New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Pharaoh
Anyone can go back to pages 102-104 and read the series of posts that take us through 2460 and see that Egypt had no proof there even WAS a "City of Agade"

So in 2490 Egyptians missed a Babylonian warning...

Originally posted by The Immo in 2490
Although there is a lot of signs 'district Agade' on the ground, it looks Egyptians ignored them and moved ahead towards the city.

... and Egyptians didn't dare to ask Greeks or Minoans or Hittites for a confirmation of the Bab words about Agade. Egypt simply preferred to lock two Bab skirmishers "into a no-move position" for 4 turns. An interesting way how to de-escalate.

Originally posted by Pharaoh
we had asked to view it as part of a good-will, unilateral border de-escalation on the part of Egypt. Of course this request was refused by Babylon

It looks Egypt believes a best way how to de-escalate is to refuse Babylonian requests for goodwill and then put forward her own requests: First Egypt refused to announce Egyptian units approaching to Bab cities, then she secretly moved the Tramplers in the area of Tutub-Agade, and then she asked a goodwill...

Originally posted by Pharaoh
so by 2460 Egypt gave up and left the area, and we have been moving away ever since. Which is EXACTLY WHAT PHAROAH said.

[Kull]

More hissing from the Great Serpent.

[SlowThinker]

We inspected situation after Persian orders.
Indeed our skirmisher in The Disputed Areas has been bribed. A Persian Iron Infantry has entered The Red Zone just on banks of Arrariver.
We request it is packed in a barter and sent to Babylon immediately. We request the skirmisher is packed back on the original position next year.

Persia stopped to answer our questions long time ago, still we repeat two questions that stay unanswered:

1) ZOCs of the gezeer

Originally posted by Sinbad
Furthermore, we intend to scout our borders in the most peaceful manner left to us. Babylon objected strongly to stacking scouts on the T-line and we listened patiently. Then they expelled our diplomat, needed to bypass geezer ZOCs without stacking. We probably have to bribe the geezers now,
Originally posted by The Immo
How clever! Now Persia sees 2 lines from the Spine downwards to Babylon because of ZOCs of the gezeers. Persia will bribe the gezeers, and suddenly the ZOCs will dissapear and she will see only 1 line down. So Persia will have to send scouts downhill.

BTW why is the "scout" so fat (an Iron Infantry)?

2) New Persian foreign policy

Originally posted by Sinbad
We probably have to bribe the geezers now, but according to our tests, this will not start a war. Babylon will do that.

This is a very serious pronoucement. It seems Persia claims she is rightful to do anything that Gods won't reckon as a start of a war. Then you claim also a right to walk in deep Babylon for example (because Gods know nothing about accredited part of borders between Persia and Babylon). We ask an elucidation, otherwise we will believe the new Persian foreign policy is valid.

[Kull]

Egyptian interpreters continue to labor over the Babylonian tablets. Here is the original cuneiform:

Originally posted by SlowThinker It seems Persia claims she is rightful to do anything that Gods won't reckon as a start of a war.

And here the key phrase is translated:

1) Persia claims she is rightful to do anything that Gods won't reckon as a start of a war = Persia peacefully removed Babylonian trespassers from Persian soil.

[Straybow]

Hatte viziers and Senators are confused. Straybow himself is confused. Talks of peace, or at least of detante, so quickly rejected?

[Kull]

Originally posted by Straybow
Hatte viziers and Senators are confused. Straybow himself is confused. Talks of peace, or at least of detante, so quickly rejected?

Pharoah cannot speak for Persia, but Egypt has no immediate territorial issues with Babylon. And now that the provocative actions against our skirmisher have ceased, there is nothing on that front either. As for the "War of Words" between Babylon and Egypt, nothing will stem that until and unless Babylon pulls back and ceases her aggressive actions inside the borders of ALL her neighbors.

[Peaster]

AFAIK Babylon does not want to negotiate with Persia, preferring to make unfounded public accusations and demands. She has responded extremely rudely to our offers. If Babylon DOES actually want a talk, I'd suggest asking politely for a private one, where egos are less of an issue (eg email).

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Sinbad
Babylon does not want to negotiate with Persia, preferring to make unfounded public accusations and demands. She has responded extremely rudely to our offers.

This is an interesting overture, especially if one strives for peace talks.

Babylon has absolutely no reason to debate with Persia privately or secretly. (We will talk privately, then Persia will spread out that "Babylon responded extremely rudely to her offers", and we will ruminate our private talks here with many quotes for weeks. We did it here in past.)

Persia accomplished two extremely serious steps and Babylon asks an explanation again. I guess also other Kings are interested if the "New Persian foreign policy" is valid and what was the logic of the bribery of the gezeer.

[Zedd]

So much distrust and tactless maneuvering has left these three nations in a rivaled mess where no one can even eloquently state their true concerns. Bickering about past troop movements and past land agreements will only continue to worsen these situations. I for one have gotten lost in the back and forth and no longer can truthfully say I support any of these nations claims with certainty.

(In the words of Minoan minstrel Stephan Tai-ler..." If you do what you have always done you will get what you've always got.")

Immo, My friend and ally you have grown your Babylonians to a mighty nation through superb planning and vast expansion. However it is the expansionism that your neighbors find disturbing. You have expanded nearly to your boarders limits and now will have to decide to either "mingle" with your neighbors and give up your coveted "security zones" or you will have to try to assume more territory. (which will only result in war.)

You must also accept that Egypt and Persia will remain distrustful, as I am sure you will of them, and trust can only be re-built over great lengths of time.

Sinbad, while I appreciate your stance in these disputes I must say that the bribing of Babylonian units surprises me. In most cases that act constitute a military action and an assault on the Sovereignty of the other nation. While I firmly believe that it is your intent to avoid a conflict I know also you are resolute in protecting your people. I hope your plans remain focused on peaceful (though sometimes heated) negotiations rather than military might.

To all, I fear that without drastic changes in your diplomacy war is a foregone conclusion.
Have you already begun battle plans; do you now have thoughts of how your attacks will be carried out? If so, do not delude yourself...you are an aggressor. If your plans are to fortify heavily and plan counter attacks, you will need them, unless you put forth the diplomatic effort to resolve your conflicts through negotiation.

[Peaster]

Originally posted by Zedd

Sinbad, while I appreciate your stance in these disputes I must say that the bribing of Babylonian units surprises me.

Well, I announced it in advance and Pharoah explained it very clearly a few posts up. IMO you might wonder why Persia left the unit there so long. What would you do if Babylon disputed squares near Knossos, and posted skirmishers there to spy on you and block your ZOCs?

To ST: I explained this action in some detail already, and can't imagine what you are confused about now. It was less offensive than booting my envoy from Persian ground. If you want the geezers back on Bab land please contact our embassy.

I hope your plans remain focused on peaceful (though sometimes heated) negotiations rather than military might.

I have stated MANY times that I mean to DEFEND Persia from Babylonian invasion. I have never crossed the T-line, nor claimed rights beyond that line, as Babylon has done. Yet Babylon calls my peaceful statements "lies" and my offers are "threats" and clever tricks. ST has claimed for hundreds of years that Persia will invade Babylon at the next sunrise. IMO these claims got pretty ridiculous long long ago. I hope that you see that now, and will trust Persia a little bit.

@ST: Why I should explain the movements of unstacked Persian infantry in Persia to you? You neglected to mention that my unit faces an identical Babylonian infantry unit, in the disputed zone at (135,45). Or, that you have moved Bab iron infantry to within 4 squares of my capitol, at (144,50).

Thread Nonsense: We resent being lumped with the Babs as trouble-makers (if that has been implied). IMO Babylon's loud and lengthy screaming about movements inside Persian borders may obscure the simple truth that Babylon wants our land. I'd hope that perceptive Kings need only occasional clarifications by Persia. Surely some Persian anger has shown through as we've attempted that. But IMO Persia has contributed far less hostility and distortion to the thread than the Babs, even at some risk of losing a propaganda war. And IMO this could also be said of Egypt and even Assyria while dealing with the Babs.

I am glad to see Kings asking questions - maybe the best way to clear up the BS.

[Straybow]

These are the same questions Kings have asked from the start. Hatte analysts see the conflict in the Zagros proper as distinct from the conflict in the Zab al Kabir (separated from the Persian heartland by a great lake, swamps, hills, and strategic cities).

Until a few turns ago, the only Bab units on the Zagros Mts proper were 1 Skirm on the Iron (132,42) and 1 Skirm at the Arra-headwaters (135,45). Bab also had 1 Skirm on the Tushpa Line at (128,40).

Arra-headwaters is only 1 tile outside the original city radius of Arrapkha, and may be reasonably considered Bab territory.

It was in that situation that Persia complained about Bab encroachment and began build-up on the border near Zariqum.

Two or three Skirms do not an invasion force make, nor even "spies" as they are encamped in rough terrain and immobilized by Persian ZOCs.

While Persian diplomats are more civil Hatte policy sees this as a fully two-sided conflict with no greater blame on one side or the other.

[SlowThinker]

I welcome my friend Lycastus showed concern about the situation. From his words I hear a strong and hearthy wish that peace stays in the world.
Lycastus, please, invest your time and read carrefuly what Sinbad, Immo and other Kings say.

Originally posted by Lycastus
However it is the expansionism that your neighbors find disturbing. You have expanded nearly to your boarders limits ...

I know you are concentraced mainly to western affairs, you probably didn't notice that our outside lines were always patrolled only by weak skirmishers that never showed any attempt to "expand". On the picture (I am reposting it, it was published in past already) you can see a strong Persian military expansion during last century.

Originally posted by Sinbad
What would you do if Babylon disputed squares near Knossos, and posted skirmishers there to spy on you and block your ZOCs?
...
IMO Babylon's loud and lengthy screaming about movements inside Persian borders may obscure the simple truth that Babylon wants our land.

IMO this is a crucial point of this conflict.
There is a disputed area, formerly Assyria.
Sinbad unilateraly proclaimed this area was Persia, and introduced stacks, roads and forts there.
The Immo never proclaimed this area was Babylon and named it "Disputed Areas". We kept only skirmishers there.
When Persian Engineers approached we reacted only by patient complaints and finally by a less patient warning. But so far we didn't went to similar steps.

edit: grammar

[SlowThinker]

details

Originally posted by Sinbad
To ST: I explained this action [the bribery] in some detail already, and can't imagine what you are confused about now.

I don't understand a reason of the bribery as it was explained by Persia:
* Persia says she needs to bribe a geezer because she must send scouts downwards from the Spine
* but Persia doesn't need scouting: she sees 2 lines from the Spine because of ZOCs of the geezer
* so Persia bribes the geezers, the ZOCs dissapear and she sees only 1 line
* Then Persia sends a fat "scout" (IrInf, why?) in an extremely sensitive area, but still she sees less than with the Bab gezeer on the Spine

Why I should explain the movements of unstacked Persian infantry in Persia to you? You neglected to mention that my unit faces an identical Babylonian infantry unit, in the disputed zone at (135,45).

Until 2410 I had only a skirm there. I replaced it by an IrInf only after you brought a Persian IrInf besides:

Or, that you have moved Bab iron infantry to within 4 squares of my capitol, at (144,50).

* This is not a disputed area, but a Babylonian territory, accredited by Persia.
* I moved an Iron Infantry to the Mountains in 2400 only after you brought your IrInf there:

I have stated MANY times that I mean to DEFEND Persia from Babylonian invasion.
.....
ST has claimed for hundreds of years that Persia will invade Babylon at the next sunrise.

Do you see the contradiction? It is OK when Persia states MANY times she is expecting a Bab invasion. But Babylon doesn't have a right to express the same concern.
(and I don't compare skirms on the Bab side and forts and stacks on the Persian one)

[Kull]

Originally posted by Zedd
(In the words of Minoan minstrel Stephan Tai-ler..." If you do what you have always done you will get what you've always got.")

An excellent quote, and it perfectly captures the attitude of Babylon toward her neigbors. In the past, she lied to and then threatened her closest neighbor while lavishing gold on her "friends", and that brought her a large portion of the former Assyrian Empire. Now her eyes turn towards Persia and she seeks to use the exact same strategy to achieve the exact same goal.

Do not delude yourselves. Those who sup with wolves are next on the menu.

[Straybow]

We, too, liketh the oldies. The Minoan emissary made us a "mix tape." We have booked his band for a tour. What was the name? Fletcher? No, "Arrowsmith."