17-06-2003 09:27									#1
	A Sit-Down with the Eyeball: The Failure of Loopholes and Success of Active Diplomacy Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

In light of "loophole mania" and a discussion with Dominae in the chatroom, I've decided to post this thread, and share some of my PTW DG knowledge.

quote: [Dominae] I'm just saying that the loophole is not to be forgotten. It will have its role to play. [Trip] Screaming "we have a loophole!" should be 10% of our diplomatic work with the other teams when this situation arises. [Trip] The other 90% is courting their interests.

This about sums up what I feel about loopholes, both my personal opinion and from what I've seen.

It comes down to the fact that other teams won't care if you have a loophole or not. They will not say, "Oh! Apolyton had a NAP with CDG but CDG broke the treaty on some weird unforseen clause so we forgive their honorable conduct." They will think "wow, Apolyton really screwed CDG over, we'd better not sign any agreements with them because they'll be planting more of these 'loopholes' looking for ways to screw us too."

However, that need not be the case. Which brings me to my second point.

While team X won't care about a loophole, they will care about other things, especially given your current stance with them. Right now we're on good footing with all of the teams on our continent, though CFC/CDG may be a bit upset with us for sharing knowledge of the alliance-to-be with GCA.

The key to successful diplomacy is to court the interests of the other teams which you want on your side. For example, if we cut off all contact with all civs from now on, then attack CDG in 30 turns screaming "loophole," then our relations with other teams will plummet, and they won't trust us any more.

On the other hand, if we actively discuss things with those teams, keep them on our good side, and most of all, give them reasons to like us, then we will soften the blow of a "betrayal" of another team via a loophole. If we're more friendly with the other teams than CDG (or another potential target), then chances are they won't mind as much. If CDG has blocked chokepoints, discussed alliances against other teams and such, while we have traded maps, tried to mediate a war and generally been easy to work with, then the other teams will say "hey, Apolyton has been good to work with, but team X has been a pain," and thus while they might not say it outright, they will be aligned with us "in spirit," if no where else.

Another big factor in these sorts of things is balance of power. The saying goes "nobody likes a loser," but the opposite is also true... everyone hates a winner. Right now our score is low, our military is "average" at best with all the other teams, and if (when) the other teams get a glimpse of our land, they will figure we won't be a threat. It's vital to maintain that image. If the other teams start to think that we're getting too strong, then they may start to support CDG. After all, we have a lot of posts stating "if one civ gets too dominant then we might have to get involved," since we don't want to see one civ or another become too strong.

That also works in another way. If a team fears your power, then they might want to get on good terms with you for that reason... so they don't end up being next. For example, if CFC and GCA are still sore at each other when we conquer CDG, they will not want to make us mad for fear of us allying against them with the other team (just imagine how powerful we'll be diplomatically if/when we take out CDG). However, if CFC and GCA are friendly, then they could very well decide they need to work together to take care of the new "Super Apolyton." Thus, it is in our best interests to keep CFC and GCA against each other and remain fairly neutral with both of them (if we ally with GCA against CDG, then CFC will probably be upset/scared about an Apolyton-GCA alliance... we want to be on good terms with the other civs, not to have one trying to use us with the other trying not to get pounded).

In the end sometimes it comes down to luck or random factors. Someone might be having a bad day and blow up on an ambassador from another team. That gets circulated throughout that team and they become irate. Sometimes teams just have grudges against each other (CDG, GCA and CFC for example), and sometimes teams will just want a chance to take down the top dog (us).

Diplomacy isn't a precise art, and you can't make queues or plans or test things out to see how things go, but there are ways to manage what goes on if you know what you're aiming for and what to avoid.

	17-06-2003 09:49									#2
	Put an end to popups!

I think you've summed it up pretty well

Just some observations:

- Loopholes are only meant to protect us from any action by the UN. I.e. we can legitimately claim not to have broken any treaty. Furthermore this excuse may be used to greater effect with other teams who we will meet down the road, sho were not pressent during the situtations which required breaking the loophole.

- Backstabbing is good as long as the other teams are ok with it. If GCA crushes CFC and CDG invades GCA and then we backstab CDG, do you honestly think that GCA will hold a grudge on us? Of course not, au contraire, they'll worship us like idols for doing that. Ad then tecnically CFC and CDG will be too weak or wiped out to do anything about us having backstabbed them

	17-06-2003 09:59									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I pretty much agree with you. The moment we start shouting another team down and saying "HAHA, YOU VIOLATED THE FINE PRINT" is going to be the moment when diplomacy in this game becomes difficult, because most teams will then be less likely to trust us and wonder what sort of doublespeak we have inserted into the latest treaty.

We should not really focus on loopholes at all.

	17-06-2003 10:06									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

That is very good, Trip.

I couldn't agree more. The use of loop-holes is a last resort, and must be accompanied by active diplomatic campaigns, and ultimatums.

If we jump on CDG and then say 'hey, we had a loop-hole' after the fact, others will regard us as backstabbers no matter how much we scream. If, however we inform the other party that we consider the NAP void by their actions, and then wait for their response, I am sure that we will be given plenty of ammo when dealing with hot-heads. We will also still be on the high road, having given at least a turn or two's warning.

	17-06-2003 10:08									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Just something I had to address, since it seems like every time there's a treaty to be written the most important part is "creating the loophole." If you're gonna screw someone over, just do it. People will either not care because they're your friends or what you did helped them, or they'll hate you for backstabbing the other team. That's how it works. Screaming "loophole!" is just for those who are too self-righteous to admit they're working in their own best interests and want to sleep better at night.

As WB pointed out, isn't the title of this thread cool?

	17-06-2003 10:14									#6
	Tired of ads?

I would also just like to point out that Active Diplomacy is and has always been the FAM's #1 priority. Loopholes are only there for them to "be there" in case we need it to cover our ass legally. They have never meant to be a supplement but rather a complement to active diplomacy.

	17-06-2003 12:02									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Good post Trip, but I also agree with MZ's last post.

	17-06-2003 13:11									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The problem is that technicalities to cover your ass may keep you out of jail (but there is no judge to send us there) but do very little in the court of public opinion. It is public opinion that we are dealing with, not jurists.

	17-06-2003 13:13									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Be that as it may, having an out to build on... saying to CivX that they have violated the treaty and we consider it void... is not a bad start in public opinion. It is certainly better than just crossing the border and commencing assaults on the local farm animals.

	17-06-2003 13:37									#10
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Very good post, Trip.

I wholeheartedly agree that what matters is not whether we would be able to "go to court" and win a case over "legality" of our (hostile) act, but whether other, not directly involved teams have reasons to support us or not.

As the whole affair around the Vox-GS war showed, nobody really cares about whether any written treaty was broken or not - since unless it's YOU affected by the treachery, you have other, more important aspects to consider than how much "legal" it was to attack or not... much more important ones - like your trading ties with both warring sides, their relative strength and in turn the danger they pose to you etc. etc.

Loopholes are fun, but won't save the day. nye's suggestion of saying "we feel the duty to inform you that according to blah blah blah, the treaty has been voided" is way better than hitting them and later screaming "they fell to our loophole!".

Again, very good post, Trip.

	17-06-2003 16:06									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The only use I see for a loophole is the fact that you can counter another loophole (or a similar action) with it.

	17-06-2003 18:29									#12
	Got spare money?

No-one seems to be seeing the loophole for exactly what it is, UN issues aside.

On it's own the loophole excuse will kill us. But together with a body of evidence advocating any action we take it is a valuable piece of validation. The loophole is great, but when we eventually attack CDG we need to have a press release for all teams discussing our decision - a declaration of war if you will, beyond a petulant "The point is now moot. In the face of their constant delaying tactics and attempts to fudge the issue we have taken action and the town of x is now dust. Goodnight."

Let us gather evidence for CDG's instability, threatening stance, treachery, opportunism and untrustworthiness. We have chatlogs somewhere of the first contacts with them, and that is why we have this pervading sense they are rogues. Their aggressive city placement and warrior movements, including the one that threatened our Iron for some time must be remembered, as must any involvement they have in the war as well as anything else they do from now on. Every time they misstep we must like paparazzi record it and use it in our justification.

We take only careful and considered decisions, and we must keep this image strong. Poly would never do something so drastic unless they really had some good reasons - this is the impression what we must instil in people longterm, and the fulfilment of the AltSp will be the perfect place to boost this image.

	18-06-2003 05:52									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Here, Here!!

MrWIA...

E_T

	19-06-2003 02:15									#14
	Re: A Sit-Down with the Eyeball: The Failure of Loopholes and Success of Active Diplomacy Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Very interesting stuff Trip

quote: Originally posted by Trip On the other hand, if we actively discuss things with those teams, keep them on our good side, and most of all, give them reasons to like us, then we will soften the blow of a "betrayal" of another team via a loophole. If we're more friendly with the other teams than CDG (or another potential target), then chances are they won't mind as much. If CDG has blocked chokepoints, discussed alliances against other teams and such, while we have traded maps, tried to mediate a war and generally been easy to work with, then the other teams will say "hey, Apolyton has been good to work with, but team X has been a pain," and thus while they might not say it outright, they will be aligned with us "in spirit," if no where else.

What are the best ways you've seen to get other teams to like you and favour you over someone else or "give them reasons to like us" ???

	19-06-2003 02:35									#15
	Inflate your Upload Space

Lots of things really. Regular contact and deals are a good thing (NAPs, borders, alliances, etc.), tech trade deals, and just general chats (like we've been doing).

Also, making sure we don't give other teams reasons not to like us is the biggest thing to worry about. Lots of simple things can make teams upset with each other, from simply not making it seem like we trust them ("oh, CFC, yeah, we KNOW you have contact with someone else, that's how you're getting all those techs..."), personal grudges which get out of hand, etc. Remaining "neutral" is often good enough with all the things that can happen.

Oh, and threatening another team never works.

	19-06-2003 02:43									#16
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Excellent points all around.

One point I'd like to discuss right now is how we're going to conduct our PR campaign come CDG conquest. While it is somewhat common to jump out and get the first salvos of a Propoganda war going -- blame the other side for the war and profess "victim" status ... I believe there is a better way to go about things, a way that strikes me as far more "Apolyton" in spirit:

We bluntly and politely tell the truth.

It would go something like this:

1) We politely inform CDG that by doing X action they've broken our Non-Agg pact and that we consider it void.

CDG goes crazy, yells at us, we casually and in a business-like tone repeat our position and make no threats or promisies.

2) Next turn we invade and formally declare war.

This gives them a slight warning and a chance to respond. It is not tactically sound but extremely diplomatic. If we need a tactical edge we leave it to our Consuls to decide if we will give them fair written warning or not.

3) On the same turn, we contact CFC, GC, and any other teams we have contact with and tell them:

We declared was on CDG because it was tactically sound, and we prefered to fight them at this point in the game rather than later when they could field a greater army.

We tell them that we have not decided if we want to conquer CDG or not, but we are definately open to negotiating with them at a later time.

We wish to continue our good relations with them, all trades and agreements will be honored, and we will try our hardest to remain in contact during this war to give them progress reports and news updates (everyone loves to watch a war).

We humbly request that they remain neutral and respect that this is between CDG and us. We may even point out that we refrained from getting involved in the GC/CFC war out of our respect and friendship for both sides.

We invite them to ask us questions and will do our best to answer them.

--Togas

	19-06-2003 03:05									#17
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Togas, you nailed it. Nice!

	19-06-2003 14:14									#18
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Togas 3) On the same turn, we contact CFC, GC, and any other teams we have contact with and tell them: We declared was on CDG because it was tactically sound, and we prefered to fight them at this point in the game rather than later when they could field a greater army.

Are you going to say something along the lines of, the war was an eventuality, it was going to happen sooner or later so much better for ACS to decide when the war should be than CDG decide.

Also if CDG join in the war with CFC against GCA is it likely that CFC will help CDG in this war?

	19-06-2003 14:38									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

CFC, may help, though not likely.

For one reason, we are too far appart, CFC has little to gain by joing CDG. Heck, we can even offer CFC a little something to guarantee their neutrality or even a Tech to join our side so that CDG has to watch out on two fronts!

For another, I suspect both GCA and CFC to be a little weaker after this current skirmish between the two. CFC will not be in a position to offer any help to CDG that would be worth while. Our attack on CDG will be pretty swift.

	20-06-2003 03:27									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Excellent thread. Man, am I happy to be on Togas' side! And where's Beta? (I am being entirely serious).

Can someone follow up on MrWIA's suggestion... make the case against CDG for when the time comes.

	20-06-2003 08:51									#21
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

If you WANT a propaganda campaign against CDG, I can certainly oblige; I have some real-life experience in that field.