New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Straybow]

I'd consider the Persian starting position to be zero grassland in Persia proper. The nearest is south of the Zagros, by Adab. The nearest above the Zagros is across the Kur, at a distance of 20.

5 of the 14 you count are twice as far away on the Black Sea. Closer to Hatte, really...

[Peaster]

Apologies to any Kings who may be totally bored with all this - it is a bit repetitive. I will not offer any evidence that ST has lied or deliberately pulled any fast tricks. In fact, I consider him a relatively honest fellow (but not very accurate, nor reliable, and not a good neighbor). Let's start with

Very Ancient History: ST has claimed in recent posts that I intend to change the borders near Ecbatana. I did ask for more land around my capitol when I started in approx 2890BC (eg 2004), but when ST explained the pre-history, I agreed to respect the decision of the previous Persian King. The border of approx (x,51) is completely unreasonable, but IIRC I have never asked to change it since the 2890BC era. So I don't know why ST is making an issue of this now. Here is our recent conversation:

S "IIRC your 2890BC claim to all grasslands south of the Zagros was a non-negotiable demand".

ST "I explained to Stefan Babylon has no other land where to expand and that she would be ready to fight for this land and Stefan understood it."

S "...the [2890BC] conversation was very brief, and after you explained that Stefan had already agreed to your demands, I agreed to them too (but have never liked it). I'm not sure why we are talking about this."

... But apparently we still are...

BTW - I can now find 9 grassland squares in Persia, though some are very distant from the capitol. If you center your screen on Ecbatana you will see approx 6 grassland squares, but they are ALL in Babylon !

Less-Ancient History (about 10 turns ago):

ST seems reluctant to grant Persia any bits of Assyria (except Tushpa's city radius - see his map with the large neutral zones). He tries to justify this using our spoils talks (see post 2883).

But IIRC we didn't intend to talk about borders until after the spoils were settled. I am certain the old Assyria-Persia borders were not brought up then. We made a rough count of the captured cities and the reasonable sites for new cities along the rivers captured by Babylon - since Persia expected a 10% share of that. IIRC we did not discuss the Zagros mts, foothills, or Persian gains in the war. So, I don't see why spoils should affect current border talks.

Then ST asked me about land farther west. I answered that I considered the land between the lakes, and the upper half of the Al Kabir river, as likely to be Persian. IIRC he made no objection to that, and talked about possible Persian roads in this region, or even further south.

He did not seem interested in Nimrud or the little river going north of it. I think he even offered the city to the Hittites. As of 2550BC it has been disbanded.

So, I felt we had a rough agreement, if not a firm deal, which was reasonable for both sides. I posted a skirmisher at (123,35) then [about 10 turns ago] and have moved many units across the region, as it lies between several Persian cities. It seems clear from a glance at the map that most of the upper river should be Persian. The mouth is 3 squares from Tushpa and is on the route of the Persian invasion in the War. Babylon's closest city is/was Nimrud at 6 squares away (and Persia has 4 cities within 7 squares of it).

But ST somehow got the idea that Persia was fortifying there, and preparing to attack Babylon. He started insisting on the right to scout the region, and even post Bab units there. Persian claims did not matter to Babylon. Persia has offered many deals to soothe Bab fears, but all were rejected.

Recent talks:

Persia offered to allow a Bab inspection of the whole river, unblocked by any Persian ZOCs, etc. But we insisted the Bab scout must then leave. ST refused and insisted on scouting HIS way. His reasoning is not clear to me, but it seems clear that he does not intend to leave. Maybe readers can decide, based on our
emails from yesterday and today:

ST "We can use ZOCs wery effectively. If you put a unit on the Gold on Al Kabir .... "

S "I am starting my turn, and notice you have an EC at (121,35). I suggested a horse at (123,37), which could scout the entire river and exit in one turn. So, what are you up to with this EC?

I have not agreed to withdraw to the Gold and could not get there this turn anyway, since the EC blocks ZOC. If you agree to a shorter scouting trip, returning to (123,37) by the end of your 2540 turn, and allowing my skirm to return to (123,35) then I will step aside this turn."

[I may have lost ST's exact response to this, but it was negative]

S "Your EC does not have permission to scout the upper Al Kabir unless you agree to leave in 2540BC. I am not ready to threaten you with war, but the conflict WILL escalate if you invade. On the other hand, if you cooperate, I will allow the 2540 inspection and may allow more from time to time."

ST " "Invade" - you mean the EC enters upper Al Kabir? Or some mass invasion, building forts etc.?"

S "Roughly, I mean Bab unit(s) entering Persia without permission. I have cleared the Al-K for a Bab unit to explore the whole river and have given permission for a 2540BC trip. But you have not accepted Persian conditions, have taken a different route, and have not explained your intentions (especially for the EC in 2540BC - 2530BC). So, unless you explain the EC path, I must assume it is a hostile unit."

ST "Maybe you didn't notice we are only in the middle of talks about borders. Now I don't accept ANY Persian claim on Al Kabir."

S "The precise border is negotiable, but if you don't accept ANY Persian claims to the Al-Kabir, we are going to have increasing problems, and possibly war. For now, Persia insists on control of any scouting north of (123,35).

ST "If Persian skirmisher moves to 125,35 now I can send a C2...."

S "I have already played most of my turn, and the skirmisher cannot move in 2550. If you agree that Persia directs the river scouting (at least temporarily), I will give you another chance to scout the river (eg with your C2 in 2530). I may offer more chances later, but do not promise this - it depends mainly on our talks and relations. "

ST "I said it clearly - several turns, and especially in 2540, I need to inspect Al Kabir and I WILL. (I don't know why you didn't wait with your skirmisher until I answered and it is suspicious.) You can start a war because of it if you want."

"I also said I was ready to cooperate about ways how to do it, but I won't agree you direct it. I will decide if the scouting is sufficient, not you. But I won't park heavy units on upper Al-Kabir (like C2) and I will take your wishes in consideration."

Really ? Babylon denies Persia's very reasonable claim to some part of the river. Babylon has not described exactly how/where she "WILL" inspect Persia, against Persian wishes, but it doesn't sound like one little EC taking a quick look around.

As always, the opinions of the Kings are welcome.

[SlowThinker]

> ST has claimed in recent posts that I intend to change the borders near Ecbatana.

I only said you wanted to change them in 2890. And now I am asking what those words about war and bullied old King stand for.

> The border of approx (x,51) is completely unreasonable, but IIRC I have never asked to change it since the 2890BC era. So I don't know why ST is making an issue of this now.

I am not making an issue of this. YOU said the Babylonian refusal to change borders in 2890 was a fewerish demand. I only answered.
FYI I marked the Sinbad's 2890 proposal in the map (blue dots) - he wanted 12 squares from Ecbatana.

bullied Achamenes
> ST "I explained to Stefan Babylon has no other land where to expand and that she would be ready to fight for this land and Stefan understood it."

You are mixing two things. Achamenes didn't want land near Ecbatana, but all eastern lands (probably only because of the Sinbad's treasury).

Edit: My all words were:
"When I was teleported to the Babylonian throne there were no borders with Persia. So I initiated talks.
There weren't problems with Grassland, but with all land east from the lowest part of Tigris (I mean the area that starts by swamps). I explained to Stefan Babylon has no other land where to expand and that she would be ready to fight for this land and Stefan understood it. (Later I understood he wanted this land probably only because of the treasure)
After this we agreed on very friendly relationship and on mutual help with Dipsys and GL."

Edit: better picture

[SlowThinker]

Less-Ancient History

>So, I felt we had a rough agreement, if not a firm deal, which was reasonable for both sides.

After The War I sent you a very advantageous proposal where I asked only 1-2 squares of upper Al-Kabir. This was a most concrete point of our rough talks. You didn't have time to talk about it, but apparently you understood it this way: Land that The Immo proposed to be Persian was a 'firm deal' but the proposed Babylonian land would be divided later (now you are claiming 13 squares of it).

>Babylon denies Persia's very reasonable claim to some part of the river.

After you refused my proposal and denied a Bab square 2 points from Arraphka (for example), I said OK, let us consider similar squares to be neutral until we get a final agreement.

> He tries to justify this using our spoils talks (see post 2883).
But IIRC we didn't intend to talk about borders until after the spoils were settled. I am certain the old Assyria-Persia borders were not brought up then. We made a rough count of the captured cities and the reasonable sites for new cities along the rivers captured by Babylon - since Persia expected a 10% share of that. IIRC we did not discuss the Zagros mts, foothills, or Persian gains in the war. So, I don't see why spoils should affect current border talks.

Sinbad, do you perceive how you switch between arguments? First you said that Assyrian mountains shall be Persian because Persian units entered there. After I reminded Persian units worked for Babylonian army this argument dissapeared and a new one originated.

We agreed the Assyrian land spoils were closed. IMO it would be understandable if you said:
'I made a mistake, during the spoils talks I forgot the mountains were Assyrian too. Please let us re-open the land spoils, Persia should get also 10% of border area outside of reasonable city sites.'


Recent talks

For me it looks absurd if we are in a middle of talks about borders (including the upper Al Kabir) and suddenly you say these talks are about nothing because ALL upper Al Kabir is Persian already.

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker ....because ALL upper Al Kabir is Persian already.

It is.

[kengel]

Originally posted by Kull
As for Greece, Pharoah is most curious. Why is there an envoy perched in Egypt's Lebanese river valleys? They are far from home, and Egypt wonders at their purpose?

This greek guy is one of the most faithful admirer of the great pharao, and traveled a long way to gain a view on the growing egypt civilization from distance.
His intends are peaceful, and he would be most delighted to get an audience at pharao, for talks about founding an ambassadory for intercultural exchange program

[Straybow]

We aren't bored. We're easily amused.

Mmmmm, Femke Janssen.


Where was I... Oh, carry on.

[Peaster]

I admit to being confused about the border talks between ST and Stefan. Stefan told me nothing, and if ST explained them back then, I no longer have a record of it. I recently asked ST if the borders were a non-negotiable demand, and he replied with the quote above, which IMO is a "yes". But maybe Stefan had lost interest at that point, and negotiated poorly... I am not sure the fault is 100% Bab.

The map in Post #2898 is new to me. AFAIK there was never a clear Assyrian-Bab border and Assyria settled only the western fringes of the Tig/Eup grasslands.

Spoils talks : Persia bought a C4 for 300g, for Bab use in the War. Afterwards, we asked for a fair share of the spoils, and gave Babylon complete freedom over that. Babylon took this very seriously and created a system of complicated formulas, which I never really understood (and I repeatedly told him so). These talks were very tedious - probably over 30 RL hours of work over spoils worth about 300g. The result of the Bab calculations (2 Farmers) was not what I wanted or expected, but it was roughly fair and I said OK.

Apparently ST had a different view, which I am only now starting to understand. His calculations have logical implications for him (about borders etc) which have never explicitly been stated. I never understood them or agreed to them AFAIK. For me, the talks were about a fair gift from Bab to Persia. But for ST, it seems we were making a deal. But even if this were so, we had an understanding that border talks were a separate issue to be handled later.

I have no intention of disputing the Tigris, for example, since that was the focus of the early spoils talks, at least. But IMO much of the hills/etc are negotiable and I don't see why a 10%-to-Persia rule should apply to them.

ST wrote "First you said that Assyrian mountains shall be Persian because Persian units entered there. " I don't remember saying exactly this, but said they were not automatically Babylonian. Are you now claiming the mts based on the spoils talks ?

The spoils talks were unpleasant and I'd be happy to forget them. But I moved a lot of those emails into a text file [editing out some junk] Looking over them again, I found this conversation. Apparently there was some forgotten talk of borders in the early stages. I do not remember editing any of it, but should ask ST - Is this accurate ?

ST "Al Kabir. I agree the northern part is Persian. I would like to have a right to check if you are not cumulating armies there. But this is a wish, not a request."

S " Not sure what to say... I don't have a problem with this in 2680BC while we are friendly. But it seems you wish me to trust you on the road into middle Persia and this river into west Persia - though you do not trust me. Maybe if you also allow Persian scouts into Babylon, I will say OK. Maybe we can handle this stuff with screenshots instead of scouts? " ...... [rejected]...

"Also, I'd like about 10% of the conquered Tigris valley."

ST "OK, let's count river squares (without swamps): Tigris from Nimrud (116,36) to the Wide Tigris: 17 al Kabir (up to 123,35): 5 rivers of Hekallush and Arraphka: 9 around Hourigalzur: 10"

NOTE1: Persia did not get any of the valley. Babylon offered land for settlements, but with no defensive units allowed [and no roads to Persia IIRC], so I refused.

NOTE2: The Bab calculations evolved over time. AFAIK they included all conquered land along the Tigris, but no attempt was made to include all of Eastern Assyria. Not sure if the Euphrates was ever included.

[kengel]

Peace... calmness... Dolce Vita...
Nice life in the northwest corner of earth

[SlowThinker]

(Quotes of last Sinbad's message are italic.)
Sinbad, I got a similar message privately, I will answer only here.

>I do not remember editing any of it, but should ask ST - Is this accurate?

You always admitted my memory is better than yours.
No, it isn't accurate:

1) Gifts vs. spoils

>For me, the talks were about a fair gift from Bab to Persia. But for ST, it seems we were making a deal.

Sinbad, why did we always talk about 'spoils' and not 'gifts' ?
The text that follows doesn't seem to be about 'gifts':

ST wrote in 2750 (before 300g for a C4 was accepted):
"This is my idea: your 300 g should behave a similar way like you build a C4 and use it yourself. So we are sharing losses and profits. You should get the C4 back at end of war if possible. If lost then you should get a "part" of it (proportional to all the loses).
You should get proportional spoils of war - for example [blah blah long] ...
So this is an idea how the size of army should be counted. ... But I think you deserve a bit more than is the proportional spoil since you are help also by patrolling and harassing Assyria."


2) Land spoils

>ST wrote "First you said that Assyrian mountains shall be Persian because Persian units entered there. " I don't remember saying exactly this, but said they were not automatically Babylonian.

You said it here:

ST: "You ask I accept the Persian part of the old map, but simultaneously you want to dispute the Assyrian part...??? "
S: "Yes, why not ? Persia advanced into some of these regions during the war... why should it all go to Babylon ?"

>Are you now claiming the mts based on the spoils talks ?

Now we are mutually explaining our arguments and logic of Assyrian spoils. So I can't say now.

ST "OK, let's count river squares (without swamps): Tigris from Nimrud (116,36) to the Wide Tigris: 17 al Kabir (up to 123,35): 5 rivers of Hekallush and Arraphka: 9 around Hourigalzur: 10"

Sinbad, if you read further you would see this system wasn't accepted:

ST: "total 43 river squares. so your rights are 5 river squares?
Agreed? ..."
S: "I think this is approx right, except ... [dubitation] ... So, a precise split seems difficult. I will suggest an algorithm below..."

Several messages later you wrote:

S:
"Back to spoils... ideas
2) IMO the spoils are quite good and we should be happy. The land on your map seems enough to support 20 small cities. I guess each city site [eg on river+grass near 1 special] is worth approx 50g to Persia - maybe less to fat Babylonians accustomed to living near grass."

I accepted Persian value of land and Persia got 100g for land.


3) Al Kabir

ST "Al Kabir. I agree the northern part is Persian. I would like to have a right to check if you are not cumulating armies there. But this is a wish, not a request."

Yes, this is in concordance what I wrote recently: I said this sentence during 'rough talks' (soon after end of The War) and I also proposed a map where I asked only 1-2 squares of upper Al-Kabir. But you didn't agree and questioned squares 2 points from Nimrud and Arraphka. Then I said OK, let us consider similar squares to be neutral until we get a final agreement.


4) Achamenes

>But maybe Stefan had lost interest at that point, and negotiated poorly... I am not sure the fault is 100% Bab.

Achamenes wanted about 90% of territory accessible for Persia+Babylon. I think he would have to negotiate VERY strongly in order to get that.

>The map in Post #2898 is new to me. AFAIK there was never a clear Assyrian-Bab border and Assyria settled only the western fringes of the Tig/Eup valley.

Right. The green line is about the most western pre-war Bab settlement. There should be another dark blue line west that should mark end of Assyria.

[SlowThinker]

Why those Greeks disturb here? Get off!

Sinbad and Thimmo introduce a new test. You should prove if you study international affairs carefully. Kings, form a line now.
Assessment of the test: One mistake: your eye. Two mistakes: two eyes. Three mistakes: your head.
No cribbing! No aids!

Easy:
Persia bought a ??? for 300g.
IIRC your 2890BC claim to all grasslands south of the Zagros was a ??? demand.
Intermediate:
170 shields was ???% of the total army size on Babylonian front, and we agreed to round this number to ???%.
If you agree to a shorter scouting trip, returning to (???,???) by the end of your ??? turn, and allowing my skirm to return to (???,???) then I will step aside this turn.
Hard:
You can start a ??? because of it if you want.
We expect that ??? looms ahead.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Why those Greeks disturb here? Get off!

Some of us are playing a game called "Civ2" ...

[Peaster]

I see. So, "No, it isn't accurate" in BabSpeak means "Yes, I said it, but then I changed my mind".

Your point in part 1) is as clear as mud to me. Whether you call them spoils talks or gift talks or whatever, basically Babylon was returning a favor. IMO you have still not made a connection between these talks and Persian concessions on borders. If other Kings see a clear connection, pls explain it to me.

I also miss your point in 2a). Your phrase "...you want to dispute the Assyrian part..." sounds like you already think of Eastern Assyria as 100% Babylonian, though you have been careful not to explicitly say so. I offered a few reasons why the Assyrians hills were not automatically yours. You distorted my words a bit, into - Persia claims the hills, and only because she invaded there.

The rest of 2) is equally obscure. I only included these early calculations to show that the focus was on Assyrian rivers and grass and city sites - not on the Zagros hills and not on the upper Al Kabir and not on borders (except for your isolated comment, which you apparently retracted). I made it clear that this early calculation was not the final version (which would probably not fit on any single website).

BTW - As astute readers may have guessed, Persia did not actually GET the 100g ST refers to. Various deductions were made for tech gains, etc. [but I do not dispute the Bab/Byzantine calculations, and I agreed to the settlement].

Part 3) Curious - Could you remind me when I "questioned squares 2 points from Nimrud and Arraphka." ? I remember including (134,46) in the Tushpa line accidentally, and correcting it immediately. But that was recent - not in the same time frame as the Part 3) issue. BTW your Part 4a) is also unclear to me, but that's probably OK... I can give up on understanding that story.

[SlowThinker]

The Immortal is busy with internal affairs and can't answer now. Of course he will send very long and detailed answer as soon as possible.
In the meantime could Sinbad answer two recent questions related to words about war?

[Kull]

Originally posted by Peaster
These talks were very tedious - probably over 30 RL hours of work over spoils worth about 300g.

That's reason #1 (out of about 514) why Pharoah is enormously relieved at having severed all ties with the Evil Empire.