New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

VERY IMPORTANT

Can we postpone talks like "what is disputed is Persia", please?

You impatiently asked that Babylon explained her warning. Then we did it detailedly.
Almost three days ago I asked an explanation of your two warnings. Could you explain them before Babylonian turn? Or do you wait until it will be completed and then your behaviour will change?

1) 2550 warning

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?
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%

About this one you brought no explanation, although your warning excludes war only if "Babylon ... behaves in a reasonable fashion".
Please explain detailedly and clearly when you will react militarily and how (if to limit actions to some areas etc.), similarly like I did with my own warning.

2) 2440 warning
here you stated you will attack in order to prevent a possible Babylonian attack:

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.

Then you issued some post-comments that might mean this warning was not valid anymore, but the result is not clear for me.
If this warning shall be deleted simply say "delete it" and I will forget it.
If it is valid only partially then please explain, but do it simply (or rephrase it).

Thanks.

[SlowThinker]

VERY IMPORTANT

Originally posted by Sinbad
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.

Again you are indicating anytime you can decide to enter with a stack into the Red Zone and regard yourselves vulnerable and...(sneak) attack (like in your "2440 warning").
If you want to stand upon such sentences then let us agree on a fair war now. The war needn't to start next year (anyway I don't intend to attack right now, even if you announced your own attack next turn), we can agree on any year. We can also fabricate some way so that no side gets full advantage of first attack. I expect the road between forts of Ecba and Adab should be pillaged and the Bab colonies in Caspic should be disbanded.
I really don't want to wait until a moment you "decide to be endangered" and to start "to defend" without any warning.

[Kull]

Let's be absolutely crystal clear about who threatened who with war (post 3152):

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Persian invasion to Zagros

(A scary title, except the map he posts shows that Persian troops are either one or two squares deep INSIDE Persia! The only "invading unit" is actually Babylonian....but let's not have facts get in the way here!)

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.

It sure wasn't hard considering the scouts were inside Persia. Oh, and the same ruler of Babylon who claimed that Zariqum's placement wouldn't have an impact on borders now claims that it does. Gah! But I digress....what we are really waiting for is this:

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.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Babylon better start packing up a LOT of troops and dismantling a LOT of cities, because last time I looked they too are "occupying former Assyrian lands and there is nor agreement neither reason that would authorize" THEM either! This statement, along with the previous claim to the entire "District of Ekallate" (Map? Bueller?) exposes the core of the Babylonian case. Alone among all the major combatants with pre-war Assyrian borders, Persia is denied access to ANY lands unless explicitly granted them by Babylon!!! Who died and made Slowthinker God?

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.

And here it is. Babylon threatens to attack Persian units inside Persia. Pretty clear who is threatening to attack who. So much for the pathetic Babylonian attempt to cloud that issue.

[SlowThinker]

not important

It is interesting, the "aggresive" Babylon never dared to call any disputed area "Babylon". In reverse her "peaceful" neigbours usurp land and name it "Persia" very easily.

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
not important

It is interesting, the "aggresive" Babylon never dared to call any disputed area "Babylon". In reverse her "peaceful" neigbours usurp land and name it "Persia" very easily.

Shall we count up the number of Former Assyrian tiles now called "Babylon" and compare it with the number of Former Assyrian tiles now called "Persia"?

[Peaster]

Re: VERY IMPORTANT

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Can we postpone talks like "what is disputed is Persia", please?

IMO this was the crucial issue, but those talks are over. Pharoah has spoken clearly and accurately for the Persian side. Consul Straybow has not spoken as forcefully, but his statements generally support the Persian side. These you have simply dismissed as "mistaken". Your other allies, Zedd and Kengel, remain publicly neutral, though I expect they will recognize a Babylonian invasion for what it is. AFAIK nobody supports your claims in the Zagros. Doesn't this make you wonder a bit about your righteous position?

1) 2550 warning
About this one you brought no explanation....

You have not explained when/ where/ how you intend to invade. When you do, Persia will defend herself as she sees fit. Persia does not believe in any "invader's rights" to know the defender's plans.

I am thinking over the idea of "sneak attack" and whether it applies to a country defending itself against a sudden massive invasion. IMO it is reasonable to say that the invasion itself starts the war, though I'd like to hear other Kings' opinions about that.

2) 2440 warning
....here you stated you will attack

I explained that I'd have the right to attack , as a direct consequence of your strange statement. Persia does not concede to you any rights to sneak attack in Persia.

Anyway, you revised the conditions for your sneak, which revises Persia's stance to something more like your next post, 3227. As I said, I regard that as mostly hypothetical now. Expect a war if you invade, and no war if you stay on your side of the line.

[SlowThinker]

VERY IMPORTANT

Persian 2550 warning

Originally posted by Sinbad
You have not explained when/ where/ how you intend to invade.

You also didn't explain how you intend to invade into Red Zone, and you still requested my explanation impatiently, and you got it. So I ask a similar one.


Persian 2440 warning

I explained that I'd have the right to attack , as a direct consequence of your strange statement.

Is it a dictionary? You mean anytime I read
"If Babylon insists ... expect a war"
I shall translate it to
"If Babylon insists ... I'd have the right to attack"?
Anyway I am not interested to know when you think you have a right to attack. I ask you to explain your warnings - when/what you will do.

---

not important

Originally posted by Sinbad
Pharoah has spoken clearly and accurately for the Persian side. Consul Straybow has not spoken as forcefully, but his statements generally support the Persian side.

Sinbad, it looks you forgot: We didn't agree the borders would be determined by voting, but according to positions of cities after The War.

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Sinbad, it looks you forgot: We didn't agree the borders would be determined by voting, but according to positions of cities after The War.

At last we get some common sense from the Ruler of Babylon! Pharoah can't presume to speak for the King of Persia, but a negotiated settlement in which Persia trades portions of the District of Arraphka in exchange for sections of the District of Ekallate would seem to be a reasonable compromise.

There's another map showing Persian possession of Nimrud "at the end of the war", so it looks like Babylon is going to have to roll back it's claims in that part of the world as well.

It's also interesting to note that Persian units have already occupied the mountain spine of the Zagros WHILE THE WAR STILL PROCEEDS, so it's pretty clear they had already taken possession of that territory from Assyria.

Oh, and if "End of War city borders" are the primary determinant of territory, then Babylon also better start pulling back any troops that are stationed beyond the halfway point between Anatu and Zibbar.

Or if nothing else, Babylon could at least stop talking out of both sides of it's mouth.

Do not feed the Wolf!

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Pharaoh
Oh, and if "End of War city borders" are the primary determinant of territory, then Babylon also better start pulling back any troops that are stationed beyond the halfway point between Anatu and Zibbar.

I should remind Babylon has still a copy of an agreement with Egypt about borders between Tel Hariri and Zibbar (lubricated by a very distasteful oil).

It's also interesting to note that Persian units have already occupied the mountain spine of the Zagros WHILE THE WAR STILL PROCEEDS, so it's pretty clear they had already taken possession of that territory from Assyria.

You should read this thread more carefully. Right now you sent an argument that the spine should be Babylonian:

The skirmisher you see worked under command of Armies of Babylonian Front (ABF).
(During The War Persia and Babylon agreed Persia would get spoils proportional to her part in ABF. This part was 10% and after The War Persia got her 10% part of spoils (including 100g for conquered land that Sinbad asked).)
More details in "Posted by SlowThinker on 12-08-2006 02:27"

---

You stated Persia could be attacked from Arrariver very easily, while Babylon has no such weakness.
So I am asking you again: which Persian position do you prefer?

Edit: the left picture is real land, only the right one is fictional

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

---

You stated Persia could be attacked from Arrariver very easily, while Babylon has no such weakness.
So I am asking you again: which Persian position do you prefer?

OK, Pharoah Mode off. Dude. You need to walk away from the computer and maybe go out on a date and have some beers because right now you are posting freaking nonsense! Everything else is Evil Babylonian Ruler Mode, and that's cool, I can follow that. But this "choose between these totally wacked out maps" thing is just kinda scary. Seriously man! Take a break!

[SlowThinker]

Bab 2430

Babylon is awaiting clear explanations from Persia.

[Kull]

Double-post

[Kull]

Hopefully reason has prevailed. The Egyptians return to more normal pursuits such as trading and exploring.

[SlowThinker]

I will be travelling in wilderness between Feb 2th-12th, so please wait to me if needed.

[Straybow]

I'll be back home late this evening. I need to get a couple of barter files to Peaster in case he can hurry his turn.

We've done five players in three days before, but that was a weekend.