New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Straybow]

Peasants voting? May Nutt's Silvery Orb forfend! Yet, as these words are inked upon the parchment Senator "Silver" Rehes from Antioch belies the words.

He is the first Senator of Aramean ancestry to represent his district, a point of great pride in his home town. In an interview he fails to know the difference between the Seyhan and the Ceyhan, the Khabur and the Khabir, the Euphrates and the Murat.

[SlowThinker]

Persian invasion to Zagros
For our scouts in Zagros it wasn't so hard to detect a new Persian stack (accompanied by an envoy) in the highest part of Zagros's range and a new road in Zariqum's perimeter. The Immo had private talks with Sinbad that disproved our first idea that the Persian manoeuvres must be a joke.
It looks the long coexistence with Barbarians affected Persian culture strongly, and now we have to explain that the Persian concept of 'law of the strong hand' does not work in civilized lands like Babylon. We are issuing this official pronouncement:

1. Persia is occupying former Assyrian lands and there is nor agreement neither reason that would authorize Persia to do it.
2. Babylon claims a right to take steps of any kind and at any time in order to expel the invaders from the orange line (see the map). However Babylon will warn Persia once more before these steps will be performed.
3. In case Persian troops advance even closer to Arrariver and Hekkariver (the red zone) Babylon claims a right to act immediately, without further warning.

A note: the map shows a post-war position of cities and a current position of units in the "front line".

[Straybow]

Good thing we aren't playing by the Othello Combat Rules variant, or that Bab Skirmisher would be captured by the Persians.

[SlowThinker]

Babylon congratulates to Hittites, who succeeded to build the Senate.
Congratulations also to Egypt and Persia, who succeeded to establish a nice alliance (this one is probably not arrayed against ZOCs).

[SlowThinker]

Al-Babzyirah, 26th Agrichtak of 256th Penembuldo:
An analysis of our special correspondent, Zariqum:

The situation on the border between Babylon and Persia is affected by a simple fact, which is hidden to most lay observers: Babylon can't capture cities without getting new technologies and losing the hides supply. So she is technically neither able to wage an expansionary war, nor able to recapture her own cities if they are conquered. G.G., our well informed source from Babylonian court says that both sides of the conflict perceive this fact, as it was discussed between Sinbad and The Immortal in past.
But it is interesting both sides of the conflict are quiet about it. This not a surprise in case of Persia, that will hardly trumpet she needs defenses against a country that is unable to wage war effectively. However it is a surprise in case of Babylon; the most likely explanation is Babylon doesn't want Egypt grasps it and The Immortal hopes naively that communication between Egypt and her ally Persia doesn't work.
The situation is explosive now and many questions are open:
When does Babylon intend to pronouce her 'last appeal' that Persia shall clear out Zagros? Soon, in future or never? Zariqum is in danger, The Immortal might choose a similar solution like with Negru in past (to remove Zariqum), but he would lose his face seriously. Anyway Zariqum got fresh walls, so this solution is not likely.
What will happen if Babylon pronounces the 'last appeal'? In opinion of editorial staff a war will be likely except Sinbad accepts a loss of his face. From other point of view The Immortal loses his face if he lets the Persians at Zariqum forever ...
Will Persia move her troops into the Babylonian 'red zone'? Then again a war is likely, as Babylon can't risk the front moves even closer to Bab cities (I am reminding Babylon doesn't want to be forced to recapture her cities during a war). And again this is about Sinbad's face, as Persia claims the 'T-line' for one century already.

Our correspondents will watch the situation attentively and we are assuring you that you will get most fresh and most shocking news only if you buy engravings of Al-Babzyirah.

[Peaster]

Babylon has a clear history of insane demands on Persia, which we all discussed 100 years ago. Babylon has demanded all the grassland in the East (which Stefan unfortunately agreed to), for Persia to pay for new Bab cities and roads, for Persia to refuse Chariot Tactics, for Babylonian inspections across Persian borders, etc. Here is yet another insane demand, which we must deny.

Persian engineers and sentries will continue to work within Persian borders to defend our lands. Babylon has NO right to draw lines over our borders or dictate Persian behavior there.

Reminder: Persia refuted Babylon's claims for large parts of Persia [such as the Al Kabir valley and the Susa plains] many years ago. When Babylon walked out of our talks, Persia still wanted a well-defined border, and made a very reasonable claim - the Tushpa line. It was all discussed publicly in this thread. IIRC the Pharoah of Egypt completely supported the Persian claim, even suggesting Persian ownership of the entire Zagros region. Consul (then King) Straybow of Hattas stated that if Babylon claimed the rich river valleys in the East, then they should not also claim an equal share of the Zagros. I do not recall ANY King supporting the Babylonian position.

Despite all this, Babylon has claimed the tributaries of the Tigris, to give her armies easy access to most of the middle Zagros range. But to defend our borders, Persia needs to build roads. Since Babylon has posted sentries OVER the border, Persia has been forced to use envoys and stacks, to move her workers past Bab ZOCs. Which gives Babylon another flimsy excuse to make threats and try to provoke a war.

To Persia, Zariqum is not a major issue. Babylon asked Persian permission before building Zariqum, so we recognize its right to exist. But we agreed to that only on the condition that the new city will not affect any future talks on borders (which I believe we are having now). Babylon agreed to this. So, the city can stay, but that does NOT imply rights to all the nearby land. The city has never been threatened by Persia (in fact, it is not even on the Persian map). Its greatest danger comes from its own King, with his constant warped demands, threats and provocations.

Now, Babylon has no right to say "we can attack you any time, without additional warning, and it will be your fault". This is equivalent to a declaration of war. If that was the intention, be clear about it and just declare war plainly and honestly.

We repeat for the 1000th time that Persia does not want war - especially not against the largest army in the known world. But we cannot agree to baseless Babylonian demands. And we will not concede Persian land just so Babylon can save face. Babylon should be more careful about what she demands.

[SlowThinker]

Is the Persian long message

• a try to clarify standpoints between Persia and Babylon and maybe to find some kind of agreement (some dialogue is expected)
• or just a figment of Assyrian Department of Propaganda (that prefers to stick to a monologue)?

In case a dialogue is expected:
We remember the round of talks 100 years ago, where Persia appeared with many half-truths, but after Babylon started to question them, Persia lost her interest to debate most points. Therefore we prefer to discuss the Persian long message piece by piece.

The first piece are stacked units:

Persia has been forced to use envoys and stacks, to move her workers past Bab ZOCs.

This is a perfect example of a Persian half-truth (greetings to Old Politus, the famous mentor of diplomatic speech on University of Ur):
* Stacks will never help you to get through ZOCs.
* In case you need to get through ZOCs a van is better than an envoy (except you want to bribe something)
* So far no Persian unit moved through a Bab ZOC. No envoys/vans were needed.

Originally posted by Sinbad on 09-12-2006 04:53:
Persian engineers have continued public works within Persian borders. It was our intention to avoid stacking at this sensitive time, but Persian planning was imperfect.

In case it was your intention you could simply swap the skirm and MilEng (see the picture), but clearly you ordered the skirm to stay in the Mountains stacked with the MilEng.

In short: Persia is using stacks and envoys, and assumes they are necessary because of ZOCs and 'imperfect planning'. This is not true. So we would like to know what is that camouflage for. Are stacks full of attackers or are they only means how to provoke a war?

[Peaster]

What could you possibly mean? When an envoy guides a unit past a ZOC, stacking HAS to occur. How do explain the Persian spearman at the SE tip of your orange line? It did not get past your invaders by itself.

You also speak from ignorance about the stack with the engineer. IIRC my skirmisher tested your ZOC before the engineer moved onto the square, and had no movement left.

However, I do not apologize for stacking my units within Persian borders, and with all due respect, request that you withdraw your scouts and mind your own business.

[SlowThinker]

>IIRC my skirmisher tested your ZOC before the engineer moved onto the square, and had no movement left.

This is very strange, in Babylon ZOC-testing doesn't eat movepoints. But even if the skirmisher lost his movepoints some strange way, he could leave MilEng next two turns. But he stays in the stack.

>When an envoy guides a unit past a ZOC, stacking HAS to occur.

No, the envoy can go first, then the unit swaps with the envoy.
And you are saying Persia doesn't want war, so why do you use envoys and not caravans?

[Peaster]

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.

IIRC ZOC testing, followed by re-fortifying, does eat movepoints. But as I said, stacking Persian units in Persia is not really a major issue. You may have to get used to that.

[Peaster]

We regard the Babylonian announcement as roughly equivalent to a declaration of war. Though as usual, their weasely spokesman refuses to speak plainly and honestly. Persian workmen had no need to approach the border this year anyway, and they didn't. So, we do not expect Babylon to start their attack quite yet, and we did not have to slay any invaders either. Perhaps there is time for the wisdom of other Kings to have some effect, if only they will speak up against this rising evil.

Warning to Babylon - You have decreed that you will attack when Persian units venture into any part of Persia marked by your red line. Thus we will regard ourselves as under attack and in a state of war as soon as that occurs. If this was not your intention, you'd better hire a new spokesman and clarify.

[SlowThinker]

(The wise Old Politus suggests we didn't notice the last Persian message and we should continue the 'stack problem')

The 'stack case' is really a bit complicated, but maybe we will grasp it:

Originally posted by Sinbad
IIRC ZOC testing, followed by re-fortifying, does eat movepoints.

Ah. Maybe it is the refortifying itself that eats movepoints? So in 2470 you 'intended to avoid stacking at that sensitive time', so you wanted to move the skirmisher from the stack, but first you decided to re-fortify him. Then you found out the skirmisher cannot move after the fortifying. The same problem appeared three subsequent turns.
In the meantime you perceived you stacked units only because you were forced by Babylonian ZOCs. But today you realized you don't mind to stack units at all, because all Zagros is in Persia.
Are we at least roughly correct?

We would like to repeat our question why Persia does prefer envoys over caravans if she does not want war, but brains of all the Babylonian court are a bit boiled now.

Edit: more pretty quote

[Straybow]

A reasonable request

Bab has specifically confined his declaration of hostilities to the contested stretch of the Zagros. He has not claimed Persian cities, or threatened Persian cities. He has objected to the militarization of the area and the road crossing the mountains.

You may notice that Bab has not built a road past Zariqum into the foothills. It would have served well in his defensive efforts, yet he did not.

Persia speaks of "building a road in Persian territory" but rather has built a road into Babylonian territory. Units can now cross the Zagros from the Persian side and attack in the same turn.

Units cannot cross the mountains and attack in the same turn from Babylon. A road connecting Zariqum and the new Persian road cannot be built in one turn.

The spine of the Zagros was to be a defensive bastion for both sides, but now it is breached. Were I on the throne of Babylon I would object, though perhaps not in the way Slo has done.

King Sinbad, tear down this road.

[Peaster]

Straybow - Babylon claimed all the eastern grassland and main river valleys long ago, which gave him a huge advantage, and gave Persia an almost hopeless disadvantage in terms of growth and movement. Almost the only good thing going for Persia is defensive terrain. I claimed the Tushpa line for Persia approximately 100 years ago, partly to compensate, VERY slightly, and partly because ST stopped border talks. I think it is a reasonable compromise - FAR more reasonable than anything ST was talking about.

There was a discussion in this thread, and IIRC you (and Egypt) backed the Persian position, with no dissent except from the usual source. I don't know if you have changed your mind about that for some reason. At any rate, I claimed this land for Persia, and stand by that, but Babylon has occupied much of this land. If you accept my claim, as I thought you did, then it is very clear that Babylon is the invader, not Persia. It is also clear that Persia must take some action to avoid being eaten by continually increasing Babylonian demands, and that our defensive actions have been extremely peaceful despite all the usual screaming from the south.

How long are you willing to accept ST's lies, that within a turn or two, Persia [supposedly the greatest power in the world] will attack Babylon [obviously much larger if you bother to read the stats at all], followed by a quick victory, and some gloating over Babylon's pitiful defense? This has been going on for about 20 turns, now. It is insane, and I am sick of it. You should be complaining that he is insulting your intelligence.

BTW - It will always be easy for Babylon to move troops into the Zagros along rivers, and build forts and cities at will, but Persia doesn't have that option. We need roads just to maintain parity. I have no doubt that without such roads, the entire Zagros will someday belong to Babylon. Sometimes the little guy just can't give stuff away, and I'm not giving away my roads.

I have not built roads into Babylon, nor moved any troops into Babylon - unless Babylon has grown lately. Certainly ST's ambitions are huge. If he wants peace in the Zagros mts, all he has to do is withdraw from Persia and be quiet.

[Kull]

If you look a little further down the line, you'll see that just above Arraphka, Babylon already controls a river that has breached the Zagros. A C4 leaving that position can be deep inside the Persian heartland in ONE TURN. Yet do we hear Persia braying about war? Hardly. It should be obvious to anyone with eyes that the Zagros mountains are THE critical defensive line for Persia, and that Persia should be granted - by far - the benefit of the doubt where it comes to actions necessary to enhance their security here.

As Peaster notes, the Babylonian claims are laughable in that, once again, the smaller power is being portrayed as a threat to the larger. And even if Peaster was foolish enough to invade Babylon (and we all know how well THAT strategy worked the last time somebody tried it), the best he could do would be to arrive in the foothills or possibly even reach the Tigris. And there he would face the same impossible dilemma that confronted the last invader who thought he could ignore shiploads of troops there. And that completely ignores the fact that - as noted above - Babylon ALREADY OWNS pathways through the Zagros through which devastating counterattacks would certainly be launched.

I have no idea what Babylon is trying to pull here, but I can't imagine that any other World Leader would seriously agree that he is entitled to launch a war over a single road of dubious strategic value.

That being said, and as was true the last time an aggressor threatened his neighbors with war, Pharoah will take the initiative to float a peace proposal to the three other neutral Kings.