New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

F11

I didn't have time to check al my 50 cities, but a quick look didn't reveal any problem.
So we have 2 possible solutions: Kull's replay (if he remembers his turn) or MP sessions of affected civs. I don't know which one is easier
(I might create a tool ... but I am busy these days)

[Straybow]

And we'd still need Kull, or a sub who knows his pw, in order to MP without messing up Persian turn.

That's weird. How many Bab cities have workers already in the "default" position? With so many small cities the effect of an F11 might be obscured. Only 9 of 19 Hatte cities would have workers shifted by an F11; only two of these 9 (Tralleis, Ortakoy) were affected.

I remember once when LF was sure he didn't use F11, yet some players' workers were reset. He blamed the cat who may have walked upon the keyboard. This could be a bug that gets triggered in some incomprehensible way.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

Originally posted by Sinbad
3) The deal is off in case of a PB war

What is a 'PB war'?

My thoughts went immediately to SMAC, in which PB is "Planet Buster." And of course, when the PBs start to fly, all deals are off.

[Peaster]

PB = Persia/Bab

I can give you Engineering later, but then I would insist that you order it a couple of turns in advance, and accept it when it arrives.

I'd prefer not to MP. Let's wait to hear from Kull.

[Straybow]

Hmmm:

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

  [email]cullivan@swbell.net[/email]
    SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO::
    host sbcmail2.prodigy.net [207.115.36.21]: 553 5.3.0 ...
Addressee unknown, relay=[65.254.253.89]

[SlowThinker]

to Sinbad

Negotiations?

Originally posted by Sinbad
Your words are meaningless. Persia has now learned to ignore old Snake Tongue, and will no longer politely put her troops at a disadvantage.

Do you want to say you stopped the negotiations?

Questions

Originally posted by ST
We asked three times what the Persian bribery of a Babylonian geezer stands for and if it indicates a new Persian foreign policy. Our questions were ignored.
Originally posted by Sinbad
On the contrary, our answers were ignored.

I don't remember anyones, can you quote them? I will remind the questions:

Originally posted by ST
Do you want to say "Persia claims she is rightful to do anything that Gods won't reckon as a start of a war, if she warns in advance"?
...
Persia bribed a unit and most world considers it something non-standard and close to a war act. But Persia appears it was something normal. We ask the current Persian definition of "normal", so that we know what we should expect next.

Persia impatiently awaits an answer from Babylon - Why did you bribe the Persian infantry? How was that "for peace"?

Why Babylon always answer Persian questions promptly, while Bab answers stay unanswered? Bab posts "less important" and "IMPORTANT" were ignored so far.

The reason why Babylon bribed the IrInf is equal to the reason why we published the "Red zone warning": it was defense of access to rivers. We could choose between an attack and bribery, and we chose a bribery, because it looks Persia believes a bribery is legal.
Why "for peace"? Persia knew the IrInf entered The Red Zone, and it seems she looked forward that Babylon would be forced to do a war-act:

Originally posted by Sinbad
We probably have to bribe the geezers now, but according to our tests, this will not start a war. Babylon will do that.

Cohorts

I explained the Persian view (and the Hittite view, I think) of L4s, but you did not respond.

Last post about SuperLegions was a Bab post "less important", so I think it was you who didn't respond.

I can give you Engineering later, but then I would insist that you order it a couple of turns in advance,

Good. Now I will try to sign a deal that would allow that Babs would skip Engineering. If it will be signed then we may try to catch an agreement before your orders. Otherwise I will accept Engineering now and go to Cohorts too.

and accept it when it arrives.

I wouldn't intend to ask Eng several times, only once before it would be applied.

Anyway without an agreement how to solve this tense situation, Babylon couldn't agree on a 5-turn delay. Roughly we could agree that sides would be obligated to warn 2-turns in advance that they would go to Cohorts/LegTac (= a 2-turn delay that is repeated automatically).

[SlowThinker]

to Straybow

Originally posted by Strabow
I never said all disputed areas were rightfully Per, only that the crest is reasonably Per. Per still makes claims to the row of hills S of the crest, down to the river, and this I don't support.

It looks we are back where we were several posts ago. Babylonian people will be happy if they will understand any reason why Hittites think the crest is reasonably Persian.
Could you express that reason? Or maybe you think the reason is still in your post with your "1024x700" picture, even after Babylonian response?

We would also like to know if only Babylon insults Persia by pressuposing Persian invasion? Does also Persia insults Babylon by pressuposing Babylonian invasion?

If our questions bother you too much, we will stop, but understanding of these things would sure improve our relationship (which is very good already).

[Straybow]

Without Without doing a forensic analysis of many pages of this thread, and emails, I can't recall who said it first.

However, I do know that Bab (SlowThinker the player, or SlowThinker the Immortal, or Gzhu-gzhu) reacted to Egyptian scouting with unwarrented intensity. The pattern of behavior continued when the conflict over the Zagros came up.

Bab paranoia/presuppositions of invasion were established pattern. Per claim of Tushpa Line was independent of any presupposition of invasion, as far as I can tell.

So why does Hatte find Per claim of Zagros reasonable? We've been over this. It shifts the old border one tile into former Assyrian territory. You want Per to gain nothing along that stretch.

The Zagros crest is 6 tiles from Persia's sixth oldest city. The first tile N of the Diyala River* is 6 tiles (9 distance) from Ecbatana. It is eleven tiles (thirteen distance) from Larsa, the nearest prewar Bab city, and 26 distance from Ur.

As I said, were I playing Persia I would not accept that, and were I playing Bab I wouldn't make a big deal about it.
__________
* Finally remembered the proper name of "Arrariver"

[SlowThinker]

to Straybow

>However, I do know that Bab reacted to Egyptian scouting with unwarrented intensity.
I know we have a different view on our reaction to Egyptian spying in past. But remember Egypt promised not to enter areas N from Euphrat, and next turn she entered them secretly. Of course Babylon was angry when she found out she has a neighbour that cannot be trusted. Then Egypt refused to report her scouts near Bab cities. This affair was very expensive for Babylon, because she was forced to build many patrols.

>The pattern of behavior continued when the conflict over the Zagros came up.
So far I didn't get your answer to a Poll in my post "IMPORTANT". Do you want to say the Persian try how to turn disputed areas into Persia is correct?

>Per claim of Tushpa Line was independent of any presupposition of invasion, as far as I can tell.
But it naturally caused a presupposition of invasion in Babylon. If a neigbour civilization refuses neutral zones and simultaneously claims a land like the T-line, Babylon can deduce only one conclusion: she plans to invade (maybe not now, but in future). Especially if that civilization solves land disputes by sending armies and building forts in the disputed areas.

>So why does Hatte find Per claim of Zagros reasonable? We've been over this. It shifts the old border one tile into former Assyrian territory. You want Per to gain nothing along that stretch.
We offer a neutrality of the Spine. Persia agreed with Assyrian forts on the Spine, and its neutrality is a very large difference.
(Anyway after The War (during "Preliminary Agreement") Persia was satisfied with a neutrality of The Spine. I don't know why she suddenly came with the T-line and raised her claims by more than 10 squares.)

Your idea to divide land according to distance to oldest cities may be interesting, but not very logical: with this idea Persia could claim all squares around Arraphka should be Persian.

new questions

I would be also interested if Hatta finds Per claim to all 7 defensive squares of Al-Kabir reasonable?

You said Persia was more civil. What do you think if Sinbad names me "old Snake Tongue", and speedily he expects maximum politesse from my side (Sinbad: 'if you start calling my offer a "threat" or a "clever trick" etc, just forget it')?

[SlowThinker]

to Pharaoh

Originally posted by Pharaoh
All kings should know that out in the middle of the desert, far from any cities or owned territories, Babylonian units continue to harrass and block an Egyptian skirmisher.

In past, after Pharaoh revealed his avocation to cartography, Babylon offered a cooperation under condition Egypt reported her units near Babylonian cities. Egypt persisted on secret movement of her units and suggested Babylon built many patrols and sent them in The Desert. We did it, it was expensive and Babylon has many units in The Desert.
The Egyptian Tramplers blocked Agade for 4 turns, and our units were ordered not to allow them to bother again. But the way to Egypt is free.

Originally posted by Pharaoh in 2400
Keep in mind the location in question is 1000's of miles from the heart of Mesopotamia, and we had no indication that Babylonian expansion had moved so far south.

We just realized that the central avenue of Agade (conected to a town nearby and made from a white marble) glows and is visible from very far distances, even for people that can't catch sight of walls and buildings of Agade. You didn't notice it?

[Peaster]

Re: to Sinbad

Warning to readers: recent ST statements imply that Babylon and Persia had some formal agreement to choose our border based only on distances to older cities (founded before 2600bc approx). IIRC

* we've had no formal agreement of any kind about our borders west of the Ecbatana region.
* we agreed that new cities would not affect borders, but we never agreed (even informally) how older cities would affect them
* we did not agree that "nearest distance" would be the primary factor used with the older cities
* we did not agree to base the border mainly on city locations [the astute reader will note that Babylon brought up other factors such as Bab security, rivers, the old Pers/Assy border, etc].
* IMO our border talks got nowhere; the only meaningful agreement was not to use new cities.

While we follow the Bab-Hittite discussion with some interest, we repeat that we will not change our borders [except perhaps through civil negotiation].

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Do you want to say you stopped the negotiations?

Which ones? AFAIK our only active negotiations are about techs. AFAIK you have refused to negotiate borders for 200 years. I meant that your words are so often vague or misleading that Persia will tend to ignore them unless you try harder to be clear.

I don't remember anyones, can you quote them? I will remind the questions:

Persian policy is very simple, and has been repeated often. Persia has claimed her land and insists that Babylon stay off of it. Otherwise, war is likely.

Which brings up the bribed infantry. If you want to avoid war, you must return it or remove it from Persian territory. I suggest that you announce your intentions before my turn.

Why Babylon always answer Persian questions promptly, while Bab answers stay unanswered?

That's good!

1) Last post about SuperLegions was a Bab post "less important", so I think it was you who didn't respond.

2) Good. Now I will try to sign a deal that ....

3) Roughly we could agree that sides would be obligated to warn 2-turns in advance that they would go to Cohorts/LegTac (= a 2-turn delay that is repeated automatically).

1) I don't recall your post about SuperLegions, but it seems we don't disagree much on them, so I won't dig thru all the BS in this thread for that post.

2) I don't understand exactly what you are saying about the Eng tech, but suppose you will say more very soon.

3) If you want any more deals with Persia, "roughly" will not do. We blame you for most of the past confusion over our deals, and for insisting on bizarre Babylonian interpretations later on.

Does "Cohorts/LegTac" mean the first one, or the second one, or did you intend two separate warnngs? You intended to omit Geometry ? What about the war clause? And does "go to" mean starting the research or finishing it? For Persian scientists, the difference could be several turns.

Also, Persia cannot predict the effects of the GL on our research timetable. I doubt we could easily comply with a "2-turn/starting" deal but could comply with a "5-turn/finishing" deal. If you can refine your proposal quickly, we will consider it.

[Straybow]

Re: Re: to Sinbad

Originally posted by Peaster
* we've had no formal agreement of any kind about our borders west of the Ecbatana region.
* we agreed that new cities would not affect borders, but we never agreed (even informally) how older cities would affect them
* we did not agree that "nearest distance" would be the primary factor used with the older cities
* we did not agree to base the border mainly on city locations [the astute reader will note that Babylon brought up other factors such as Bab security, rivers, the old Pers/Assy border, etc].

I know, but he asks the basis of my opinions, so I give them.

The distances to particular cities is not so critical, it is just a perception. The Zagros closely borders the heartland of Per, compared to the distant corner of Bab.

[SlowThinker]

to Sinbad

Questions

Sinbad, maybe I misunderstand your hilarity (3x lol), but aren't you somewhat schizophrenic?
SinbadA is often not very willing to answer:
"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."
"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."
"At the same time, we are not eager to start new talks with such unpleasant and unreliable folk."
(Explanation to readers: the long sentences stand for "Persia will ignore Bab posts".)

...SinbadB is sure he answers all questions promptly (?):

Originally posted by The Immo
Why Babylon always answer Persian questions promptly, while Bab answers stay unanswered?
Originally posted by Sinbad
That's good!

Sinbad, before I strive to answer your last post: will you ever answer my posts "less important" and "IMPORTANT" ?

---

SuperLegions

More and more I think it might be about a schizophreny: First you say
"We have usually been open to negotiation[when not being invaded, threatened or insulted]."
later you post a nice insult ...
"Persia has now learned to ignore old Snake Tongue"
... accompanied by a direct war threat (btw you suggest my answer before your turn - is it a warning you plan to sneak attack?)...
Which brings up the bribed infantry. If you want to avoid war, you must return it or remove it from Persian territory. I suggest that you announce your intentions before my turn.
... then you expect I will negotiate about SuperLegions?

I will gladly negotiate but I expect you withdraw your insult and your threat first.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by The Immo
Why Babylon always answer Persian questions promptly, while Bab answers stay unanswered?

Hmm, after re-reading it I see I wanted to say "while Bab questions stay unanswered". Maybe one half of Sinbad's schizophreny is explained...

[Peaster]

Re: Re: to Sinbad

Some of your questions were not answered because they were sarcastic. Some were answered many times, but you did not acknowledge the answers. For example, your most recent "important" question about "the new Persian foreign policy" was quite sarcastic, yet I've answered it many many times now (see below) and am starting to wonder about you.

BTW - Persia has not been impressed by Babylon's ability to distinguish the important from the trivial so far. IMO an agreement (or not) on the tech race is the most urgent issue at the moment, yet you have not answered about that, nor about your plans for the Inf. It is only because the game is stalled that you have not already killed the tech deal.

Originally posted by Peaster
Persian policy is very simple, and has been repeated often. Persia has claimed her land and insists that Babylon stay off of it. Otherwise, war is likely.

Does "Cohorts/LegTac" mean the first one, or the second one, or did you intend two separate warnngs? You intended to omit Geometry ? What about the war clause? And does "go to" mean starting the research or finishing it? For Persian scientists, the difference could be several turns.