New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Straybow]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I don't understand a reason of the bribery as it was explained by Persia:
* Persia says she needs to bribe a geezer because she must send scouts downwards from the Spine
* but Persia doesn't need scouting: she sees 2 lines from the Spine because of ZOCs of the geezer
* so Persia bribes the geezers, the ZOCs dissapear and she sees only 1 line

This is true. Perhaps the consequences of this action were not thoroughly considered.

Do you see the contradiction? It is OK when Persia states MANY times she is expecting a Bab invasion. But Babylon doesn't have a right to express the same concern.

Initially, Hatte policy saw Babylonian "concerns" as paranoia and stated our official opinion clearly. A potential route of invasion, a river within Persian territory, touching at the extreme reach of Babylonian territory.

But now Persia has over-reacted to a "threat" of no consequence.

Kings, brothers, please let us resolve this before blood is shed for naught.

[kengel]

Just returned from a prolonged weekend trip...
Will play my turn during the next hours...
Sorry for the delay

[kengel]

Here we are-
give peace a chance

[Peaster]

Originally posted by Straybow

This is true. Perhaps the consequences of this action were not thoroughly considered.

Well, let's take a look at the history -

Circa 2600BC to 2500BC - Persia claims border, with obvious implications; that Bab troops will not be allowed behind it; and that Persia intends to defend it. Persia explicitly states intentions to make roads, forts and stacks behind the border, as needed for defense, as long as Babylon remains hostile. Hattas does not object (and agrees the T-line is reasonable).

2410BC - Babs expel a Persian envoy from Persian land.

Before 2410BC Persian turn - Persia advises Hattas that we intend to remove the geezers soon; we give Hattas (and others perhaps) a chance to object.

After 2410BC turn - Persia publicly advises Babylon and all other readers that we will remove the geezers in 2400BC.

2400BC turn - Persia removes the geezers

After 2400BC turn
- Babylon complains about Persian logic
- Minos is surprised that Persia removed the geezers
- Hattas implies that Persia removed the geezers recklessly

The geezers were removed because:
* The geezers were in Persia, and showed no sign of leaving voluntarily.
* They were not a direct threat, but their King is.
* They have interfered with Persian defense and scouting by restricting our movement.

The Bab argument about ZOCs is a very tiny piece of the picture and not even convincing; it is obvious that Persian scouts can get an earlier warning of invasion from the border than from a square behind it, especially after the Babs post new units nearby, and create new ZOCs, which has already happened along most of the border.

But now Persia has over-reacted to a "threat" of no consequence.

Did I call the skirmishers a "threat" ? You are putting words in my mouth. Also, the silly Babylonian maps labelled "After the Babylonian invasion" are sarcastic, I suppose, but I don't get it - Persia has not claimed that the Bab invasion has begun. Also, the maps only show that Persia is defending her land, with very few troops actually on the border. What was the point supposed to be?

It seems that centuries of whining are paying off for Babylon. Straybow - have you even considered what Persian sees to the south?

Bab armies - 120
Persian armies - 81

[IMO 40 extra units is a threat greater than any movements noted in Persia. Perhaps they are all boats or skirmishers, but Persia has no way of knowing].

Babs have Sargon's Arsenal
Persia has a few barracks, which may become obsolete at any time.

Closest Persian unit to Ur - Iron Inf at (142,48) - Distance 14 squares.
Closest Bab unit to Ecbatana - Iron Inf at (144,50) - Distance 4 squares.

Bab stance "We intend to invade" (am I wrong?)
Pers stance "We intend to defend"

Also, I am curious how you would defend Persia from 40 assorted units stacked [possibly] in the Bab fort near the Arrapkha river tip, ready to march north over a hill into plains?

Straybow - I'm a little insulted that you can equate Persian defense with Babylonian aggression, and am disappointed that you are ready to reward Babylon's whining. You rule Hattas, not Mommylon.

[Straybow]

The unit only interfered with moving Persian units into the hills south of the mountains.

Indeed, Sinbad, I do agree that the T-Line is reasonable, for some distance from Tushpa. But I've also said that Persia claiming tiles on the far side of the Zagros' crest is not reasonable.

From post #2842 (page 57 by 50s): "Persia has softly claimed the diagonal line SE from Tushpa, with some flexibility for talk, but ST completely disputes this claim." This just before Persian 2560.

I don't recall Hatte policy ever giving a carte blanc support for the Tushpa Line all the way to (133,45).

On the same page is a quote (perhaps from private messages) of Persia claiming defensive positions at (123,35) and (129,39), the latter seeming to acknowledge a zig-zag in the Tushpa line to the crest of the Zagros.

Now while Babylon frets over a hypothetical invasion from the wilderness of the Zab al Kabir headwaters, Persia frets over a hypothetical invasion across the Zagros mountains, the roughest terrain on the map.

Persia cites numbers of units, but neglects to account for the overall strategic situation. Persia faces one opponent behind a wall of mountains, while Babylon's western flank is exposed before Persia's ally.

Egypt: 58 + Persia: 81 = 139
Babylon: 120

Both sides press claims that are unenforcible and lead only to continued conflict, then wonder why there is no peace.

Make no mistake, we commit no forces to either side of this conflict. There was a Char4 on loan to Babylon for some time, but we recalled the unit to Hatte 12 cycles ago.

[Kull]

Originally posted by Straybow
Persia cites numbers of units, but neglects to account for the overall strategic situation. Persia faces one opponent behind a wall of mountains, while Babylon's western flank is exposed before Persia's ally.

Egypt: 58 + Persia: 81 = 139
Babylon: 120

Pharoah is most disappointed in the words of his Brother to the North. My brother already understands that Babylonian paranoia has no limit, and now Egypt finds itself equated with Persia? On the verge of war? And by a friend no less? Undoubtedly the "blatant offense" commited by Persia will call for a massive Babylonian response, and his security concerns mandate the elimination of ALL threats - as you well know. So my Brother can hardly feign surprise when he sees that those "threats", include Hatte-described "Persians" wearing Yellow Uniforms.

Pharoah had hoped for more than this from a nation that Egypt has ever and always defended and fought alongside.

[Straybow]

Persia speaks as though Babylon's gaze is directed in one direction. Obviously, Babylon sees both Egypt and Persia as threats. Now Pharaoh acts as though this observation is news to him.

Pharaoh, I speak as I have come to understand the mind of the King of Babylon. This understanding requires no "inside" information. It is in plain language, post after post, page after page.

Babylon argues with Egypt over a lone, wandering Skirmisher in the farthest corner of the world as though it were a mighty force at the gates of Ur. Perhaps Pharaoh has spent too much time in the heat of the noon sun, and forgets these little details.

Or perhaps Pharaoh is saying that Egypt would not intervene in an all-out Babylonian assault upon Persia? A cunning plan to lure Babylon into a trap?

Because I have spoken frankly about this entire conflict Babylon has come to distrust Hatte as well; enough to downgrade our relations from Alliance to Peace.

[Kull]

My brother has only to look back through the archives of time to see that Pharoah has always taken the lead in the search for peace and concord among nations. Once it was Assyria that blustered and threatened and ultimately attacked - and first against Hatte! And Egypt it was that stepped in after the blows had already fallen and worked out a peace acceptable to both sides.

And following the Assyrian assault against Babylon, Minos, Hatte, and Persia - Egypt took counsel with the aggrieved nations one last time, and begged Assyria to reconsider. And when that was refused, we gave them a final chance to reconsider before Egypt too would join in against them. Hardly the actions of one who would assault Babylonians asleep in their beds.

But our words mean nothing to Babylon, and we will venture nothing there. Yet Minos and Hatte could end this before it begins. Tell Babylon to accept the Tushpa line and let both sides submit their other boundary disputes to binding arbitration. Babylon pushes and probes only because she feels there is no downside to her actions and her trading partners will blithely go on as before.

Do not confuse this dispute with the one between Babylon and Egypt over the lands of the upper Euphrates. Egypt could accept terms less favorable to us, because this region is far from our core. But Persia has not this luxury. The spine of the Zagros is her one and ONLY defense against Babylon, whereas the men in green have hills and forests and rivers (remember well the Tigris defense my brothers, and try not to laugh as Babylon pretends it no longer exists) which must somehow be crossed before an aggressor comes at last to her center.

Do not mistake your power here. Babylon's ruler is no fool, and he will not by choice alienate thee from his side. He will whine and moan about the bitterness of the pill, but swallow it he will.

Edit: It's been so long since a map of that line was posted, here it is again. Pharoah can see room for give and take on both sides, but sadly no third party has stepped in to fill Egypt's former role as trusted arbiter: http://apolyton.net/forums//showthre...92#post4576192

[Straybow]

Is that not why Babylon cannot count 120:81 against Persia, as though Persia stood alone?

[Zedd]

Sorry guys but I have not had time to dl or look at the save and I will be in-disposed tomorrow night. Would Peastress please grant my requst for a deadline delay to Sat night?

Also I am attaching a file that is simply my thoughts on the boarder dispute. It seems the disagreement is simply over who gets the mountains or which side of the mountains belong to whom.

Minoan maps have not been updated in some time so I do not know about troop placement and such but I think an arranged stalemate could be beneficial to our friends.

Blue line is persian boarder, blue dots persina units.....-preferably Skirmishers or other low rank 1 move units that can't "Invade"

Green dots are similar Bab units.

I propose you each put a single unit on these spots as sentry, Agree to a "No Mans Land" on the three mountain tiles, and go on with your life.

Babylon can keep working Zariqum and Persia gets some space, If anyone crosses to no-mans-land kill on site. If a unit crosses the line........same solution. If a player stacks units on a space, then expect to have your opponent remove them.

Thats how I like my peace, plain simple and deadly.

Or maybe Kull can work nukes back into the scenario and we solve it the good old fassioned Civ 2 SP way.

[Kull]

Sadly, that map is not a compromise - it does nothing more than grant Babylon almost everything she has demanded.

[Zedd]

From the link you posted it looks that originally Babylon and Persia each Agreed to the "Tushpa line"

(Though Babylon stipulated that they wished to claim the land to the north and would cut trade to persia if they didn't get it.)

The dispute seems to be the city Zariqum, which IMO is Babylon territory, and though it connects directly too the boarder with persia should still be treated as such.

However I do not support that any tiles outside (north) the city radius belong to babs, If you build a city on the boarder you have to live with the neighbors.

The no-mans land takes away the advantage of the mountains for either civ, and by posting fortresses and/or units in the area both civs can react with force should the other become aggressive.

[Zedd]

Who doesn't persia post what she deems reasonable, and seaperately Babylon do the same?

[Straybow]

The red box need not be a no-man's land. It can belong to Persia, with Bab rights to use and peaceably develop (mine) the Iron.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Lycastus
Who doesn't persia post what she deems reasonable, and seaperately Babylon do the same?

Not only Lycastus must sometimes solve inner affairs of his empire, and also practice hunting, inseminate women in The Royal Harem ...