New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

We dreamed about a Pharaoh's phobia of a Blackness.
If security measures between Babylon and Egypt are signed and Egypt sends her map of unrevealed Desert terrain within 12 squares from Bab cities then Babylon will allow scouting of these areas by a horse (under condition the horse will report its position.)
In case of very good relationship between Egypt and Babylon we might allow also scouting of Babylon.

The Immo

[Kull]

Pharoah appreciates these words from his distant eastern brother. However, much damage has been done to our relations, and Egypt is not yet ready for treaties and diplomats and all the rest. For now we only reiterate what has been said before. We shall retreat within the borders as defined by Minos. And in light of the new tone from the east, we shall go even further and pledge not to harm the forces of Babylon which encroach within our borders, no matter how ill-conceived their presence.

Egypt offers no aggression. We retreat within our boundaries. This must suffice. If not, do as you will and let all the world watch.

[Straybow]

I tried to tell Slo he was over-reacting, that Kull was likely just doing some harmless exploring. Can we get back to playing the game?

[SlowThinker]

Straybow,
I didn't notice we would ever stopped to play.
IMO I wasn't over-reacting at all. I think my reaction was absolutely natural, please perceive I am responsible for about 700,000 people, I can't speculate if some surreptitious scouting is harmless or not.
ST

[SlowThinker]

The Immortal very appreciates the last words of esteemed Pharaoh.
The question 2) has been answered, nevertheless while questions 4-7 stay open we must stay on alert.
Please perceive now Babylon ignores everything related to prestige, pride, 'what land Egypt deserves or not' etc. (yes, after Babylon accepted the shape of zones merchant Bishtra moved in the pavillon in the Palace Garden and lives there with Immo's mother-in-law) and our conduct depends on security issues only.
We consider the River downstream Tell Hariri very important for security of our dense settlement (please perceive while core of Egypt is safe in an isolated area and Babylon could endanger only 2-3 Egyptian cities, Egypt could hit most of Babylon). This is why we reject any idea of an Egyptian port south from Tell Hariri.
But we consider the presence of the Egyptian patrol on the 2nd ford downstream Tell Hariri very senseful. We would only like the C1 is replaced by a weaker unit. And reciprocally we would like to monitor The River between Tell Hariri and the Egyptian Merchant Ship.

[Kull]

Sigh (Just so you know, "answering qustions at the point of a bayonet" is not "fun", but for the sake of ending them....):

4) Why Egypt refuses wide zones with effective rules? Especially if Egypt is afraid of Babylon and she claims her aim 'constitutes no greed for land'?

"Wide zones" constitute either 1) an unjustified territory grab or 2) a reason to harrass units passing peacefully nearby. You obviously feel different, but these are my beliefs and I will never understand yours and you will never understand mine. Moving along.

5) Why Egypt builds a road East from Tell Hariri? Why Egypt doesn't want the road between Tell Hariri and Dibshiya is dismantled? Why an Egyptian C1 stands on a road that is marked as Babylonian territory even on Egyptian maps and hinders the road is dismantled?

It's no business of Babylon's what Egypt does in her own terrain. I don't demand reports from you on all your activities (mostly in fear that you might actually reply in excruciating detail and then I'd have to READ them!)

However:

1) The road is into a forest which is very nice defense terrain. Soon there will be a fort there, and the road will provide quick access for the defenders to attack Tell Hariri should Egypt ever be so unfortunate as to lose it. And it must be 2 squares away to be safe in case the city is bribed - it wouldn't do to lose the "Quick Reaction Force" THAT way, now would it?

2) The C1 sat there only to keep watch for Babylonian units, not to prevent the road being dismantled. As promised, the unit was going to move within the next two turns anyway, but I can do so immediately if that will make you happy. Technically that terrain is "Red Hatched" (i.e. NOT Babylonian), but it's closer to Dibshiya than to Tell Hariri, so we won't push the point. By the same logic however, the road at 110,48 is "Egyptian", and for now we forbid it's destruction (although we shall not use it).

6) Why Egypt needs units in desert 6 squares from Babylonian cities?

We don't. We shall stay outside of a 6-tile security zone around Babylonian cities (with the obvious exception of Dibshiya, where certain non-red hatch terrain is purely Egyptian AND 6 tiles from the city)

7) Why Egypt refused to inform us about Egyptian units in the eastern part of The Desert?

I am NOT going to spend this game reporting the movement of every last silly little horseman. You may feel it's "important", I consider it to be ridiculous micromanagement. Again, we will probably never agree on this. Tell me where your 6 tile exclusion zones are, and I'll stay out of them.

Pharoah would suggest that there is a "compromise" of sorts on the matter of 6 tiles versus 12 tiles. There is nothing to stop Babylon from building an army of horsemen and putting them on sentry duty in a line 12 tiles distant from your cities. Is it expensive for Babylon to do this? Probably. But you are the ONLY one who cares about this, so the effort SHOULD be yours. It's only logical.

We consider the River downstream Tell Hariri very important for security of our dense settlement (please perceive while core of Egypt is safe in an isolated area and Babylon could endanger only 2-3 Egyptian cities, Egypt could hit most of Babylon). This is why we reject any idea of an Egyptian port south from Tell Hariri.

Egypt has no plans to build cities south of Tell Hariri. How could we possibly claim that we want DISTANCE from Babylon and then build a city CLOSER to them????? That would be insane.

But we consider the presence of the Egyptian patrol on the 2nd ford downstream Tell Hariri very senseful. We would only like the C1 is replaced by a weaker unit. And reciprocally we would like to monitor The River between Tell Hariri and the Egyptian Merchant Ship.

I will compromise on this. We will accept the presence of your skirmisher on the tile at 113,53 in exchange for one of our own at 117,53 (exactly as you have proposed). It will take several turns to achieve this as we have no skirmishers nearby - although we probably could substitute with a horseman in 2 turns.

However. The presence of the Babylonian ship at 114,52 is needlessly provocative. Potentially it's part of a ship chain that could carry a sizable Babylonian army deep into Egyptian territory. If Pharoah had a ship this close to a Babylonian city, the whole world knows what Babylon's reaction would be - War! So we STRONGLY recommend that it pull back to 118, 54. In turn, we shall not move our ship beyond 112, 52.

[SlowThinker]

Just so you know, "answering qustions at the point of a bayonet" is not "fun"

I don't see any bayonet in my hands, else I have read words about enforcing something in next 20 years, but this was explained, so I see no problem of this kind.
(But if it was a bayonet that finally forced Pharaoh to send concrete words then yes, I hold a very BIG bayonet )

The road is into a forest which is very nice defense terrain. Soon there will be a fort there, and the road will provide quick access for the defenders to attack Tell Hariri should Egypt ever be so unfortunate as to lose it.

Very good, we won't disturb the workers in their worthful activity.

The C1 sat there only to keep watch for Babylonian units, not to prevent the road being dismantled. As promised, the unit was going to move within the next two turns anyway, but I can do so immediately if that will make you happy.

If Egypt said it sooner Minos wouldn't have to pillage a road on the wheat and Dibshiya wouldn't lose one arrow.
BTW it would be interesting to guess who feels more like at the point of a bayonet. Babylon, who built walls in Zibbar and pillaged wheat, or Egypt, who contentedly builds roads in "dangerous" areas and need no walls?

By the same logic however, the road at 110,48 is "Egyptian", and for now we forbid it's destruction (although we shall not use it).

I am not sure if 110,48 is Egyptian, since our last agreement about borders were declared null/ void and we never agreed a new one, but yes, it is possible it can be marked yellow on Egyptian maps. Anyway this point is not Babylonian on Bab maps.
But my question was why Egypt needs a road which connects Egypt and Babylon and can help an attack in either direction.

The river

We will accept the presence of your skirmisher on the tile at 113,53 in exchange for one of our own at 117,53 (exactly as you have proposed). It will take several turns to achieve this as we have no skirmishers nearby - although we probably could substitute with a horseman in 2 turns.

However. The presence of the Babylonian ship at 114,52 is needlessly provocative. Potentially it's part of a ship chain that could carry a sizable Babylonian army deep into Egyptian territory. If Pharoah had a ship this close to a Babylonian city, the whole world knows what Babylon's reaction would be - War! So we STRONGLY recommend that it pull back to 118, 54. In turn, we shall not move our ship beyond 112, 52.

1) The ship at 114,52 is very important for our security. (Please notice one interesting point: you refuse to provide more security in desert, although it would cost you nothing, and simultaneously you ask more security around Tell Hariri at the cost of security of Babylon.)
2) The current layout of units on the map causes no Bab unit could hit Tell Hariri (even with a help of a ship chain) since
* the Egy Merch. ship (MS) blocks the river
* with the C1 at 117,53 Egypt sees all 4 tiles east from MS from which a Bab warship could kill the MS
So there is no way how Babylon could exploit the river for an attack against Tell Hariri.
In opposite Egypt could easily hit Dibshiya by the C1 that sits besides the city or by units from ships. And surprisingly neither war from Babylon comes nor Babylon says the position of C1 is provocative ...
3) Your proposition (Bab ships up to 118,56, Egy ships up to 112,52) is unacceptable. In fact it would be worse than an Egyptian port east from Tell Hariri.
The proposition is also dangerous for Egypt, since a Bab Troop Galley (move 5) could bring troops from 118,56 behind the Egyptian fort at forest and destroy Tell Hariri.
4) The only reason why I have the ship at 1st ford is to block Egyptian ships. And I suppose you need no ships east from Tell Hariri. So I have this proposition:
All the 108,50-118,56 area will be free of ships. Only non-stacked warships will be allowed at 111,51 and 118,54 (5 tiles apart, so they will block each other and make a possible landing harder). Skirmishers watches the river.

"Wide zones" constitute either 1) an unjustified territory grab or 2) a reason to harrass units passing peacefully nearby.

IMO this can be considered only an anti-grab since both sides LOSE more territory (yes, also units would lose more territory). The question is what is more important - territory or security.

Desert

7) Why Egypt refused to inform us about Egyptian units in the eastern part of The Desert?

I am NOT going to spend this game reporting the movement of every last silly little horseman. You may feel it's "important", I consider it to be ridiculous micromanagement.

I asked you reported your units in the eastern part of desert only ONCE. You could do it if you wanted to tranquillize Babylon and calm the athmosphere. You can still do it now.

There is nothing to stop Babylon from building an army of horsemen and putting them on sentry duty in a line 12 tiles distant from your cities. Is it expensive for Babylon to do this? Probably. But you are the ONLY one who cares about this, so the effort SHOULD be yours. It's only logical.

I only said I would agree on security measures that would include the 12-tile zone. Yes, the reason is any other agreement would be too costly for Babylon.

Concerning the Egy farmer in the desert - you should tell me where it is going so that my horse doesn't block it.
I wonder a bit it is walking in the desert (although Egypt could have the farmer somewhere around Tell Hariri now if the Babylonian offer were accepted). You might want to build a city in the desert, but you should consult it with Babylon first.

[Kull]

Egypt cannot pull it's ship back from 112,52, because that opens up a spot for Babylon to drop a Diplomat onto the town near Tell Hariri and easily Bribe the city. Likewise we cannot allow a ship to sit all by itseldf making it the easy target of a Bribe attempt (and thus a lead postion in the enemy ship chain).

It's obvious that neither side can do anything on the river that is acceptable to the other. Instead, I propose that we grant Minos a ship and a unit and allow it to sit in the exact middle square (115,53) between your scout unit and mine. That way the ship can't be bribed and the only way for one side to get past it is to destroy it - with all the world condemnation that would entail.

As to the Egyptian Farmer in the deep southern desert, what he does and where he goes is the business of Egypt, not Babylon - especially since he is moving WEST TOWARD EGYPT. However, we gladly welcome the company of your Horseman, in the hope that he might provide us with protection from these Brigands that Babylon has so often warned of.

[kengel]

Peaceful, the sun crosses the sky over greece...
Good wine this year expected

[SlowThinker]

Egypt cannot pull it's ship back from 112,52, because that opens up a spot for Babylon to drop a Diplomat onto the town near Tell Hariri and easily Bribe the city.

Do you mean it is not easy to reach the goal (a large part of The River free of boats that could transport units) without leaving one side open to an attack?
OK, I can give the sail to Minos where it stands, then you retreat your ship in Tell Hariri, then Minos move the ship towards Zibbar and barters it back. Land units should monitor this.

Likewise we cannot allow a ship to sit all by itseldf making it the easy target of a Bribe attempt (and thus a lead postion in the enemy ship chain).

Do you mean the warships? They would be near the territory of the owner and so it shouldn't be so hard to patrol 2 squares around.

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

Do you mean it is not easy to reach the goal (a large part of The River free of boats that could transport units) without leaving one side open to an attack?
OK, I can give the sail to Minos where it stands, then you retreat your ship in Tell Hariri, then Minos move the ship towards Zibbar and barters it back. Land units should monitor this.

Close. The idea would be for Minos to own the ship and keep it right between our two advance scout units. It needs to be carrying something (to eliminate the possibility of bribery), but once there it would serve as an effective block, providing security to both Babylon and Egypt.

Ideally neither side would have boats in the river between Zibbar and Hariri, but this is impossible to verify without stationing land units all along the river. The Minoan blockade ship is less intrusive and provides basically the same security.

[SlowThinker]

The problem is I don't need Egypt can land south from Dibshiya. So two Minoan boats are better:

Babylon can't attack Tell Hariri from a Troop Galley even if she gets crazy and kills the Minoan ship.
Egypt can't hit Dibshiya (no land Egy unit allowed in striking distance + the Minoan ship blocks the river)
The Bab horse moves 2 squares south, checks the ZOCs of Egy horse, sees there is no Egy port built and returns. Similarly the Egy horse.
No Egy ship on the red point.

[Kull]

Why does Babylon ALWAYS choose the most difficult, complicated - and INVASIVE - method of assuring their security? That is NOT going to happen. Each side agrees to respect the yellow/green lines, keep units out of the red hatched zone, and put a single Minoan ship in between ONE EACH Babylonian and Egyptain scout and the problem is solved! It is simple and secure for both side! What is the problem!!!!!!

By contrast the Babylonian "solution" very neatly put's his horsemen and skirmisher in position to mask the approach of an invading army from Dibshiya. Utterly unacceptable. And you can be sure the solution to THAT problem will be even more obtuse and require the deployment of even MORE forces.

[SlowThinker]

Be more concrete please. Tell me on which point Babylon could place his masked invading army. I see no such a point.

[Kull]

Why do I even bother?

Hopefully you won't attack me....at this point I'm almost past caring. You can accept the simple mechanism I identified above - or reject it. Whatever. Conversation terminated.