New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Straybow]

I agree that Babylon is in the superior position. I agree that his overall paranoia is unmerited. The greater border dispute is not the issue here.

Pharaoh, the cases cited don't compare. Bab forces cannot cross the mountain and move "deep inside the Persian heartland." At best, a chariot from Arrariver could move within striking range of Susa.

Nor can a Persian force cross the mountains and move "deep" into Bab territory. At best, fast units from the Al-Khabir could attack fortresses on the Tigris. But now, fast units can attack a Bab city from the newly constructed road.

For another example, Persia could build a city separated from the head of the Arrariver by only one hills tile. Then a Bab Chariot could move along the river up to four tiles, move onto the hills, and have a full mp for attack left.

The Arrariver is a terrain feature. It is there when the hypothetical city site is chosen by Persia. It can't be removed. There was no river or road breaching the barrier when Zariqum was founded.

The road now there was built for a strategic reason. If the reason is defensive access the need can be filled by a road in the hills without breaching the mountains.

Babylon did not build a fort on the mountain at the head of Arrariver, which could be construed as an offensive position. He built a defensive position on the inferior hills terrain. Likewise at Zariqum he built no fortification on the mountains.

Babylon did not station fast units or strong units on the mountains, only the weakest scouts. This confirms the defensive posture of Bab forces.

Ask the question in the reverse: would Sinbad be complaining if Babylon had built a road up from Zariqum in the mountains? The answer is, "Yes."

The way to peaceful relations here is clear. Building the road is perceived as a threat. Removing the road removes the threat.

[SlowThinker]

I really won't comment the words like 'ST stopped border talks', 'continually increasing Babylonian demands', 'ST's lies'. I think the talks about Persian stacks and envoys in Zagros is a good example how Sinbad constructs his half-truths.
I will only remind that we had a preliminary agreement about borders in the moment when Babylon built Zariqum (and Persia strongly reminded this pre-agreement when Babylon showed she could question springs of Al Kabir) and then suddenly Persia came with her T-line and moved her claims almost two lines forward in Zagros.
And I will remind it was Sinbad who first came with a threat of a war after a single Bab Early Chariot started to mount along Al Kabir far away from Persian settlements.

Concerning a size of the Babylonian army: Sinbad should perceive Babylon is not so secretive as Persia and exchanges her maps with most civilizations. These civilizations know what Babylonian units are and where they are.
Contrary to Persia, who needs only limited number of patrols (as one half of her border is with a 'Black empire') and might have easily 20 C4s and nobody would know about it.

I don't think grasslands in Babylon is an economical advantage in comparison with shield-producing squares in Persia. But even if it was an advantage, it would hardly equilibrate the fragility in defenses (especially if combined with rivers that cannot be pillaged by defenders). In Persia an attacker will very hardly move ahead even after a successfull first strike (only imagine Babylon controlling the Zagros: Persia might lose Kyrousata, but from forts south and west of Susa Persia will easily destroy Bab units that will appear in the valley between Zagros and Susa.). But a successfull break through Babylonian defenses (at only one point) may cause an immediate end of large parts of Babylon.
In other words the Zagros is much more important for Babylonian defense than Persian one, still Babylon proposes symmetrical positions.

Concerning the Arrariver: I don't think it is a Bab advantage, rather a weakness, because the river cannot be pillaged in case of a Persian successfull attack. Anyway the Mountain of the tip of the Arrariver has a facing Mountain in Persia, where Persia can take a symmetrical position.

[Kull]

Originally posted by Straybow
Building the road is perceived as a threat. Removing the road removes the threat.

The road is not the provocation. The road is the RESPONSE to the real provocation, which is the founding of a Babylonian city with Zones of Control that clearly extend into Persian territory. The city serves no legitimate purpose, as there are no "special tiles" which only it can access. It does one thing and one thing only - it extends Babylon's territorial claims up to the very last northern fringes of the Zagros.

I would ask my Beloved Northern Brother to take a close look at the Geography of the Zagros. Considered in it's entirety, the range includes both hills and mountains. And in this region it has a thickness of about 5 tiles. Were those five tiles divided evenly between the two powers they would more than suffice as a strong security barrier. But Babylon does not accept an "even split", they want 4 of the 5, leaving Persia effectively naked and defenseless. The existence of Zariqum is blatant proof of this. The city was founded on row 2, and it's control zones extend all the way through row 4. The situation is even worse to the southeast, where the Arrariver (under total Babylonian control) cuts through 3 of the 5 tiles, and terminates at a point where the Zagros have but a single defensible hill.

It is all well for the Babylonians to weep their crocodile tears and claim they have no roads in this region. They don't need them....they control the access rivers instead! Given these facts, how can my brother possibly see a threat in the existence of a single Persian road that extends no further than tile 2 of 5? This false crisis is nothing more than the logical outcome of a Babylonian territorial grab which clearly aims at one purpose and one purpose only - to remove Persia's natural defenses from her own control, leaving her naked before the whims of the Babylonian Tyrant.

Egyptian seers, having gazed deep into the future, have told Pharoah that in the far distant 20th Century, a clear parallel exists. At that time an evil tyranny in a land called Germany had designs upon a smaller nation known as Czechoslovakia. The Germans claimed for themselves the mountain region which served as the natural defenses of the Czechs. They stated that Germans lived in this "Sudetenland" and they had to be defended against alleged dangers from the Czechs. Yet when the Czechs protested against this ludicrous claim, the Great Nations of that era told her to be quiet, to give up her defenses, and to trust that the now-placated Germans would leave them alone. But it was not to be. Having fed once, and certain that the powerful would ignore the plight of the powerless, the wolf in due course gobbled up the rest of the Czech lands, and not a finger was raised to stop him

Those of us in Egypt find the similarity here to be quite eerie, right down to the Babylonian claim that "their people" in Zariqum must be protected at all costs from the evil Persians.

My brothers, I beg you. Do not feed the wolf.

[Straybow]

The tale told by thy seers is wonderous but does not illuminate the current senario, Pharaoh. The warring barbarians far to the north claimed land on the far side of the mountains dividing the nations. Babylon has done no such thing.

Again, if Babylon were the one who built a road across the crest of the Zagros it would be Persia raising a cry against them.

[Peaster]

IMO a central issue here is Persia's claim, 100 years ago, of the Tushpa line as a reasonable border. I was reluctant to make a unilateral statement, but Babylon had fouled up the border talks with unreasonable claims [IMO other Kings agreed about this] and had walked out. If any King thought the Persian claim was unreasonable, they should have said something 100 years ago. Persia's position now is that we are discussing actions by both sides within Persian borders. I would like to hear Straybow's current opinion on this.

I want to clarify that Zariqum was built with Persian permission and we do not regard it as a special threat to Persia. But Babylon agreed the city would not affect borders, which were still undecided. I do not wish to bother the city, but I intend to hold ST to this deal.

AFAIK he is just whining about Zariqum security, not about Bab rights. I explained about 100 years ago that Persia is sick and tired of hearing about Bab security. Our policy towards that is "neutral". We are not intentionally trying to decrease or increase Bab security, and we try to ignore the constant moaning sounds we've heard from across the mts for 500 years. [This probably explains Persian stacking / envoy behavior better than any discussion of game mechanics].

I realize this probably sounds a bit insensitive, but we just do not have a normal neighbor to the south. Persia has learned a painful lesson -

When you cater to Bab paranoia, YOU LOSE.

In case some of you have forgotten, the previous Persian king allowed SlowThinker to choose borders in the name of Bab security. If the map doesn't display properly - it shows that the Babs drew the border within 5 squares of Ecbatana. Nowadays, there is a road connecting Babylonia to our capitol. There are stacked Bab units on it, in a fort just south of the border. I am not whining about that - just putting things in perspective.

How many other Kings have enemy units stacked within 5 squares of their capitol ? [10 squares?]

BTW - I don't see why Zariqum is in any more danger than my capitol. It has walls. It is sitting on, and is surrounded by, rough terrain. It's reasonable to assume it has a C4, and/or iron infantry inside, with an army of 100 units backing it up.

I stated that Zariqum was not on the Persian map. Just for the record, that changed during a ZOC check in 2440BC.

The Bab statement that Persia first threatened war is false and has already been discussed here.

[SlowThinker]

Sinbad wrote:
>If any King thought the Persian claim was unreasonable, they should have said something 100 years ago.

Sinbad exclaims a claim. Who doesn't react agrees. Straybow is just amused by Femke Janssen, so he agrees too. Babylonian reaction is ignored.
Why didn't you ask if you wanted to be sure who liked your 'reasonable claim'?

>Nowadays, there is a road connecting Babylonia to our capitol. There are stacked Bab units on it, in a fort just south of the border. I am not whining about that - just putting things in perspective.
>How many other Kings have enemy units stacked within 5 squares of their capitol ? [10 squares?]
>I don't see why Zariqum is in any more danger than my capitol.

Once you will feel your capitol is in danger you will pillage the roads between the Bab fortress and Ecbatana and her fortress (all these roads are in Persia). So far you are preserving them, so you hardly think Ecbatana is in any danger.
Concerning the capitol - I don't understand why don't you move it to some central area? You must lose many arrows from corruption.

>I want to clarify that Zariqum was built with Persian permission and we do not regard it as a special threat to Persia. But Babylon agreed the city would not affect borders, which were still undecided. I do not wish to bother the city, but I intend to hold ST to this deal.

Which deal???? We agreed that "the borders would be based on cities that existed just after The War, not on newly built cities". It looks you somewhat reshaped it to "squares in a perimeter of any newly built Bab city will be Persian". (??)
I reminded recently that in the moment when Zariqum was built we had a preliminary agreement that the Zagros Mountains at Zariqum would be neutral. Can you confirm it, please? And you loudly reminded this pre-agreement when you claimed the upper Al-Kabir. Can you confirm it, please?

>The Bab statement that Persia first threatened war is false and has already been discussed here.

This statement is false.

>In case some of you have forgotten, the previous Persian king allowed SlowThinker to choose borders in the name of Bab security. ... it shows that the Babs drew the border within 5 squares of Ecbatana.

Huh??? 'allowed ST to choose borders', 'Babs drew borders', 'in the name of Bab security'? I don't know nothing about it.
The lines you are showing are not from the previous King, but the new lines that were agreed after YOU came to the Persian throne. You came and asked a change of borders (exactly 12 squares around Ecba, so you asked Larsa, Sippar, and many squares around Babylon). I refused but agreed Persia got most of the Mountains around Ecba.
For completeness here are the currently agreed borders:

(edit: grammar, disband-pillage)

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Ramses
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.

Pharaoh, I would like to know which position you would prefer as a Persian leader:

[SlowThinker]

Lies

From Egypt and Persia I hear more and more often unspecified words about my alleged lies. I already asked Pharaoh if he could publish at least one small concrete lie, but I didn't obtain any answer.
Maybe Sinbad would be able to remember one?

I am admitting one "lie": I didn't perceive the Persian spearman had to get through Bab ZOCs. I apologize.

But Sinbad used plural, so maybe he would be able to mention another one?

The Immortal

[Peaster]

It is sometimes hard to distinguish between a lie and a mistake. I'd call the spearman thing a mistake. I have made many such mistakes and do not blame you for such things, especially if you admit them. But if you threaten me and say "Your mother is a pig!", then I will say you are lying. Perhaps later we will discover it was an unintended mistake, or that that there was some failure to communicate on one side or the other.

I cannot speak about the Bab-Egypt conflict, but I feel you have intentionally mounted a strong anti-Persian propaganda campaign, and I assume it is the same with Egypt. It contains several "malicious false statements". Perhaps I should not call them "lies", since I cannot be sure you understand they are false. Though they are not complex, and I have corrected them, and you do not apologize.

I also believe they are mostly intentional, based on a peaceful discussion we had long ago, near the height of the CA trade plan. Persia preferred to continue the plan, which was highly profitable, and was likely to take Babylon to #1 and Persia to #2 or #3 (which was perfectly OK with me, since I started at #7). You feared it would benefit Persia more than Babylon, and also decided it would be more interesting to compete than cooperate. I accepted that decision, of course. Soon afterwards, you basicly stopped sending vans, with some vague words about Bab security, and you have filled this thread with propaganda since then. Some false statements and implications are:

* That Persia stopped the CA plan.
* That Persia is/was as strong, or stronger, than Babylon.
* That Persia aggressively threatens Babylon.
* That Persia gave all of eastern Assyria to Babylon.

In one of your previous posts, you mention a "preliminary agreement". What do you mean? Also, I suggested a clarification of your declaration of war (or whatever you really meant to say).

I think it is clear from posts 2895-2898 that you threatened Stefan with war even before I started play [though I did not understand at first which land you intended to fight over]. I believe war was mentioned hypothetically many times, mostly by you, in conversations such as the one mentioned above. I reasonably interepreted your statement "I WILL inspect the Al-Kabir" as a threat. I don't recall Persia ever mentioning war until after that, in the context of defending previously claimed land.

I don't know exactly what happened before I started play, and it sounds like you don't remember very well either. But AFAIK Stefan accepted a Bab theory about natural boundaries (implying Babylon gets half the eastern Zagros and basicly all the grassland) and you made a threat of force, which secured the eastern edge of the map as well. AFAIK the map I posted was drawn by you, according to this agreement, which was mostly your idea. AFAIK Stefan provided no input except to say OK. As a new player (a sub actually) I agreed to honor Stefan's border deals, though IIRC we did tinker with the deal a bit. I'm not sure when the map was drawn, though I doubt it matters much.

My request for land near Ecbatana was made during this initial period of learning about border agreements, Bab locations, etc. I did not press it. I did not blame you (much) for saying no, after explaining the history. I have asked you to forget it several times, yet you persist in bringing it up, as if it proves something very important. It does not. Drop it!

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Peaster
IMO a central issue here is Persia's claim, 100 years ago, of the Tushpa line as a reasonable border. I was reluctant to make a unilateral statement, but Babylon had fouled up the border talks with unreasonable claims [IMO other Kings agreed about this] and had walked out. If any King thought the Persian claim was unreasonable, they should have said something 100 years ago. Persia's position now is that we are discussing actions by both sides within Persian borders. I would like to hear Straybow's current opinion on this.

Yes I agree that the "Tushpa line" is a reasonable border. But I didn't "walk out" of border talks; I made my point and had nothing else to contribute.

I agree that Persia has a solid claim to the crest of the Zagros. I don't give much weight to Babylonian complaints about any defensive units Persia decides to station on the border.

This is why I used the Reagan "tear down this wall" allusion. Just as the Berlin Wall was entirely within Commie controlled territory this new road is, IMO, entirely within Persian territory. The road is a genuine provocation in this situation.

[SlowThinker]

Straybow, I could understand you thought that the Tushpa line would be a reasonable border (although I would like to hear why you think so).
But I can't grasp how you can say that the new road on the Zagros' spine is "entirely within Persian territory". Did I miss some Bab-Persian agreement about borders? Or some international convention that would imply the spine is Persian?

Also I don't understand how it corresponds to this:

Originally posted by Straybow
The spine of the Zagros was to be a defensive bastion for both sides, but now it is breached.

[SlowThinker]

"lies"

I will split my answer to Sinbad's post about lying in more parts, as digging through past statements was labourious and I didn't finish it yet:

Sinbad, anytime I indicate you are "lying" or posting some inaccurate statement, I am trying to explain why I think so. It permits you to answer, maybe to find out a mistake in my explanation and above all it may bring some understanding.
An example is the recent debate about your explanation of presence of Persian stacks and envoys in Zagros.

On the contrary you
a) post some general statement like "ST's lies" or "I do not intend a line-by-line rebuttal of his nonsense" or "It contains several malicious false statements".
Such words give me no chance to react and they only worsen bad relationship between us.

b) post my statement, less or more accurate, and you pretend it is false / a lie without an explanation why you think so.
An example is "(ST said ...) that Persia is/was as strong, or stronger, than Babylon". I said it, but I also posted a paragraph with an explanation why I think so. So if you want to question something then you shall question that explanation.

c) post a statement that I never said or it is distorted, and you declare it is a lie.
An example is "That Persia gave all of eastern Assyria to Babylon." I never said it and I have no clue how you made it.

---

Added text:

Perhaps I should not call them "lies", since I cannot be sure you understand they are false. Though they are not complex, and I have corrected them, and you do not apologize.

First: Could you explain why you didn't apologize for your lie that you 'intended to avoid stacking at that sensitive time'? I don't believe you forgot that a unit cannot fortify and move simultaneously (for three subsequent turns!).
Second: Please send a list of Bab lies, I will apologize if there is a reason. So far you posted 4 alleged Bab lies,
I commented two 'lies' above, the remaining two are here:

Some false statements and implications are:
* That Persia stopped the CA plan.
* That Persia aggressively threatens Babylon.

I went through all 'printed public records' and searched for "agress" and "stopp". Result is: no such Bab statements. But I think I said enough words about both topics and I guess you took my two long explanations somewhere, and transformed them this way. Now you are saying they are lies ... a strange procedure...
But I can agree with both succinct sentences, although I can imagine better wording, as "Persia knew which actions would minimize/end the CA plan and she accomplished them".

[SlowThinker]

about propaganda

you have filled this thread with propaganda since then

You really didn't notice it is you who started all Bab-Pers debates last 130 years? I sent two official Babylonian announcements, and 99% (maybe 100%) of my other posts related to Persia are quotes with Persian statements and my reactions.
Concerning propaganda: compare my dry language (with concrete facts) and your own laguage (full of vague statements):
[i]"insane demands on Persia", "Its greatest danger comes from its own King, with his constant warped demands, threats and provocations", "weasely spokesman refuses to speak plainly and honestly", "rising evil", "Persia must take some action to avoid being eaten by continually increasing Babylonian demands", "When you cater to Bab paranoia, YOU LOSE", "the usual screaming from the south" [i] etc.

Originally posted by Sinbad
I cannot speak about the Bab-Egypt conflict, but I feel you have intentionally mounted a strong anti-Persian propaganda campaign, and I assume it is the same with Egypt.

During a first phase of the conflict with Egypt we had a very good relationship. So I should mount a strong anti-Egyptian propaganda in Persia, shouldn't I? Can you quote it?

Persia preferred to continue the plan, which was highly profitable, and was likely to take Babylon to #1 and Persia to #2 or #3 (which was perfectly OK with me, since I started at #7). You feared it would benefit Persia more than Babylon

I don't see any relationship to our talks about lies or to our current situation. But we publicly talked about it in past and I am not willing to talk it again, so I am only repeating that your words aren't true.
In case you really need my reaction let me know.

The Immortal

---

You ...decided it would be more interesting to compete than cooperate

Yes, after you proposed a very close alliance (with some man-made trust between us) I was afraid we would be too strong and the game wouldn't be interesting.
(But until Chariots Tactics in Persia The Immo struggled for a development of the CA plan.)

ST the player

[SlowThinker]

I am ready to send next part, but I would like to keep some order. So if Sinbad wants to comment my last posts I prefer he does it now.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Straybow, I could understand you thought that the Tushpa line would be a reasonable border (although I would like to hear why you think so).
But I can't grasp how you can say that the new road on the Zagros' spine is "entirely within Persian territory". Did I miss some Bab-Persian agreement about borders? Or some international convention that would imply the spine is Persian?

The founding of Zariqum with Persian permission providing it does not interfere with border talks implies that the spine remains in Persian control.

Also I don't understand how it corresponds to this:

Originally posted by Straybow
The spine of the Zagros was to be a defensive bastion for both sides, but now it is breached.

It does not reflect any formal agreement. Obviously Zariqum seemed secure without the road there and now does not.