New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

to Sinbad

If I answer your posts I put a lot of effort in and I use links if I answered already. Maybe you could act similarly and answer each question in "less important" and "IMPORTANT"?

SuperLegions:
I really expect you will have equal requirements on behaviour of your own person like you have on me. And I await that you will withdraw your insult+threat.

Originally posted by Sinbad
Persia has now learned to ignore old Snake Tongue

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

Edit:
"the new Persian foreign policy"

Originally posted by Sinbad
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.

How should I detect this is an elucidation of "the new Persian foreign policy", if it sounded very differently:

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.

The first quote indicates Persia is ready to start a war, the second one indicates Persia is trying to avoid to formally start it.

[SlowThinker]

to Straybow

Originally posted by Straybow
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.

Heartland of Persia is Susa? Heartland of Babylon is not Hekallush, but Thilabus? I don't understand why Susa should deserve more security (or any other delights) than Hekallush, anyway a C4 needs 2 cycles to move from The Spine to both Susa and Thilabus: the river system makes the Babylon's core quite close.

Straybow, you probably missed my previous post "to Straybow".

[Peaster]

Re: less important

I took another look at your "less important" post. It seems to me you are mainly making statements, not asking serious questions. If this answer does not satisfy your endless quest for truth, pls clarify what your questions were.

Originally posted by SlowThinker

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.

IMO your reasoning is logical. But Persia has NOT prepared an attack, and is not trying to gain an advantage with the arms deal. I know that you rarely believe your neighbors, so I doubt you will believe that. But maybe you should ask yourself why Persia has not attacked you already. You have been predicting an attack for at least 20 turns now.

Also, it's just as logical to say a country which goes for the L3/L4 techs must be weak now, and planning a major attack in the near future. But that seems a bit paranoid... not the kind of thinking we need right now.

BTW (IIRC) I didn't say anything about 40 C4s - you did. That imbalance seems so extreme, that I doubt your invasion examples tell us much. It is especially unlikely that Persia would have 40 C4s (half our army!?)

You neglect a history before the "T-line"....

IMO you have exaggerated our early discussions with the ominous label "Preliminary Agreement". IIRC I wanted to combine spoils talks and border talks (which might have avoided the current mess) but you refused. Later, when you were ready for border talks, I was very busy with RL, and also exhausted from the spoils talks. You sent a map, which I looked at, probably for about 5-10 seconds. IIRC I said I could not commit to it without more time to think. You did not feel an agreement was urgent, and neither of us expected major problems ahead. A bit later, I put some real work into it, and decided your map was not truly fair. I tried to negotiate a fair border with you, but found that was virtually impossible. IMO the "T-line" was about right, and was by far the most reasonable proposal on the table at the time you walked out of our talks.

...(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?

I never understood the point of your pictures. To me, they only show that Persia improved her defenses, just as I said I would, while Babylon still has units in Persia.

I have never threatened Bab units in Babylon. This is just your paranoia acting up again.

But at the risk of setting off another episode, I'd suggest that you clarify exactly where Babylon is and isn't. IMO that is a root cause of the Bab/Egypt problem. Also, I have always assumed that lands just south of the T-line should go to Babylon, after some civil negotiations, mainly between us two. But until then, I don't see any legal reason why they couldn't be Minoan, or Greek, or neutral, for example. Likewise, I have no formal agreement from you that the coasts of the Caspian (for example) are Persian.

This is not intended as a threat either. My point is that negotiation can be good for both sides.

[Straybow]

Re: to Straybow

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Heartland of Persia is Susa? Heartland of Babylon is not Hekallush, but Thilabus? I don't understand why Susa should deserve more security (or any other delights) than Hekallush, anyway a C4 needs 2 cycles to move from The Spine to both Susa and Thilabus: the river system makes the Babylon's core quite close.

Straybow, you probably missed my previous post "to Straybow".

Yes, I would consider Susa to be in the Per heartland. Susa is about as far from Ecb as Anc from Hat. I definitely consider Anc in the Hatte heartland.

No, I wouldn't consider Thil as Bab heartland. I wouldn't consider former Assyrian land "heartland" for anybody else.

The river system stops at Thilabus. At that point land units can't travel continuously on river and your Tigris offense strategy takes over.

[Straybow]

IMPORTANT

Has anyone been in touch with Kull? Two messages I've sent bounced as described on the 24th. Evidently paul at cullivan dot net is an alias for cullivan at swbell dot net.

If his mail is messed up he hasn't been getting notifications.

[SlowThinker]

I sent him a PM about F11 and he didn't read it yet.

[SlowThinker]

to Straybow

(I think you missed one more post here.)

I don't think Thilabus or Hekallush should deserve less security that Susa. And the fact the "Tigris strategy" works "only" up to Thilabus/Borsippa is not very reassuring for Babylon.

[SlowThinker]

to Sinbad

History

Originally posted by The Immo
You neglect a history before the "T-line"....
Originally posted by Sinbad
IMO you have exaggerated our early discussions with the ominous label "Preliminary Agreement".

But you were first who "exagerated" it:
Sinbad: "So, I felt we had a rough agreement, if not a firm deal, which was reasonable for both sides."

Originally posted by Sinbad IMO the "T-line" was about right, and was by far the most reasonable proposal on the table at the time you walked out of our talks.

It is about 5th time you claim Babylon walked out of talks, and you never showed a proof. On the contrary it is about 3rd time I show this link: a post about "T-line"

---

Units

Originally posted by The Immo
...(2nd picture)....
Originally posted by Sinbad
I never understood the point of your pictures.

It looks you confused them. "2nd picture" is one of small pics that shows Babylon sent an IrInf to border area only after Persia sent her IrInf.

I have never threatened Bab units in Babylon. This is just your paranoia acting up again.

* You threatened units in The Disputed Areas several times.
* Concerning units in Babylon: You say
Sinbad: "I have tolerated Bab units a few squares from my capitol"
All Bab units in the Ecbatana/Adab area were/are within Bab borders acredited by Persia. What will happen after you will stop to "tolerate" them?

---

Borders

But at the risk of setting off another episode, I'd suggest that you clarify exactly where Babylon is and isn't. IMO that is a root cause of the Bab/Egypt problem. Also, I have always assumed that lands just south of the T-line should go to Babylon, after some civil negotiations, mainly between us two. But until then, I don't see any legal reason why they couldn't be Minoan, or Greek, or neutral, for example. Likewise, I have no formal agreement from you that the coasts of the Caspian (for example) are Persian.

You should remember during the post-war Bab-Pers Border Talks I suggested a process, where we would define land on both sides that is clearly not questioned (at least 2 or 3 squares from city positions), and we would enlarge that land progressively during negotiations. But you rejected it.

I think we have a formal agreement that Caspic is Persian: the border agreement between The Immo and Achamenes.

Borders with Egypt: after Egypt cancelled the border agreement on Euphrat, Babylon and Egypt have no clear borders, but we sit on our positions about 20 cycles without any serious conflict. This situation is not ideal, but it is very agreeable in comparison to the Pers-Bab border.

This is not intended as a threat either. My point is that negotiation can be good for both sides.

I agree, but could you take back that (insult+threat), please?

[Straybow]

Re: to Straybow

Originally posted by SlowThinker
(I think you missed one more post here.)

I didn't miss it, I just didn't make a point-by-point response. It is very tiresome when someone is always trying to pin me down on these points when I'm not even a principal in the conflict.

I don't think Thilabus or Hekallush should deserve less security that Susa. And the fact the "Tigris strategy" works "only" up to Thilabus/Borsippa is not very reassuring for Babylon.

Then we disagree. If I tried to guarantee the absolute safety of Hatte conquests and new cities in former Assyria I, too, would be contending with Egypt and Persia over fortresses and neutral zones, etc.

I predict you will not be able to force Persia to agree to your terms by military posturing or even bloodshed in the mountains. But if you are determined to tilt at the windmill, confident in your righteous cause, who can stop you?

[SlowThinker]

I don't ask absolute safety, only safety comparable to safety of Persia.

about violence
Of course Babylon couldn't conquer the Persian forts on Mountains. But if Babylon gave up and ratified the status quo then she would support barbarous habits, like resolving land disputes by unilateral claims and occupation.
Maybe some civilizations, that don't face these habits strongly enough, will regret in future that violence became a worldwide standard.

[Straybow]

But aren't your demands for neutrality of the Zagros equally unilateral? Wasn't your scout, as harmless as it was, an attempt to frame the claim to neutral Zagros through occupation?

[SlowThinker]

Is it a joke? Do you say I should react to an unilateral land claim + an occupation by accepting it and withdrawing all scouts??
If there are some land disputes, I believe the only civilized method is to proclaim that land neutral until an agreement is reached.

I also believe an approval of violence as a legal way of negotiation is a way to hell.

[SlowThinker]

I started some work on an anti-F11 tool, but it won't be finished this weekend.
It would help if somebody could answer this , or run some testing...

[Zedd]

I am all for giving time for Kull to go back, but how much time is the Peasterss willing to sacrifice?

It seems it could be a good time for Bab-Pers negotions to try and make it "over the hump".

[Kull]

Sorry guys, but i had a hard drive crash AND lost all inet access almost immediately after posting that last save. Not sure what happened, but i'll try to replay and repost sometime tonight. BTW, you can send email to paul at cullivan dot com.