29-07-2003 10:17									#1
	Wag the Dog Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So, GoW attacks us. How do we want to play this to other civs?

Waaah! They broke an NAP (while we signed a pact with Spain that pushed them to)?

Booo! They are barbarians, and they have proven it (while we have chased a civ to near extinction)?

Yay! There will be real war now. Bring it on! ??

What should we do when this festering sore erupts?

I think we should play mind games with them. We acknowledge the usefullness of the rider, and invite them to send more of them to Valhalla. We do not start any arguments about NAPs. That is for wimps. If they bring it up, we simply recite the litany of broken GoW promises and agreements. The CoL trade. The screen shots. The squirming on Chivalry. Now the NAP. We do not care to make an issue of it, but that is the track record.

Oh yeah, we might point out that an NAP is not an ROP.

	29-07-2003 10:53									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

We shouldn't ***** and whine at all. So GoW broke a treaty? How is this news? It was expected, that they would, after this record of broken promises. We knew from the beginning, that it wouldn't last the whole 30 turns.

	29-07-2003 12:44									#3
	Suffering from ads?

Definitely let them bring up the NAP first, just so they can be the ones to break that part of the agreement too. I agree there should be no whining.

	29-07-2003 13:32									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I wouldn't bring it up, just in case other teams believe GoW's arguments on how we were in breach of the NAP.

Otherwise, just play along. Our current hands-off strat seems to be working...

	29-07-2003 14:45									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

We can play the "GoW won't respect an agreement once they no longer benefit from it" card.

	29-07-2003 16:25									#6
	Remove this text

Agree on not being the first to mention the NAP. However, GoW is going to use the justification they sent us in public as well, in which case we don't whine, but have to keep our souls clean.

so:
1. GoW breaks treaties if they can benefit from it. Example: doctored screenshot, not landing in Stormia.
2. GoW was outmaneuvered diplomatically, after trying the same on us: first ask for a NAP, to keep us on their side of the ND-GoW backstab that they know is going to happen, then asking us to join on the RP gangbang for free (quite insulting to us), then being insulted when we play the same trick on them (using our NAP to protect RP)

1. , together with some "riders are so powerfull, they go to Valhalla 3 times as quick as an MI" stuff at first glance, 2. in case they keep attacking us. We have to keep Lego and Vox on our side for as long as possible (This can also be done in private, though). Nothing more, and certainly no line-by-line refutation of their comments, even if we would be totally in our right.

BTW, if we make them angry enough, they will start to do foolish things in-game too, I'm sure of that. Over-stretching an attack seems so GoW that it is scary...

DeepO

	29-07-2003 16:40									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

NYE, you want to write something up in advance in case GoW goes public with the NAP violation story?
Edit: I agree with DeepO's points.

	29-07-2003 17:00									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

How about we offer them to nullify the NAP? Throw the fear of God into them... bypass the damn public fiasco any "agreement" discussion becomes, and just get on with the killing.

GoW doesn't want the NAP, we don't want the NAP... so throw it out. Let GoW 'off the hook'... and into the fire.

If we really want to have some fun, plead for a 1 turn NAP removal cease fire, where no troops will advance into territory of the other party. Make them think they can hit Toledo before we can get there... make them act faster than they might want...

Drive GoW into a murderous rage....

-----------------------

Glory of War,

The rantings of an insane man about broken treaties holds no water. The fact remains that GS has not acted against GoW. GoW is now demanding that GS honor not only it's agreements with GoW, but GoW's agreements to ND? This is completely unacceptable. GS cannot be held responsible for the agreements that GoW enters into, or GoW's (in)ability to honor those agreements. This is what GoW's accusations boil down to: "GS is not allowing GoW to pass through GS territory so GoW may fulfill a contract." The other arguments are contrived at best, and laughable in some cases. GS does not exist to facillitate GoW's military ambitions at the cost of GS' wellbeing, and neither does the NAP.

The NAP is still in effect in GS' estimation.

It becomes clear the NAP is not what GoW wishes. It is not what GS wishes either. Both parties signed an agreement without fully understanding the limitations it would place on them in the very near future. We wish to help rectify this situation for both teams. To allow both teams to keep their honor, and refrain from either being subject to the spectacle of uninformed opinion that public debates become.

GS offers to agree to a mutual cancellation of the NAP if GoW reciprocates. GS asks one condition, a single turn of respite from being attacked or having units moved further into (or through) GS territory. GS will reciprocate in kind. GoW has moved into position to raze a city of GS while under the cover of a NAP, and GS would hope GoW has the honor to at least give GS one turn to prepare for the coming assault.

This is an offer that GoW may retain it's honor, while still having full right to act against GS to fulfill contracts. The single turn cease fire item may be negotiated, or others added, but the offer is off the table if GoW were to attack GS or move further into (or through) GS territory before an agreement is reached.

That is all,

Gathering Storm

Last edited by Aeson on 29-07-2003 at 17:24

	29-07-2003 17:10									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I like it, with one minor point: you say "It is not what GS wishes either"... that would be a admittance of guilt, that we deliberately try them to break the NAP. I would rather say "The situation has changed for GS too, we wouldn't mind not having to obey a NAP"

If this gets sent, it has to be send fast, before GoW attacks us in-game.

DeepO

	29-07-2003 17:18									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: like it, with one minor point: you say "It is not what GS wishes either"

Ok. I was trying for something along the lines of "come and get some, we're ready"... but it doesn't need to be so strongly worded.

It's certainly the stickiest point in the whole thing.

How about :

"Correspondence with the GoW ambassador appointed to GS makes it clear the NAP is not what GoW wishes, and that it will not be respected. GS is agreeable to allow the NAP to be nullified."

	29-07-2003 17:20									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I share DeepO's reservations about the "It is not what GS wishes either" sentence. I think we would rather have the NAP, and have them continue to observe it, but if they are going to attack we might as well cancel the NAP 'amicably' and avoid the public arguments. And I don't see any real harm in saying that to GoW in as many words.

	29-07-2003 17:22									#12
	Remove this text

Maybe it would be best to just use the last two paragraphs, with a small lead in?

	29-07-2003 17:34									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

well, I liked the rest of the alinea, it's just we have to avoid that we say: Hey, we know we're breaking a treaty, so let's cancel it. This is not what is going on, they are breaking a treaty, one that we wouldn't mind being broken.

I would even go so far that if they don't agree with the 1 turn delay (we could e.g. ask if they would at least have the honor of ending this treaty from without our territory), we could accept a fine for cancelling the treaty in gold... now that would certainly make them angry

DeepO

	29-07-2003 17:37									#14
	Support Apolyton

Good idea on the fine

	29-07-2003 17:40									#15
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

GoW can't attack us this turn anyway (unless they go for Bilbao, which is next to worthless). If we're going to offer them an exit out of the NAP, let us offer to end the NAP on turn 132, during GoW's turn.

	29-07-2003 17:52									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The cease fire included a 'no advancing into GS territory' clause, so would work the same way.

	29-07-2003 19:01									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I like Aeson's communique from "It becomes clear..." on.

In fact, I love it.

And I would agree to the words "An GS doesn't want it either."

Old IBM phrase about where you want customers' thinking about competitors:

FUD

Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

	29-07-2003 19:56									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The big question is, would Aeson's message be more likely to lure them into an attack now or to get them to doublethink themselves out of attackng quite yet? (I think we definitely want them to go ahead and attack; we'll have the numbers to stop them, and the more riders we kill, the fewer forces we have to tie up worrying about what GoW might do.) If they're already primed to hit Toledo as quickly as they can, nothing we say can help but it could make them doublethink themselves out of doing it. The ony way Aeson's mind game is a winning move is if their current plan is something other than to go ahead and hit Toledo.

So the question is, what do we think they'll do if we do nothing in particular beyond what we've already done?

	29-07-2003 20:03									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

What numbers will we have in Toledo next turn and the turn after? From what I saw in the chats and turn threads, We have three knights there now, which next turn get the fortified bonus. Next turn 3 vet and 1 elite pike arrive, and 3 vet MI, which all get the fortify bonus the turn after. So GoW can attack while we have 3 fortified knights and the rest unfortified. Plus 4 catapults.

Those aren't good odds. We run a 12% chance of losing the town immediately, and the single most likely outcome is that we lose 7 units, they lose 5 riders and have 2 retreat. Then they have 7 servicable riders against 3 defenders, which are probably a mix of wounded pikes and MI (no barracks in Toledo?), so we need large reinforcements coming up.

	29-07-2003 20:04									#20
	Increase the size of your Attachments

What they do? wait for ND. It looks ND was not able to breach the defenses at Zaragosa, meaning that RP can hold... if however ND would have won, and not seen any of our troops, I'm sure GoW would think twice, if they suspect 'large amount of troops" from us in RP.

OTOH, they have ND to think about, and if they really didn't tell them so far we have a NAP (which I don't buy, BTW), ND will be pissed for sure. So they could pressure GoW to finally fulfill their contract, which ND has paid upgrade money for (where else would GoW get the gold to upgrade 14 horses to riders, while researching Chivalry at near max speed)

DeepO

	29-07-2003 20:06									#21
	Full PM-box? Change here!

vulture, it's more then that: 7 more knights are on route, and will be in Toledo before they have the chance to attack.

DepeO

	29-07-2003 20:08									#22
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Vulture, Toledo has walls (I'm not sure if you put that into effect) and barracks, and we'll have 6 extra knights by the time GoW attacks.

	29-07-2003 20:22									#23
	Increase Your PM Length

When is the soonest they can hit us? The turn after this next one?

If we can manage to delay their attack for one turn over that, wouldn't we have the Great Wall?

-Arrian

	29-07-2003 20:24									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Edit: wow, a double-post edited to be used as a normal post!
Arrian, we'll have the GW in 3 turns. That means that GoW has this turn (the one they're holding right now) to get into position, and the following two turns to attack, and afterwards we'll already have the wall, if my count is correct.

	29-07-2003 20:30									#25
	Suffering from ads?

Hmm... looks like we'd need to delay them for 2 turns if we want the GW to be done in time for their attack. I don't see that happening.

So nevermind that angle.

Given that, Nathan's right - we want them to hit us soon, so we can deal with it and move on to other things (helping RP against ND in the West).

-Arrian

	29-07-2003 20:32									#26
	Got spare money?

I included walls, and assumed Toledo is on grassland/plains (not hills). The turn they are currently playing, they can move onto one of the mountains near Toledo (T98 or T96), then we make our next turn's move, and then they can attack. So only units that get there on our next turn can defend.

Still, with 6 (or 7) extra knights obviously we can't lose. Amazingly, the effect of the extra, unfortified knights is that GoW come off worse than we do - 6.3 riders lost on average, compared to our 6.0 average loss (1.7 riders retreat from combat). I'd guess we lose 1-2 pikes and 4-5 knights, so in terms of shields worth of units lost, we come out ahead (they lose 1.8 knight equivalents more than we do, about 120 shields), and have better production to replace the losses. Looking nice now.

	29-07-2003 20:33									#27
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

There are walls and barracks in Toledo, so it's fully equipped from a defensive perspective. Only six of the seven knights en route will be able to reach Toledo in time, but that would give us nine knights (three fortified), four pikes (one elite), four cats, and three MedInfs against GoW's fourteen units.

Actually, now that I think about it, having GoW wait a turn could be good for us because the additional units that reach the city next turn would have time to fortify and additional knights could reach the city. And if GoW dilly-dallies around longer than that, at least they won't be in their GA (although I'd still rather start ripping into ND and shifting wealth and production generating capacity back from ND to RP).

	29-07-2003 20:33									#28
	Got spare money?

The only problem here is that, while the 6 extra knights (so 9 total) will make sure we hold Toledo, without more pikes, those knights will do most of the defending. Combat losses will be very expensive. True, they will be expensive for GoW as well, since Riders cost the same as Knights, but it would be nice to trade pikes for Riders instead (though at least the Knights will prevent retreats).

-Arrian

	29-07-2003 20:34									#29
	Tired of ads?

I think the more we scare GoW, the better. Things sound... interesting on their team. We want to give the more hesitant among them something to work with, but not so much that more aggressive don;t win out.

In other words, I am hoping for a one turn delay in their attack on Toledo, but not much more than that.

	29-07-2003 20:37									#30
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Actually, now that I think about it, having GoW wait a turn could be good for us because the additional units that reach the city next turn would have time to fortify

Very true. Delay helps us from a tactical perspective in Toledo. It may hurt us, however, from a strategic perspective re: RP vs. ND.

-Arrian