RBPitboss #2 Athlete4life10 & Kalin

[athlete4life10]

You gave rego's email twice.

Corrected

Thanks!

[Cyneheard]

You expect us to object to double-dealing with diplomacy? HA. Deceit is part of the game.

Follow what agreements you've made, yes, that matters. But feel free to deceive as much as you want. It makes the :neenernee moments later that much better.

[athlete4life10]

You expect us to object to double-dealing with diplomacy? HA. Deceit is part of the game.

Follow what agreements you've made, yes, that matters. But feel free to deceive as much as you want. It makes the :neenernee moments later that much better.

You know I actually talked myself into believing somebody would. Probably somebody still will whether they communicate that or not. But really should I just lay out our attack plan for them? Comforting to know there are lurkers out there who support it .

And on that note I've got a response to draft up.

[kalin]

How far do you want to take the lets discuss and then declare war? I'm good with playing "we want peace" right up until the end but I'm also good at some point letting them know we won't be coming to an agreement. It will give us a much greater chance if we can keep them believing we're peaceful longer.

I would discuss peace with them all the way, and even when the war started we'll keep discussing peace There's no point imo to let them know our true feelings yet. At the moment however it's important for a few more turns to try and pretend that we won't attack them.

To that end I am suggesting to say that making that road was a mistake and that the worker was there to chop. I see to choices:

1) We can pretend that the road was a miss-click, and a chop was meant. This is a bit risky, so we probably shouldn't use it, but I leave it as an option.

2) We can say that we discussed building a road, and then you, Athlete (sorry you have to take the blame ), misunderstood and while you thought it was weird you did it anyway. We should then chop this turn, but not end turn so that we can stop the worker again. We can keep chopping next turn too depending on the time of the attack. I want them to see the worker chopping. We can also use the other worker once the forest is chopped to put the last road turn if that fits the time of the attack. (Sorry I am quite tired and am not fully aware where we are with the turns...)

I think Momaw should start moving next turn. If they ask, I think we should say we were fogbusting and are escaping a bear. The warrior by the new city is 5 turns away so I don't think it can take part in the action, but should keep moving towards Paris anyway.

Kalin

[athlete4life10]

Kalin and we're able to get together for a chat over gmail to make sure we were on the same page and here's what I drafted up and sent to Byzantium as a result:

Hello Byzantium,

First my apologies if it seems there's any delay in our proceedings. RL has taken over for both Kalin and myself and with both of us with young children it can be hard to co-ordinate on things that are at times of smaller priority . Tonight I find it is my children who are sleeping and as such get diplomatic duties !

Let me first try and respond to each issue individually.


I guess the first thing that we were confused about was your saying in your last email that you did not want a missionary from us because it was "mutually beneficial". Now, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but I thought that was the whole point? I was looking for ways that we could work together, in ways that would help both of us.

It was not that we did not want a missionary but more that it is not much in the way of "compensation" as it is mutually beneficial. Of course as you mention you do have to invest the hammers into a monastery and then the missionary itself (or go to monotheism and get to Org. Rel.) but naturally that is what you will do anyway. Time is the varying factor in that equation. How quickly would you get us the missionary? Obviously if you prioritized it right now (which I somehow don't believe I'd be able to convince you to do) I believe it would set back the expansion and/or military of your civ so there are probably other priorities for you other than to spread the one true faith right at this moment!

But the impression some of the folks on the team are getting is that you are not really looking for cooperation, but instead some sort of punitive damages? But that doesn't seem to make sense? I would appreciate if you could explain that a bit more so I could take it back to the team.

I don't think punitive damages is the right term here. I think we feel given that upon our initial meeting you wanted a "long term nap" and under that negotiation tactic you then settled very aggressively towards us; that made us feel that if you really want a peaceful relationship with us you should build that trust back with us in some form of compensation (hence these negotiations). My belief in the word "compensation" used in this context could be defined as something like this: Some form of payment from you to us, that does not necessarily pay you back. By no means does it need to punish you (subtract from your civ) as well though. Hopefully that explains our stance to better your understanding but definitely feel free to ask questions. Communication will be key here I think.

The other point that you had mentioned in your email was regarding a division of the land between us. We are happy to discuss the best way to divide things up and think that it could be very fruitful, since with such an agreement, it might allow us both to focus cities in other directions.

Very glad to hear this. I think if we can come up with a fair allotment of the land it could lead into a much longer term relationship!

You may have somewhat of the advantage of us, since you have scouted towards our capital while we have not scouted as much towards yours (though we can see your borders and divine the location). As you can see, we are very boxed in - with coast to the north, the Greeks to the east, the Incans to the south and yourselves to the east. That was the major reason for us founding Paris in its current spot. As for future locations, you had mentioned wanting to settle SW of Paris. One member of our team wanted to clarify that you meant southwest (that it wasn't a typo). He was confused as to why you would want to settle lands that were so far from your capital. Obviously "southwest of Paris" can mean a lot of different things, but it looks to be about 12 tiles from your capital (e.g. the same distance between your capital and ours), which seemed far. If you did in fact mean southwest, it seems that we would also have to bring in the Incas and/or Greeeks, right? I would hate for the two of us to decide something regarding those lands only to find that the Incas or Greeks have settled in that direction.

I believe here we will need to reach an agreement before we proceed any further. I can not believe we would have to race the Inca's or Greeks to the location we seek. As mentioned in game to Rego in the brief chat we had, the Inca's are to our south east. The Greeks are also too far away as we said SW of Paris not of Athens. ***checks in game specific spot*** What we would like is to reserve the right to settle on 1 of these 3 locations:

1) 4 South, 1 Southwest of Paris
2) 3 South, 2 Southwest of Paris
3) 2 South, 3 Southwest of Paris

I believe currently # 2 is favoured by us but that may change due to circumstance. To be clear what we are asking for is the right to found on any of those 3 tiles (our choice) though if things go well and our relationship develops as we hope, when it comes time to found we would listen to concerns from Byzantine about any of the locations.

I know that you had mentioned other units besides a missionary, but here were some of our concerns with that. Let's say we give you an axe (just as an example). Then, later on, you decide to declare war on us. What happens to that axe? Is our own axe used to attack us? Does he have to sit out the war? Or be given back to us? Similarly, what if we are attacked by someone else? Can we "borrow" our axe back to help us defend? It seemed like there would be a lot of strings to any type of agreement involving a transfer of any type of military units.

Honestly we just kind of threw this one out there not thinking it a strong possibility. If you are open to it we can discuss this in detail and try and dictate how we use the unit under certain circumstances. At some mutually agreed upon point though the unit(s) would rightfully be assimilated completely into the Ottoman culture.

So, our proposal is that, should we be able to come up with an appropriate border division, we will gift you a worker, on a mutually agreed upon turn. While a worker can be used to aid in battle, it is not quite the same threat as an axe or other aggressive unit. Also, we will offer that the worker's first job will be roading between our 2 lands, to allow us (hopefully early!) access to 2 coin foreign trade routes.

This is probably more realistic then (and more wanted) then actually getting a military unit. Given that you are Exp. this probably interests you more as well. Perhaps we should go down this route rather than the military unit as there seem to be many more complications to be discussed through the military venue.

Also since you touched on it in a 2nd e-mail re: Owen roading the tile in our 3rd ring next to your border. Kalin and I had a brief discussion regarding you're e-mail and the trade routes. I was left with the impression we were to road a path to Paris (like I said it was brief) so I do apologize for the mistake. However don't mind him now as since he's there I figure we'll nick the forest just in case your 3rd ring were to threaten it at all .

I think that has covered everything. If there are any questions you know where to find us and hopefully we can be more expedient in the future .

May the force be with you. Always. :D (just in case you've recognized our naming convention)

Athlete for A/K
Ottomans

[athlete4life10]

So I ended up sending a second e-mail to Byzantium. Here's to hoping that waylays any concerns they have. Any lurker thoughts about these e-mails? In particular did I over do it?

Greetings again Byzantium,

I thought given that we are starting to talk specifics of land arrangements we should let you know we plan on founding a city to the North of Paris along the coast. Reason I bring this up is I don't want this to be an issue down the road. Also an opportunity to remind you of something you stated in the initial e-mail to us after founding Paris.

"So you will have undoubtedly noticed that we have settled our 2nd city in your direction. We did not intend this to be an overly aggressive move towards you, but we can understand that you would have preferred us to settle in other directions. We thought long and hard about where to settle, and in the end decided on this spot. It is 6 tiles from our capital and (if I have pegged where your capital is) 5 from yours, so approximately in between us. Needless to say, we do not plan on founding any cities further towards your lands."

The key here stating you do not plan to found any cities further towards our lands. I read that to mean that the remaining land is ours so we could go plop a city down right on your capital's border (on our side of your border) and you'd be ok with that. Not that we plan on doing that but I don't believe this city should be a problem and it does leave you room for another city on the north between your capital and Paris as well.

I look forward to keeping this relationship headed down the right path.

Athlete for A/K
Ottomans

[athlete4life10]

Well Byzantium's power graph just went up. Can a lurker answer me this?

Are the graph's up to date to the turn immediately before the current one? Eg. It's currently T54. Does the graph show all data up to and including the data gained on the interturn of T53-T54? Or does the data lag a turn?

Either way it looks like a warrior has been produced. It's possible it came out of athens however I need to run some #'s first to confirm.

[athlete4life10]

So below is food/growth for Paris: and the 2nd set of #'s is for production #'s for Paris.

*t57 - size 2 09/24
*t56 - size 2 06/24
*t55 - size 2 03/24
t54 - size 2 00/24
t52 - size 1 19/22
t51 - size 1 16/22
t50 - size 1 13/22
t49 - size 1 10/22
t48 - size 1 07/22
t47 - size 1 04/22 border expands, works deer
t46 - size 1 02/22 Lands buddhism
t45 - size 1 00/22 founded. works grass/forest

Which would mean:
*t57 - size 2 13/15
*t56 - size 2 10/15
*t55 - size 2 07/15
t54 - size 2 04/15
t53 - size 2 01/15 warrior produced
t52 - size 1 14/15
t51 - size 1 12/15
t50 - size 1 10/15
t49 - size 1 08/15
t48 - size 1 06/15
t47 - size 1 04/15
t46 - size 1 02/15
t45 - size 1 00/15

*Not yet played

So we'll probably face atleast 3 warriors, 2 fully fortified. There's a possibility of facing 4, 5 seems pretty slim though possible . I figured those #'s by working backwards from T54 (current turn) with the understanding Paris just grew to size 2. As such I believe the current graph I have displays the information up to and including the interturn of T52-53 (so a turn behind I think). If I'm correct we'll probably see another slight rise next turn as they grew in pop (so long as they don't build anything in athens or research a tech next turn).

Also if we don't take Paris on the first try it's going to be very difficult to take it at all. Still I'm feeling cautiously optimistic about where we sit currently. I'll update that on T57 .

[Cyneheard]

For this turn (T54), you get the bar graphs for last turn (T53). I interpret that to mean you don't know what they produced over the interturn, but I might be wrong.

[Rowain]

@Rowain: can you please clarify a bit as to why our proposed move would be legal. Shady has a good point here.

In Pitboss1 (which rules have been taken over in this regard) following rule has been removed by vote:

Any civilization declaring war must wait 9 hours from the war declaration to move any military units. Part B only removed by vote.

And part of the reason behind removing this was to allow Sneak-attacks as usually in Civ performing successfull non-sneaky attacks is difficult (alot of advantages for the defender)

But in all honesty it is not up to us Lurkers to decide your moves or if they are according to rules or whatever. Any Rule-discussion is a thing you players have to do. There is really no need for you to justify your moves to us Lurkers