New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Straybow]

another version appeared in a vision:
(10 goto:04 ,0,1)

[SlowThinker]

to Pharaoh

Originally posted by Pharaoh
Let's see......forest+river+fortress = stronger defense than hills with fortresses.

This is not true. Forest+river = Hill+no river

So what DO we see? There are 7 river squares between Persia and Negru, and 12 all told to Hekallush. And last time Pharoah checked, at least eight could be mined into forests and have fortresses placed on top of them!

Good. You say several forest squares on a river is sufficient for a defense, even if the river goes deep in Babylonian territory. Now explain please why Persia insists on having all 4 hills and 3 mountains on Upper Al Kabir. Upper Al Kabir ends by a mountain block and so cannot be used for an attack against Persia.

[SlowThinker]

to Lycastus

Originally posted by Lycastus
"Babs never accepted the tushpa line"
Well, every map I see for the last 30 pages shows Persian lines drawn along the tushpa line and ending at the northern tip of the Zargos

I don't understand. Could you rephrase? Or show an example of one concrete map?

The Spine

and every argument is focused on the city radius of Zariqum or just south of it

Bab arguments about The Spine:
from the beginning our main argument is The Spine is a natural boundary between Persia and Babylon, it is only one line wide, so it cannot be split and should stay neutral.
Once Persia started to refuse neutrality of The Spine (Tushpa line) and revealed existence of pre-war borders between Assyria and Persia, we added some legalistic arguments:
* an agreement of The Alliance Against Zedanu The Mad that Assyrian territories would be split according to a principle "first come, first serve" (but Egypt came with an interpretation this principle was valid for cities only, not land)
* that we closed a post-war settlement between Persia and Babylon already, and Babylon payed 100g that Persia asked for Assyrian land (but Persia came with an interpretation "the land" was only a land for cities in valleys)
After Persia sent a stack in Zariqum's perimeter, we noted that Zariqum was built in era of "Preliminary agreement" that supposed the spine would be neutral, and so citizens of Zariqum immigrated with a belief no Persian fort would sit above the city. But it was just one in a line of secondary arguments.
The case is not about security of a city Zariqum, but about security of Babylon, especially of headwaters of Arrariver and Hekkariver.

So far I heard only one argument from Persian side: the T-line is "reasonable".
Straybow sent some reasons why The Spine (not the T-line) should be Persian (also in private messages), but I explained they were based on faulty assumptions and Straybow didn't continue our debate.

(BTW I am afraid legalistic arguments cannot help now, relationships are too bad and arguments will be always questioned some way. If we shall move ahead we should narrow our debate to security issues. Anyway both sides seem to go this way now.)

Fair map

May I once again request a map proposal from each side showing what they think "fair boarders" should be?

I think this would be a fair map:



Eastern Zagros (headwaters of Arrariver and east) is two lines wide, so the split seems to be natural.
The spine is one line wide, it should stay neutral.
Upper Al-Kabir: the split 4(Persia)-3(Babylon) gives enough of security to Nimrud/Negru area, Persian defenses of Tushpa (Mountains) and Kyrousata (private lake) are perfect (I am reminding the only agreement Persia and Babylon reached was that the borders would be based on cities that existed just after The War, so cities you see on the map)

Babylon didn't/doesn't insist on a "fair" map:
during the "Preliminary Agreement" we wanted to offer a bit more to our Persian friends,
after the Tushpa-line + Persian war threats our chickenhearted Secretary of Foreign Affairs offered the "Minimal land",
and also now we are ready to give up something in order to reach peace (under condition security of both nations won't be unbalanced): for example we can give up the Gold on Upper Al-Kabir, or to give up something on The Spine for neutrality of all Al Kabir.

[SlowThinker]

Engineering

Originally posted by The Immo
during Persian turn Babylon asked Persia for Engineering (based on this agreement: "Babylon can choose one future Persian tech but Persia can veto war techs."). Will Persia send a barter?

Babylon just obtained a barter with Engineering from Persia. We acknowledge Persia keeps deals.
At least during negotiations Babylon prefers delay of SuperLegions stays possible, because it will leave more space for the negotiations. So if Persia grants Engineering also next turns, Babylon won't accept the barter now.

[Kull]

Re: to Lycastus

Originally posted by SlowThinker I think this would be a fair map:

[Straybow]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I explained they were based on faulty assumptions and Straybow didn't continue our debate.

In other words, we disagree.

Babylon didn't/doesn't insist on a "fair" map: during the "Preliminary Agreement" we wanted to offer a bit more to our Persian friends

Must've been a very small "bit more"

[Peaster]

Zedd: The core of the Bab-Pers conflict is very simple. About 20 turns ago, Persia claimed land on the T-line [from 116,28 to 133,45] and NE of that. Babylon disputed some of that claim, about two squares deep, SE of Zariqum (his red and orange lines). Also, he has not yet formally agreed about the northern Al Kabir valley.

If you respect my claim, and my right to defend my land, then you can probably agree with everything I have written or done since then (I believe Kull does. Straybow seemed supportive at first, but apparently he feels some of my defensive actions have not been necessary).

If you consider the land to be Babylonian, or even neutral, then you will probably agree with Babylon's complaints.

IMO the debate over the fairness of the T-line is history now. You can re-read it from about 10 thread pages back, if you have forgotten it. ST's recent account is not a lie, but is one-sided. Basically, Persia needed to draw a line to limit Bab ambitions, so I proposed the T-line. ST made two very unacceptable counterproposals, to create neutral lands deep in Persia, and then he argued against my line, based on principles which made sense only to him (IMO). AFAIK nobody bought it, Babylon broke off negotiations, and Persia claimed the T-line. I have emphasized that my claim was "reasonable", because it is unlikely that any 2 Kings will agree that any given line is exactly "right". Later, Babylon made a counterclaim about "minimal land", based on a perceived need for Bab security, which Persia rejected.

IMO it is fine to negotiate for added security, but it is not a god-given right which the Babs can demand. I was more sympathetic on this topic before I got burnt a few times. And as you know, I have tolerated Bab units a few squares from my capitol, and an almost total lack of grassland for 5 centuries, and have never demanded better treatment. IMO such things should be negotiable between reasonable people, but inflexible demands lead to conflicts.

There has been much talk about Zariqum, but I don't consider it a major issue. I do not blame ST for building it, or for some concerns over its safety. But it is not in any real danger, and it poses a relatively small threat to Persia (compared to the Arrapkha river, the 120 unit army, L4s, etc).

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

About L4s: IMO vet L4s will mow down most other units pretty easily and safely. There may be exceptions, such as other L4s, or stacks of infantry on mts in forts. If one aggressive King makes a few L4s first, he could confidently bully his neighbors, or begin a war. That's what I meant by "destabilizing". Just my opinion though (with thanks to Straybow for sparking the idea).

Of course I can make another barter for Engineering, if this one is not used now. I'm peeved that our tech deal was abused slightly, but that's nothing compared to delaying an arms race. BTW - if we are anywhere near an agreement on this, let's talk now, before it is too late.

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

Negotiations: ST and I have spoken. If any King sees hope, they can try to mediate. IMO there is some hope for improved mutual security wrt the Al Kabir and the Arrapkha rivers. Not sure about the conflicting land claims - I am not giving up the spine, nor the T-line (w/o compensation) nor my right to defend my people. I am willing to treat some Persian land on/near the T-line as neutral, in return for reciprocal treatment by the Babs to the east. IIRC ST once stated that his "minimal land" claims were not negotiable. If so, it seems we have a problem.

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

Minor points:

* It is clear that among Babylon, Egypt and Persia, 2-1 Kings see the geezer bribery as justified, and no worse than the envoy incident. Not sure about the current views of Straybow and Zedd, or why they said nothing earlier. I guess some Kings could have been misled by later ST posts; a) that this act would start a war, or b) that one of my reasons made no sense (neither Bab post was quite accurate). As to Persia's foreign policy - what is the confusion - what part of "border" don't you understand ?

* Sargon's: I did not say that ST was stupid, only that our argument was getting stupid - which seems relatively inoffensive for this thread. My only point in the argument was very obvious - that having Sargon's is an advantage.

Message from Apolyton (one of those "while you wait" quotes) "One family builds a wall. Two families benefit." It's a nice idea in principle, kinda like "Good fences make good neighbors".

[Straybow]

I would characterize my opposition to Bab arguments exactly as I stated it pages ago: Persia gave up the Tigris city sites but not the upper Zab al Kabir or the Zagros. Make do with what you got.

I see Bab fighting over one hill tile on the river as paranoid. As Kull said, defense in depth is better anyway.

[Zedd]

Re: Re: to Lycastus

Originally posted by Kull

Um- yeah..........isn't this practically the same map? Seems allot of trouble to advance your boarders ONE TILE north.

I suppose the justification is for protection of the river entrances, but as said before a fortress on a river is not so easily over come. (I remember)

As for my stance on the subject...... I think it could have been a moderate disagreement but one easily solved. Therefore I paid little attention to the situation expecting Persia and Babylon to come to their senses. Now things have escalated and I would hope to avoid a confrontation, but cannot wholly support or condemn either side.

[Zedd]

Originally posted by Straybow
another version appeared in a vision:
(10 goto:04 ,0,1)

A wonderful language employed by a strange group of people who stare at boxes. What was the name of the box?.......Major, no some other rank.....AH-HA Comodore, number 64 thats it.

The first posting was revisited due to some error of Syntax. (Must be a new Barb city)

[SlowThinker]

less important

The debate is flooded by many points that aren't very important, and the most important ones are hidden. Therefore I split my answer into two parts.

Straybow surprises me

Originally posted by The Immo
I explained they were based on faulty assumptions and Straybow didn't continue our debate.
Originally posted by Straybow
In other words, we disagree.

With such a way of communication you can hardly wonder why Babylon lost part of her trust to Hatta: you knew Babylonian distrust in 2430 was based mainly on the fact we didn't understand why Hatta supported Persia in her claims (which we considered to be completely illegal), and you still stopped to answer? It doesn't sound you were interested in alleviating a Babylonian "paranoia"...

Originally posted by Straybow
I see Bab fighting over one hill tile on the river as paranoid.

And Persian fighting over all 7 hill/mountain squares of 7 is not paranoid?

---

To Sinbad

Originally posted by Sinbad
About L4s: IMO vet L4s will mow down most other units pretty easily and safely. There may be exceptions, such as other L4s, or stacks of infantry on mts in forts. If one aggressive King makes a few L4s first, he could confidently bully his neighbors, or begin a war. That's what I meant by "destabilizing".

You missed my point, and I would like to hear your answer: you said you were afraid of Babylonian 120 units or 40 C4s. But L4/L3 would make all these units obsolete (including C4s), and all countries would start to build armies from a zero point and so from equal positions. IMO mainly a country that prepared an attack and built a strong and expensive army should complain against L3/L4s.

(Now I got a Sinbad's private message about SuperLegions, but I really don't want to talk about serious points privately, so please let us talk here.)

Basically, Persia needed to draw a line to limit Bab ambitions, so I proposed the T-line.

You neglect a history before the "T-line". Could you explain why in the "T-line" you suddenly raised your demands by more than 10 squares (in comparison with the "Preliminary Agreement")?

Babylon broke off negotiations, and Persia claimed the T-line.

I answered it already: follow the link of "T-line" above.

And as you know, I have tolerated Bab units a few squares from my capitol

Again (3rd time): http://apolyton.net/forums//showthre...42#post4825142 (2nd picture)
"I have tolerated" - is it a threat that you may stop "to tolerate" Bab units in Babylon near Ecbatana and to change accredited borders by force?

[SlowThinker]

IMPORTANT

1) A poll - demeanour of sides

Originally posted by Sinbad
The core of the Bab-Pers conflict is very simple. About 20 turns ago, Persia claimed land on the T-line [from 116,28 to 133,45] and NE of that. ... If you respect my claim, and my right to defend my land.

So, in more neutral language
* Persia unilateraly claimed a disputed land and proclaimed it a part of Persia
* Persia sent stacks to the disputed land and built forts and roads there
* Persia started to bribe Babylonian skirms in the disputed land

On the contrary:
* Babylon asked the disputed land stayed neutral with only weak scouts inside and until the dispute would be resolved
* Babylon kept only skirmishers there
* Babylon did react to Persian militarization of disputed areas by verbal complaints only

Could Kings say which way they consider to be more peaceful?
Was the behaviour of Persia correct?

---

2) Arguments, please

Sinbad, you said many words in your last post, but no one explains why the disputed areas (T-line) should be Persian. Maybe your arguments are hidden somewhere in past, but I remember no ones (except some vague words like "T-line is reasonable" or "I must defend my people"). Please repeat your concrete arguments (if any).

2a) Security arguments

Originally posted by Sinbad
I am not giving up ... my right to defend my people.

Sinbad, you always forget also Babylon has right to defend her people. I respect Persian right of security, but I ask Persian and Babylonian security are balanced.

I explained why I believe my "fair map" (9 posts above) doesn't grant more security to Babylon than to Persia.
If you think the "fair map" is not balanced then explain why please.
If you think Babylon deserves less security than Persia then explain why.


2b) Legalistic arguments

Originally posted by Straybow
I would characterize my opposition to Bab arguments exactly as I stated it pages ago: Persia gave up the Tigris city sites but not the upper Zab al Kabir or the Zagros. Make do with what you got.

* Persia didn't "gave up" Tigris city sites, she asked 100g for her rights (2 city sites) and she got them. I explained it pages ago here and around.
* Both Zab Al Kabir and Zagros' Spine were never Persia, it was an Assyrian land. It is here: #3192

Edited/added:
During the border talks Persia and Babylon agreed on one point only: that borders would be based on position of cities after The War. Borderlines in accordance to the T-line are shown here; cities that existed after The War are shown too. Could Sinbad explain how the T-line conforms the principle we agreed on? Why the borderlines are so close to Bab cities and so far from Persian cities?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Straybow surprises me
With such a way of communication you can hardly wonder why Babylon lost part of her trust to Hatta: you knew Babylonian distrust in 2430 was based mainly on the fact we didn't understand why Hatta supported Persia in her claims (which we considered to be completely illegal), and you still stopped to answer? It doesn't sound you were interested in alleviating a Babylonian "paranoia"...

Surprise? I thought I made myself clear months ago. My post made a bit of a stir.

[SlowThinker]

I didn't want to clarify your stance, but your reasons. If you support Persia without saying a reason then Babylonian trust towards Hatta diminishes. If you don't say reason even after we ask, we become sad, as it looks you don't care if we trust or not.

[Straybow]

It isn't that I support Persian claims, it is that I support Persian sovereignty (and Hatte sovereignty, and Minoan sovereignty, etc). Did the gods make Persia vassal to Babylon and forget to tell the rest of us?

Persian claims are "completely illegal" and Babylon's aren't? By whose "law" is this judged? When I look to the law of nature I see that there is strength mixed with weakness.

In the spoils talks you got Persia to bargain away the city sites which have strength in growth and trade but weakness in defense. Now you wish to take the mountains from Persia.

You speak of a "fair" map, but you always start from the position gained after spoils talks instead of before, at the end of the war. Babylon has already gained the spoils of Persia and Minoa in Mesopotamia.



Freehand and unofficial representations of pre-war borders, limits of conquest (Cyprus not shown), and negotiated expansions (shaded).

Babylonian gains increase by half, while Persian gains decreased by half.

In all these talks, Babylon insults Persia by presupposing a Persian invasion through the rivers; demanding (meaningless) inspections, harrassing Persian units. This after the King became apopleptic over a few Egyptian scouts sought to inspect Babylon's gains.

But I made all these points before, too. If they aren't reason enough for Babylon I'm at a loss to supply more.