Niccolò Machiavelli's Thread

[Ichabod]

Diplomatic points are worth nothing. I'd just tell to their face, straight, that the only logical place for us to settle that still gives us a chance to win this game is towards them. No amount of good will or promise of cooperation can make up for our only chance of winning. Then I'd say that they really can't argue with our logic.

Than I'd say that our only benefit as a team is quick expansion. Again, no amounts of cooperation or good will can make up for our adavantage loss. So we'd only be willing to negotiate settling agreements and the like if they favor us. Not exactly favoring us, but they need to reflect the current balance of power between our teams in a possible settling race.

I'd also say that not settling towards each other with the first city is just a way of delaying the solution of the obvious problem that both our teams want to expand as far away as possible. So we don't see the benefit in such an agreement if it's not connected to some sort of borders discussion, which, again, will take into account that we are Sury of India.

Seeing that one of their neighboors already attacked them, it'd be interesting to see what they diplo-machine would do to answer us.

[plako]

Concerning GLH - I'm gradually starting to feel we would be better of not trying to get it. There seems to be quite a lot of good land towards the centre of our continent and GLH distracts us from claming it. We just need a totally new micro plan and we need it fast.

[novice]

I think I agree with the two preceding posts.

[darrelljs]

Okay, I'm on board with the "we're settling the gold" plan; I still think the initial draft was okay:

We are indeed working on our reply. Basically the problem we are in is that our micro plans already revolve around settling a city in your direction. Our opening is...unconventional to say the least and we have not found a great alternate plan. The silver lining we are trying to emphasize is that the city is well within our sphere of influence and we are more than willing to settle away from you afterward. To prove our intentions we'd be happy to work out a mutually acceptable border agreement, would that satisfy?

If their reply is "it doesn't satisfy" we'll just have to say "it's unfortunate we could not find an amicable resolution" or similar. I think plako is right we need to send something ASAP. I'll send this out in about 6 hours unless I hear objections .

Darrell

[uberfish]

Well my guess is that Gillette are thinking about building GLH too. It's a natural fit with vikings after all.

[novice]

If we're scrappimg GLH our third city might be for the copper towards Gilllette - no need to tell them that, but maybe no need to promise settling away from them either.

[novice]

Well my guess is that Gillette are thinking about building GLH too. It's a natural fit with vikings after all.

Very true. Their rush might be about finalising their own micro. If we're ambivalent about the GLH anyway, why not ask them about their plans? Offer a no-compete in exchange for that forward city spot, for example.

[spellman]

I'm on board for pushing to settle the gold.

Although if they're a bit peeved about it we don't have to walk away. We can make concessions of a sort and still work together. I don't see it as part of an ultimatum, more of a probing request on their part.

[plako]

We should definately be settling our 2nd city towards them. Best spots are the gold and city NW from our capital.

[darrelljs]

Okay I'm sending that reply then.

Darrell