19-05-2003 20:59									#31
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by wervdon 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.

On the contrary, I think that would be very good for us. We could wait a bit, and then attack them from behind. Both CDG and GCA will have suffered.

They are either going to attack us or them.

	19-05-2003 21:10									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by vondrack 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).

The loophole does nothing with respect to the border agreement, our REXing takes time and planning and it's not like we're going to drop 4 settlers over the border the moment CDG falls in the loophole trap.

The loophole is designed to give us freedom of manouver with respects to our actively supporting the side we choose to in a GCA-CDG conflict, it does not realistically get us off the hook with respect to the border since the whole border issue would be moot in case of a war, with or without loophole.


And as a reminder: I am against a permanent border and it appears the entire FAM is against it too.

	19-05-2003 23:33									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I have voted, I'm in favor mostly because of the arguments Notyoueither used on page 1.

Aidun

	19-05-2003 23:44									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen The loophole does nothing with respect to the border agreement, our REXing takes time and planning and it's not like we're going to drop 4 settlers over the border the moment CDG falls in the loophole trap. The loophole is designed to give us freedom of manouver with respects to our actively supporting the side we choose to in a GCA-CDG conflict, it does not realistically get us off the hook with respect to the border since the whole border issue would be moot in case of a war, with or without loophole.

OK, can someone explain something to me, please?

How do we agree to a permanent border without agreeing to a permanent NAP at the same time? As such a border is actually meaningful only as long as there is peace between the two nations...

If these two things cannot be separated, how does the loophole NOT apply to the border issue? Once they fall victim to the loophole (and we assume they WILL fall victim to it, right? because they are Persia and their starting position sucks and... you get the idea), we will be free to declare the treaty void, borderline gone, and do whatever we wish, no? Enjoying the advantages of the treaty while we don't want to wage war, getting rid of the limitations once we want to.

If that reasoning is faulty, then there can be no TRULY PERMANENT border negotiated - there will always be some period, during which the border is in effect. Then let's start talking about for how long we can agree to such and such border line.

	20-05-2003 02:24									#35
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

No border agreement ever, IMHO.

The mere fact that they would propose it is enough for me to think they would prefer not to go to war against Numidian Mercs at this stage. That would be a coin toss even with Immortals, especially with good terrain bonuses and strategic city placement on our part. With iron hooked up and swordmen on our side, we would have a strong, offensive counterattack to any stack of doom that they sent our way since their best defensive value will remain at 2 for a long time to come (not counting terrain bonuses, of course).

The would expend their Golden Age trying to fend off ours. Its time we start treating their anemic little team like it is one.

	20-05-2003 02:48									#36
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by vondrack OK, can someone explain something to me, please? How do we agree to a permanent border without agreeing to a permanent NAP at the same time? As such a border is actually meaningful only as long as there is peace between the two nations... If these two things cannot be separated, how does the loophole NOT apply to the border issue? Once they fall victim to the loophole (and we assume they WILL fall victim to it, right? because they are Persia and their starting position sucks and... you get the idea), we will be free to declare the treaty void, borderline gone, and do whatever we wish, no? Enjoying the advantages of the treaty while we don't want to wage war, getting rid of the limitations once we want to. If that reasoning is faulty, then there can be no TRULY PERMANENT border negotiated - there will always be some period, during which the border is in effect. Then let's start talking about for how long we can agree to such and such border line.

The problem is that we don't know WHEN CDG will violate the treaty. It may be the CDG might hold off on an invasion after a point in which we would have presumably been able to settle beyond the border. Hence, the permanent border would have been an impediment to our expansion.

Now, what I don't understand is why we are taking the extremes on this issue. Permanent border or not. Seems to be there is no middle ground but there is, just as we negotiate NAPs on a periodic basiss 20-30 turns, so can we do so the border agreements, and I have no gripes with that.

Psycho-analyze CDG for a second. Think, why do they want a permanent border. 1) so secure their backs in case they attack GCA 2) to prevent us from out-REXing them. Either reason is defensive-minded in nature, what they don't want is to feel threatened by our expansion. However, if we simply negotiate the border on a timely basis, they have no reason to feel threatened. Say we have another 20 turn agreement. After it expires we simply say, we are planning to build a city 1 tile away from the previous border... we will agree to a new border arrangment modified to incorporate this new city... yadda yadda yadda. So, we are expanding, but we are making CDG feel safe in that there will still be a "buffer" between us no matter where we settle.

	20-05-2003 02:50									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by vondrack OK, can someone explain something to me, please? How do we agree to a permanent border without agreeing to a permanent NAP at the same time? As such a border is actually meaningful only as long as there is peace between the two nations... If these two things cannot be separated, how does the loophole NOT apply to the border issue? Once they fall victim to the loophole (and we assume they WILL fall victim to it, right? because they are Persia and their starting position sucks and... you get the idea), we will be free to declare the treaty void, borderline gone, and do whatever we wish, no? Enjoying the advantages of the treaty while we don't want to wage war, getting rid of the limitations once we want to. If that reasoning is faulty, then there can be no TRULY PERMANENT border negotiated - there will always be some period, during which the border is in effect. Then let's start talking about for how long we can agree to such and such border line.

The thing is vondrack is that the agreement lasts X number of turns but the border is permanent, at least that's the way I understand the way that CDG wants it.

If 30 turns go by and they haven't attacked GCA yet, then the 'loophole' is gone unless we can negotiate another one. Maybe they were very well aware of this 'loophole' but let it pass because they knew they wouldn't be attacking within 30 turns, possibly 35-40.

Thus if we have a permanent border that is seperate from the NAT we have or are going to have in the future, then they can still sit tight on that permanent border bit.

Maybe if we make it clear that the permanent border is only 'permanent' if our two Civs are not at war or they have not breached any other agreement with us???

	20-05-2003 03:17									#38
	Put an end to popups!

Quick show of hands.

Who here wants to REX and place cities closer to their capital than ours, which cities will be hopelessly useless til some time in the middle ages, which cites will need to be defended when hostilities break out, which cities would be extremely vulnerable to CDG even if we wanted to defend them due to the distances involved, which cities contribute 0 to our ablility to defeat CDG militarily, which cities...

Or...

We could let CDG build some cities closer to us if they feel comfortable doing so. These cities would likely be somewhat improved when we take them. These cities would consume some of their efforts through the construction of settlers and the actions of workers. These cities (the jungle ones) will not be able to be made effective to contribute greatly to CDGs military for a very long time, far beyond the point at which we should be quartering our occupation troops in their old palace.

The only thing permanent about that border will be the markings regarding it we may add to the tomb stone of their civ. Something along the lines of... 'and they insisted on a border, using coercion once again... we gave them their border and they were happy, and they were content... we hope they enjoy their border in the after-lands that they now occupy.'

	20-05-2003 03:19									#39
	Support Apolyton

If we do give in to a border agreement ... and by the look of this poll, Apolyton believes that we should ... then by all means we should INCLUDE the border in our NAP treaty and make it one of the many terms (terms that are void if CDG breaks them).

CDG hasn't asked us for a separate NAP apart from the Border. They could have said, "we agree to the NAP, but we also want to do a border." They're hinging the passage of our NAP on the border. So let's give them what they want

--Togas

	20-05-2003 03:19									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I meant something slightly different - a "permanent border" is a border you never break (no military units, no settlers/cities). Establishing a honoured "permanent border" de facto means establishing a permanent NAP. You can't separate these two things... or I am missing something?

Say our NAP expires and the border remains... how would we "make use" of the non-existence of the NAP while honouring that border?

And if these two things are not separable, we might wish to point that out to CDG - asking whether what they actually want is an eternal NAP... if not, then we should make that border agreement expire at a set date (and just agree upon terms that would best fit our needs/plans). If yes, we can apply the Togas' loophole to everything, not just the NAP.

Not sure if I am expressing myself understandably...

EDIT: crossposted with nye & Togas. Togas seems to be saying the same thing as me, right? Let's TIE these two things together and attach the loophole backdoor to the whole treaty.

	20-05-2003 03:28									#41
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The only real function of the NAP is as a security of the reputations of the civs involved that hostile acts will not be made. There is no other real effect. Thus with a border, but no NAP, we can cross and make war on CDG at our whim, without fear of news of breaking treaties reaching other civs.

That being said, I agree with BigFree and Togas. The border could go in the NAP.

	20-05-2003 03:34									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

nye, how long, in turns, do you suppose it would be before we attacked CDG? It would at least have to be 100 turns if not 130 IMO. We are waiting till Chiv?

In that time CDG could make those cities, that you plan to let them have, a lot more valuable to them in terms of prodution and commerce. It gives them that much more time to seal off the Western corridor towards CFC. If we can make it a temporary 'permanent ' border, then that would be great, but I doubt that we'll slip that by CDG since I don't feel that is what they are after.

Tying the 'permanent border' to the NAT is one way to get around this, in that when the NAT expires, so does the 'permanent border.' But we have to be careful of the language. In my view, the word 'permanent' is just that "permanent"; regardless of whether it's mentioned in an agreemnt that has an expiration date. It is not affected by the NAT ending or being renegotiated unless we specifically state that is is.

	20-05-2003 03:57									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I doubt it will be 100 turns. I will do some checking later...

Knights is a 'by latest' date. We should be in a position to go not long after Republic. Most likely we will not have a choice, as the chances of CDG leaving both GCA and us alone until the middle ages are extremely remote. Quite simply put, they cannot compete given their starting location, let alone win. What would we do if in their position?

	20-05-2003 03:58									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

We should therefore include in the NAP:

"For the duration of this agreement, Apolyton and CDG agree to the following border: "


This should help ease the fear of permanence ... however, I have no doubts that they will want to reaffirm this border in subsequent treaties. It may as well be "permanent", but at least we can get out of it if they break the treaty.

--Togas

	20-05-2003 05:55									#45
	Support Apolyton

I have no problems with a border agreement that defines where each of us can settle.
A NAT defines whether we have the right to go to war....not a settlement agreement.
And I think we will be at war with them well before we run out of territory to settle.

IMO, a border agreement is moot when our NAP expires or become void.

Unless we plan on tieing ourselves to a long term alliance, give them what they want.
They may squeal when we cross the borders with military units, but I doubt we would take a reputation hit with the other teams

So let them build their nice and juicy new cities. It just means there will be less that we have to rebuild when we invade

So...negotiate hard, (eg access to CFC etc etc)..but my opinion is to let them have it in the end.

	20-05-2003 10:30									#46
	Put an end to popups!

I agree with nye; let's accept a border for now. Just include it in the NAP.

	20-05-2003 10:30									#47
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Togas We should therefore include in the NAP: "For the duration of this agreement, Apolyton and CDG agree to the following border: " --Togas

That's exactly what I've been wanting all along...

	20-05-2003 10:31									#48
	Put an end to popups!

EDIT: double post

	21-05-2003 04:53									#49
	Put an end to popups!

hi ,

what , and let them get away with some of the best places , never

have a nice day