New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Peaster]

Re: to Sinbad

Originally posted by SlowThinker
.... 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.

Post 3450 is one of the most ridiculous distortions of the facts that I have ever seen. I am extremely angry that you could view your own screw-up that way, and even blame me for it. The most polite response I could manage was post 3451.

I do not owe you an answer to the last two questions in that post.

Your interpretation of my "tolerate" statement is typical Bab paranoia. That was a complaint, but obviously not intended as a threat. If you care about the level of Persian anger towards Babylon, you could react to such Persian complaints - for example, you could consider a 3rd neutral zone, OR you could further distort my statements and demand more answers.

Your "SuperLegions question" was pretty obscure. Next time you demand an answer, check that you have asked a clear and reasonable question, and that your post is not highly offensive. Also IMO "SuperLegions" are units, but you are really asking about the related techs. Maybe you should have called it your "Tech question" or "Arms Race question".

I still don't know exactly what your question means. I've already explained that you killed the original deal. NO, I don't want that deal anymore. I also said I might consider a new lesser deal. But I won't put in as much effort. You did not seem very interested in the first deal IMO, and now I could not include previous incentives (like geometry), so I'd expect you to be even more difficult. So, no, I don't think we will make a new arms-race deal. But if you want to make a specific proposal, go ahead.

I don't really see much advantage to a one-turn warning about completion of a tech. How does that deter an arms race? That could be difficult for Persia to do anyway, because of unpredictable GL effects, for example.

BTW - if you want Engineering this turn, ask now and you can have it; later on you'll need to give advance notice.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by The Immo
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?

Originally posted by Sinbad
Post 3450 ...
I do not owe you an answer to the last two questions in that post.

I was ready to negotiate about neutral areas even with your unilateral claims and accompanying threats.
But if you aren't willing to answer simple questions like if your threat signifies Persia is ready to sneak-attack or not then I won't be interested in any further negotiations.

From Persian side it is a pure intimidation during negotiation.

[Peaster]

We have already started border talks. It's a bit absurd to impose pre-conditions now. That can only hurt Babylon's diplomatic reputation. At one time, Persia did not intend to talk about borders either, until Babylon withdrew all intruders (etc). But we are already close to an agreement on borders and peace, which should remove concerns about intruders and threats from BOTH sides. So, Persia has bargained in good faith - putting anger, ambition and pre-conditions aside. Can't you?

In a fit of temporary sanity, Babylon made a reasonable border offer, which we could probably improve slightly, and sign very soon. But not if Babylon walks away, or sets up an endless series of hoops (I'm afraid you are getting a bit predictable). So, make up your mind if you want peace or war, and I will give it to you. I will not join you in an endless argument, and I won't jump thru your hoops.

Are we still talking about your offer, or not?

[kengel]

I am sorry for the delay...
Sometimes real-live things are even more important than civ

[SlowThinker]

Sinbad, is it so hard to answer two simple questions? In case the negotiations fail: Will Persia warn one turn before or sneak attack without warning? Will Persia attack only units in The Disputed Areas, or will she start a total war against Babylon?

[Zedd]

Immo,
I think the Persian statement was meant as a general warning rather than a specific threat. Your questions "Will Persia warn before sneak attack?" and "Will Persia attack units only in disputed areas?" imply that Persia HAS a specific battle plan and is ready to implement it.

I doubt Persia has such a plan, and even if they did I wouldn't expect them to share their strategy with you. The response from Persia seems to be (in summary) "Either make Peace or there will be War." and they obviously favor Peace. The steps you have taken to initiate greater peace talks is applaud able and I wish for the best.

Sinbad,
Please do not loose your patience, with an accord within your reach it is more vital now than ever. The meticulousness (spell?) of Immo is world renowned and an admirable trait, though it can be frustrating from the receiving end I am sure. But vague remarks such as "Persia will attack, unless we decide not too." will do nothing but cause confusion and create more questions. Your last posts have been clear and concise (if a bit tempered)...please continue the effort.

[SlowThinker]

Lycastus,
After Babylon issued her Red+Orange zone warning in 2440, Persia asked a clarification and Babylon provided it.
Now Babylon asks that Persia clarifies exactly same points that were clarified by Babylon.

If your optimistic assumptions are correct then I am sure Sinbad won't refuse to affirm them.


Sinbad,
At present I call in question if you ever want to negotiate? You knew I was not pleased the talks would run with a continued Persian occupation of Disputed Areas and accompanied threats. Still you didn't forbear to repeat "Disputed Areas=Persia", to raise a new threat against a Bab skirmisher at (128,40), all that in post 3460, so after the negotiations started. Now you are silent about your threats that shall force Babylon to leave the Disputed Areas. Please understand most Babylonian people consider all this as a kind of a pre-negotiation bullying.

I believe you are able to get yourself in a fit of temporary sanity, so that we can sign an agreement about borders on behalf of both Persia and Babylon and perchance reach better mutual relationship . You may think Persia can't lose anything during a war if supported by Egypt and if Babylon can't capture/re-capture cities (because of the tech limit related to hides), but I don't believe Persian spoils from a war (if any) could exceed war costs.
I hope you will think hard about all this and you will choose the correct continuation. Thank you.

[Peaster]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Lycastus,
After Babylon issued her Red+Orange zone warning in 2440, Persia asked a clarification and Babylon provided it. Now Babylon asks that Persia clarifies exactly same points that were clarified by Babylon.

Persian version: I did not ask for an explanation as a favor, as you do. Your red/orange warning was bizarre, and it seems you did not consider its implications (eg, that you claimed the right to sneak attack). Then your clarification actually made things worse - my interpretation was that you had backed off from your original threats; for example, that you only threatened stacked units. This confusion was probably not ALL your fault, but Persia is certainly angry that you bribed our infantry without a warning. Anyway, we don't feel we owe you any favors from that.

At present I call in question if you ever want to negotiate? ...... I hope you will think hard about all this and you will choose the correct continuation.

Did you bother to read my last post? I am waiting to hear if YOU want to negotiate!

I consider this a great chance at peace, but am not going to put more work into it, unless you decide you are serious about it. Every time Persian diplomats sit down to talk, Babylon invents some new roadblock. "You must apologize before we will talk" or "You must explain Persian tech plans first" or "You must withdraw your threat first" or "You must withdraw your border claims first". Obviously, your best chance to address your concerns is to quit changing the subject, and talk directly about borders. Do you want to talk or not?

If you can just say "yes", I will gladly resume border talks.

[SlowThinker]

Two simple questions

Originally posted by Sinbad
I did not ask for an explanation as a favor, as you do.

I don't care if you asked my explanation as a favor or as anything else, but you asked it very impatiently:

Posted by Peaster on 22-01-2007 01:34:
I am still waiting for answers about your declaration of war, and my peace offer (aka "the ultimatum"). When you refuse to clarify your own obscure positions, you cannot blame others for confusion.
Posted by Peaster on 22-01-2007 05:26
I have asked you several times now to clarify your unusual declaration, since Persia has a right to know when she is at war. You have ignored this, so far, preferring to focus on trivia, such as why Persia has stacked an engineer with a skirmisher, two squares deep in Persia.

(a note: I didn't "refuse to clarify", I only answered other points first)

Now I don't ask your clarification as a favor, but I say talks about borders can't proceed until you answer my two simple questions. Babylon won't accept pre-negotiation bullying.

[SlowThinker]

corrections of the "Persian version" (less important)

Originally posted by Sinbad
Your red/orange warning was bizarre, and it seems you did not consider its implications (eg, that you claimed the right to sneak attack).

I said clearly and in advance in which situation I would attack (if your units entered the red zone).
You can say it would be a sneak attack, you can say mushroom is a mammal. All I can do is to marvel.

Then your clarification actually made things worse - my interpretation was that you had backed off from your original threats; for example, that you only threatened stacked units. This confusion was probably not ALL your fault, but Persia is certainly angry that you bribed our infantry without a warning.

We ruminated this already:
1)
The clarification of the red/orange warning was very clear, and it was ALL your fault if you wasn't able to read it carefully:

Posted by SlowThinker on 22-01-2007 21:01:
we said we kept a right to act against Persian intruders in the red zone without further warning, but not that we would do it in all cases. In case of stacked attackers we would probably be forced to neutralize the intruders immediately, although first we would ask you barter it to Babylon so that we could send it back. In case of a single weak unit we could act differently.
Anyway we intended to limit the actions to the Red Zone Area (we want to avoid a war where cities change hands), except Persia asked a total war.

2)
Anyway I don't think Babylon was obliged to warn about briberies, since you just bribed the Bab geezer and it seemed you considered briberies legal.

Every time Persian diplomats sit down to talk, Babylon invents some new roadblock. "You must apologize before we will talk" or "You must explain Persian tech plans first" or "You must withdraw your threat first" or "You must withdraw your border claims first".

I never asked Persian tech plans. Post a quote please.
Again: pre-conditions was your idea:
Sinbad: "We have usually been open to negotiation [when not being invaded, threatened or insulted]."

[Zedd]

here's the save, report later

[Kull]

After many years, and despite the best efforts of highly paid interpreters, when a new cuneiform tablet arrives from the distant east, this is what Pharoah sees when he reads it:

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

I demand blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Furthermore blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Babylon is innocent and pure as the driven snow, whereas YOU are evil and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!

[Zedd]

Not much to report from the Minoan turn, Trade has been at a lull but construction of new Caravans is underway. Talks in the East have many of our traders worried but ships continue to sail and merchents are reporting a positive and hopefull attitude from the citizenry.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Pharaoh
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Pharaoh, your endeavour to improve your literacy is commendable, but not very successful so far. You should rather explain things about your truthfulness and a telltale of Agade (#3443).

[Straybow]

Hittite merchants visit a Persian town formerly unknown to the outside world. Kabul is rich with Copper and an odd tribe called the Tally-ban. The Gold merchants thought the name strange until they realized where it came from. They are sourpusses who like banning things everybody else enjoys.

Though we have been allied with the Greeks for many centuries, The Hatte Republic has formally established an Embassy. The Embassador disembarked at the small coastal city of Pelion rather than endure a longer sea voyage to the Greek heartland. (We still don't trust these leaky buckets.)