serve to limit that advantage? It's like asking Lego in the PTWDG to stop building cities because they have a huge continent all to themselves and it's not fair...

So no, I do not agree with a PERMANENT border agreement. I think what is best is to dialogue every certain number of turns re-negotiating this treaty to suit our needs. I have no gripes with say a 20 or 30 turn border agreement, but that's it. Nothing permanent. I will never favor an agreement which will limit our expansion in the future, an expansion which we have worked hard to achieve, especially insulting to someone like Dominae who we are praising for his work as MoI and then suddenly throwing all that he did into the trash can.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to antagonize CDG in any way, but perhaps we need a nice long chat with them to convince them "of the error of their ways".

	19-05-2003 08:24									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I agree with MZ here completely. I think CDG will not attack us. theri target is GCA, don't be fooled into thinking it's not. We have NM's GCA does not. We are far away and GCA is so very close.

They cannot out REX us and are using diplomacy/treaties to secure land ahead of time in this, "The Land Grab" phase of the game.

Lets use our graneries to to their fullest extent, pumping out workers to clear land for new cities while also keeping the settlers rolling out.

	19-05-2003 08:31									#24
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

They want a border agreement, and optimally, we do not. But what do we want that they do not? If both teams want the security a new agreement would present, both teams must be willing to give something.

The only thing I can think of is to grant us access to CFC's land - unblock the landbridge. And it is a pittance compared to what they're asking of us, since we already have contact. Can anybody think of something else we want that they wouldn't want to give us?

	19-05-2003 09:24									#25
	Tired of ads?

would having them unblock the landbridge compensate our limiting our own expansion? Honestly I think not, but it's a thought which should be considered. If they want a permanent border, they should give us something REALLY good in return, frankly however, I doubt they have anything...

	19-05-2003 09:49									#26
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The thing about REXing is that you need to consentrate mostly on that while you do it. But we are working on building up our Military and workers, so that takes away from our ability to fully REX like mad.

Remember, you can only build so many things at once.

E_T

	19-05-2003 12:49									#27
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I'm thinking a border would benefit us, because it'll give CDG an incentive to attack south.

On the other hand, they might want to stop building military units now, fill up the land they got, and then attack us anyway.

What we want to include in a treaty is a way to reach CFC, and maybe a way to reach GCA via the seas (along the eastern CDG coast). Maybe we can include that in the deal.
It would be a good idea to leave a corridor to the west open (neutral).

Can someone count the tiles? With a 6-tile border, who would have more suitable land: CDG or us ?

edit:
Another thing: with a border safely established, and MapMaking so close now, we can proceed to build a few galleys with settlers in them, to colonize some islands. That is more difficult for CDG, and I think we should be able to do this faster than GCA and CFC, thus gaining quite the advantage.

	19-05-2003 16:11									#28
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I went ahead and voted never, after thinking about it overnight, I really just don't see why we should give them concessions, and let there be no doubt this is a concession for us. They've been nothing but belligerent towards us in this game, and frankly, I don't see that changing until they fear us. They are being nice right now, but only because they want us to roll over and give them easy expansion while they go and expand into GCA's land by force. In the end, this is not good for us. If we must give them a border agreement, then it has to be temporary, and preferably endable at the first sign of a GCA invasion.

	19-05-2003 16:23									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by wervdon If we must give them a border agreement, then it has to be temporary, and preferably endable at the first sign of a GCA invasion.

This is the plan though - so called Togas' loophole is intended to make the whole NAP void as soon as one party performs any hostile action (the loophole being the fact that it would not be expressly mentioned who'd have to be the target of these hostilities, allowing us to void the treaty as soon as CDG attacks GCA or any other team).

	19-05-2003 19:47									#30
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

My concerns over a border agreement:

- If we want to live peacefully with them, we give them the advantage (we're much closer to most of our land than they are to theirs).

- They could still be planning to attack us, and just want to remove/move back our screen.

Though I want to support the idea of a border (especially if we plan on removing them later on), as MOW I can't vote yes considering the second point.