 |
|
MJW
|
|
MN,USA
Jul 2002
time: 23:28
|
|
This "bill" has no real power. It is just to look at what people think.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fried-Psitalon
|
 |
Not just another pretty face.
Dec 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
I'm not sure how expending units, blowing their GA early, and potentially being forced to defend EVEN MORE holdings with very weak production potential will make CDG stronger.
I'd like to see us support GCA on the sly, if such a thing were possible; I don't think CDG's production is enough to really make a serious threat to GCA, but it could sure force them both into a nasty war of attrition.
If anything, I really don't understand WHY we would want peace. We want them tearing into each other and wasting time with that, not building themselves up. Peaceful growth of infrastructure is the last thing we want to see.
CDG's golden age will be a sad joke; at best it will merely cripple GCA slightly more. If GCA holds on to that iron, there might be some small chance that we can prevent the appearance of riders in the long haul.
WE DO NOT want peace- we want them to tear at each other tooth and nail.
Last edited by Fried-Psitalon on 17-06-2003 at 02:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
CDG could potentially expand into more land and become a reasonably powerful empire. That would be annoying for us.
So, if CDG gets involved, we should seriously consider pushing ahead our war plans against them. If we can get them with their pants down (both in terms of units in their territory and bad economy), that should roughly be equivalent to the "overwhelming force" we've been preparing for.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MJW
|
|
MN,USA
Jul 2002
time: 23:28
|
|
I think we should side with no one unless one side starts beating the crap out of one, then we should side with the side that is losing so the side that is winning does not become to strong. This war could go anyway due to freak RNG rolls. But it would more likely go GCA's way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fried-Psitalon
|
|
Not just another pretty face.
Dec 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
Okay... I was trying to say this politely, but uh, I'll be a bit more blunt:
Exactly how is our foreign policy dictated around here? That's partially a genuine question, and partially a statement of concern. That poll up above shows only one-quarter of this team wanting peace right now, and yet we took genuine action in that direction, and very quickly I might add. We also told CDG something that I am *extremely* unhappy that we told them - information that I would've assumed was at least classified. We took aggressive direct action to PREVENT what at least half, maybe more of the team, WANTS. What if we had succeeded in stopping that war? That would've been the biggest mistake we've made yet- and again, judging by that poll, I'm not alone in that belief.
I'm not after anyone's head here, but it seems like some very important international relations decisions were made very suddenly, and in a direction only four people agreed with. Whether or not it was the right action is moot; why it occurred in that manner and whether it should happen like that again is perhaps a more important focus for this thread. I'm very concerned about this - I rather wish I wasn't getting in a car and driving for the next 48 hours .... in about 6 hours... because I'd like to see this sorted out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I agree with Fried-Psitalon; although I did so a bit more quietly, I asked in several places why it was we were trying to prevent this war.
Ultimately it turned out well, because we tried to be peacekeepers (giving us points with the other teams) but CFC and GCA declared war on each other anyway. But what if our peacekeeping was successful? Then a majority of our team would have wanted this war, but our diplomats would have worked to prevent it. I think the "general populace" needs more info as to what the diplomats are doing, and why (chat logs are not enough, unfortunately).
Edit: After a bit of thought, I take back my last statement concerning our diplomats. They've been doing a commendable job of keeping us all informed. Therefore, my only gripe is why negotiations today went against the majority vote in one of our polls (this one).
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 17-06-2003 at 08:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:28
|
|
Official FAM reply:
To the rest of the world we have acted as peacekeepers for the following reasons: this gives us points with them, we have professed our neutrality as there is really not much we can do miilitary to solve this dilema.
As to Togas having told GCA of the alliance, I wholeheartedly support that decision. It new brews even more suspicion between them, and was an open deterrent for GCA to attack. They did not buy it, so be it.
As to why we tried to avoid this war, simple: we would have prefered this to have occured during or shortly before our own operation against CDG. GCA might well inflict a powerful blow on CFC, and CDG might swoop in and deal a blow of its own against GCA. That, if Apolyton does not have the strenght to attack CDG during this time would potentially leave CDG in a position of too much power in the continent.
If this war ends in a stalemate for all sides, then it's all good as they'll just weaken each other. However, if one team starts winning extrordinarily well, then we're in trouble, especially if that team is CDG and especially now that we have been told that we are not prepared to go to war until we get Republic (hence also the signing of the 40 turn NAP with CDG yesterday)
Finally, all these events have taken place in a little over 24 hours. During that time we have had THREE chats with ISDG teams as well as numerous smaller chats with individual members. To sum this all up and debate on it is sometimes difficult considering the truly unprecedented volume of logs which we have gone through in this time and especially considering that none of us are always present.
I think this decentralization has in fact been better. A good reason why the whole CFC-GCA talks broke down is because some of the demands required the whole team to agree. I'm all for discussion and debate but there are times when decisions must be made and approved on the spot. Our Consul system in this regard is much superior, as well as the power some of us have regarding final decision-making.
I hope that we have done a good enough job so far for you to entrust us with these things under such quick time frames which sometimes occur in diplomacy. If we wait until even split-second decisions need to be polled etc., we'll fall into the same traps they have fallen into with their more rigid systems. Of course, most decisions taken are first discussed in length when there is time, I think there is ample evidence that the FAM has not taken things into its own hands under anything other than extreme circumstances like the one which ocurred last night and today. Furthermore, we are always open to criticism for our decisions so that we many not repeat them in the future, the more people involved, the better.
Thank you for understanding what we did, and why we did it during this extremely tense situation 
-MZ
Last edited by Master Zen on 17-06-2003 at 08:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Thanks for your explanation, Master Zen.
I understand the reason to try and get CFC and GCA to "get along", at least for the moment. But surely the threat of CDG swooping in and becoming too powerful is overshadowed by the relative advantage we get when two opposing teams declare war on each other. Furthermore, given our timeline for attacking CDG, if they decide to expand into GCA lands (with Settlers and/or military units) that will be a prime opportunity for us to attack CDG in turn, as CDG will have spread themselves very thin indeed (given their current economy). We want CDG to go to war against someone else, and taking sides in a CFC/GCA conflict is the best way for this to happen.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Oh, and might I add that the 40-turn NAP is highly inconvenient for us given what is happening in the world now. It will be difficult for us to take advantage of CDG in the eventuality that they decide to "take sides" without a reputation hit.
CDG must be patting themselves on the back right now for signing a NAP with one of their neighbors while they plan an offensive against the other one. I know NAPs "mean" nothing since you can always break them, but as I said we could take a serious rep hit if we do not play our cards right here (assuming we do break the NAP, which we will ver very tempted to do in the next 40 turns).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
And finally, just an observation to round out my whining for the evening: the FAM does not post many polls. Graneted, the poll contained in this very thread was difficult to plan for. But why no polls on other issues? Now that economic questions are getting rather boring for the casual observer, diplomacy is the one place where people want to have a say. Let's let them have it!
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
There are already 2 loopholes built in:
1) The "attack anyone" part
2) The "extra tile" ommitted part
|
If CDG's propaganda machine is even remotely on the level of Vox's, they could make us look very bad on the world stage regardless of any loopholes we've concocted (Trip mentioned this to me). I'm convinced this is not fatal to us, but it will still be something to deal with.
IMO 40 turns is too much, since it assumes that everything will go according to our plan of attacking right after we get The Republic.
Not much point in complaining about this now, of course. And I can definitely see the benefit in such a generous NAP: CDG surely thinks that we're peaceful builders.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
If CDG's propaganda machine is even remotely on the level of Vox's, they could make us look very bad on the world stage regardless of any loopholes we've concocted (Trip mentioned this to me). I'm convinced this is not fatal to us, but it will still be something to deal with.
|
Yes it's true, and we will do everything in our power to make the blow seem less hypocritical. Also, consider that there is still the option of pulling an "Arrian's deception" in this game as long as they are wiped out before we get contact with the others.
Now, the idea his is to simply state the truth and not give any whiny excuses. This has been discussed with Togas and will be presented to the team for discussion and polling later on once it is more hammered out.
quote:
And finally, just an observation to round out my whining for the evening: the FAM does not post many polls. Graneted, the poll contained in this very thread was difficult to plan for. But why no polls on other issues? Now that economic questions are getting rather boring for the casual observer, diplomacy is the one place where people want to have a say. Let's let them have it!
|
I totally agree with you 
in that economics are boring 
No, seriously, we will try and poll as much as we can from now on. As I explainied, these last 2 days have been way too hectic for effective decision-making via polls (read my "official FAM reply" above) but we wil do this more often in the future. Furthermore I invite anyone interested in diplomatic matters to join us in the Poly chat room where these things are decided upon by us all present.
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:28
|
|
The peace initiatives were taken with BigFree's approval and my tacit approval. Bigfree participated, so he must have approved. I was aware that they were going to happen, and if I did not say 'good idea' (which I may have) I certainly did not state any objection.
The reason for my approval for them? Once I saw the demands of GCA I was sure that war would happen no matter what. Sorry, MZ, you may be good, but you are not going to disuade war when the threat of CDG's immortals could not.
I did not object because our attempts to mediate peace, hopeless as they have been, got us off the hook with both CFC and GCA. We do not have to choose sides. We were on the side of peace and we are already defeated in that. We may now build our peaceful little hearts out.
I agree that diplomacy should involve more polling and discussion now, because foreign policy is now the major focus of attention. However, when events move quickly, which they did, we must act. Act we did.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-06-2003 00:27
|