16-06-2003 18:49									#1
	NAPs with the Bobians? Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

IMHO this deserves a separate thread from the topped one.

quote: Originally posted by vulture Some thoughts: All the Bob civs are worried that we might be a factor in 'internal' affairs on Bob. Particularly if Vox do indeed disappear from our little island. Much to no-ones surprise, ND and GoW have offered NAPs. RP probably ought to be considering one too - although GoW are only seperated from us by 1 tiles of water, I think of us being closer to RP, simply because with our lighthouse shortcut, it is easier to get troops from our core to RP lands. From the chat logs, it appears that they are all worried about being on the wrong end of a 2 on 1 war on Bob, and are all worried that we are capable of shifting the balance of power. I'd suggest that NAPs with both ND and GoW would be a bad idea. It would take RP all of three seconds to notice that if we are going to join in the fight at all, it would be against them. So I think that we can only have one NAP (or one publically announced one, but I wouldn't rely on a non-public one remaining secret, given that the Bob civs are probably all testing each other out to see how the alliances are going to stack up - it is the kind of info one team might offer up to persuade another that they are in a strong position, and then gets reported to the third team as a point of interest). The alternative would be NAPs with all three Bob civs (if RP would go for it), as a declaration that we want to keep out of Bobs affairs for a while and let them deal with any military matters. While this has some advantages (they might let up on trying to out-maneouver us if they don't think we are a military threat for now) it does limit our ability to take advantage of the Bob situation should events turn out in a way that means we want to go and have a look around. On the Lego front, do we really believe that they weren't one of the teams trying to organise an embargo against us. I know everyone will jump to the conclusion that it was RP, but it was ND and Lego who were stalling on buying Feudalism from us. It would make sense for Lego of course, since they particularly don't want us to get the Sistine, and don't want us growing into a threat to them. Plus why are they suddenly such good friends with Vox?

	16-06-2003 18:54									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

My own thoughts:

A NAP with just one Bobian civ sounds like a good idea, but let's be sure to mention to them that we intend to sign a NAP with only one civ, because if we sign NAPs with two civs, the remaining civ will not take long (nor further evidence) to come to the conclusion that we are plotting against them, and if we sign NAPs with three civs, we might face a 3-pronged invasion on our continent when those NAPs expire.
This would be a subtle way of saying: possibly the most decisive war (and possibly the last one) in your civilization's history is about to begin, and the highest bidder will win a NAP with us; who would you like it to be, you or one of your enemies?

	16-06-2003 20:03									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I'm not sure any NAP's are a good idea. If we guess wrong, it could be game over for us. We become the runt (not counting Vox) if there are only 2 civs on Bob. Those two, and Lego, would all have roughly 1.5-2.5x the territory we do.

I think we need to remain unattached, so that if a 2 on 1 does break out, we can try and even things up if necessary.

	16-06-2003 23:54									#4
	Put an end to popups!

Yeah Shiber, I agree taht a seperat thread is needed...

quote: Originally posted by Aeson I'm not sure any NAP's are a good idea. If we guess wrong, it could be game over for us. We become the runt (not counting Vox) if there are only 2 civs on Bob. Those two, and Lego, would all have roughly 1.5-2.5x the territory we do. I think we need to remain unattached, so that if a 2 on 1 does break out, we can try and even things up if necessary.

I agree with this, we do not want to tie our hand this way.

Our official stance can be such...

"GS feels that signing any NAPs will not bring any stability to Bob and can in fact lead to instability in the reigon. By signing one, we appear to be picking favorates (thus polarizing the other two), by signing with two, we are picking on someone and by siging with all three, we are saying that we are going to stay out of Bob affairs. While it is our current policy and that staying out of Bobs affairs is in everyones best interest, we perfer to act as a deterent by reserveing our right to get involved if we see fit. Put it this way, you will think twice before starting any aggression if we might get involved."

How is that?

Mss

	16-06-2003 23:59									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I would seriously consider signing a (20-40) turn 4-way NAP with ND,GoW and RP where we all commit to mutual non-agression, All parties are released from the treaty if one breaks it.

Mss

	17-06-2003 03:09									#6
	Tired of ads?

Like once was said- staying out of Bobian politics will be nearly impossible to keep doing for very much longer.

Once Vox is gone, we will be 1-tile from Bob, and projecting our cultural borders into it- this alone gives a feel of being Bobian, as much as England is part of continental Europe, as was said before.

I still believe that a NAP with one of the Bobians could be useful. This could be our diversion, if we choose to pick on Lego, for example...
I believe signing this would require re-consideration of the political balance in the world- which might cause many thing to happen, one of them might be a war on Bob- which we could use to hit on a Bobian civ or Lego. Perhaps this could cause a cold-war on Bob, weakening everyone, while know one gains supremacy.

But, if we're thinking of allying against Lego, perhaps this won't be a good move- as it would cause Bobians to deal with Bobians, and will turn attention away from Lego...

We indeed intend to have fun, but we wish to win as well- Lego is our target, in that case.

	17-06-2003 03:41									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Not having read all the discussion on this thread, I'd say one thing: I would like a 20-turn, not autimatically renewable, NAP with all temas (not just Bobians) on the same turn. Publicly announced if it needs to be. But make it very clear that we will not meddle in any foreign affairs for 20 turns only, after which we keep the right to take sides.

This would make things more interesting, in that it frees us from most long term commitments, in that it let us build up peacefully, in that it doesn't stop poossible Bobian self-aggresion, and in that it would give us time to build up diplomatically again. The problem is, of course, that it would deny us the possibility of opportunism (like e.g. taking a couple of RP cities if ND and GoW would ally), and that we can't hire the GoW either (which would be great fun, to start a war we're not involved in)

DeepO

	17-06-2003 03:45									#8
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: and that we can't hire the GoW either

Who says we can't hire them for a future job...

	17-06-2003 04:10									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Zeit, not while we have a NAP with other teams... we can't hire the GoW against our public friends. That would be against honoralthough I have no problem whatsoever in hiring them against someone we have a trade agreement, but not a NAP or a PMM with.

DeepO

	17-06-2003 05:28									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Hmm, a short term NAP will do us good I think, it will give us some breathing space.
It will also give us a shot a seeing what goes on on BOB (as LEGO has done before).
See who comes to us for alliances and such once the NAP run out.

Let us be the puppetmaster for once.

	17-06-2003 06:04									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Speaking of hiring GoW, I'm not sure I ever want to. It's probably just me, but I don't like the idea of using mercenaries to do our dirty work.

As for the NAP idea... if we sign NAPs with all but Lego, Lego will think we're after them.

I think we might be better off just making luxury/resource deals and leaving it at that.

-Arrian

	17-06-2003 06:14									#12
	Support Apolyton

I wouldn't mind signing a NAP as long as it is a true non-agression treaty, meaning that any unprovoked declaration of war against any other team would break the treaty.

Of course, 'unprovoked' would need to be defined. That way we could preserve our right to intervene on the part of an underdog (the small end of a 2 on 1) if necessary, and still give a guarantee that we won't attack our friends unless they go warmonger on their neighbor(s).

	17-06-2003 19:51									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by DeepO Not having read all the discussion on this thread, I'd say one thing: I would like a 20-turn, not autimatically renewable, NAP with all temas (not just Bobians) on the same turn. Publicly announced if it needs to be. But make it very clear that we will not meddle in any foreign affairs for 20 turns only, after which we keep the right to take sides.

I can already tell you what the Bobians would think. "They are waiting to see who turns out to be the underdog so that they could unite with him. Screw it, a war on Bob is not worth it if there's powerful outside interference that wishes to balance out the sides - let's unite against an off-Bob'er, preferably GS because they're trying to play us against each other."

	17-06-2003 22:36									#14
	Got spare money?

Maybe, Shiber. But it seems we have established one thing to all other teams: they all think that we are going to play it by the book. So if we offer NAPs (to everyone, including Lego), and sign them in-game (meaning they will get public due to embassies), they might take the shot in trying to fight on a 2 against 1 Bobian war. And even with their UUs, this will get messy enought to last longer then the 20 turns from now on, still leaving us the option to take sides later, or advantage from the situation.

In the current diplo context, we can't even mention to one team that we want to support them in a war (maybe only to ND), as it will immediately be used against us, and communicated to the others. And we don't want more isolation, I think.

DeepO

	17-06-2003 22:46									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

If the 2 on 1 is against ND, it might not last 20 turns though. Almost certainly it would be over for all intents and purposes by that point.

A two front war... one against Riders, one against slowmovers coming up through the Jungles, with Mountains all the way through to their core, is too much for Ansars to take. Also consider that GoW is the one researching Chivalry... and are they going to trade it to ND if that's their target?

It could get very ugly for ND very fast.

	18-06-2003 01:55									#16
	Inflate your Upload Space

Yeah, I don't want to commit to peace for 20 turns, because of exactly what Aeson says. A lot can happen in 20 turns.

Consider that we essentially won our war with Vox in that time frame, and it was a war we were totally caught off-guard by. Imagine if we had planned it.

Add in the speed of Riders & Ansars and things could go down really, really fast.

We need to stay flexible and not burden ourselves with NAPs.

-Arrian

	18-06-2003 04:14									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I'm not certain... GoW still had 7(?) turns left on Chivalry, meaning the war needed to be over in 12 turns if we were not allowed to join in (1 turn upgrading at least). If we come to someone's protection, we would need at least 5 turns to set something up (loading units, and invading in a strategical sound way). So the difference isn't that great.
The risk of having to stay out of a war is IMHO not that great compared to getting some peace, and more friendly relations.

The comparison to the GS-Vox war is maybe somewhat justified, however if ND would have to face 2 enemies, I doubt the difference would have been so great as here on Stormia. We simply were a lot bigger then the start, played very well, and got lucky in that Vox made a couple of mistakes strategically that have seriously speeded up the war.

DeepO

DeepO

	18-06-2003 06:44									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I would say that we should politely decline any entangling treaties. And that is what we can say.

'An NAP with you, in the absense of one with your neighbours, would send the wrong signal to your neighbours. We do not wish to do that.'

We can't say that to everyone for long, but we can say it for a time. We can say it for long enough to get our feet under us in the new situation, at least.

We can also tell anyone who asks that we have no plans to get involved on Bob. That is perfectly true, because we currently do not have any plans to do so.

Last edited by notyoueither on 18-06-2003 at 07:38

	18-06-2003 06:48									#19
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I am getting the vibe that we should stay out of NAPs... is this correct?

Mss

	18-06-2003 07:37									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

For now, I think so. It is too early. We have very little idea (read none) of which way the wind is blowing on Bob. We need to find out, fast.

Building suits our purposes perfectly, I think. However, we also have the largest military on the planet and should not miss the opportunity to use it if events that we are unaware of on Bob are about to transpire.

	18-06-2003 08:17									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I agree. Considering our position away from everyone else (once Vox leaves, that is), a NAP would be useless. At this stage of the game, any attempt to invade our island would most likely end in defeat, especially since we can see all ships heading down the coast.

For now, we should just step out of world affairs, and perhaps start a colonizing Bob for our eventual invasion.

	18-06-2003 13:50									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither For now, I think so. It is too early. We have very little idea (read none) of which way the wind is blowing on Bob. We need to find out, fast. Building suits our purposes perfectly, I think. However, we also have the largest military on the planet and should not miss the opportunity to use it if events that we are unaware of on Bob are about to transpire.

I agree with this completely. The time will come (and it might come soon) when we want to sign an NAP or even an alliance with a Bobian civ. However, which way things are gonna go on that continent are far from certain right now. We should stay out of getting ourselves involved in negotiations until we're certain who's side we want to pick (and indeed, what the 'sides' are).

Until that point we should continue to try and improve relations with all teams via Luxury and World Map trades. It should be possible to stall them on any NAP talk - there are plenty of other things for us to negotiate.

	18-06-2003 14:20									#23
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet Until that point we should continue to try and improve relations with all teams via Luxury and World Map trades. It should be possible to stall them on any NAP talk - there are plenty of other things for us to negotiate.

	18-06-2003 15:06									#24
	Inflate your Upload Space

Agreed. I'm not a hawk or a dove; I'm a vulture, waiting for an opportunity.

	18-06-2003 15:49									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'll have to agree with FP about "stalling" the Bobians.

But I'm afraid we won't be able to do so for very much longer- we are going to be part of Bob pretty soon, and we'll have to dive into the mud pit eventually...

True, we need to see more, and hear more from the Bobians- what do they have to offer to us, and what are the big threats.

From what I understood, It seems like there are no alliances as of yet on Bob, but this could just be another misguidance.

	18-06-2003 18:07									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

That's exactly my fear, zeit. It looks like there are no alliances yet, but this could very well be misguidance, given our isolation from Bob (which we are more or less part of). By getting in NAPs, we could feel them out better, and at least not get a combined invasion of our shores

But I agree with the others too: there are other ways to building friendship, and we should explore those too. And picking one NAP with a team, or leaving one out would be a seriously bad decision to make if we want to keep out of wars for the moment.

DeepO

	18-06-2003 18:16									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

So far, some kind of consensus seems to be building towards:

NAPs with all three Bob civs is probably too restrictive on us - we may want to intervene somewhere (although it has been pointed out that in practice we may only be giving up 5 turns of possible intervention on a 20 turn NAP - perhaps shorter ones could be negotiated)

NAPs with two Bob civs is a bad idea, since the one left out starts to get paranoid.

NAPs with one Bob civ would have a similar effect of polarising alliances on Bob, and provoke suspicion from the other two civs. A NAP with ND in particular would probably move RP into buying GoW, giving us the worst war scenario from our POV.

NAPs with no civs currently looks the best option. We will have to do some work to make up for it in trades and (non-binding) assurances that we aren't going to invade just for the hell of it, but I think that map and lux trades, couples with such assurances should be enough to keep us on good terms with everyone.

The last, rather mischevious option is to go to the other extreme and declare ourselves for hire to the highest bidder on Bob in the event of a war, just to make them all paranoid about getting involved in a major war (it might just work to keep peace there, so none of the Bob civs grows too large). I'd hazard a guess that this isn't the way most of us want to play the game though.

	19-06-2003 14:06									#28
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I've been thinking a bit more about the NAP issue, and I've come up with an idea for a GS policy:

quote: Gathering Storm has recently been approached by other nations with offers for non-aggression pacts. While we are interested in arrangements for mutual peace and security, we have two key reservations that must be satisfied in any pacts we sign. First, at least in theory, it would be quite possible for a non-aggression pact to turn into a license for aggression. Nations could use a blanket commitment from us not to attack them as a means of protecting their flanks while they attack someone else. And second, because of that fact, a blanket non-aggression pact with one nation might be construed as a kind of implicit threat or even alliance against another. These factors could, at least in theory, pervert an agreement intended to promote peace into an opportunity for war. Therefore, while we are willing to sign non-aggression pacts for reasonable durations with any interested party (including Vox once the current unpleasantness is behind us), the pacts must be limited to defensive purposes only. Attacking another nation (except in clear self-defense), or willfully provoking another nation to declare war, or bringing in allies to turn a defensive war into a war of conquest, must be regarded as nullifying the pact. We hope that this policy makes it clear that we are interested in peace, but are not willing to commit to stand idly by if our neighbors are attacked. We value good relations with all nations, and wish to ensure that any NAPs we sign will be used only for peaceful purposes.

	19-06-2003 14:26									#29
	Full PM-box? Change here!

That solves most of the problems. Presumably a conditional NAP with a civ that is attacked, and fights in self defense doesn't cancel the NAP, so if we sign such cNAPs with all of Bob, and Bob does the 2 on 1 war thing, then we probably end up with a NAP with the 1, and are free to fight the other two. This might serve as a counterbalance to war, since all civs will have some advantage to be gained from not being the one to go on the offensive, and might wait to be attacked, knowing that in that case we can't join in against them.

Anything that delays war on Bob is a good thing in my opinion, since although war weakens everyone for a while, the danger (as we all know) is that we end up with two civs on Bob who are then in a strong position.

	19-06-2003 16:13									#30
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I'm not so sure we need to keep Bob from warring, we only need to make sure that not 1 team gets eaten by another, doubling the other team. I wouldn't mind a little war, eating up resources, starting GAs, but not overly unbalanced.

Anyway, I don't think that we can, or should try to bend world politics. As long as we don't get isolated it's fine by me. If that means we need to take sides, fine, but I'd prefer not to do that atm.

DeepO