[SPOILERS] Serdoas thread

[Serdoa]

Thanks PB. I have corrected the link now. I do not understand how I could copy/paste that wrong though. There is a button to give you the code for posting pictures to the forum and I use that button, delete the ".th" in it (so that it not is a thumbnail) and normally that worked. Weird.

[Serdoa]

Email from Dazed arrived today in the morning:

Serdoa,

Thanks again for your patience today as I am just getting a chance to sit down and play now. I took a look at the situation and wanted to communicate with you regarding the place we find ourselves.

Let me share the situation from my perspective: I discovered you were planning on settling south after being under the impression that you would settle north. I have already admitted this was a mistake on my part. I have also noted and hope you will believe me when I say that I was not intentionally ignoring your message, but was simply unable to find the time to write a response.

Since you chose to settle towards me without an agreement in place as well, I felt that it was my duty to do everything I could to secure a location to my north if possible. You accused me of failing to communicate with you regarding settling, but you also did not communicate with me. I had no choice but to assume that you were trying to milk any advantage you could. I do not blame you for attempting to take an advantage when possible but I also am looking for advantages. I saw no reason not to try to find one myself.

You'll note that I have actually settled closer to my capital than you did to yours, making your second city location an equally--f not more aggressive--location.

I was surprised that you chose to settle in a location that allowed me to take the coastal spot that I originally wanted and that I had expected you to take yourself--I couldn't have beaten you there if you had wanted it. I can only assume that you must have considered the possibility that when you left a coastal location open with TWO fish resources that I might want to settle there!

If I had not taken this spot, your own cultural expansion would have controlled the location and resulted in you gaining BOTH spots and left me with no feasible northern settling location. I have already agreed with Scooter to allow him the southern identical spot based on the assumption that everyone was going to settle north. My only options were to settle north or have two neighbors surrounding my capital!

I do realize why you would not like my settling location as it is very close to your location. However, since we did not have any agreement in place, I have not broken any promises. If you choose to attack Aslan's How, you will be the aggressor in this war and I will not be able to leave that act unanswered.

All of that said, I do not believe that war is in either of our best interests. We are still very early in the game and putting resources into an unnecessary war will only lead to both our empires to fall behind our opponents. On such a crowded map neither of us can afford to be delayed in expansion. To that end, I would like to pursue peace discussions with you. I have offered a cease fire in-game in hopes that we can work something out amicably.

I would very much like to hear your perspective on the situation and am open to suggestions as to how we can avoid escalating this conflict any further. I would like to offer a goodwill pledge that my next settlement will head south in order to avoid any more border conflicts between the two of us and am willing to hear any suggestions you have.

While I do not want to delay the game beyond reason, I suggest that we work this out before we continue to play turns making decisions based on incomplete information.

I look forward to your response,

Dazed

Summary: He wants peace and is willing to give up any more settlements into his north for it. Well, there is one issue: There is no settlement to his north which would make sense anyway (and he implicitly wrote that in his email too...). So, he basically wants peace in exchange for nothing. I do not think that that will work.

[Serdoa]

I answered Dazed. See below. Summary:

- he gifts me his city
- he receives a settler and a galley
- he does not culture crash me
- he does not settle on the other continent somewhere more north then his cap is

I basically want him to gift me the city. I have no issue with giving him a galley and a settler for it. Question is always if he can use those. And yes, I could raze the city, kill his warrior and his axe and do not think anymore about it instead. Though then I will have somebody right next to me who will probably try to kill me with and starts to produce axes and only axes. I can defend against that, but I rather would not need to. I think in the end I will win more by this. If we get the deal going, I tell you why.

Dazed,

Let's be honest here: You intended all the time to settle north and did not only "want to secure a location to your north" because of my settlement. But all others talked with two parties to make sure that deal works and you missed that possibility. Anyway, all that is past and does not matter anymore.

Right now you are in a dire situation:

1. The place you choose to settle is not defendable
2. If you lose the 65 hammers invested for your second city, that will probably make it impossible to win this game

You talked in your emails about advantages and clearly I am in an advantageous position here. I guess you will understand that I see no way in giving that up only for your "willingness" to place your next settlement south - especially as there is no spot left in the north to settle for you. What you also should understand - by my war declaration and the way I have ordered my troops - is that I do not fear a war nor am I unprepared. And due to being Exp and Imp and having a second city, I can hold up expansion while a war with you - something you cannot do. Even if you put your capital in war mode, you cannot hope to raze one settlement of mine and you will be in a clear losing position.

Now, I understand from your email that you CAN settle south, so you did not give up all of it to scooter. I think we can also agree that you do not want to be out of this game completely and that I would like not to be in a war. And I can assure you also that you will not find anyone to help you - I think we can both safely assume that ALL other players want us at war.

So, where does that get us? It gets us into a situation were I am willing to give you a chance to go on with this game in a winnable position (but I am not willing to accept your 2nd city where it is, as it will culturally crush my city to soon) and at the same time I want to get back the time I lost due to our settling dispute. The only way I see for that to work is the following:

- you gift me your 2nd city by the end of this turn
- you will get a settler and a galley gifted by me
- you will not settle in a way that your 2nd ring borders will be within my 2nd ring borders, except if we talk about it before and I agree with it (what I will do if you need to do it to get a resource)
tbd: - you will not settle on the other continent more north then your cap is

By this proposal you will lose your 2nd city now, but you will get your hammer investment back + a little bit more for the time lost. This will also get you in a position to get onto your island and the continent to the east (probably first to do so) and you should already know that our continent here is not really the place we need to worry - there is much more land to our east, around 1100 land tiles (our starting continent has 416, to give you an idea).

If you think that I will win more by this agreement then you, consider that I am Imp and if I had not to build axes for this, I would now already have my third city and nearly 4th city - I am not here to win anything, I only want to get the time back I lost due to it. Also if you settle fast enough on the other continent, you will still have a good chance to win this game.

Consider also that the only other solution I see is to raze your city - you will not get anything back for the hammers invested in this case, and you will also lose the warrior and potentially the axe there. If you want, you can throw nearly 100 hammers away, but I hope you will agree that this will not help you to stay in competition.

Dazed, when you read this, you might think "No way I am doing that". If that is the case, re-read it and understand that your only way to survive this and be able to still win this game is to agree to it.

Kind regards,
Serdoa

[Serdoa]

(I have splitted that in several posts as our emails are quite long I think)

So, his answer to my email:

Serdoa,

Thanks for writing back quickly! I have re-read your proposal multiple times and have a number of comments and questions. While I understand that simply settling south for my next settlement would not be in itself enough, I meant it as a starting place not an ending place. That said, you are clearly trying to continue to press an advantage:

"- you gift me your 2nd city by the end of this turn
- you will get a settler and a galley gifted by me
- you will not settle in a way that your 2nd ring borders will be within my 2nd ring borders, except if we talk about it before and I agree with it (what I will do if you need to do it to get a resource)
tbd: - you will not settle on the other continent more north then your cap is"

You are trying to secure all the lands to my north on the starting continent as well as to the east! I simply cannot agree to any negotiation that includes arrangements like "TBD" and unending agreements regarding settling. Also you are demanding my second city this turn but did not indicate at all when you would be gifting the settler and galley. I find that totally unacceptable because it gives you a third city immediately while delaying my second city numerous turns. Do you even have Fishing research? Sailing? how long would it take to build said galley and settler?

I do not believe you would have anything close to a settler at this point. Sure, if you just built three straight settlers, maybe. But even in SP game that would be an insane way of expanding that is asking for trouble.

You are right that losing that city will put me behind but to suggest that will automatically cost me the game is not true and shows that you are using fear mongering to attempt to get me to agree to your terms. At such an early turn in the game with so much still to be determined, I do not consider my position hopeless if I do not choose to accept your offer.

If you are open to making amendments to your suggested agreement, I would be glad to entertain them. If I agreed to gift you my city, that would require very specific timetable for a settler and galley from you and I would not agree to any other game long binding agreement as that is clearly an attempt to push your advantage further.

Dazed

And my answer to it

Dazed,

I think I tried to be as clear and possible and obviously missed that, I am sorry. Let me explain:

- TBD meant that I do not see it as needed, rather nice to have. I am fully ok with completely getting rid of that part.
- settler and galley were mentioned without a timeframe so that you could let me know what you want and do not think I try to bind you to a specific time
- gifting this turn of your city is necessary because of your advancing axe

Yes, I am working from a better position, but that is not meant to be unreasonable. Basically, I am fully ok if the deal is

- your 2nd city is gifted to me this turn
- you receive a settler and a galley (time to be told from you, though sailing will only be discovered turn 30 I think, so turn 35 should be possible [and yes, I have fishing already ])
- we do not try to culture crash the other (same as before, both bound to it [I meant that already last email but I see that it is not clear from it])

Well, and the last point, we get peace with each other, guess that was clear though

I hope that is now clearer. If you think something needs to be clarified or an amendment is needed let me know, I am open for that. I will wait with playing my turn and hopefully we can get a solution today.

Summary: He did misunderstand some parts of my email - probably because I did not write them exact enough (well, thinking about it, why should I?). Anyway, I told him what I want, lets see what he thinks about it. If we cannot get a solution before I play my turn, his city will burn. I cannot hold up this strong position when his axes comes nearer and I will not let it enter the city.

Hopefully, we can get to a solution.

[Serdoa]

Interestingly enough many posts in Dazeds thread but no answer from him - maybe we should make a poll to come to a conclusion?

Being serious: I will not wait any longer for an answer. We had that sort of "game" already once.

[Serdoa]

So, Dazeds answer finally arrived and ... well, read for yourself

Serdoa,

That timetable is simply a non-starter for such an agreement. If I agree to your terms, I lose the city. If I don't agree, I lose the city. Your best estimate is that you would complete the galley and settler by turn 35 (10 turns). Even if that is accurate, it will then take a few more turns to get it into my lands (probably 3 more turns) followed by three turns minimum to get the settler and galley to a location to use them, which will be even further delayed by the fact that I have not explored the eastern island at all yet. In other words, you get a city immediately while I have to wait at least 15 turns to get a city in exchange.

If you step outside the situation for a moment I think you would have to agree that giving you that sort of advantage far outweighs the loss I will incur if you simply raze my city. For me to agree, the timeframe would need to be close to if not instantaneous. That is I get the settler the same turn you get the city. Otherwise, I would be allowing you to be TWO cities ahead of me for 15-20 turns. That is definitely a WORSE situation that letting your raze Aslan's How and coming back from only being ONE city behind.

Do you have a settler available now?

Also, since you claimed that the only reason that the gifting had to take place this turn was because of my advancing axe, I have moved him and my warrior away from the city to prove my good intentions. If you decide to attack now, I cannot stop you. Let's keep talking about it. I know there is a better solution.

Dazed

Well, I will have a settler available next turn, but I will not do that. He is right that he would have been behind 2 cities for 15 turns, but he forgot then that we would be at equal city count afterwards. Well, now his city will burn and thats it. I do not feel like discussing that forever when he is probably producing a warrior there AND advancing two warriors to my 2nd city.

So my answer:

Dazed,

to start with the end of your email first. You also could not stop me to raze it, if you had advanced the axe. I would raze it, would have two axes there and you would have one axe in front of them which would have a 50/50 chance to kill one axe - and 100% chance to be lost afterwards.

Advancing to the other part of your email, I think you do not understand how generous my offer was. I gave you the chance to get peace, settle peacefully AND get a settler and a galley as a bonus. If you do not want to take it, I am fine with that. I am really sick and tired of that discussion and I will not wait till you have another warrior in your city AND advanced your two warriors in the west to my 2nd city.

It will burn, we'll be at war, end of story.

Serdoa

PS: However you came to the conclusion that it would be a better deal to lose 75 hammers (settler+warrior) instead of receiving 20 (or whatever a galley is worth) is beyond me. And your thinking about city counts is also wrong. Lets assume we both would produce settlers equally fast. We would be at 3-1, then I build a settler and gift it to you and we would be at 3-3 (+galley). But you rather want to make it 2-1, 3-2. Ok, so instead of easy catching up, you stay behind one city (well, more due to me being Imp, but anyway).

[Serdoa]

Turn 24

was a nightmare for C&D. Everyone got score points. Maya, Inca and Otto received a tech. Maya and HRE got 1 Pop. Soldier points increased to 26000 (Dazed for sure), 26000, 22000, 20000 - and there is a bunch of possible combinations available who got how many points.

I know from talks with TT yesterday that he researched Hunting. So that are 2000 for Ottos, going from 18000 to 20000. Maya gone up to 4 pop, getting 1000 points, up to 22000. Inca was at 20000 and HRE at 26000.

So we have

26000 (HRE)
26000 (either Inca with another Quechua + TW or Maya with TW or Ottos with an axe)
22000 (either Inca with another Quechua + a tech without soldier points [twsp from now on] or Maya + twsp or Ottos with a warrior)
20000 (either Inca + twsp or Ottos)

I cannot see a way to differeniate them. Inca and Maya both had 4 turns to research since there last tech, so both can have the same techs discovered (except for Archery because Inca does not have Hunting). I could ask scooter again, but I already asked him and TT last turn because there were 2000 soldier points for either the one or the other. I would not like to do it again. Still I have TTs demos, so next turn I should know if he is the one with 20000 - though I rather have him with 26000, because then I would know that 22000 has to be Maya and 20000 is Inca. But I fear he will be the one with 20000 and I will still have no clue...

And so that we have not a page only with dumb diplo-messages and text, a screenshot of the turn 24 demos:



As you can see, I am bad in GNP, but I do not care too much right now. I am first in MfG and Food though in both my lead is rather small to non-existent. I am first in soldiers by a good margin (nearly double of the others) but I would have rather liked it to be first in GNP and last here and have no war... well, you cannot have everything.

Other then that from the pop points we know that everyone except Maya has his second city up already and only Ottos have 3 pop in there cap, everyone else has 4.

[pocketbeetle]

Just a quick thanks for the coverage so far, you've kept the lurker thread busy!

Some say they would have taken your offer instantly, others say they would have called down a 1000-year curse on your children and your children's children for such outrageous demands.

[Serdoa]

Turn 25 played. I have decided against razing the city this turn. Reasons are several:

- I could calculate from the EP-screen that he has only 3 hammers in a build in the city - the most he could have was 9, but appearently he did not work the 1/2 tile but instead a x/0 tile (probably fish). Maybe he realised that another warrior would not save him anyway.

- I could kill his warrior with my warrior (he moved him out of the city)

- after that kill, I realized that my warrior is easy to kill by his axe (oversight on my part). I wanted to kill that axe anyway and really pondered long if I should take a 25% battle and hope for luck. In the end, I decided that I have 3 axes around, another one finishing soon and he has only that 1. If I could kill it, I would be in a much better position to save my 2nd (and in 4 or 5 turns 3rd) city. So I took the chances and won (with 0.6 health left, but thats ok)

- he is moving two warriors to my other city, so my 2nd axe near his city, had to change his path to reach my city next turn. I will finish a chop next turn too, so I would have had 2 warriors in there anyway, but after winning that axe-battle I thought "Do not trust the RNG"

Screenies:

Overviewshot of the fighting area



I've not gone through demos for this (respectively last for Dazed) turn, but I think the two warriors you see are the last troops Dazed has right now. Maybe he has produced last turn another axe, I'll find out. If he hasn't, then I might move my damaged axe 1S and if he still has not another time 1S to finally see his cap. Though I think he will have something by then, so probably not doable with 0.6 health left.

The axe next to my 2nd city will enter it next turn, exactly before the 2 warriors of Dazed can hit it. That should be enough to prevent it from being captured (as it will grow next turn).

The other axe 1N,1NE of the city is still undecided what to do. I will get around turn 29 the 3rd city, so maybe he will already go there to make sure the area is save. Again, depends on what Dazed has produced.

As you can see, I am researching Pottery right now, as my GNP needs a little bit of love with soon to be 3 cities. And also because TT is going for AH and will tell me in 5 turns where we have horses. Right now Pottery takes 2 more turns (picture is from EOT), so EOT 27 if the whip does not change that. TT should know EOT 29 - have to think what I research in those 2 turns.

Also another Worker will be finished soon (it's time, it's really time...). He will build roads to connect my cities then. Oh, and another axe will also be finished. Have not calculated it exactly but I think it should work with settler on T26, Axe on T27 (+grow to size 3), Worker on T29. Well or settler, worker, axe. Depends on Dazed.

My other city will probably produce a monument (I should be save with an axe and a warrior in there, I do not think I need to produce another warrior with the chop, but I have to think that through till next turn) on EOT27. So, EOT32 I should get the border pop. I could have it on EOT31 if I had thought this round about chancing the tile from the corn the a 2/1 tile. Well, nothing I can do right now about that, but I think it will be early enough anyway.

[Serdoa]

Hey PB. Interesting to hear that. I would really like to know why some think that it is a outrageous demand? I have already grasped from Dazeds email that he seems to look too much about what I gain instead of looking on his gains and losses. Maybe some are doing that too in the lurker thread?

Lets try to examine it as objective as possible:

- he will lose his second city either way
- he will either still have war with a stronger opponent or be at peace and able to start with the catch-up
- he will either get nothing or a settler and a galley in 15 turns
- he will either be able to settle peacefully or will always need to send 1-2 axes with his settlers to make sure his next city is not burned down again

So, from my point of view, my offer was very generous. I trade him a settler and a galley for a city. Yes, sure, I will have another city then (for being at 3). But then he receives a settler and can have produced another settler and would be at 3 too. What does he gain if he does not take the offer? He will be at 1 city for now no matter if he takes the offer or not and then he will be at 2 cities instead of 3.

Did I ask for much? Yeah, sure I did. Did I put him in a bad position? Yeah, sure I did (and intentionally btw). Is his position now even worse then we he had taken my offer? Yeah it is.

And to give you a little bit more insight on what my thoughts were:

- I knowed from scooter that Dazed will go for the 2 fish spot and really wants it
- I knowed that a city on flatland will be hard to defend and that he, being Cre, would crush me with his culture if I settled that spot
- I therefore intentionally settled on the spot where I did for several reasons

a) better defenses
b) a "reason" why I move troops there, so that Dazed is not suspicious
c) getting Dazed to settle that 2-fish-spot
d) being in a position to raze that city and get the whole land to my south (having already secured half of the land to my north)

So, I really set up a trap since turn 18 when I first moved the settler. I was sure he would be so feared by my Imp, that he would try to take the 2-fish-spot no matter if he can defend it at that time. And he exactly did that.

And now, I am trying to get an advantage out of it. The reason for this war was only to get the land to my south and cripple my neighbour in the process if possible. And that has worked. Getting his 2nd city gifted would have only been a bonus. I really made that offer only because I thought he is with his back to the wall, so I should give him a way out. I am sorry for him that he did not take it, as I really see some hard times coming for him (especially as I think that scooter will be on my side when I tell him my secret plan for getting Dazeds cap - I only have to find out what scooter is willing to pay for it, as I will not do the work and not get anything out of it).