New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

So far only Hitts and Pers reported problems with workers, so another possibility would be one MP for Persia (with Egypt now) and another one for Hatta later.

[SlowThinker]

Babylon wonders if there is any willingness to talk from Persian side...

[Kull]

Here's the second Egypt save...should be clean.

[Straybow]

Clean for Hittite cities!

[Peaster]

Thanks, Kull! Persia is also clean. I am busy today, but can probably play tomorrow.

Talk with Babylon ?! See my urgent proposal about the arms race approx two weeks ago. What was your answer ? But it is probably too late now.

I also asked for a clear statement about removing your troops from Persia. I assume your latest rants, without any direct answer, mean "no". We have a choice of war, peace (eg you respect my border) or a prompt negotiation of new borders. So far, Babylonian negotiation = make unreasonable demands and leave. The ball's in your court, and Persia will not wait forever.

[SlowThinker]

to Sinbad

WCUCBP

Originally posted by Sinbad
I also asked for a clear statement about removing your troops from Persia.

We don't know why you repeat that nonsense again and again. Babylon must pronounce again: We consider unilateral claims (like "Disputed Areas = Persia") to be a barbarous policy. (From this point of time we will use an abbreviation "WCUCBP")


SuperLegions and insults

Talk with Babylon ?! See my urgent proposal about the arms race approx two weeks ago. What was your answer?

So far you are ignoring my post here ("SuperLegions"), and my try to remind it here (last para).
(Also I said a delay-SuperLegs-agreement may be impossible if Persia guarantees Engineering only in 2390.)


Borders

So far, Babylonian negotiation = make unreasonable demands and leave. The ball's in your court, and Persia will not wait forever.

We put lot of effort here - Babylonian proposals , The Spine+Fair map, but I don't think we got any answer. Can you link it if I am mistaken?

[Kull]

Pharoah's scribes provide this simplified consolidation of ALL the Babylonian-Persian correspondence to date:

Babylon: Evacuate the Persian borders so we may station our troops inside your territory!

Persia: No.

Babylon: Evacuate the Persian borders so we may station our troops inside your territory!

Persia: No.

Babylon: Why won't you agree to our reasonable demands? They must be reasonable since they are good for us and bad for you!

Hatte: Perhaps something a bit less unilateral might work?

Babylon: What!!?? You do not accept our logic in it's entirety?? You must be a secret enemy and we hereby cancel our alliance!!

Hatte:

Babylon: Evacuate the Persian borders so we may station our troops inside your territory!

Persia: Gah!

[SlowThinker]

to Pharaoh
I see Pharaoh The Truthful has nothing to do. So I ask again:

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.

Can you explain how you could overlook a road (so called 'telltale') at Agade's position?

---

to Sinbad (addendum)
About "insults+threats": I have understood you (partially) withdrew your war threat, because you allow "negotiations of new border" besides war.
But the insult is still on the table ("Persia has now learned to ignore old Snake Tongue").

[techumseh]

(edit: wrong forum)

[Peaster]

Kull: Nice summary! You give me faith that posting in this thread is not a complete waste of time.

ST: One of your problems is that you think way too much in terms of "rights". You insist on rights that you do not have (Bab security, parity in the Zagros, control of Persian science, explanations of everything I do, etc).

I am not sure Kings have a "right" to a border, and I never said Persia had a "right" to claim the T-line. Rather, Persia had to draw a line in the sand in the face of a bully (you!). I drew one that was simple and reasonable, one that you could have easily accepted [or negotiated]. Though you seem a smart fellow in many ways, you don't seem to have any concept of what's "reasonable" and seem very uncomfortable with the word.

Regarding your other links... Persia and the interested Kings have already denied your arguments about Spine-parity, land spoils, and the so-called "preliminary agreement". IMO you have already used plenty of thread space to make your legal cases, It is past time to accept others' opinions and move on. I don't intend any further responses about these.

I can't see that the "Bab proposal" link contains any real proposals. AFAIK your "minimal land claim" is non-negotiable, and I don't intend to waste my time on you while you take such a stance.

As I said long ago, we are willing to negotiate river security, perhaps as a separate issue. IMO it would be simple to post neutral units on the Al Kabir and on the Arra-tip, which would greatly reduce the chance of a surprise invasion by either side. I don't recall any response to this.

Persia's has been willing to negotiate borders for about 300 years. But we do not have much faith in Babylonian understanding of "negotiate". We do not intend to give away land, or cave in to unreasonable Bab demands. But we are willing to look for solutions where both sides benefit.

If you do not respond about your intruders, you face possible war at any time. Yes, this is a threat. A very old, simple threat. Stay out!!

Regarding insults, I think you are clearly the master. Kull and I lose it occasionally, but most of your posts insult someone. You improved briefly when Straybow called you on it, and after I named you "Snake Tongue" (my apologies to any snake-lurkers). So, I'd consider an apology to you only if you'd do the same for us.

[SlowThinker]

Any facts or arguments ... ?

Sinbad, one of your problem is you never say anything concrete. You usually send strong, coloured but empty words "in the face of a bully", "regarding insults you are the master", "my proposal is reasonable" but you never explain where Babylon bullied you, where we insulted you, you always decline any talks about reasonability of border lines.

Originally posted by Sinbad Regarding insults, I think you are clearly the master. Kull and I lose it occasionally, but most of your posts insult someone. ... So, I'd consider an apology to you only if you'd do the same for us.

What is 'Kull'??
There are two kinds of insults: "you are paranoid", "you are barbarian", "you want to attack me", "this is a lie" are not-very-polite ways how to express some idea. These were used by both sides.
But sentences like "old Snake Tongue" have only one meaning: to insult. They are exclusively a Persian/Egyptian domain. If you send any concrete example that Babylon descended to them I will apologize.

One of your problems is that you think way too much in terms of "rights". You insist on rights that you do not have

This is absurd. Babylon says The Disputed Areas should belong to nobody until we get an agreement. Persia insists on having them.

Persia's has been willing to negotiate borders for about 300 years.

Facts please. It is about 6th time you claim it was Babylon that 'walked out of talks', and you never showed a proof. On the contrary it is about 4rd time I show it was Persia that stopped to talk: a post about "T-line"

edit: only wording

[SlowThinker]

Proposals

In order to move ahead Babylon will stop to wait for an apology. (Anyway it was Persia who conditioned negotiations by avoiding insults and threats, we only took her for gospel.)

Borders

Originally posted by Sinbad
I am not sure Kings have a "right" to a border, and I never said Persia had a "right" to claim the T-line. Rather, Persia had to draw a line in the sand in the face of a bully (you!).

Babylon never had/asked military forces within the "T-line". Or was the "line in the sand" a defense against those Bab skirmishers?
We can even accept a neutral area that would go past the T-line (incl. Zariqum). Of course we expect that Persia will accept similar neutral areas north.

IMO things are easy:
You want to avoid war, you are "bullied", you fear of "Babylonian attack": you ask large neutral/demilitarized zones, and you are safe and you have peace.
You want a war: push Persian forces towards Babylon where stacks will face one another.

Concerning formal borders: because our standpoints are too distant and Persia isn't willing to argue about "reasonability" of border lines, I think the only solution is my old proposal:
We should accept at least areas of western Babylon and Persia that aren't disputed (for example 2 squares from post-war cities + some lines) and then try to enlarge these approved areas by a negotiation.


Delay of SuperLegs
I said already: the delay is problematic if you say this is last year Babylon can get a Persian barter with Engineering without obstructions. (So far Babylon doesn't have a formal deal that would allow us to skip Engineering.)

Anyway Babylon can't accept a 5-turn delay that would be conditioned by peace, as peace may be stopped anytime.

We can accept this: an obligation of a 3-turn warning about a completion of Cohorts and LegTactics, valid also during a war (except a war where troops gets 3 squares from rivals' post-war cities, then the "defender" can go for the techs immediately). A warning is released during a turn report. The side that released the warning may finish the tech after 3 turns, the other side after 2.5 turns. The side that is faster cannot 'use' SuperLegions first turn (it can neither attack nor move to empty disputed square)
Persia must warn 5-turns in advance that she wants to start a research Geometry
The deal should handle also situations if a 3rd-party goes for the techs, and also some other details should be improved.

edit: only wording

[Zedd]

That should be concrete enough and not require further statement.

I have been in and out skimming through the thread but have been busy with RL, Minoa was also affected by the anomoly and I am gratefull to Kull for his replay and post. I hope that the HDD survived. (And also I hope it was not part of an upgrade to Vista! It seems to like causing drive conflicts for upgrades.)

[Peaster]

The Persian turn is finally done. Minor net problems delayed this post a few hours. Also, I accidentally contacted the Greek AI, but learned nothing, and AFAIK no harm was done.

Persian scientists had to make a tech decision before hearing Babylon's belated response. We emphasized that this matter was urgent. We waited for two weeks, only to get a response hours after starting our turn. It seems very unlikely that a deal is possible now. It is highly questionable whether Babylon bargained in good faith.

Still no formal war, but we insist that Babylon remove her troops now, or risk a Persian military response at any time.

[SlowThinker]

SuperLegions

Originally posted by Sinbad
Persian scientists had to make a tech decision before hearing Babylon's belated response. We emphasized that this matter was urgent. We waited for two weeks, only to get a response hours after starting our turn. It seems very unlikely that a deal is possible now. It is highly questionable whether Babylon bargained in good faith.

It is cheerful. First Persia suggests Cohorts should be delayed, and so Babylon doesn't accept a barter with Engineering and doesn't start Cohorts. Right away Persia herself hurries for Cohorts.

Sinbad, couldn't you simply say that Persia changed mind and want SuperLegions now? If you really wanted to delay SuperLegs
* you would wait for my response before your orders
* you wouldn't stay silent during all the stoppage in Egypt
* you would present better ideas than 'it is probably too late now' or 'it seems very unlikely that a deal is possible now'

The agreement is still doable now, so if you want it then answer.

The war threat

If you do not respond about your intruders, you face possible war at any time. Yes, this is a threat. A very old, simple threat. Stay out!!
...
Still no formal war, but we insist that Babylon remove her troops now, or risk a Persian military response at any time. :doitnow:

Good. Will you warn one turn before or sneak attack without warning? Will you attack only units in The Disputed Areas, or will you start a total war?