 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Shiber
|
 |
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:28
|
|
GoW has publicly acknowledged that they are not committed to warfare with us and that the state of war between our two civs is merely a technical matter: GoW landed forces on our turf, and we eliminated them the turn later as per the understanding that was reached between GoW and GS, that we will destroy any units of GoW that land in our territory. Now GoW gets a happiness bonus because technically, we declared war on them, and they continue the war in-game in order to continue to enjoy this free benefit (which is perfectly fine with GS).
But if GS needs to declare war for technical reasons, in order to activate a blockade and prevent ND or RP from trading iron to Vox, while not posing any actual military threat to the iron seller and publicly declaring that our plans do not involve warfare with that civ, then suddenly we're the aggressors. Neat.
Last edited by Shiber on 05-06-2003 at 18:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
GS is at war with Vox.
GS has captured Vox's sole iron deposit.
Vox needs iron to build units
Vox is getting that iron from another civ.
Shouldnt' that be treated as an overt act of war? The only thing iron is good for is to build immortals and pikes. Military units.
I'm suprised that another team would open themselves up to repercussions by trading Vox iron. Up til now you could wash your hands of the matter and GS would not have known exactly who was involved. But with the iron trade, we will know who the allies of Vox are.
(note: this message is from a non-participating member of GS)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dejon
|
|
First I'll repeat my earlier disclaimer: I do not represent the RP team diplomatically. This is just the perspective of a single citizen, who admittedly was away from the game for awhile (March), and may have missed a couple of things.
 I appreciate the even and consistent tone Nathan has shown in this thread, despite some potentially inflamatory remarks by others.
RE: Isolationism
I withdraw the "completely" from my isolationist comment earlier. GS participated a little in world affairs early on. However, my perspective of GS is still an isolationist one. Not sharing maps is a big deal. And I can't think of a single diplomatic deal GS did with RP at any time, though the diplomats of both teams may correct and remind of any. Lego is also guilty of some isolationism, but mostly because it took them so long to make contact. In comparison, we have had at least a couple of trades with Lego.
RE: Aggressor
Personally, I don't care who the aggressor was. This game is about war. I am not in favour of either side. I am however disappointed that GS has chosen to make this (nicely worded) threat to everyone. That alone is what has me irritated.
Now this really steams me:
quote:
I'm not surprised RP's members are screaming hardest when it comes to our isolationism. After all, we all (know or) suspect that it wasn't only Vox' idea to treacherously attack us...
|
This is outright slander. RP has had no part in the Vox/GS war. This is not the first time someone has unfairly implied dishonesty or treachery on the part of RP, as if we are predisposed to such behaviour because we role play. To my knowledge, the only time RP has ever been less than completely open and honest with other teams is early on, when we simply did not divulge how much land was south of us to ND/GoW, and the one time we stalled a diplomacy deal a bit. It is a pretty huge leap from that to accuse us of planning Vox's war. 
If I was on the GS diplomatic team, I would have handled this differently. I would have contacted teams individually and requested a trade: do not trade/deal with Vox in exchange for something. Instead what we're getting is: do not trade/deal with Vox or we'll attack you too (implied threat).
That's just poor diplomacy, as far as I'm concerned. It practically guarantees a negative reaction, regardless if the recipient had plans to send Vox iron or not (not, in our case). I just hope that Spain will overcome any such initial reaction and continue our peaceful path, despite GS's provocative statements.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
|
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dejon
And I can't think of a single diplomatic deal GS did with RP at any time, though the diplomats of both teams may correct and remind of any. |
IIRC we did a tech trade in the ancient age. We also proposed to sell you Feudalism, but you refused. There have been no other opportunities for trade so far, as far as we can see.
So, no opportunities = isolationism?
quote:
If I was on the GS diplomatic team, I would have handled this differently. I would have contacted teams individually and requested a trade: do not trade/deal with Vox in exchange for something. Instead what we're getting is: do not trade/deal with Vox or we'll attack you too (implied threat). |
There is no need to offer the Bobian teams anything for not trading iron to Vox because we can cut Vox's trade route ourselves.
However, doing so will involve having to declare war, for technical reasons only, on the seller. I assure you that I am being 100% honest when I say that we decided within the GS forum to post such a message in order to explain the purpose of any in-game declarations of war in the near future, should we have to resort to such means to assure that Vox will not have access to iron.
In my opinion, the game is flawed in that even if Gathering Storm galleys surround Vox's harbor, they can still trade with other civs if those other civs initiate the in-game trade and if they're not in war with us. Whether you agree that it is a flaw or not is a different issue, but the point is that we wanted to make it clear, that if we have to declare war, it is only for technical reasons.
Apparently we've misworded ourselves, and some people misinterpreted our intentions and got insulted. I regret to see that, and I apologize to anyone whom we offended with what appeared to some people as a threat.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
It's just the way it seems to me, Dejon, that's all.
As for the map issue... we're a small island civ engaged in a war. Trading our map is, IMO, bordering on outright stupidity. Failure to do so is held against us. So be it. I can't help that. Strategically, giving up our world map dramatically decreases our security. I can't see us ever coughing it up.
As for the possibility of indirect RP involvement in the war, I've heard that suggestion, and given the cold and/or downright angry tone I've heard from members of your team toward GS, I didn't think it was outside the realm of possibility. I wouldn't have accused you of it outright, though  You say it isn't true, and I will believe that.
In defence of our diplomatic core, this thread was not their doing.
Hot Enamel,
quote:
Does GS propose that if any two teams go to war, nothing should be traded by the other teams to either waring teams ?
I am particularly confused as to why you stop at Iron?? |
Oh, please. All we said was we wouldn't be happy if teams traded Vox iron right now. We didn't say "you can't do it." We were attempting to discourage a trade that could hurt us. Until we destroy or capture Vox's harbor, we cannot prevent trades (edit: well, there is a way, as Shiber pointed out, but...). We know that. Hence Nathan's attempt to convince the world not to do something we cannot prevent for at least a little while.
If you wish to construe it as GS "making demands to the rest of the world" that's your call. Frankly, it seems that no matter what we say, it's wrong.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dejon
RE: Isolationism
I withdraw the "completely" from my isolationist comment earlier. GS participated a little in world affairs early on. However, my perspective of GS is still an isolationist one. Not sharing maps is a big deal. And I can't think of a single diplomatic deal GS did with RP at any time, though the diplomats of both teams may correct and remind of any. Lego is also guilty of some isolationism, but mostly because it took them so long to make contact. In comparison, we have had at least a couple of trades with Lego. |
We offer to sell you Feudalism, you refuse, and you call us isolationist over it? If you don't think your team is involved in enough deals with us, why aren't you trying to persuade your own diplomats to engage us more? If your team's attitude is, "We won't trade with GS. They're a bunch of isolationists," I'd say you're the ones being isolationist, not us.
quote:
RE: Aggressor
Personally, I don't care who the aggressor was. This game is about war. I am not in favour of either side. I am however disappointed that GS has chosen to make this (nicely worded) threat to everyone. That alone is what has me irritated. |
I wonder whether you would still regard the issue of who the aggressor was as irrelevant if you were the ones who were lied to and attacked by surprise. The treachery Vox used to set up their attack gives this war a rather different flavor in our minds from what it would have as a straight attack without the lies. War is a major, inherent part of the game. Dishonesty is not.
quote:
Now this really steams me:
This is outright slander. RP has had no part in the Vox/GS war. This is not the first time someone has unfairly implied dishonesty or treachery on the part of RP, as if we are predisposed to such behaviour because we role play. To my knowledge, the only time RP has ever been less than completely open and honest with other teams is early on, when we simply did not divulge how much land was south of us to ND/GoW, and the one time we stalled a diplomacy deal a bit. It is a pretty huge leap from that to accuse us of planning Vox's war. |
To the best of my knowledge, your team's interest in roleplay has nothing to do with the suspicions many within GS have toward your team. (And my apologies for the bad manners involved in DeepO's presenting suspicions as if they were fact in a public forum; that should not have been done without clear evidence and without our having discussed the matter with your team in private to get a clearer picture.)
On the other hand, if you look at some of Togas's posts in the public forum, it seems quite clear that he, at least, has a rather hostile attitude toward us. I don't recall seeing much from other members of your team indicating that his attitude does not reflect the attitude of your team at large, and our discussions with other teams do indicate a general practice within Roleplay of trying to raise concern about us in the minds of other teams. (Of course with us, it's Lego you try to raise concern about.) Is it really such a big leap to suspect that Roleplay would go from that to actively encouraging, and maybe even providing some support for, a war against us? Then add to that your refusal to buy Feudalism from us, almost as if you wanted to make sure we wouldn't have the gold we desparately needed for upgrades to defend ourselves against Vox's surprise attack.
As I said, I think the way DeepO made an accusation withut hard evidence, based solely on suspicion and without even having discussed our suspicions with your team in private, was completely unwarranted. But are our suspicions themselves really so hard to understand?
quote:
If I was on the GS diplomatic team, I would have handled this differently. I would have contacted teams individually and requested a trade: do not trade/deal with Vox in exchange for something. Instead what we're getting is: do not trade/deal with Vox or we'll attack you too (implied threat). |
Not, "or we'll attack you too." Indeed, we weren't the ones who started the war with Vox, so "too" would not quite be gramatically correct even if we were threatening an attack. Rather, "or the fact that you assisted our enemies will affect future relations."
Keep in mind that the only reason Vox has a need for foreign iron in the first place is that we cut off their domestic supply. So what we are asking for is not for other civs to turn down profits that they could reasonably expect due to natural distribution of resources. Rather, we are merely asking other civs not to take advantage of a situation our military created in order to profit at clear and significant expense to us. "Give us something or we'll undo the results of your military operation by providing Vox with a replacement source of iron" sounds entirely too much like extortion for my taste.
quote:
That's just poor diplomacy, as far as I'm concerned. It practically guarantees a negative reaction, regardless if the recipient had plans to send Vox iron or not (not, in our case). I just hope that Spain will overcome any such initial reaction and continue our peaceful path, despite GS's provocative statements. |
I would have thought it would be obvious, at least once a person or team thinks about it, that undoing a military advantage a civ gains in cutting off an enemy's resources would not be viewed favorably. So much for my idea that I was merely calling attention to a fact that ought to be self-evident, at least once you think about it a little.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2003 15:27
, if you're going to give us specific guidelines to live by just say "Do this or we'll bust your ass," don't bother making it fancy. 
|