DIPLO THREAD

[DNK]

I really think we can discount early rushes on this map, so what's the issue with giving away our location? Are we that vulnerable somehow that others would choose us over Inca or anyone else? I really doubt this civ/leader combo is going for an early rush. Perhaps if it was a much smaller map we ought to be worried about the quechas, but with 20 tiles between us and a ton of barbs, it's just a non-issue. By the time they have the tech and army to tame the barbs fully, they'll know where we are anyway with scouting and we'll have had time to figure out their real intentions and abilities (like in 50T or more).

The only real concern would be them passing it off to another neighbor we haven't yet met that they have, but I'm not sure again how much of an issue that would be, especially as if we do have that common neighbor, the Inca can pretty quickly figure out where we're coming from (somewhere W or NW). Are people gunning for us or something? These are the sorts of tail risks that shouldn't concern us so long as we maintain a respectable army. If we keep a skeleton crew, yeah, we have to be worried about all manner of boogeymen in the shadows, and it's going to hurt our ability to build up good faith relationships with our neighbors. But this talk of standing armies is moot for now since no one has a significant standing army presently.

I'd rather build up that good faith with these guys by not being overly protective of this minor secret. I understand wanting to hold off on it, but being cold and overly cautious is just a good way to prevent proper trust from being formed, I think. If we keep them in the dark, we're sort of adding anxiety into the mix that we don't need to (on their end).

Give a little now, reap bigger rewards down the line.

[Calanthian]

I'd rather build up that good faith with these guys by not being overly protective of this minor secret. I understand wanting to hold off on it, but being cold and overly cautious is just a good way to prevent proper trust from being formed, I think. If we keep them in the dark, we're sort of adding anxiety into the mix that we don't need to (on their end).

Give a little now, reap bigger rewards down the line.

Good point.



Maybe we should propose a border to them:

"the lands beyond the desert near Mount Gondar"
and if they make a counterproposal with the river as border, then it is also fine..

[DNK]

Non-Aggressive-Expansion Pact for 55T (NAXP-55)
I think just coming to an agreement like this is preferential (though I'm unsure of the tile distance we should consider, though 12 seems appropriate off the top of my head:

Binding Terms
Both teams agree to not aggressively expand in the direction of the other for the next 55 turns. "Aggressively" means to found a city more than 12 tiles lengths from their capital city tile (diagonal tiles count as 1.4x length) in the direction of the other team. This treaty cannot be unilaterally terminated by either party alone, though it may be by the agreement of both parties.

Non-Binding Terms
Furthermore, both teams will prepare for discussions on a final, fixed border line during this period. Within 40-45 turns, both teams will begin discussions on such a Fixed Border Treaty for the rest of the game (FBT-∞). This should give adequate time for a final border treaty to be set before this current NARP-55 treaty terminates. If such a fixed border treaty cannot be finalized in time (both teams understand that issues with scouting may delay such talks), then a second NAXP treaty should be arranged for 25 turns while the talks continue.

55 turns was chosen to avoid potential misunderstanding due to the similarity of the acronyms for the NAP and NAXP.

Start smaller and integrate things into a larger framework with clear steps towards more advanced and friendly treaties/relations, imo. No need to go whole-hog off the bat!

Plans for the FBT would include:

1. The border, ofc
2. Non-militarization of the border (maximum military strength limits within X tiles)
3. A separate OB treaty
4. No cultural wars (hermitage, wonders, great artists, cathedrals, etc, banned - though not theaters and buildings that serve other purposes)

Non-Aggression Pact for 50 turns (NAP-50)
Obviously, we should do this.

Preamble

Whereas both teams recognize that early wars are detrimental to long-term growth; Whereas both teams recognize that an early invasion with such distance between capitals would be hazardous without any benefits; Whereas both teams wish to develop long-term positive relations and a "safe flank"; Whereas both teams wish to pursue peaceful economic ends; Whereas both teams want to be prepared for attacks from other teams/directions, we agree to the following as part of a series of steps towards friendship and/or alliance:

Binding Terms
Both teams agree to not attack the other militarily, with sabotage, or by giving assistance (units, gold, or strategic information) to a third party that is known to be planning an attack on the other for the next 50 turns. This treaty cannot be unilaterally terminated by either party alone, though it may be by the agreement of both parties.

The spirit of this agreement is to be friendly, mutually unaggressive, and not to assist third party teams in harming the other team in the agreement. The wording on "3rd party assistance" is somewhat vague. If any situation presents itself that a team feels may break these terms, they should be brought to the other team's attention and discussed. Ultimately, we want to be friendly neighbors, and should act in accordance with what is normally expected of "friendly neighbors" in any typical real-world setting. For example, telling a thief how to break into your neighbor's house is not considered acceptable anywhere as "good neighbor behavior", nor is talking openly in public about your neighbor's expensive gold coin collection or plotting with someone to break his windows with bricks. Doing a Civ4 version of any of these would be a breach of this treaty.

Non-Binding Terms
Both teams expect to come to a renewal of this treaty before the current treaty terminates. Talks for a second treaty should be started no later than 40 turns of the signing of this current treaty, and the second treaty should be finalized no later than 45 turns of the signing of the current treaty. The second treaty will include a "cool down time" wherein the treaty may be cancelled unilaterally after a delay and set period of non-cancellation. The second treaty may have other differences beyond that.

Friendly Relations Pact for 50 turns (FRP-50)
This is for all the extras that we don't need to connect directly to the other treaties.

Binding Terms
Both teams agree to open borders (OB) in 25 turns. The delay is because only one team can currently access the other's borders, which would make a quicker opening unfair to the German team. Furthermore, this will give time for a trade route to be discovered hopefully that will benefit both teams with increased commerce.

Both teams agree to not send significant amounts of military units through the other's territory without prior consent, nor to stage attacks from the other's territory without prior consent. Minimal scouting is allowed, however.

Both teams agree to not spend more than 200 ESP points against the other team, though fewer are preferred. Unfortunately, due to limited contact with other teams, setting the bar lower may prove impossible for either team. A second agreement would limit ESP point accumulation to the same level, as by then fuller civ contact will exist.

Both teams agree to share information about other civs contacted when asked. The nature of this information will be limited to simple facts: where contacted, where located, and hostile intentions towards either team if present (this includes "idle chatter" of invasions or anything that could be considered "potentially hostile communications"). A more developed information sharing treaty will be agreed upon hopefully later. Let's keep it simple for now.

Regarding this information sharing, things that ought to be shared with the other team are anything that the first team would not want to be kept secret from it were the situation reversed, whether it be due to potential threat to the team or something signifying that a third team was not being honest or forthcoming with them. Again, this is up to the discretion of both teams, but let's try to be "good neighbors".

This treaty cannot be unilaterally terminated by either party alone, though it may be by the agreement of both parties.

Non-Binding Terms
Both teams agree to review and renew this treaty before it expires, within 40-45 turns.

[DNK]

So, yeah, my 2c on how to go about this

We should spend some time hashing out the wording, as we're likely to reuse whatever we agree on with other teams we meet. Creating a bunch of distinct, different and oddly worded treaties with each team is just going to lead to issues, but of course other teams will feel the same and might have their own. As such, I suggest we make it look professional enough, but not overly legalese, to be more attractive and official sounding than what others are using. Also, I feel excessive legalese just points to someone that's going to find any old loophole (not that we know anyone like that ), which is why I like to include good faith clauses and explanations and future intents: finding a loophole and exploiting it is still a breach if it goes against that.

Suggest creating another treaty (permanent) that clearly states a "good neighbor"/"good faith" definition that can be applied to any treaty, just to save space on all treaties. This may include multiple levels of "good faith", from basic "good neighbor" behavior to "friend" behavior to "ally" behavior.

[Dinner]

Wow, that's pretty darn involved for a treaty.

[Calanthian]

I say we first communicate more, gain trust and then come with a treaty.

Many small steps are needed. As Robert said:

Regarding deals and offers, I suggest that we do not make too many deals too early, let's just invest in good relations first,

It's now four days since their answer. We need to respond.

[DNK]

Well, I've tabled some proposed wording, we can work off of that or someone else can propose something different...

[Robert]

Concept response:

------------------------------------------------
To the people of the Incan Empire,

With pleasure we have read your kind response.
We, the English people, seek trade, friendship and trust with our neighbors. Therefore you are most welcome to visit our cities. Please bring goods for trading. As a gesture of our long-term friendly intentions we offer you to not aggressively expand into your direction.

Sir Ro Berth
Chief foreign Advisor of our beloved Queen Lizzy

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

1. Answering their request to visit our lands with kind but hollow words without directions
2. Make it clear that we seek long term friendship
3. Make an offer that shows our good intentions without asking something in return, but in such a way that they are forced to respond to the offer by doing the same. Offering without asking explicitly increases their friendly attitude towards us.

I think it's a brief and simple message that will help to slowly build up strong relations without binding ourselves too early.

And remember, they're germans, they started World War 1 and World War 2, we should be prepared
j/k

[Calanthian]

------------------------------------------------
To the people of the Incan Empire,

With pleasure we have read your kind response.
We, the Apolytan people, seek trade, friendship and trust with our neighbors. Therefore you are most welcome to visit our cities. Please bring goods for trading. As a gesture of our long-term friendly intentions we offer you to not aggressively expand into your direction.

Sir Ro Berth
Chief foreign Advisor of our beloved Queen Lizzy

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

One tiny, but important change

[DNK]

Sounds good for a simple response I suppose.

[Calanthian]

Has message been sent??

[Ben Kenobi]

Remember, the hope here is to lock down someone into a longterm alliance. The more we can solidify that relationship the better.

Yep - Ozzy's right here. I have no issue with permitting them a friendly mission to our capital in exchange for mutual cooperation.

[Dinner]

Cal, isn't it spelled Apolyton and Apolytan? We should get our name right.

[Robert]

To the people of the Incan Empire,

With pleasure we have read your kind response.
We, the Apolytan people, seek trade, friendship and trust with our neighbors. Therefore you are most welcome to visit our cities. Please bring goods for trading. As a gesture of our long-term friendly intentions we offer you to not aggressively expand into your direction.

Sir Ro Berth
Chief foreign Advisor of our beloved Queen Lizzy

[Robert]

Dear Incan Neighbors,

We have a message of high importance for you!
Please be aware that near your city of Worms a group of dangerous panthers is hunting!
Your group of Quecha warriors, located south-west of Worms, will be within their hunting zone if it moves to the south, the west or the south west.

Our group of warriors are fortifying themselves as we speak on the hills near Worms to protect your city against these panthers.
We will inform you as soon as we have neutralized the danger.

Sir Rho Berth

Chief foreign Advisor of our beloved Queen Lizzy