New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Peaster]

From every answer to a Bab question, one must expect ST to create two more loose ends, even if they are old ones. Nobody can ever answer it all. If any other King feels some question still needs an answer, I will reply. In brief -

* I am certain you said that Persia stopped the CA plan in private email, and in those words. And I can probably still find it if you deny saying it. I thought you also said it publicly, but am not 100% sure. The truth is that YOU stopped it when Persia refused to follow Bab orders about Persian science, and to pay for Bab growth.

* Long after our spoils talks were over, you claimed that they ended in a deal about "land spoils", which gave you all of eastern Assyria. IIRC you recently repeated this claim [though maybe you meant something else this time?]

* IMO most of your posts about Persia attempt to portray Persia as the aggressor [maybe you really believe it???]. The statement that Persia first spoke of war, for example. Your whole discussion of stacking, which is a non-issue. Or your previous post, in which my offer of peace is labelled as an "ultimatum".

* Are you still saying Persia is stronger than Babylon? Unless Babylon has HUGE problems that I don't know about, this seems pretty ridiculous, and doesn't merit serious analysis.

BTW - I am still waiting for answers about your declaration of war, and my peace offer (aka "the ultimatum"). When you refuse to clarify your own obscure positions, you cannot blame others for confusion.

[SlowThinker]

Persian communication

Originally posted by Sinbad
Are you still saying Persia is stronger than Babylon? Unless Babylon has HUGE problems that I don't know about, this seems pretty ridiculous, and doesn't merit serious analysis.

This is the same problem that I pointed out in my "subject:lies" post. You are really unable to discuss. You are usually complaining
"You said [A SENTENCE]. This is a lie"
although I didn't post [A SENTENCE] but [A DETAILED EXPLANATION]
[A DETAILED EXPLANATION] explains why I think [A SENTENCE] is truth.
So only way I can answer your complaint is to dig the thread again and to repeat [A DETAILED EXPLANATION]:

Originally posted by The Immo on 23-07-2006
(Sinbad: ) >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.

(ST: )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

This is where you should continue the debate and try to find lies in. But you never did it and only repeated several times something like "You said Persia is stronger. This is a lie".

---

I used this case as an example, but other cases are similar. I am really tired to repeatedly dig my explanations that you ignored in past.

[SlowThinker]

Interpretations

I reasonably interepreted your statement "I WILL inspect the Al-Kabir" as a threat.

This is the same problem: again we talked about it in this thread already, and again you are ignoring it.
Please dig for a sentence "But I won't park heavy units on upper Al-Kabir (like C2) and I will take your wishes in consideration" (it is in both this thread and private mail). Then explain how you could reasonably interpret such a sentence as a threat.

Or your previous post, in which my offer of peace is labelled as an "ultimatum".

"For a limited time, I offer this proposal, which is our best chance at peace."
"This offer expires in a week."
Can you help to find a 'reasonable interpretation' in these sentences but different from an ultimatum? What will happen after one week? Again peace?

Don't you think it is much easier to find "an ultimatum" in the 2nd case than "a threat" in the 1st one?

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker >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.

As always, the vast mass of verbiage pouring forth from Babylon is intended to confuse and ultimately paralyze those he pretends to "inform", but in this one little nugget, any and all can see the inner workings of his mind. When a distant Babylonian border city is "menaced" by Persian troops WHO ARE INSIDE PERSIAN TERRITORY, the answer is to threaten war. But when Persia points out that her very capital is faced with a far greater threat, the response from Babylon is to MOVE YOUR CAPITAL.

Do not feed the wolf.

[Peaster]

I never said you are a habitual and deliberate liar. But, upon your request, I've given you a chance to refute my claims of Bab falsehoods. I think most Kings already have enough info to form their own opinions, and you don't need more from me to write detailed defenses, if you like. I am tired of the old arguments, and feel Persia has already stated her main positions clearly. But I'm willing to answer any other King, if they feel I've failed to make my cases clearly, or to answer any important question.

IMO the main neglected issue now is the Babylonian declaration, which you seem unwilling to discuss. Eventually, Persian scouts will step into certain lands which you have not yet recognized as Persian, despite the clear statements by Straybow and Ramses. AFAIK Babylon will attack then, without further warning, and you will deny it is a sneak attack. In other words, Babylon is declaring war in advance !? I have asked you several times now to clarify your unusual declaration, since Persia has a right to know when she is at war. You have ignored this, so far, preferring to focus on trivia, such as why Persia has stacked an engineer with a skirmisher, two squares deep in Persia.

If the Persian offer expires, we return to the status quo, with Babylon threatening Persia with war. That is hardly an "ultimatum" by Persia. I am asking YOU what the status quo is - peace or war ?

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Persia and Assyria had a border agreement. For some reason Sinbad held back existence of this agreement during Bab-Pers border talks until the 2560 conflict, but then he published it: it is attached.
You can see all the narrow spine of Zagros was a part of District of Ekkalate (Assyria). But I think the spine is a natural boundary and so I am proposing the Zagros' narrow spine gets neutral now.

This is insanity. Babylon hereby states - in effect - that it has sole claim to all former Assyrian territory up to the borders of Persia, BASED ON A DOCUMENT FROM A DEAD EMPIRE. And why? Because this vast amount of territory was part of the "District of Ekallate", a geographical construct that exists only in the mind of the Babylonian Ruler. (Pharoah would just LOVE to see Babylon present a map showing everyone the borders of this alleged "District"!) And why does Babylon get all of it?

That would imply whole Assyrian district of Ekkalate should fall upon Babylonian administration (as it was liberated only by Armies of Babylonian Front)

The magnanimous one then goes on to state that while he *could* claim it all, some modification due to future "agreements" would be acceptable. This is absolutely typical of every Babylonian action. First they demand everything, then they offer you a tiny piece of the pie, then they take great affront when this is rejected, and finally they sulk publically and threaten their opponent with dire consequences and (far, FAR worse than any resort to blows) deliver a blizzard of words until at last, the wearied world gives in and surrenders to them 80% of a pie to which logically they should have only had 50%.

Again, another illuminating look inside the mind of the Great Tyrant.

Do not feed the wolf!

[SlowThinker]

Pharaoh,
1) you said that Susa was in a great danger from Babylon, I showed you two pictures and asked you which one you prefer as a Persian leader. Can you answer please?

2) Would you be so kind and explained why all the upper Al Kabir was in District of Tushpa? Including a strategic hill that is 7 squares away from Tushpa and citizens of Tushpa must pass over a high mountain massif in order to get there (4 days of walk for a skirmisher), while a skirmisher from Nimrud and Negub needed only one day of travel?

Others points - I can't find a piece of thruth in Pharaoh's words, and won't react such comic statements.
Edit: Except he requires answers of course, but usually he prefers soliloquic debates.

[SlowThinker]

Dropping

Originally posted by Sinbad
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!

Land 'near Ecbatana'? It was land near Babylon and in Larsa...
I was quiet about it, it was you who published it first. I am repeating it only because you said my refusal was 'a feverish demand' and so far you didn't apologize.

But I must ask you again that you drop your words that "I threatened Stefan with war". In private mail I asked you that you stop to repeat this falsity until you read my correspondense with Achamenes. I offered all my folder of correspondence with Achamenes three times and your answers were
"Not sure the story would matter."
"I would not want to spend much time learning it, or digging thru old email"
and a silence third time.
Please take the Achamenes' mail, read it, then we can discuss.

Edit: one word added

[SlowThinker]

Declarations, Red Zone Area

Originally posted by Sinbad
IMO the main neglected issue now is the Babylonian declaration, which you seem unwilling to discuss. Eventually, Persian scouts will step into certain lands which you have not yet recognized as Persian, despite the clear statements by Straybow and Ramses. AFAIK Babylon will attack then, without further warning, and you will deny it is a sneak attack. In other words, Babylon is declaring war in advance !? I have asked you several times now to clarify your unusual declaration, since Persia has a right to know when she is at war.

Neglecting the issue?? Do you read my posts? I said twice I wanted to give space to your answers first.

We think Persia has a similar comprehension when she can be at war like Babylon had after Persia 'declared war in advance' in 2560:

Originally posted by Sinbad
a) If Babylon insists on "We WILL inspect the entire river, and do it OUR way"... expect a war.
b) If Babylon screws around with one weak unit moving on/off the Persian border (why?), it will make things worse. Persia would probably try talk before fighting. Feel lucky, punk?

But we can explain more: we said we kept a right to act against Persian intruders in the red zone without further warning, but not that we would do it in all cases. In case of stacked attackers we would probably be forced to neutralize the intruders immediately, although first we would ask you barter it to Babylon so that we could send it back. In case of a single weak unit we could act differently.
Anyway we intended to limit the actions to the Red Zone Area (we want to avoid a war where cities change hands), except Persia asked a total war.

But all the last paragraph describes our thinking BEFORE the Persian declaration:

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.

It sounds like "Persia insists on a right to start war anytime. All we need is to enter the Red Zone and to 'feel ourselves under attack'".
Moreover your "offer" will expire after one week, so just when you will order your armies. Do you plan to 'regard yourself as under attack' then?
Can you clarify, please?

[SlowThinker]

Eventually, Persian scouts will step into certain lands which you have not yet recognized as Persian, despite the clear statements by Straybow and Ramses.

You are explaining Straybow's words/silence very optimistically. Anyway his view is somewhat unclear for me. I already asked him for explanations privately, so I am expecting he will arrive.

[SlowThinker]

"The offer"

Legal issues

Originally posted by Sinbad
Your memory is correct. We had an agreement about cities, but not about land. There is no "legal" reason why any Assyrian land should go to anyone, and each affected King had to negotiate new borders.

Babylon is ready to accept Sinbad's reasoning and also to forget that Babylon payed 100g to Persia as a compensation for Assyrian land.
If there is no "legal" reason why any Assyrian land should go to both Babylon and Persia, then we shall make all the Assyrian land between Babylon and Persia neutral, at least until we get some agreement. This is what Babylon always suggested.
So will you release the upper Al Kabir?

"The offer" - comments
I consider "the offer" just a final proof Persia wants to eat Babylon.
Babylon will release an official answer soon, but first we will issue some comments and wait if some debate is needed.

1) (give up defenses)
2) (give up defenses)
...
6) ... I imagine that the agreement would last indefinitely, at least as long as we remain at peace.

=as long as I decide to start a war. Straybow really persuaded Persians that Babylonians are mad.

Persia does not fully understand why Zariqum is in danger ...though I cannot find a better roading alternative - Persia really does need road access, to maintain a defense of these mts

(Is Persia really unable to have a detached point of view?)
If no danger for Zariqum and Hekkalush with Persian forts on the Zagros' spine
then similarly no danger for Susa and Kyrousata with Bab forts on the spine.
So Babylon will build these forts. Moutains are very hard to defend, so we will build a roads there. Will be Persians satisfied?
(Does it help???)

Items 2) and 3) are basicly old ideas from Bab-Pers correspondence, which may not have appeared in this thread. I thought we had some understanding about them, but no firm deals.

Maybe your ideas. I certainly refused them immediately, anyway we had no understanding. You have a bad memory or you are [Old Politus kicked out] lying. (Can you post a quote?))

[Peaster]

I think Egypt's statement was accurate.

Dunno why you say Persia "insists" and "declares" when we have actually "offered" and "asked" you to clarify your strange announcement. Thanks for finally answering, but it seems that I was correct - you are insisting on the right to attack Persia without declaring war first. In other words you claim the right to sneak attack. Persia considers this to be highly aggressive and barbaric behavior.

It seems you have run out of verbal ammunition, but not hatred, and now you're mainly rehashing old distortions. I don't feel any obligation to respond to them. But as I said before, I will gladly respond to any other King who is having trouble sorting out truth from fiction.

[SlowThinker]

sneak attacks and lies

Thanks for finally answering, but it seems that I was correct - you are insisting on the right to attack Persia without declaring war first. In other words you claim the right to sneak attack.

Please go back and read again. Post 3204.


After I explained my strange announcement would you be so kind and explained your strange announcement?
I mean that you will regard yourselves as under attack anytime you decide. If so will you sneak attack (or defend against my sneak attack preventively, I don't know how you name it; I mean to attack the same turn) ?


I said you are liar. But maybe I have an extremely poor memory. Will you post some quotes to confirm your words?
Edit: I must apologize, I missed the word 'forest' in point 2). This point is partially true, although it is not exactly as Sinbad said. But point 3) is a falsehood, we had never such understanding. Next 5 turns I will send 5x100g to Persia if I am mistaken. So I am encouraging Sinbad to dig!

[Zedd]

Rainy weather in Minoa this month, crops should be growing well and the rough waters gave us ample time to complete some upgrades and repairs to our ships.

Several ships braved the seas and made deliveries and the markets are still rather busy.

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker Others points - I can't find a piece of thruth in Pharaoh's words, and won't react such comic statements.

Of course you won't respond. Because the non-existent "District of Ekallate" is the basis for all Babylonian claims to former Assyrian Lands in the Zagros. It's a claim based upon a falsehood, and can't possibly be justified in any way, shape, or form.

But there IS comedy of sorts on display - the puzzling Babylonian maps presented for Pharoah's "choice". All of Pharoah's advisors were summoned to examine them, and all pronounced them to be indecipherable. One would hope they are some form of inscrutable Babylonian humor, because the only other explanation is that the mind of the Babylonian Ruler is fast descending into madness.

Do not feed the wolf!