New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

Questions for Pharaoh

Originally posted by Pharaoh
The Babylonians swarm toward Tell Hariri like a cloud of gnats, while their leader mutters unintelligably. General Mekret has been instructed to prepare his defenses.

Indeed, the 4th Babylonian skirmisher (that strengthened the 3 skirmishers + 1 early chariot in the area) terrified Egypt a lot. Our informers are reporting that more than 700g were needed to prepare Egyptian defenses this year! So far no walls are in Tell Hariri, so shall we expect walls in five Egyptian cities next year?

From the origination of the conflict Babylon is trying to establish a factual communication between Babylon and Egypt.
Egypt only sends out vague words about threat from East, paranoid and blind leaders, Egyptian units always retreating and Babylonian units always advancing etc.

The only concrete Egyptian proposal was 'DMZ', but Egypt never answered our question what this is. What is the Egyptian proposal of DMZ?

Babylon informed that he/she? has no units west from Dibshiya's meridian in order to calm the situation. Can Egypt inform us about her units east from Tell Hariri's meridian?

And we are repeating our question:
We don't understand one point. If we compare the Babylonian map and the Egyptian 'equidistant' rule then we can see Egypt offers more territory west from Dibshiya to Babylon (which is clearly important for security of Mari) but simultaneously requires more territory east from Tell Hariri (which is clearly important for security of Babylon). This doesn't conform the proclaimed Pharaoh's peaceful intentions and his fear from Babylon.
Could Pharaoh explain that?

[SlowThinker]

Road between Dibshiya and Tell Hariri

We can hardly expect a Bab-Egyptian trade now and so the road that starts out from Dibshia and leads towards Tell Hariri can be solely a source of an anxiety of both nations. Therefore I am asking Minoan horsemen to disconnect it.

[Kull]

The Euphrates Zone Borders between Egypt and Babylon are attached. Babylonian units may not position themselves on or within the western-most red lines, and Egyptian units may likewise not enter the eastern ones. The white dots indicate territory which is equidistant between Babylonian cities and Egyptian ones. This is no-man's land. Units from either side may travel there, but must not end their turns in those spaces.

Due to the vast complexity of this paragraph, Pharoah will Translate:

1) "Babylonian units may not position themselves on or within the western-most red lines, and Egyptian units may likewise not enter the eastern ones."

Since all this land was Assyrian, it needs to be divided between Egypt and Babylon. The only territory that is clearly "owned" are cities. By counting squares between Egyptian and Babylonian cities, it is possible to disposition the lands equally between the two civilizations. The red lines on the map are the Borders which result from this process. To be owned, the territory must be CLOSER TO ONE SIDE'S CITIES than it is to the other. Thus most of the land belongs respectively to Egypt (western lines) and Babylon (eastern lines).

2) "The white dots indicate territory which is equidistant between Babylonian cities and Egyptian ones. This is no-man's land."

Using the same process noted above, some pieces of territory are EQUIDISTANT between Egyptian and Babylonian cities. That means, for example, that the wheat tile south of Dibshiya (116, 52) is 4 spaces away from Dibshiya AND Tell Hariri. Since tiles may not be divided, this territory belongs to neither side, and is thus a Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).

3) "Units from either side may travel there, but must not end their turns in those spaces."

This is simply a proposal to ensure that neither side exerts a claim to the DMZ territory, and prevents it from being used for nefarious purposes. If Babylon has a better idea to ensure neutrality of this terrain, Egypt is all ears.

NOTE 1: Minos is free to destroy roads on or within the Babylonian red lines, but please refrain from doing so in the Egyptian zone.

NOTE 2: The founding of any "post war" cities in an attempt to "move the lines", is an exploit, and thus not acceptable.

[Peaster]

Simple-minded Persians, still bedazzled by Minoan units without ZOCs, are now being blocked by the ZOCs of fellow Persians. What a strange world we live in.

Anyway, trade seems good in all the lands, and we are happy to share in it.

[SlowThinker]

Will Egypt answer also the two remaining questions? Babylon is all ears and in the meantime we will prepare a better idea to ensure safety of both civilizations.

[SlowThinker]

A better idea to ensure safety of Egypt and Babylon

We don't think we will agree where is Babylon and where is Egypt now, so let us bypass this question and concentrace to a question how to ensure our safety. We will send a famous Babylonian scholar Cragulus who will explain more.

[SlowThinker]

Cragulus' explanation

Hello, I am Cragulus, the first mathematician of Babylon. I was authorized to explain the principle of Security Zones.

Please look at the picture, forget all points and concentrace to lines. Lines represent an example of security zones. These zones are areas which Egypt/Babylon consider important for their own security. Since both believe their neigbour is a dangerous aggresive maniacal civilization, they don't want his units are inside the zone. But a problem is that the zones overlap. So in the overlapping area only weak units of both sides (horses amd skirmishers) can move and some rules of movement must be defined so that both nations can be assured no strong unit is inside.

[SlowThinker]

A bit of mathematics

Sizes of zones depend on an agreement, but I made an example based on mathematics, since also Egyptians like this science.
The thick points are areas of a large importance - inner cities. Let us name them level-1 security points. You really don't want they are endangered, so all points from which a 4-speed unit can attack are very important for you. Let us name these points level-2 security points (the small points on the picture).
Dibshiya and Tell Hariri are peripheral cities and can't receive a safety of inner cities (because the zones would be too large), but they get a status of level-2 security points.
And finally the Security Zones are all squares from which a 4-speed unit can reach level-2 security points.

Security zones are affected by terrain type, rivers and roads and in order that they are not too large I pillaged some roads on the picture.
Also rivers affect security zones, since a unit can move 8 turns if it travels by a boat and disembarks, but for simplicity I ignored this complication in my example.

[Zedd]

stupid server updates

[Zedd]

Second Try



Imortal one, I must agree that Egypts proposal is much more simple and appears to be easily carried out. While the notion of "Security Zones" and "DMZ's" are not common we do understand our friends need for security. Thus our finest Crayon artist has created the following rendering.

Also I would suggest that both Babylon and Egypt express their willingness to comply by providing 1 C4 unit each to a mediating country. (Minoa would of course Voulenteer) that would be used for the sole purpose of patroling the DMZ or Security Zone.

Should either nation have a military unit that crosses the opposing nations boarder and/or ends a turn in the "DMZ", the mediating nation would be allowed to attack and destroy that unit. The non-offending nation would be allowed a VETO to stop the unit destruction if it felt reasonably safe from attack.

Should either nation have a military unit with 3 or more move points stationed allong the "Patrol" areas marked they would face a fine of 50g payable to the non-offending nation. Similarly the non-offending nation would have a VETO.

Obviously this is very advantageous to anyone who does NOT wish to attack, I you intend to attack then then this agreement will greatly hinder your success.

[SlowThinker]

Dear Lycastus, I accept gladly your endeavour to calm the situation. I think the idea of a mediator (Minoans) that gets 2 C4s (and some scouts and probably boats) in order to patrol the DMZ is very good.

The main problem I see is venerable merchant Bishtra stands on a ladder and scans my garden. So I would like Mr. Crayon didn't paint words like 'Babylon' and 'Egypt' in the rendering.
And propositions of DMZ almost copies the Egyptian proposition based on violation of an existing deal. Probably the DMZ could simply contain all the problematical territory (and so to be larger).

(And I want to advocate my proposition of Security Zones a bit (but I agree for safety the neutral units between Babylon and Egypt are much better.):
Maybe Babylon shouldn't send a mathematician for the explanation but it is not so complicated. The principle is any dangerous unit (a unit with attack factor above 2) must not be able to reach Tell Hariri and Dibshiya in one turn and any dangerous unit must not be able to reach inner cities (Mari, Zibbar, Negru) in two turns.)

[Zedd]

No need for explanation Imortal one, the complication was not in the understanding but in the application of the plan. It seems it would be dificult to monitor the security zones accurately and enforce any truely strict punishments for violation becouse of the over lapping boundaries. Indeed if this were an agreement between non-threatened civs it would be a beutifull plan.

As it stands both nations stand poised for a conflict that only exists becouse both nations think there is a conflict. If a clear resolution is not found then eventually we will have one of two scenarios.... 1. Cold War 2. A war resulting from one nation feeling the need for a "Pre-emptive" attack even if there is nothing to "Pre-Empt".

I was not thinking of the disputed areas you spoke of, i presume it is between Tel Harari and Sippur. I simply chose to make the line half way between each city. So both civs loose something in this but gain security. Also I took your suggestion of move points, that was the reason for the wide DMZ, only a 4 move unit could even cross the DMZ and could not do so without being seen. The rule to keep only <3 MP units further ensures that the 4 move units are not in position to move through the DMZ.

And Minoa does apologize for the sloppy writing of our Crayon artist, he lost his right arm in a farming accident.....and it turns out he is NOT left handed after all.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Lycastus
No need for explanation Imortal one, the complication was not in the understanding but in the application of the plan. It seems it would be dificult to monitor the security zones accurately and enforce any truely strict punishments for violation becouse of the over lapping boundaries.

I think if both civs agreed with the Security Zones then nobody would violate them. Except he would want to attack.
And two horses (one Egyptian and one Babylonian) would be probably enough to monitor the common Zone west from Dibshiya and another two units to monitor the river.
But your proposition of a neutral civ monitoring the area between Egypt and Babylon is clearly better, since it prevents a war completely, while Security Zones are only a cautionary system.

I was not thinking of the disputed areas you spoke of, i presume it is between Tel Harari and Sippur.

(Psst! Zibbar! Don't pronounce evil words!)
Originally Pharaoh agreed not to expand downstream from Tell Hariri. Therefore the squares east from Tell Hariri (out of city perimeter) are not accepted as an Egyptian land in Babylonian maps. See the picture.

There should be also a rule that no Bab-Egy unit can stand in the rose zone just besides the red zone, since ZOC's of two opposing units could block the neutral units in the red zone.

[kengel]

greek wine & beautiful sundowns, nothing else happened...
Peace

[Straybow]

Yes, I think that is part of ST's objections. The area in the middle isn't neutral, even though he won't be building Bab cities in there.