New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Peaster]

Unbelievable....

[Straybow]

No, no it's...

"INCONCEIVABLE!!"

[SlowThinker]

We will be thankful for any translators ...

Also, we don't understand:

Originally posted by Straybow
No, no it's...
"INCONCEIVABLE!!"

Is it a reaction to the Sinbad's strange post? Or to my post?

[SlowThinker]

While waiting for translations Babylonian analysts thought over effects of SuperLegions in the Bab-Pers border. They will make war slower and attacks through a slow terrain very uphill.

Therefore we can accept The Spine would be Persian + the hills south would be neutral, in cooperation with the fresh Persian initiative:

Originally posted by Sinbad
As I said long ago [The Immo: but I don't remember anything], 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.

The picture shows neutral zones. "City" besides Old Arraphka exists already, but I don't publish its real name.

[SlowThinker]

a lost attachment

edit: the southern line of Arraphka's neutral zone has been shifted.
The original line (green) included a Bab road system, also "City" without a garrison would cause problems (happiness etc.)

[Peaster]

I expect to have some time Wed to look over this map more carefully, and respond. I had smaller neutral zones in mind, and might ask for a small neutral zone near Ecbatana as well, but this proposal seems to be a step forward. We may need some other King(s) to volunteer to maintain sentries there (with units provided by Persia and Babylon, of course).

[SlowThinker]

I am waiting also for your answers to my two questions (SuperLegs+threat).
As I said, SuperLegions are important for the issue. I would expect some agreement about warnings about Cohorts/LegTactics.

I don't think foreign sentries would be needed. The neutral zones consist of river+its banks, so one Pers caravan + one Bab caravan on each river would be sufficient to overlook the zones.
I consider Ecbatana's security perfect now, so I wonder what you might ask.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
We will be thankful for any translators ...

Is it a reaction to the Sinbad's strange post? Or to my post?

Just correcting Sinbad's reaction.

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I consider Ecbatana's security perfect now, so I wonder what you might ask.

Now THAT comment could NEVER have been predicted!

[Peaster]

Persians have been busy debating the differences between "unbelievable" and "inconceivable", between "rude" and "insulting" etc. We have also found a little time to plan for eternal world peace...

@ST: regarding your "SuperLegions question", I can't find one. Scanning the last 1-2 pages of the thread, I find these posts:

#3421 by you: It has a paragraph labelled "SuperLegions" which does not discuss them at all AFAIK.
#3423 (me): This replies to one of your old questions, but presumably not the one you are waiting on.
#3441 (you) has two links, supposedly to SL questions
A) to post 3418, but this does not contain any direct question AFAIK.
B) to post 3428 - is there a question about SuperLegions ?
#3447 (you) is about SL's, but has no direct question. So , maybe you should explain clearly (again?) which question I haven't answered.

Likewise, I don't know what is unclear about my threat to defend Persia (and you know very well what I mean by "Persia"). Your most offensive intruder at the moment is the bribed IronInf-stack. If you withdraw it in 2380, Persia will probably overlook your skirmisher at (128,40) for a while, and we prefer negotiation wrt your units near the Arra tip for now. I have never threatened your units in the Bab regions near Ecbatana.

I don't see any huge obstacle to a deal on neutral zones. If we agree on one before your 2380 turn, you will presumably withdraw your IrInf/etc and then my threat will evaporate. I would be more optimistic about all this, if I didn't know how hard it is to make simple deals with you.

Regarding the arms race: Persia really did not want to start research on Cohorts yet, but you responded too late. We could not risk falling many turns behind Babylon. Now that we have started, we are not willing to freeze Persian science for you. We will learn "Cohorts" whenever we learn it. We regret that you ignored our many warnings that the deal was urgent, and threw up roadblocks to a deal, demands for apologies/etc. Perhaps there is still some chance for a deal to delay Legion Tactics, but if so, it will be a worse deal than we might have made.

[Peaster]

On World Peace (or at least reduced Bab-Pers tensions):

* Neutral Zones: You (ST) prefer fairly large zones, with the idea that distance will slow down the attacker. Makes sense, but I'd prefer 3rd party sentries (skirmishers), with the idea that neither of us wants to start a war with TWO Kings. Ideally the other King would not be allied with either of us, so its unit creates ZOC. Providing two vans (100 shields) instead, to monitor the zones, seems expensive.

So, I'd propose a small 3x3 zone centered at (122,36) for the Al Kabir, and a 3x3 zone centered at (135,45) for the Arra. Both monitored by a 3rd party skirmisher. This gives Babylon about +15 additonal squares compared to the neutral zones you proposed (and +8 for Persia).

I also propose that any land within 5 squares of Ecbatana, currently owned by Babylon, be made neutral (without any 3rd party monitor). I didn't count carefully, but I think you'd lose about 5 tiles (for a net gain of 10 instead of 15). If you really need one of these squares for defense/etc, we can probably work that out. If you completely object to this new zone, I propose that the Arra zone be centered a bit further south than (135,45) to compensate.

Assuming we can agree on zones like those above, I'd not object to the neutral line segment you drew on the T-line. BTW - I am not rejecting the "large" zones on your map... I might agree to those if other factors go OK.

* Default ownership: I would much prefer to "own" the Tushpa line (largely as a matter of pride) even if most of it is neutral for practical purposes. And you would "own" tiles south of it. This would not permit us to move troops into those neutral lands, or build roads or forts there, but it would allow irrigation/mines/etc. This default might also be used to settle minor disputes later on about city worker rights, etc.

* Trespassing: One problem with the larger (and irregular) neutral zones is that they will be hard to remember. One of us is likely to step in eventually by mistake. What happens then ?? IMO this would be unlikely to happen with the smaller, simpler zones.

* Assumptions: Several of our previous deals led to great animosity later on because one side (usually you) made assumptions that the other fellow did not. IMO we ought to state clearly all our assumptions ASAP. For example, whether current forts in the neutral zones must be pillaged, what "neutral zone" implies, etc. To avoid the mistakes of the past, Persia insists that some other King(s) must approve any deal that we make, as being reasonably clear and unambiguous.

* Jumping thru Hoops: Persia is willing to discuss variations of the above deal, and to answer a few questions, but we are not willing to jump thru endless Babylonian hoops (apologies, a complete and proven theory of Superstrings... ermmm SuperLegions, promises or revelations about Persian domestic planning, etc). Also, I don't think this border deal should be tied to a tech deal (which seems unlikely now). Let's try to keep it as simple as possible, and make a deal before a war erupts!

[kengel]

Greetings Kings,

just returned from Easter vacation...
I hope I will be able to play tomorrow or latest on friday.
Stay tuned

[SlowThinker]

to Pharaoh

Originally posted by Pharaoh

It is 3rd time I ask: Will Pharaoh explain why Egyptians didn't see a telltale of Agade? (post #3443)

[SlowThinker]

to Sinbad

Originally posted by Sinbad
I don't know what is unclear about my threat to defend Persia (and you know very well what I mean by "Persia").

WCUCBP.
Post #3450 contains two very concrete questions.

I have never threatened your units in the Bab regions near Ecbatana.

You said "I have tolerated Bab units a few squares from my capitol". These units are in Babylon (accepted by Persia), and your sentence indicates you may want to stop to tolerate them one day. You never bothered to explain and so to stop my concern.

regarding your "SuperLegions question", I can't find one.

It is #3450. It doesn't contain a question mark, but there is a hidden question inside that may be translated in "do you want an agreement about warnings about SuperLegions"? You repeated the agreement was unlikely, I expected some more concrete answer.

[SlowThinker]

Neutral areas

Neutral areas

Sinbad, I am not pleased that the negotiation runs when Persian unilateral claims continue, accompanied by Persian threats. I am willing to overlook them for a chance to obtain peace, and be sure your threats won't bully Babylon and change my stance during negotiation.

We (Babylon+Persia) agreed the borders should be based on cities that existed after the war. We didn't say if it should be air distance or travel distance or anything else, but it can be anything and my proposed neutral zones will always have much more common with Bab cities than with Persian ones (see the map with my proposal, post-war cities are shown there too).
Also, my proposal conforms to some minimal security of Babylon.

Conclusion: My proposal is on an edge what is acceptable for Babylon. I see no space for tactical bargaining from Persian side and Babylon won't accept any shift of proposed zones in Persian favour. But we can accept mutual and balanced changes.

For example:
You want a neutral area 5 squares from Ecba (I suppose you mean 4 squares if Ecba is not counted, as you say only 5 squares would be affected).
From 144,50 (Babylon now) Bab SuperLegions can get to Ecbatana in 3 turns, and they are unable to defend in forts during a travel.
From 120,30 (Persia in accordance to my proposal) Pers SuperLegions can get to Thilabus in 3 turns, being defended in forts during their travel, and capturing the area Hekkalate on way.
Therefore I can accept some neutral areas at Ecba/Adab if the neutral zone of Al-Kabir will be enlarged to all the river.

I don't want a small neutral area at Al-Kabir. I can accept The Spine becomes Persian only if Babylon will get a reasonable safety on Al-Kabir.
I don't want Bab security on Al-Kabir would be based on a hope that a 3rd-party King would start a war because of one lost skirmisher. IMO a peace for 250g (2 caravans) is very cheap.

The zones I proposed are irregular, but easy: a river + adjacent squares. You simply don't step on squares adjacent to a river. We can add a rule that any unit that enters a zone in error would be passed by a barter, then returned.

I suppose neutral zones would be really neutral: no ownership, no forts, no irrigation ... things are simple then. City squares can overlap only on the line north from Zariqum, but all squares here are unimproved hills, so we can divide them between Bab and Pers workers easily.
I don't understand what exactly would signify a formal ownership of squares in neutral zones, but in that case I would ask the line north from Zariqum would be Babylonian. I can't accept public works in neutral zones, because a road that would be built in place of an irrigation could be used for an attack.

You said that SuperLegions can destabilizate if one side have them and another not. Therefore I think we should accept at least 1-turn warning about completion of Cohorts/SuperLegs.

I agree that the most dumb King in the world should say if the agreement is clear for him. Who presents oneself?