New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Kull]

How cute. By next turn, if that horseman near Mari stays where it is or moves one or more tiles further north, west, or south, General Mekret will show you his new magic trick!

(Hint: It involves that unit disappearing! Sadly though, he's not very good at causing them to reappear afterwards.)

Should he return on any subsequent turns, we will assume he has arrived specifically to participate in the magic show. This is your only "invitation".

[SlowThinker]

Ah! Finally we understand! We always wondered why the Egyptian guys approach to Babylonian cities (and without an invitation). They awaited a magic show...

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Ah! Finally we understand! We always wondered why the Egyptian guys approach to Babylonian cities (and without an invitation). They awaited a magic show...

Is that what generated all the paranoia? How absolutely ridiculous.

1) The C1 near Lagash was returning home at the end of the Assyrian War, from his position GUARDING Babylon's southern front. He was exploring some black area south of the Euphrates and accidentally bumped into Lagash. The chance of aggression was ZERO.

2) The unit parked near Zibbar? Could it be that he was actually invited after all...despite the Babylonian lies to the contrary? Why I think so:

We won't hinder that you reveal the southern non-desert coast of Euphrat (I mean downstream from
Tell Hariri of course) including Zibbar, but please report movement of your units here.

3) And horror of horrors, a picture of units parked near a Minoan City. Like I was going to attack my good friend Minos!? Why not post pictures of Egyptian units parked near Assyrian cities? I'm sure I can find some.

I on the other hand can come up with pictures EVERY TURN of Babylonian units closing in on Egyptian cities.

So basically you have nothing except paranoia, lying, and aggression. Man, it sucks out loud having you as a neighbor.

[Kull]

Free Trade

For the record - and to draw the demarcation line between Babylon and Egypt ever clearer - Egypt offers free trade to all friendly nations. Your caravans will not be taxed or assessed in any way.

[techumseh]

Why don't you guys give up the war of (paranoid) words and have an actual war? What have you got to lose? It's a bloody game for crissakes!

[Peaster]

Originally posted by Kull
So basically you have nothing except paranoia, lying, and aggression. Man, it sucks out loud having you as a neighbor.

Persia sympathizes with Egypt, except about the lying. Persia and Babylon have been allied for many years, with a very profitable joint business in Central Asia (CA). But Babylon has always treated Persia as either a puppet or an enemy, not like a true ally. Now ST has cut off trade with Persia and wants to dissolve our alliance. He has started spreading anti-Persian propaganda (thru email), claiming that I intend to attack him. It is time to tell the Persian story.

2890BC: [Late 2004 IIRC] Persia had been neglected for months, suffered numerous Ctrl-Ns, was in 7th place in all the major stats. Cities with walls were halfway towards building more walls. It was my first PBEM - I agreed to sub for 2 months and to respect all previous Persian deals. The players were surprisingly kind, offering free techs (Persia was way behind) and advice.

ST was too. But he claimed, in the name of security, that our natural border should be the Zagros mts. If you take a look at the starting map, you will see that this leaves Persia with a total of about 5 grassland tiles. Also this border is only 2-3 squares south of Ecbatana. But apparently Stephan had agreed to this border and I was stuck with it.

This made growth VERY difficult, and expensive (and Persia was already well behind). Trade was going to be very difficult too; Persian Culture = Invention = large trade penalty. This situation was a nice challenge, and I grabbed at every opportunity -

* ST suggested an early raid on the Sinbad treasure (500g) and assisted with the logistics. Then I realized Persia could raid the Golden Fleece too (500g).

* ST and I (mostly ST) worked out a profitable CA plan, which worked out well for a while....

Trouble comes: When the roads and boats were all built and the profits came, ST became jealous that Persia's work was done. But he still had to make more cities and new roads for greater profits. And he had to defend himself - against Egypt, I supposed then, but now I guess he was defending against Persia too.

He demanded that Persia should pay half the costs of new Bab cities and roads (and he threatened to charge for food and land and some defense costs IIRC). This was not part of our deal and Persia refused. ST was enraged and refused to increase van traffic. Persia made no demands, but IMO this is when Babylon cracked.

War with Assyria: ST seemed convinced from day one that Persia was spying for Assyria, though in fact Persia has never spied for anyone. When Didanu attacked Babylon (and others, including Persia) the Alliance of Six was formed, mainly to aid Babylon. Persia was weak and still poor, but managed to take Tushpa with a C2, and to buy a C4 for Babylonian use.

Babylon offered to share 10% of the spoils with Persia for this help. Persia stated a preference for grassland and/or cities, but to avoid the mandatory 20-email negotiations required to do anything with Babylon, I let ST decide how to make the split. Twenty emails later, ST had offered Persia a city on grass, on the condition that Persia could not defend it. This was (as usual) in the name of Babylonian security against her fearsome ally, Persia. Persia refused and had to accept 2 farmers instead (minus some gold).

more to come - -

[Peaster]

Science Troubles: Given our trade penalty, Persia has relied on special deals for necessary techs. The CA plan was supposed to provide techs as well as gold, but ST changed that part of the plan (due to unforseen problems - I am not sure I can blame him for this). So, Persia has bought techs, made deals, and built the GL trying to keep up. We currently have about 32 techs, which is probably about 50% below average (?).

Our Babylonian ally has been somewhat cooperative wrt non-military techs, but has generally refused to help with military ones, especially CharTac (Bab security again). In fact, he demanded that Persia NOT get that tech, even though all 4 western civs already had it (AFAIK). Persia did not follow Bab orders. Judging from the quantity of email generated, this was our second major crisis, and is probably the main cause for recent Bab paranoia/hostility.

If I understand ST correctly, he fears Persia (his ally) more than any other civ, including Egypt. I don't know why, unless it is one of the reasons explained here. Anyone can see that Persia has an army of 31, while Babylon has an army of 62. Babylon also has better techs, Sargon's Arsenal, more cities, more production, more allies, etc, etc. ST actually argued that Persia is ahead of Babylon - maybe he will explain this strange idea to us.

Borders: This is a very recent source of conflict, which I thought was still under discussion until this week. So, the story is not very clear yet. But ST has sent out maps and complaints and so on, and I have to repond. The main Persian points are -

* Babylon has claimed the Euphrates valley and all the grassland in the eastern half of the map (except for 5 squares in northern Persia).

* Persia claimed a few defensive hill squares several turns ago, with the disclaimer that they were open to discussion. The focus has been on 123,35 and 129,39. After that, ST built the city of Zariqum two squares from 129,39. Persia did not object, but did not relinquish her claim either. Now ST is angry/afraid that Persia has a scout (BI) on the square, though I promised not to enter the city radius.

* Persia has softly claimed the diagonal line SE from Tushpa, with some flexibility for talk, but ST completely disputes this claim. He has insisted, as usual, that our border talks proceed [ his way, meaning they must give him great security from his ally, and they must include large neutral zones, which extend far into Persia, namely

A) the Tushpa/Al Kabir zone - The Al Kabir is a tributary of the Euphrates, hence Babylon considers it a threat. The source lies between several Persian cities, though not quite in any city radius. It also lies between the lakes (land claimed by Persia soon after the Great War). IIRC ST made no objection at that time, but now he disputes all squares on the river and even some squares north and east of it.

It seemed odd that Babylon was so ungrateful when Persian attacked Assyria from the north and was (one of?) the first to reach the gates of Nineveh. I didn't realize he was competing for this land even during the war. I don't know the whole Egypt/Bab story, but Bab gratitiude also seems lacking there.

B) The Susa Zone: Despite the Babylonian "Zagros Theory" of natural borders, ST now disputes the Persian plains north of the Zagros, even a square 3 tiles north of the mts and 2 tiles south of Susa, one of Persia's first cities (136,38). Of course, Persia does not give up this land.

Does anyone think ST is offering the grassland south of the mts as part of his "neutral zone" ? (j/k)

----------------------------------------------------

So, for these Persian atrocities, Babylon is cutting off the CA trade, breaking our alliance (such as it was), and he has pushed a scout across our border with no explanation.

Persia accepts the break-up on the condition that Babylon will not attack for at least 2 turns (this has been agreed to privately). It should be obvious to anyone who has read all this carefully that Persia has never intended to attack Babylon. In fact, the CA plan was Persia's only real hope to rise in the world.

But we'd prefer to sink back into obscurity rather than become a Bab puppet, and at the same time be treated as a liar and a criminal by our ally. Despite his eternal barrage of questions about my scouts and my plans, ST finally admitted - "it doesn't matter what you say, I don't believe you anyway" (paraphrased).

OK: this finally persuades me that Egypt has been right about Babylonian paranoia all along. I have tried to give you, dear reader, an honest account of Persia's history, which is really Bab/Pers history. I am sure ST will find some details to question and complain about, though I am not sure I have as much patience left as Pharaoh as shown.

[SlowThinker]

Tecumseh:
you always remind me we aren't alone here.
If you aren't a piker then take Mitani and I will show you a war!

Sinbad:
The Immo never heard words like 'PBEM', 'Ctrl-N' and so. Aren't you somewhat shizofrenic?

[SlowThinker]

Last 20 years it seems Babylonian and Egyptian officers are trying to ease the atmosphere, they use small pictures in their messages and something that may be called a humor. Suddenly Pharaoh sends a message full of words like 'paranoia, lying, and aggression'... Why?

Concerning paranoia: Last year was momentous: a first Bab unit in the history had gotten in striking distance of an Egyptian city: the well-known horseman (a unit of attack 2) that you know from Bab snapshots. The Pharaoh's reaction was:
Meanwhile, the beat goes on for Babylon. Now they have a unit within striking distance of Anatu AND Mari!
Then Pharaoh (who considered Egyptian units near Babylonian cities as something normal in past) sends a magician from Nineveh against a weak horse that came upon an invitation ...
Then Pharaoh sends words about paranoia ...

I on the other hand can come up with pictures EVERY TURN of Babylonian units closing in on Egyptian cities.
So basically you have nothing except paranoia, lying, and aggression.

You may notice when Egypt sent serious accusations of Babylon that were in total contradiction with our files we didn't speak about lies or paranoia but we immediately arested Hushmusnak, Albrechtuk and Nautilak.
Also now we don't think Egypt is lying or paranoid, although Babylonian files are different: the only Bab unit that ever was in a 2-square distance from an Egyptian city was the 'Magic horse' now. The only Bab unit within striking distance of an Egyptian city was the 'Magic horse' last year.
So yes, please post your pictures.

The Egyptian unit near Zibbar:
You somewhat forgot the end of the sentence:
but please report movement of your units here.

[Kull]

Pharoah is all too aware of the aggression and paranoia experienced by his good Friend and Ally to the North. The Great Snake of the Southeast has proven to be an uncomfortable neighbor for Egypt, and we share a comparatively tiny stretch of border with him. How much worse it must be to have the sinuous coils of Babylon stretching across your entire frontier.

Two of the Five can readily attest that Babylon is a growing threat, and one that bears close scrutiny. We would encourage the remaining Three to pay even closer attention to the Dark Storm rising up from the Land Between the Rivers.

[SlowThinker]

Pharaoh, those pictures please. Thank you very much.

[SlowThinker]

Babylon thanks Persia for her detailed history. We must confirm also Sinbad is not lying, although there are many innacuracies and misunderstandings. We will elaborate only the most important points.

>Persia and Babylon have been allied for many years.

AFAIK we defined our relationship like something between 'friends' and 'neutral bussiness partners'. Yes, we talked about an alliance be we concluded we wouldn't make it.
But I agree we were allied during The Great War and we were VERY friendly in some era.

>Persia had been neglected for months, suffered numerous Ctrl-Ns, was in 7th place in all the major stats

Persia cooperated mainly with Babylon and now she is about equally strong as Babylon, so she can't complain IMO.

>Anyone can see that Persia has an army of 31, while Babylon has an army of 62. Babylon also has better techs, Sargon's Arsenal, more cities, more production, more allies, etc, etc. ST actually argued that Persia is ahead of Babylon - maybe he will explain this strange idea to us.

The war ended in 2670 and Persia had 17 cities / 28 units while Babylon had 19 cities / 49 units but Babylon was very indebted (over 2000g). From that point our wealth goes from the CA plan and the gold was split 50-50. So we must be about equally strong.
I said Persia were ahead economically, because Babylon had to invest a large amount of gold into defense during the Bab-Egy dispute.
62 vs. 31 units: 6 are boats at CA, 2 are skirmishers that I bartered to Persia. So Babylon has 54 units now. But the numbers prove nothing, because one C4 is stronger than 50 skirmishers.
I am not sure how many C4s and IrInfs Persia rushbought last turn, but I guess the Bab army is probably slightly stronger than the Persian. But the gold arriving from CA is still large now and you may get stronger very easily (unless Babylon puts all CA gold into army).
And you have only one proximal neighbour. It is clear a combo of Egyptian+Persian armies are much stronger that the Babylonian one.
Sargon is only a very expensive version of your several Barracks. You can hardly await Babylon will build 30 C4s per turn.
How do you know how many allies Babylon has? My only ally, Egypt, is a secret one and we are trying hard not to reveal it .

Anyway the overal strength is not important, if Persia built a stronger army and attacked from Al Kabir she can be in two turns around Larsa. Babylon is on a rivered small area and so very fragile.

>But we'd prefer to sink back into obscurity rather than become a Bab puppet

Babylon warned long time that security is Nr 1 for us, that we are ready to give up the CA trade if we don't feel safe besides Persia and that your claims near Tigris endanger our security. Now Persia starts to enforce these claims by a power (a C2 and BI have far to be considered scouts, and I see only a fraction of the area) and simultaneously Persia hinders we scout the area. At the same moment Persia acquires Chariot Tactics.
How would you call The Immortal if Babylon continued our trade like nothing happened? A naive puppet?

>So, for these Persian atrocities, Babylon is cutting off the CA trade

Noo. The Immo announced: Babylon is ready to continue the trade normally if sufficient border/security measures are arranged. Babylon is ready to continue a halved trade if provisional large neutral area is accepted so that we can continue our talks about definitive border/security.
Any other leader would reject a trade with Persia COMPLETELY after you enforced a land that was disputed and so dangerous, but a loss of a CA trade would be very painful for Babylon. You know well CA is a best target city for Bab caravans. And other leaders will confirm there is no Bab caravan moving to their cities (although in current situation we are negotiating about it), all vans go to CA now.

>Persia accepts the break-up on the condition that Babylon will not attack for at least 2 turns (this has been agreed to privately). It should be obvious to anyone who has read all this carefully that Persia has never intended to attack Babylon.

This is a misunderstanding! We offered a peace because an alliance is a very dangerous kind of relationship (under the current rules), not because we wanted to attack Persia. If I wanted to attack then I could bribe Nimrud and use free roads between Adab and Ecbatana!
You asked if I can agree not to attack for 2 turns and I answered I want to attack neither in 2 turns nor in 10 turns.
So if Persia wants any no-attack agreement then Babylon welcomes it, but at least for 10 turns.

>In fact, the CA plan was Persia's only real hope to rise in the world.

So why do you want to end it?? You will only have to 'suffer' a neutral zone between Bab and Persia. Is it so painful?

To be continued tomorrow.

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Anyway the overal strength is not important, if Persia built a stronger army and attacked from Al Kabir she can be in two turns around Larsa. Babylon is on a rivered small area and so very fragile.

We weep for poor endangered Babylon. She is Fragile and Exposed along the Tigris, as Assyria discovered when they attacked and quickly conquered all before them. Wait! They didn't.

Noo. The Immo announced: Babylon is ready to continue the trade normally if sufficient border/security measures are arranged. Babylon is ready to continue a halved trade if provisional large neutral area is accepted.....

In Babylonian diplomatic speak, this means "your undefended heartland and my impassable mountains".

......so that we can continue our talks about definitive border/security.

In Babylonian diplomatic speak, this means "something that leaves you completely defenseless and at our mercy".

Any other leader would reject a trade with Persia COMPLETELY after you enforced a land that was disputed and so dangerous.

In Babylonian diplomatic speak, this means "completely reasonable to any another civilization".

So why do you want to end it?? You will only have to 'suffer' a neutral zone between Bab and Persia. Is it so painful?

Don't mind these coils we are tossing over the mountains, they don't mean anything. Nor do those roads we are building right up to the edge of your open and unprotected lands. And this large wedge we are driving between your eastern and western cities? Purely there for our protection. Any resemblance to open jaws is purely coincidental.

[Peaster]

I can wait to respond.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Tecumseh:
you always remind me we aren't alone here.
If you aren't a piker then take Mitani and I will show you a war!

Well, I don't know what a piker is, but I've followed this game since it started. It really is one of the most successful PBEMs ever. In case piker means theoretical rather than practical, I plead guilty. Here's my article on PBEM diplomacy, in case it's of any help getting this game moving again. http://sleague.apolyton.net/index.ph...-_by_techumseh