New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Straybow]

URGENT: the Minoan save emailed to me is missing a Ctrl-N!

[SlowThinker]

The answer to the Persian proposal

points of departure
1) For safety and peace neutral areas are best solution. Persia always refused them.
2) In place of neutral areas she asks a right to build forts in land that is strategic for an attack against Babylon. This land has a minimal importance for Persian defense because:
a) Babylon cannot wage war effectively, as she cannot capture/recapture cities (because of The Secret Of Hides)
b) there is a very good defensive terrain over all Persia
c) Persia is allied with Egypt (an eternal "friend" of Babylon) and Babylon is pented between them. Babylon would have very hard time if in war with their alliance.
3) The land asked by Persia exceeds natural boundary between Persia and Babylon, it is far from Persian cities and close to Babylonian cities
4) Persia never brought a good reason why she should obtain this land, except a sentence "it is a reasonable claim"
5) Babylonians are not stupid

conclusions
Persian behaviour is very suspicious (signed: Old Politus)
We do not accept "the offer".
We don't want to lose The Secret Of Hides, so we must avoid wars near cities at all costs. If Persia really wants war, she can have it, but we believe it will be in uninhabited areas.

[Peaster]

Re: Declarations, Red Zone Area

Correction: Babylon is probably right about the Arrapkha river tip history. I had claimed several nearby squares for Persia as part of the Tushpa line, but Babylon objected. I allowed the tip could be neutral, and expected Bab agreement, but I can't recall getting it. The Persian account of the neutral forest squares was accurate. The recent Babylonian post "points of departure" is not accurate, of course.

Persia has not responded to the primary Bab guarantee of Persian safety - that taking Persian cities would corrupt Babylonian science. Even Persian children regard this as completely lame. How can Lord Paranoid expect anyone to depend on this?

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

But the central issue now is the Babylonian threat of war and their rejection of Persian borders.

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

Give space to my answers?? About completely different topics? It is often VERY hard to get straight answers from Babylon!

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.

You asked me to re-read this post as if it proves your innocence. You may have backed off a little, but you still claim the right to sneak attack after Persian movements within Persian borders. This is still unacceptable.

Also, you will not find Persian "attackers" or "intruders" in the red zone, which lies within Persia IIRC. You will only find Babylonian intruders. And you must realize that they have to leave.

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'". Can you clarify, please?

You've lost track of the context. I was explaining the Persian interpretation of your obscure announcement to see if it was correct. If one assumes Babylon does NOT have the right to sneak attack, this is the logical conclusion (though Persia would NOT be the one starting the war). I agree that it sounds bizarre, but it was YOUR announcement, not mine.

It seems depressingly clear now, but I would greatly appreciate comments from international observers on this. Has Babylon not announced that she may sneak attack Persian units on the Persian border? Can anyone accept this as reasonable?

The Tushpa line is Persian, and we will not tolerate threats of sneak attacks.

[SlowThinker]

not important

About fruitless talks

You say I post too much words. But my words deal with something.
Must we really have talks like this following one:

Sinbad: the Babylonian declaration, which you seem unwilling to discuss...I have asked you several times now to clarify your unusual declaration...You have ignored this, so far, preferring to focus on trivia...
ST: Neglecting the issue?? Do you read my posts? I said twice I wanted to give space to your answers first.
Sinbad: Give space to my answers?? About completely different topics? It is often VERY hard to get straight answers from Babylon!

Couldn't you simply say "let us talk this one first"?
Or this:

Sinbad: Also, you will not find Persian "attackers" or "intruders" in the red zone, which lies within Persia IIRC. You will only find Babylonian intruders. And you must realize that they have to leave.

You already said 50 times the T-line is Persian. I remember it well.

Other talks
Again there are many innacuracies and untruths in your post. If you wish I will answer each one.
But I ask you guarantee you won't ignore my effort like last time (I mean: "now you're mainly rehashing old distortions. I don't feel any obligation to respond to them.")

[SlowThinker]

VERY IMPORTANT

Warning to Babylon
the warning:

Originally posted by Sinbad
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.

elucidation of the warning above:

Originally posted by Sinbad
I was explaining the Persian interpretation of your obscure announcement to see if it was correct. If one assumes Babylon does NOT have the right to sneak attack, this is the logical conclusion (though Persia would NOT be the one starting the war). I agree that it sounds bizarre, but it was YOUR announcement, not mine.

I would like to have this point clear. So your 'Warning to Babylon' was not a real warning? If your unit enters the Red Zone then you won't regard yourselves in a state of war and you won't attack Babylonian units?

Could we have some agreement how I could differentiate between your 'real warnings' and 'unreal warnings'?


"Sneak attacks"

Your manufacture of a sneak attack from a simple warning is astonishing, but I don’t care how you name my warnings.
Anyway I detailedly explained
1) under which situation Babylon will engage in military actions against Persian units
(units in the Red Zone, not willing to be packed in a barter and to be sent back)
2) a type of these military actions
(actions limited to the Red Zone)

Now make clear also your warning please:
(except it was also an 'unreal warning')

Originally posted by Sinbad in 2550
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?
c) If Babylon accepts Persia's gracious invitation to inspect and leave, and otherwise behaves in a reaonable fashion, then Babylon's Ministry of War can easily calculate the probability of a Persian attack -
c1) Get a rough estimate of the probability from your perceptive King ST, from 0 to 100.
c2) Divide his percentage by 2
c3) Subtract 50%

Edit: grammar, bold text, titles of quotes

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Sinbad
It seems depressingly clear now, but I would greatly appreciate comments from international observers on this.

Especially a comment from Pharaoh. I am extremely curious which side he will support...
I have some indications that also Straybow will come after he will study published documents, it looks he wasn't informed about the conflict when he posted his recent posts.

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Especially a comment from Pharaoh. I am extremely curious which side he will support...

As always, Pharoah is able to discern the difference between a weak nation threatened with war and a large aggressor bent upon domination. Once upon a time, Babylon was the frail reed, bending beneath heavy blows, and was most grateful when Egypt came to her aid.

Sadly, Babylon has not learned from the lessons of the past, and rather seeks to emulate the nation she once abhorred.

[SlowThinker]

I have heard Egypt+Persia initiated some unofficial activity and I welcome it.
But I would like to get a response to my 'very important' message. Especially I would like to know how to recognize an bluffing intimidation 'unreal warning' from a real warning (as the unofficial message from P+E contains a warning, but I don't know which type).

edit: bluffing

[Zedd]

Why is it so hard to just draw a line and stay on your side of it?

Minoa will remain quiet and neutral in this one, hopefully good sense will begin to make headway.

Funny how no one wants a war but no one will work to rule one out either. Both sides should make a bulleted point list of concerns (excluding any comments about previous posts and other communications) and post them. Just keep in mind that a good compromise makes no-one happy.

[Straybow]

OK, new save from Z. I'm filling in a volunteer position that, for the time being, is 12+ hrs/day. Wed was 17 hrs... but Thu plans should give me the evening free. At least I'm getting free food and gas money.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Lycastus
Both sides should make a bulleted point list of concerns (excluding any comments about previous posts and other communications) and post them.

Good point.

My main concern is that if "minimal land proposition" is accepted then Babylonian Tigris (Old Negru area) may be attacked from Upper Al Kabir. It can be attacked much easier than Persian Susa or Kyrousata from Hekkariver or Arrariver.
My another concern is why Sinbad and Pharaoh are forcing me to give up also "minimal land", although any retreat in the Zagros area would cause not only this imbalance would be much greater, but also Hekallush and Arraphka would get in weak positions. I can defend one weak point (Tigris), although it is expensive, but I can't defend three simultaneously (Tigris, Arariver, Hekkariver).
So I am confident the "minimal land" is my last backdown.
(A note: so far Babylon didn't grant the Upper Al Kabir to Persia. It will be Persian if Persia accepts the "minimal land".)

It is absolutely unfair to name King Straybow with the two Kings above, but I am also slightly concerned why also Straybow suggested (publicly and privately) Babylon should backdown from her "minimal land" position and why Straybow repeated his arguments even after I explained they are based on wrong assumptions.
I suppose it was because he didn't have time to study materials.

Originally posted by Greek Secret Service
Our secret service told, that Persia and Egypt do not really like the
war, but will start it if Babylon demands on its claimed border; they
furthermore would be interested to avoid war if Babylon agrees to a
borderline which will hinder both parties from invading the other one,
respectively.

the Bab unofficial answer:

Originally posted by XXYX, chief of Bab Secret Service
I will welcome it!
From the picture you see that the area of Old Negru is much more endangered from Upper Al Kabir than Susa from Arrariver.
I will welcome any solution where Susa and Old Negru area will have a similar safety.

Babylon is unofficially awaiting a proposition from Egypt and Persia, although we can't imagine how Old Negru could obtain a similar safety as Susa has.

[SlowThinker]

2440 Greek turn

for completness...

[Straybow]

Completeness

Also, here is the Minoan save (after a barter or two applied).

[Straybow]

No time for chit-chat right now as I'm up way too late and must be away after a few hours sleep.

[Peaster]

Originally posted by Zedd
Why is it so hard to just draw a line and stay on your side of it?
...
Funny how no one wants a war but no one will work to rule one out either.

Persia has a clear and simple plan for peace, which we've worked on for many years. We drew a reasonable border, and allowed a long period for public discussion or private negotiation. We have stayed on our side and have never threatened to cross the line. We have never threatened to sneak attack across the line. We have not made demands about Babylonian activities south of the line.

Babylon has posted her skirmishers two squares across our border and made recent threats to attack inside Persia. IMHO Persia has been extremely patient with an aggressive neighbor. We've worked hard to discourage Babylonian invasions in the Al Kabir valley and the Zagros mts. We have not made the slightest move to invade Babylon, despite all the cries of "Wolf!" you've heard over the years.

We have usually been open to negotiation [when not being invaded, threatened or insulted]. We made a recent peace overture which was quickly distorted and denounced by the Babs. But we will not bow to the unreasonable Bab demands which you have already read about here. Also, we will not tolerate the presence of Bab scouts in Persia much longer, and we will certainly defend ourselves if attacked or invaded further.
.................................................. ...


I don't understand the Bab concepts of "unreal warnings", and do not recall bluffing about anything. IMO the Bab threat to attack in the Zagros has been narrowed down to two situations -

a) I don't know why Persia would stack units on the T-line, so this case seems mostly hypothetical. But if there WERE some good reason to do it, we would not barter those units to Babylon, and we would have to regard ourselves as vulnerable to a sneak attack. IMO this is something two peaceful Kings ought to be able to negotiate.

b) IIRC the Babs also threatened to attack Persian troops on the spine of the Zagros (after another warning). But the spine is two squares inside Persia! If Babylon pursues this threat, we expect war. I don't see this as negotiable.