New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

answers/questions to Persia

Originally posted by SlowThinker
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
Originally posted by Sinbad
The Bab argument about ZOCs is a very tiny piece of the picture and not even convincing; it is obvious that Persian scouts can get an earlier warning of invasion from the border than from a square behind it, especially after the Babs post new units nearby, and create new ZOCs, which has already happened along most of the border.

I understand that if you get a unit on a position of the expelled envoy, and Babylon sends a unit on a position of a skirmisher, you will see also any unit on the orange line. But why do you need to see so deep in Babylon?? What Babylon could invade from the orange line?



Concerning the numbers of units - IMO it is absurd to compare them. A skirmisher is incomparable with a C4. Even a Bab skirmisher is incomparable with a Persian skirmisher, as the second one may be transformed in a Legion soon. Also Persia doesn't need to guard one half of her border, because a neutral Black Empire lies behind.

Also, the silly Babylonian maps labelled "After the Babylonian invasion" are sarcastic, I suppose, but I don't get it - Persia has not claimed that the Bab invasion has begun.

She did it several times. This is one example:

Originally posted by Sinbad on 15-01-2007 16:23:
When you have already invaded Persia, consider our borders a joke, and threaten us with war for building roads in our own country - it seems a little risky to thrust our solitary envoys (or vans) among Bab units.

Next quotes seem to come under a well-tried system of Persian propaganda: Persia pronounces an invalid argument, Babylon answers and explains the invalidity, Persia ignores the answer and later she repeats the argument again.

Babs have Sargon's Arsenal

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...ks#post4523800 (see highlighted text)

Closest Bab unit to Ecbatana - Iron Inf at (144,50) - Distance 4 squares.

http://apolyton.net/forums//showthre...42#post4825142 (2nd picture)

[Straybow]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

Originally posted by Lycastus
Who doesn't persia post what she deems reasonable, and seaperately Babylon do the same?

Not only Lycastus must sometimes solve inner affairs of his empire, and also practice hunting, inseminate women in The Royal Harem ...

It was actually a plea for help. Hard to tell what the actual negotiations are amongst the accusations, insults, etc. The hunting parties and haremis make the attention span short.

[Peaster]

Re: answers/questions to Persia

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I understand that if you get a unit on a position of the expelled envoy, and Babylon sends a unit on a position of a skirmisher, you will see also any unit on the orange line. But why do you need to see so deep in Babylon?? What Babylon could invade from the orange line?

IMO you are missing (avoiding?) the main points; that your geezers had no right to be there, and that Persian defense + scouting has been eased by its removal (which I have explained).

Another point is that the time to object was ibefore the bribery, though I don't think you have made a good case against my decision.

Concerning the numbers of units .... a neutral Black Empire lies behind.

If I were a lurker trying to get a quick idea of who is ahead, who intends conquest, etc, I'd look first at the size of their armies, the number of cities, who has Marco (DipSys) and SunTzu(Sargon) and perhaps the nature of their posts. None of these snapshots are conclusive, but we don't know how many C4s you have, so we can't really use that, can we?

BTW - What is this "Black Empire" ? Hattas?

She did it several times. This is one example:

OK - my fault. I have mainly been thinking of the Babylonian "invasion" as something in the near future, and have mostly used the word that way (eg post 3275). I should have refered to the stationary geezers some other way, perhaps as "intruders".

Persia pronounces an invalid argument ....

Your fault this time. Statements you don't understand are not always invalid. My point about Sargon's was that it gives you some advantage in case of a war, which should be obvious to every beginner. I also
explained that my barracks could disappear at any moment if some player researches Gunpowder (18'Pike), a point which you have ignored. You wrote, "Sargon is only a very expensive version of your several Barracks. You can hardly await Babylon will build 30 C4s per turn." Your point seemed completely lame to me, so I didn't respond. Are you really saying Sargon's is not an advantage ? If so, why did you build it?

You also complained about my IInf, though I don't see that you have any right to do so. I suppose you were merely annoyed about it, or maybe slightly threatened. My point was that your IInf placements near Ecbatana, etc, are similarly annoying, and slightly threatening to Persia. But we do not make knee-jerk complaints about them. Your response was, "I moved an Iron Infantry to the Mountains in 2400 only after you brought your IrInf there." I don't see what your statement has to do with mine. Why should I pursue all these little tendrils of confusion? They are mostly very far from the main points anyway.

.

Gentlemen - IMO Persia's concerns were explained clearly on pages 105-107. But this thread has been mostly about Bab concerns since then; have mine been forgotten?

I am not willing to give away the Persian land claimed openly 200 years ago. I am willing to negotiate on some of it, if Persian concerns are also open for negotiation. Such as -

* Persian security in the Arrapkha region, probably including a small neutral zone, or a third-party observer.
* adjustments to our unbalanced eastern borders, especially those near my capitol (but I do NOT claim a legal "right" to change these),
* Babylon does not have a "right" to an equal share of the Zagros mts, any more than Persia has a "right" to an equal share of eastern grasslands. These concerns might be negotiated - or might not.
* An end to Babylonian complaints about Persian internal affairs, such as movements behind our borders. Also, a clear Bab statement of non-aggression, such as Persia has already made.
* We seem headed for a destabilizing arms race towards Legion 4's. To avoid this, we need a BI-lateral agreement ASAP.

[SlowThinker]

(I will answer to Lycastus and also send a Bab stance and possible solutions tomorrow)

Originally posted by Sinbad
If I were a lurker trying to get a quick idea of who is ahead, who intends conquest, etc, I'd look first at the size of their armies, the number of cities, who has Marco (DipSys) and SunTzu(Sargon) and perhaps the nature of their posts. None of these snapshots are conclusive, but we don't know how many C4s you have, so we can't really use that, can we?

I'd look at
* who proposes large neutral areas and who refuses them
* who unilaterally calls disputed areas "Persia"
* who occupies disputed areas by force (stacks, forts)

Also, I am curious how you would defend Persia from 40 assorted units stacked [possibly] in the Bab fort near the Arrapkha river tip, ready to march north over a hill into plains?

Well, nobody knows how our gold is spent, one side (Babylon or Persia) may have 40 C4s, while other side may have some moderate defenses. Let us compare that situation:

Babylon 40 C4s / Persia moderate
You demonstrate a strong concern Babylon can attack with a strong army via the headwaters of Arrariver. But all that the Babylonian army could do would be to send 4 stacks as shown on the picture (Persia can forest the green point). The invasion armies wouldn't have time to build forts, so 4 Persian C4s would kill the invaders easily.

Persia 40 C4s / Babylon moderate
If Persia uses 40 C4s for an attack from the Al-Kabir's fort, she can move ahead each turn and build fortresses on Tigris. The army is unstoppable.

Edit: bold text

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Sinbad
Another point is that the time to object was ibefore the bribery, though I don't think you have made a good case against my decision.

Babylon impatiently awaits an explanation of "New Persian foreign policy" and
it looks the quoted sentence partially explains it. Do you want to say "Persia claims she is rightful to do anything that Gods won't reckon as a start of a war, if she warns in advance"?
So did Persia bribe the geezers only because Babylon "forgot" to object?

IMO you are missing (avoiding?) the main points; that your geezers had no right to be there, and that Persian defense + scouting has been eased by its removal (which I have explained).

Sure the geezers had a greater right to be there than Persian forts.
It is strange the "main points" were added only after I pointed out your original explanation didn't work...

BTW - What is this "Black Empire" ? Hattas?

It is north and east from Persia. I guess it is neutral and so you don't have to guard that border.

Are you really saying Sargon's is not an advantage? If so, why did you build it?

An advantage is if you are able to build veteran units and your rival is unable to build them. Babylon built Sargon when there was a quarrel with Egypt, in order to balance the advantage of Egypt.
I don't see any big problem for Persia if her Barracks gets obsolete and are sold. Still the Barracks are a less expensive expense than was Sargon.

My point was that your IInf placements near Ecbatana, etc, are similarly annoying, and slightly threatening to Persia. ...Your response was, "I moved an Iron Infantry to the Mountains in 2400 only after you brought your IrInf there." I don't see what your statement has to do with mine.

The point was: Ecbatana wouldn't be "slightly threatened" by a Bab IrInf if Persia didn't "slightly threaten" by your own IrInf nearby first. Babylon only reacted to a Persian militarization of the area between Ecba and Arraphka.

Also, a clear Bab statement of non-aggression, such as Persia has already made.

I don't remember any such Persian statement. But I remember two Persian aggresive warnings related to The Disputed Areas that were never closer explained: #3226

[Peaster]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Babylon impatiently awaits an explanation of "New Persian foreign policy" and
it looks the quoted sentence partially explains it. Do you want to say "Persia claims she is rightful to do anything that Gods won't reckon as a start of a war, if she warns in advance"?
So did Persia bribe the geezers only because Babylon "forgot" to object?

This is obviously sarcasm, not a genuine question.

... after I pointed out your original explanation didn't work...

Really? When was that? I explained (among other things) that the geezers impeded Persian scouts. You claimed there was no advantage to removing them. I showed you one. Now, you have retreated from your original claim to this orange line, and have made a completely new claim.

Of course, Persia wants to monitor activities just beyond her borders, on the orange line, for example. Obviously, we are not so obssessed with that as Babylon.

IMO this is not a quest for truth, but just another lame attempt to smear Persia. Readers please note: Persia had good reasons to remove the geezers.

It is north and east from Persia. I guess it is neutral and so you don't have to guard that border.

So you refer to nations beyond the edges of the known world? Then like Persia, Babylon shares borders with the "Black Empire", on the south and east. Do you have to guard those borders?

An advantage is if you are able to build veteran units and your rival is unable to build them. Babylon built Sargon when there was a quarrel with Egypt, in order to balance the advantage of Egypt.
I don't see any big problem for Persia if her Barracks gets obsolete and are sold. Still the Barracks are a less expensive expense than was Sargon.

This is getting a bit stupid. You really can't concede even the simplest point, can you? Sargon's is an advantage. You can make vets from all your cities, not just a few. Your production of vets won't be interrupted when someone researches gunpowder. You don't need (and don't have) the barracks tech, with its trade penalty. Of course, Sargon's wasn't free, but that was not the issue.

The point was: Ecbatana wouldn't be "slightly threatened" by a Bab IrInf if Persia didn't "slightly threaten" by your own IrInf nearby first. Babylon only reacted to a Persian militarization of the area between Ecba and Arraphka.

The Persian IInf was three squares from my capitol! Have you no shame?

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Sinbad
This is obviously sarcasm, not a genuine question.

No, this is a question. Persia bribed a unit and most world considers it something non-standard and close to a war act. But Persia appears it was something normal. We ask the current Persian definition of "normal", so that we know what we should expect next.

"Reasons" for a bribery - nothing to say, I would only repeat what I said before.

Then like Persia, Babylon shares borders with the "Black Empire", on the south and east. Do you have to guard those borders?

An other way: in comparison with Persia, Babylon must guard also a border with Egypt + all access from The Desert. Roughly Babylon must guard 2 times more border than Persia.

This is getting a bit stupid. You really can't concede even the simplest point, can you?

Could Straybow explain why Persia seemed to be more civil?

Sargon's is an advantage. You can make vets from all your cities, not just a few. Your production of vets won't be interrupted when someone researches gunpowder. You don't need (and don't have) the barracks tech, with its trade penalty. Of course, Sargon's wasn't free, but that was not the issue.

I don't see any advantage from making 50 vet units per turn - I will never have such a large money.
I don't see any big problem if your production of vets will be interrupted for one turn.
"No trade penalty" (no BW tech) is not a military advantage but an economical one. Similarly I could say Persia has an advantage because of Artemis and Egypt has one because of Slave Labor System. Yes, Sargon, Artemis and SLS weren't free, we payed something (we lost gold) but we got back something ("an advantage").
BTW Babylon shares her "no trade penalty" with her trade partners coequally: we shared it 50-50 with Persia and now we share it with our new trade partners.

Originally posted by Sinbad
The Persian IInf was three squares from my capitol! Have you no shame?

Not three but four squares, and on a very edge of Persian land. The land between your IrInf and your capitol is very rough and slow, a Bab attack here is impossible.

[SlowThinker]

Explanations for Lycastus

Originally posted by Lycastus
From the link you posted it looks that originally Babylon and Persia each Agreed to the "Tushpa line"

I don't think so. Please read the "Minimal land" link again. Anyway the history of the negotiations started before the "Tushpa line":

about 2640-2620: "Preliminary agreement". We were very close to an agreement, only several squares were disputed.
2560: Persia comes with a "Tushpa-line" (follow the "Minimal land" link): Sinbad suddenly enlarges his claims by more than 10 squares in comparison to "the preliminary agreement"
2550: Persia strengthens her "Tushpa-line" claim by a direct war threat
2530: Babylon comes with a "Minimal land": Babylon is ready to give up 5 squares in comparison to his "preliminary" requests. Persia doesn't accept the "minimal land" and claims "Tushpa-line" as a part of Persia.

[SlowThinker]

Answer to Persian proposals

Originally posted by Sinbad
I am not willing to give away the Persian land claimed openly 200 years ago.
...
* An end to Babylonian complaints about Persian internal affairs, such as movements behind our borders.

It seems Persia is not willing to negotiate at all. Any negotiation is impossible if Persia stands upon a claim "Disputed Areas = Persia".

We seem headed for a destabilizing arms race towards Legion 4's. To avoid this, we need a BI-lateral agreement ASAP.

Why destabilizing? Can you explain? SuperLegions (Legs 3+4) will make war slower and surprise attacks almost impossible. IMO SuperLegions may be "destabilizing" only for a country that prepared an attack and invested large money in C4s, as they will become obsolete.
BTW during Persian turn Babylon asked Persia for Engineering (based on this agreement: "Babylon can choose one future Persian tech but Persia can veto war techs."). Will Persia send a barter?

Babylonian proposals

1) So far we didn't obtain any argument why Persia should have a right to the Tushpa-line (so far the only "argument" was Persia occupied these disputed areas by force). We are ready to hear and talk about Persian arguments (if any) and our stance may be changed.
2) Otherwise we persist on the "minimal land", and we ask also some level of security against a possible Persian attack from Al-Kabir (see a picture 5 messages above) - a defensive land for our fort or a neutral zone on Upper Al-Kabir. We are ready to offer a similar or higher level of security against a possible Babylonian attack from Arrariver (again see the picture).
We can concede some security around The Spine if we get more security on Al-Kabir.
3) We can also accept a different solution based on neutral/DMZ area at least three lines wide.

[Straybow]

Destabilizing influence

Here is a test of vet L2 against vet FeInf fortified on a mountain. Even without a fortress it usually takes 2 to kill the FeInf, often takes 3, and sometimes takes 4.

One can also set up a test of L3s or L4s against FeInf and FeInf in a Fortress. The 3h/3f and 4h/4f should make a huge difference.

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
[2) Otherwise we persist on the "minimal land", and we ask also some level of security against a possible Persian attack from Al-Kabir (see a picture 5 messages above) - a defensive land for our fort or a neutral zone on Upper Al-Kabir. We are ready to offer a similar or higher level of security against a possible Babylonian attack from Arrariver (again see the picture).
We can concede some security around The Spine if we get more security on Al-Kabir.

Great point. Let's all just take a nice big LOOK at the Al-Kabir, shall we? Mind you this is the scary hole in Babylon's security, so frightening that Babylonian mothers threaten to take naughty children there. So what DO we see? There are 7 river squares between Persia and Negru, and 12 all told to Hekallush. And last time Pharoah checked, at least eight could be mined into forests and have fortresses placed on top of them! Let's see......forest+river+fortress = stronger defense than hills with fortresses. And that's what Persia would have to wade through in order to reach two of the most distant border cities. And THAT is the great worry of Babylon?

Spare us more of thy endless prevarications. It should be obvious to everyone that Babylon has no holes in her security, and seeks only to nibble away at Persia's only line of defense....which, based on the maps we all can see, is only ONE hill deep in some areas.

Brothers....do not encourage the Great Deceiver. His arguments are so specious they can influence only those who do not care to see the truth. Because there truly IS a nation here whose security is threatened. And it is NOT Babylon.

[Straybow]

*Unofficial version*

Lycastus is having problems with rough seas keeping his courier ships in port. Here is an unofficial Minoan save. Note that it was water-logged, and while it was drying out our vizier made some notations.

(Barters were applied)

[Straybow]

New trade routes are opened with Egypt! Our relations with the glorious Kingdom of the Nile have been neglected of late.

Merchants bringing great quantities of wine from the Ceyhan valley found a thriving market in Libya. "Bring us more!" they cheered. The city is none too large, and one wonders who drinks so much. Perhaps the Libyans carry goods across treacherous desert to barbarians in the south.

Nabataean jewelers in Petra hungrily purchased all the sapphires and rubies our Ancyran merchants dared carry. The Ancyrans contacted emerald merchants in Jerusalem as they passed, and far Sarhoyuk can supply fine emeralds.

Meanwhile, more roads were built and irrigation canals dug. Our citizens try to put the war-drums in distant mountains out of their thoughts.

[Zedd]

Thanks for posting the save Straybow.


Minoa can not take a stance on these pressing issues of our time because no one seems to be able to agree on what the problem is much less on a solution. May I once again request a map proposal from each side showing what they think "fair boarders" should be?

"Babs never accepted the tushpa line"
Well, every map I see for the last 30 pages shows Persian lines drawn along the tushpa line and ending at the northern tip of the Zargos, and every argument is focused on the city radius of Zariqum or just south of it. So please enlighten me on these issues of boundary sharing.
(10 goto 04
11 Load "read",0,1)

Once a clear boundary is established then Sinbad and Immo can agree on a "code of conduct", and from that Peace is built.

Constantly firing rude remarks, accusations and open ended questions at one another will accomplish nothing and just makes this thread that much duller to read.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Zedd
(10 goto 04
11 Load "read",0,1)

I think Lycastus is hallucinating about something called "COBOL" but Hatte viziers can get nothing else from their divinations.