New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[kengel]

It is hot and dry weather in greece. Wine consume increased dramatical

[SlowThinker]

Tecumseh, indeed you are a repelent person. We are all kind and naive people.
Is there any place where the article is debated?
I have a strange dictionary, it says a piker is a coward.


Pharaoh, I see the Egyptian officers are overworked: they didn't notice the message was for Persia. They shouldn't work on pictures and the Hush-Albr-Nautil evidence so hard! We are long-suffering...

[SlowThinker]

...continuation from last page
Paranoia
Until now Babylon left the area between Bab and Persian cities absolutely free of units. I didn't talk about Persian paranoia after Persia announced she has a skirm on AlKabir near Nimrud, because I admitted Persia has right to be cautious. (Nor I talked about paranoia after we sent a screenshot of Babylon to Persia but Persia didn't reciprocate.)
But we started to be 'paranoid' after we found out Persia decided to solve our land dispute by force and simultaneously acquired CharTac.

>he has pushed a scout across our border with no explanation

We answered your question in a message already, did you get it (subject: Bab-Pers land&security dispute)?
* The skirmisher is less in Persia than your skirmisher in Babylon (the one on Al Kabir river NE from Nimrud).
* In contrast to Persia that moves strong units in disputed area without warning Babylon used a skirmisher and announced she wants to reveal the black area and Persia didn't complain.

>ST finally admitted - "it doesn't matter what you say, I don't believe you anyway" (paraphrased).

Again a misunderstanding. The precise words were:
'For Babylon is most important what you do and not what you say.'
I mean acts have a greater value than words.


Techs
>Our Babylonian ally ... has generally refused to help with military ones, especially CharTac (Bab security again). In fact, he demanded that Persia NOT get that tech...

About ally - see my last message.
I don't know which military techs I refused to help with. In fact I couldn't help with any tech because Babylon researches no techs because of the 47 tech limit that affects hides.
In 2680 Persia announced she wants to acquire CharTac in 5-10 turns. Because of large money that was generated by the CA cooperation I asked Sinbad that we don't acquire CharTac and buy C4s from 3rd party civs. In 2670 Persia traded for CharTac and forgot to warn Babylon. So we traded for it too. That's all, except it helped us to be 'paranoid'.

Borders
>Borders: This is a very recent source of conflict, which I thought was still under discussion until this week

I don't think this is recent. We had a short debate about it just after The War. Babylon sent a map with proposed borders, Persia said that it was reasonable but she disputed 2-3 squares. But then Sinbad didn't have time to continue the debate.
I didn't urge it because I thought we must reach an agreement about borders very easily. We depended on the mutual trade and so I supposed we would offer security to each other happily. But Sinbad didn't share this view and thought security was a subject of trade. For example: The borders weren't agreed yet, but Sinbad asked money for right to inspect upper Al Kabir:
'Pay me 30g in 2600BC for the right to inspect the area once, at any time you want during the next 10 turns. ... The value goes up by 10g per turn.'
I was outraged after such proposals, but maybe I should be more forgiving to foreign customs.
(I must admit Sinbad came with this idea only twice and last he agreed Babylon shortly (and for free) visits the upper Al Kabir and leaves).

I should explain Babylon and Persia agreed on one thing: The base for the debate should be location of cities after the war: Tushpa, Kyrousata, Susa in Persia and Nimrud, Negru, Hekallush and Arraphka in Babylon. So if we say '3 squares from Bab cities' we mean '3 squares from Bab cities at end of the war'.
Several methods how the land could be divided were mentioned, but we didn't agree which one to choose: distance from nearest city (by air), movement-distance, distance from capitol, convex hulls (lines that connect cities of one country)...

To be continued: details about borders (I am not sure if today)
I won't comment and correct the old and mid-old Persian history, because I think it is not so important, and Sinbad is not sure he has as much patience left as Pharaoh as shown . But I am ready to do it if you want.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Tecumseh, indeed you are a repelent person. We are all kind and naive people.
Is there any place where the article is debated?
I have a strange dictionary, it says a piker is a coward.

That probably applies as well. I don't recall the article being debated much, but I'm sure it could be handled over at Scenario League.

[Straybow]

We can sympathize with our Persian brothers. The Hatte heartland lacks grasslands, and the few fertile wheat plains were of little advantage until methods of crop rotation were developed.

When we sought to build cities in Silicia our neighbor became jealous and made war against us. Didanu lusted after every blade of grass to the West and to the South. We do not see this in Sinbad, nor in Ra.

We wonder if the gods themselves weary of this debate. They offer us no signs or portents. We must look elsewhere for answers.

Hear, now, this truth of the world. We have toured the farthest reaches of the Kingdom of the Silver Throne. Our wise men survey the maps and traveler's reports of distant lands. Our vizier concludes there are no exceptions. Good defensive terrain comes with the penalty to food and growth. Blessings of fertile land come with a certain defenselessness before the wheels of the chariot.

Each King must live with his portion of this truth. Have we complained that the plains of Silicia and Mesopotamia do not protect our subjects as well as the Silver Mountains of our homeland?

We believe our Southern ally has driven himself mad trying to make the flat plain into a mountain. He would force neighbors to concede to every fevered demand.

ENOUGH! Our council falls on deaf ears, so we will listen to these rantings no more.

He who would drive away his friends will have only enemies. In our long alliance with the Minoans we have found that good friends are better defense than the most rugged mountains and thickest walls.

[SlowThinker]

Sorry, doublepost in place of edit.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Straybow II
Good defensive terrain comes with the penalty to food and growth. Blessings of fertile land come with a certain defenselessness before the wheels of the chariot.

It looks Great Straybow missed the problem. The problem is Persia wants the defensive terrain near Babylon AND trade with Babylon. Babylon said if no security then no trade (since Babylon is not a puppet).

In the western Bab-Pers borderland Babylon never claimed any square ouside of perimeter of Babylonian cities (as they stand at end of The War) - we asked Sinbad twice if we can build Zariqum. We only sent one proposal and questioned Persian claims. And if Great Straybow looks in our personal correspondence he will see The Immo clearly stated Babylon won't fight with Persia for these squares.

Edit: bold and 'twice'

[Peaster]

Sinbad thanks King Ramses and King Straybow for sharing wisdom. The Babylonian rebuttal to our detailed Persian history is already longer than the history itself, so I will try to respond briefly - mainly to Bab remarks that imply some Persian trickery. While I do not agree with all the Bab statements about borders, IMO that kind of negotiation is best done privately.

Also, enough has been said about Bab paranoia and the Bab notion that Persia is ahead of them. I answered Bab fears about Persian spending in several emails, but it seem ST refuses to hear. Without grass, Persian growth is expensive. Persia must pay more than Babylon for granaries, food vans and irrigation. We have also built 2 wonders since the war (far less threatening than Sargon's Arsenal IMO).

BTW - Persia has tried unsuccessfully to calm Bab fears by suggesting a Bab/Pers no-back-stabbing rule, by offering a deal involving screenshots of the Tushpa/Kabir region, and/or a swap of Defense Minister screenshots (if legal). ST was not appeased and replied that such a rule could be broken and Persian screenshots could be falsified. My interpretation that ST does not trust me much was based partly on comments like these.

Bab scouting: ST has just reminded me that he once asked to scout some black areas south of Susa. This was many emails ago and I have forgotten all details, but I accept his explanation.

IMO the Bab complaint about scouting fees is overblown. IIRC Persia claimed the land between Lakes Van and Urmia in an email to the Babs long ago. Later, ST asked me how much of the Al Kabir I wanted, and I said the northern half. I don't recall any Bab response to this (until recently) so I have assumed this land to be Persian, though ST now disputes it. So, IMO the Bab demands to scout this region conflicted with Persian no-scouting policy. I did not feel I could enforce the rule with one civ and not another, but neither did I want to be completely inflexible and feed Bab fears. So, I proposed that we seek compromises, such as screenshots and/or a scouting fee. ST said no... The End. Actually, I recently offered to admit a Bab scout for one turn free, but ST has not followed up on the offer. DISCLAIMER: This paragraph is intended to honestly explain Persian thinking about the fees; but I have not checked all 400 Bab/Pers emails to see if my memory of these events is 100% accurate.

Chariot Tactics: I told ST that Persian tech choices were not his business, unless he intended to help (which was part of our original CA plan) or to make deals. I knew he was researching CharTac, and that most (all?) other civs already had it. I told him I wanted it too, hopefully within 5-10 turns. I was surprised that a friendly King offered it in 2570. I did not bother to tell ST because he had been so annoying about it, and because it wasn't necessary - He examines his DipSys (Marco Polo) data with a microscope every turn anyway. This incident seems minor to me, but ST reacted with great anger and unreasonable border proposals, so IMO CharTac fear is a primary cause of our recent conflict.

ST asked rhetorically "So, why do you want to end CA?". Obviously, I don't. ST is stopping it himself, against my wishes, based on some twisted logic about Bab security and fear of becoming an over-sized Persian puppet. I took Bab fears seriously for a long, long time, but have eventually realized ST uses "security" as a diplomatic weapon.

[SlowThinker]

The message of King Straybow and his words about 'fevered demands' puzzled me. Therefore it would be very beneficial if Sinbad could say if there was anyting wrong within these words:

Originally posted by The Immortal
In the western Bab-Pers borderland Babylon never claimed any square ouside of perimeter of Babylonian cities (as they stand at end of The War) - we asked Sinbad twice if we can build Zariqum. We only sent one proposal and questioned Persian claims.

[Peaster]

The statement is essentially true, but the Bab "proposal" included demands for Bab security, including large neutral zones extending far into land claimed by Persia. And IIRC you "questioned" Persian claims with phrases like "completely unacceptable" and "impudent".

Straybow's statement is also essentially true. IIRC your 2890BC claim to all grasslands south of the Zagros was a non-negotiable demand. It's fair to say that you demanded that Persia not learn CharTac. IMO you also demanded that Persia pay for your cities and roads, and to leave any Persian grassland cities unoccupied, etc. Some of this is debatable, I guess, but "feverish demands" seems pretty accurate to me.

[SlowThinker]

>IIRC your 2890BC claim to all grasslands south of the Zagros was a non-negotiable demand.

Sinbad, are you able to think objectively? Imagine a reversed situation:
The Immortal dies ... no, this is a nonsense, he leaves to another dimension. A new Babylonian King comes and says: we have only few shield-producing squares, so we would like to change borders. We ask the area around Rhagae.
Are you saying this is not a demand?
Let us say Sinbad answers "no, we don't accept any change of borders".
By your opinion this Sinbad's answer would be a non-negotiable (fewerish) demand?
This sounds absurd for me.

[SlowThinker]

An image lost after a preview...

[SlowThinker]

>And IIRC you "questioned" Persian claims with phrases like "completely unacceptable" and "impudent".

Why completely unnaceptable? Except a short area around Tushpa all claimed tiles are 2-4 squares from Bab cities and 5-7 squares from Persian cities. For example you claimed a square 2 points from Arraphka (although you were so 'kind' and signified you can give in and accept a DMZ zone here) - the black point on the map.
Why impudent? After you claimed territory near Babylonian cities without good reason, you told you were willing to sell some territory back to Babylon or to accept deals about scouting.

Legend: The picture shows the position of cities after The War (we agreed borders should be related to these positions), I added current situation: new city Zariqum (it doesn't have right to affect borders) and units in borderland on Bab map.
Persia claimed the blue line (but said she can accept a DMZ in western part - Zariqum and Arraphka)
The black points shows tiles 2 squares from Bab cities that were questioned by Persia (I asked if I can build a city near Nimrud but there were (soft) reservations)

[SlowThinker]

Sinbad, to help you to get an objective view on my perspective imagine a hypothetical reversed situation:
Babylon claims the green line but can negotiate about some deals, to sell some land back, slightly give in etc. You see a Bab C2 and BI near the line and a skirmisher on the line. Babylon is helpful and agrees that you can shortly scout the land behind the line for free.
How would you respond?
(BTW I made the line similar to yours according to air-distance. If I used move-distance it would be even closer to Persian cities).

And now remember, how you were resentful if I only questioned points in that area, and this only after Persia also questioned points 2 squares from Bab cities.

[SlowThinker]

Since recently in personal correspondence Straybow II demonstrated an absolute understanding to Babylonian concerns about security and suddenly he published his words about 'fewerish demands', I asked for an explanation and Straybow promptly answered: Straybow sees how Sinbad bargained away all his Mesopotamian holdings, yet this isn't enough for King ST.
I didn't consider this history to be important but now I see I must comment it too (next message).

Dear Straybow, you may be right that I am gauche towards my friends and I will think about it. Thank you for the notice.
But if you say your friend has driven himself mad, this for a consideration of words of another friend, and simultaneously you don't want to listen words of the first one ... this doesn't seem to be a best way how to treate with friends...