New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Kull]

Originally posted by Straybow

Even better, a neutral King. I have invited the neutrals to mediate, but none have stepped forward yet.

I have given mediatory advice to both sides, and it has been ignored by both sides. Persia built roads and forts on the spine and moves units south of the spine, which I advised would be inflamatory.

In the same picture in which Slowthinker complains about the presence of units south of the spine, it is obvious to anybody with eyes that Babylon has moved a stack of units ONTO THE SPINE. Pharoah believes the hill terrain that Persia has now occupied is truly Persian, but moving units into that space could be misinterpreted. Better that this line of hills be left unoccupied by BOTH sides. At the same time, the Babylonian presence of a stack of units on the spine is a serious provocation in it's own right, and the failure of our Allies to even comment on this is extremely puzzling.

Nevertheless, returning to his old role of mediator, Pharoah would suggest that a good faith gesture in which Babylon and Persia agree to pull back these two stacks could serve as the beginning point for a lessening of tensions.

The Babylonian proposal of some weeks past seemed promising, and perhaps it could be expanded upon incrementally and SPECIFICALLY. Nebulous statements achieve nothing, so lets focus on reviewing the map one tile at a time. Pharoah would suggest an approach in which each side agrees/disagrees that a particular tile is Persian or Babylonian. At least then ALL NATIONS will understand EXACTLY which areas are in dispute. Pharoah would BEG both parties to ignore the issue of "neutral zones" until such time - and ONLY such time - as the primary dispute over territorial ownership has been decided.

Pharoah would request that each party develop a map which highlights tile ownership, preferably of the entire Persian-Babylonian border region. These maps can be sent to a neutral third party who is willing to combine the maps and color all tiles as follows: Green where both agree Babylon has ownership, Blue where Persia is the agreed owner, and White for everything else. This will clearly show the extent of the differences that must be bridged.

If both parties agree, then the earlier request for a mutual one stack pullback by each party will serve as a gesture of good faith to begin these negotiations.

[Zedd]

I have tried several times and can't start my turn without a babylonian envoy contacting me. Each time I refuse to talk and our alliance is cancelled and my units in bab territory are returned to mirtos.

What can I do?

[Kull]

Can you "talk", but just not agree to any terms?

[Zedd]

Never Mind, I was finally able to play without bumping into any Babylonians.

FYI I did have to replay a few times, the first 3-4 I never got past clicking "continue" while getting WLTKD announcements, then I opened a city screen and activated a unit to bypass whichever unit was triggering the contact, I still managed to activate contact with a unit so I re-started, then I ran into them again with another unit.
The 6th time is the charm I was able to play without establishing contact.

I played the same rounds each time with 2 exceptions, I did not cycle the horses near Dibshiya and I was unable to move a caravan near Aro-Sijo because of a Bab van parked nearby.

I hope this is enough info to forgive my bending of the "No restart" rule.

I also would like to report a frozen caravan at 19,47. I tried to barter it earlier and messed up the barter so it is now stuck. ST, Could you work your Hex Magic? I think I may be able to do it also but it seems like someone else should do it to maintain integrity.

(post edited for grammer)

[Zedd]

Originally posted by Kull
Can you "talk", but just not agree to any terms?

I thought that would activate the F11 bug?

[Straybow]

We should be reporting any diplo contact, and the times we've had mystery F11-like effects none have been reported.

If you want the caravan unfrozen you should post the unfreeze barter so somebody can edit it.

I would also say if you want to play out the units you didn't move, allowing contact but refusing any transactions, that would be OK. I can do my turn quickly.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Kull


In the same picture in which Slowthinker complains about the presence of units south of the spine, it is obvious to anybody with eyes that Babylon has moved a stack of units ONTO THE SPINE. Pharoah believes the hill terrain that Persia has now occupied is truly Persian, but moving units into that space could be misinterpreted. Better that this line of hills be left unoccupied by BOTH sides. At the same time, the Babylonian presence of a stack of units on the spine is a serious provocation in it's own right, and the failure of our Allies to even comment on this is extremely puzzling.

Nevertheless, returning to his old role of mediator, Pharoah would suggest that a good faith gesture in which Babylon and Persia agree to pull back these two stacks could serve as the beginning point for a lessening of tensions.

The Babylonian proposal of some weeks past seemed promising, and perhaps it could be expanded upon incrementally and SPECIFICALLY. Nebulous statements achieve nothing, so lets focus on reviewing the map one tile at a time. Pharoah would suggest an approach in which each side agrees/disagrees that a particular tile is Persian or Babylonian. At least then ALL NATIONS will understand EXACTLY which areas are in dispute. Pharoah would BEG both parties to ignore the issue of "neutral zones" until such time - and ONLY such time - as the primary dispute over territorial ownership has been decided.

Pharoah would request that each party develop a map which highlights tile ownership, preferably of the entire Persian-Babylonian border region. These maps can be sent to a neutral third party who is willing to combine the maps and color all tiles as follows: Green where both agree Babylon has ownership, Blue where Persia is the agreed owner, and White for everything else. This will clearly show the extent of the differences that must be bridged.

If both parties agree, then the earlier request for a mutual one stack pullback by each party will serve as a gesture of good faith to begin these negotiations.

And I actually thought there might be a war. Silly, silly techumseh.

[Zedd]

Originally posted by Kull

Bravo and Here here! This would be an excellent first step if both sides would acquiesce, but you are not the first to suggest it and so far naught has been accomplished.

Minoa will aid in this endeavor, but I fear that long history and harsh words will again prevail over the efforts of any Mediator.

I would also say if you want to play out the units you didn't move, allowing contact but refusing any transactions, that would be OK. I can do my turn quickly.

I don't need to move them, please continue your turn as normal.

[SlowThinker]

Pharaoh, I appreciate your endeavour to be a mediator, but don't you think you somewhat disqualified yourself? A quick walk through public notice boards:

Originally posted by Pharaoh
the Great Liar of the South ... the stench of deceit is carried in with the winds from the southeast ... the Serpent of the South ... So basically you have nothing except paranoia, lying, and aggression ... The Great Snake of the Southeast ... the Great Deceiver of the South ... the Babylonian Tyrant ... Babylon is a paranoid, aggressive neighbor ... the Babylonian Ruler is fast descending into madness ... the King of lies and deceit has wallowed in his paranoia for so long ... The Great Spider of Babylon ... the Great Serpent is paranoid beyond all reasoning ... More hissing from the Great Serpent ... the Great Deceiver

Babylonian people refuses you as a mediator.

---

We noticed this message on public notice boards (author unknown):

[Unreadable] would suggest that a good faith gesture in which Babylon and Persia agree to pull back these two stacks could serve as the beginning point for a lessening of tensions.

Newly Persia made a gesture of a bad faith and moved a stack south from The Spine. Now Persia will withdraw this stack (as a gesture of a good faith), but only if Babylon will withdraw her own stack?
So in summary Babylon would withdraw her stack and Persia would stay on her positions? The author of this idea must underrate Immortal's intelligence ...

We noticed one good point on the public notice boards: sides should define which areas between Persia and Babylon are not disputed. But Babylon suggested this point several times and Persia never responded.

Anyway it doesn't look Persia wants any negotiation. She moved her stack south from The Spine (to former "Red Zone") although she knew it would aggravate situation to maximum.
Babylon is awaiting a Persian response what is a purpose of the Persian stack south from The Spine.

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

Babylonian people refuses you as a mediator.

What a big surprise. Nevertheless, Pharoah simply sought to offer up the mechanisms which an impartial mediator could use.

If no other nation volunteers to fill that role, then it seems that everyone is voting for war, led first and foremost by Babylon.

[SlowThinker]

First any audacious volunteer should try to get a response from Persia about her fresh stack. It is unclear whether Persia wants any negotiation, but if Babylon won't get a Persian response before The Immo issues his next orders, options for negotiation will change probably.

[Straybow]

Here's my turn... gotta run.

[SlowThinker]

Very serious questions

Runners arrived to Babylonian headquarters and brought informations from all Babylon.
We repeat our questions last time before we act:

1) What is a purpose of the Persian stack south from The Spine?
2) Does Persia accept The Disputed Areas will be demilitarized until an agreement about borders?
3) Does Persia want an agreement that will eliminate a surprise attack and will allow a fair and civilized start of a war? (Now both sides claim they may attack anytime.)

[Peaster]

Persia repeats that the Tushpa line has been Persian for hundreds of years, and we do not have to explain Persian movements inside our borders. Start a war, if you still cannot understand that.

Also, we repeat that the Babylonians are clearly incapable of honest negotiation, so we prefer to work thru a mediator who might help keep the talks relatively sane. We believe that Babylon's offer to discuss neutral zones was a mere pretense of peacefulness, a bluff. When Persia called the bluff, Babylon ran away and now seems very unwilling to return. Persia's reluctance to talk now is entirely based on past Bab behavior, not on any desire for war. We are somewhat disappointed that the neutrals have been silent about this behavior, though some reluctance to argue with the Immortal Arguer would be understandable.

We thank Lycastus for offering to help - does this mean you are willing to mediate? Of course, Persia would cooperate as long as there is hope for peace. We invite Lycastus to establish preliminary guidelines on how talks can proceed, taking suggestions from all parties. IMO these should mainly address bargaining tactics for now, rather than the map, which would be the main subject later.

Also, we thank Pharaoh for his comments - perceptive, accurate and to the point, as usual.

Straybow - I disagreed with your advice about the Spine, which as I saw it, was to appease the bully in hopes he'd go away. This does NOT imply that your advice is unwelcome, and I hope you will stay involved in this dispute until it is over.

[Kull]

Re: Very serious questions

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Runners arrived to Babylonian headquarters and brought informations from all Babylon.
We repeat our questions last time before we act:

1) What is a purpose of the Persian stack south from The Spine?
2) Does Persia accept The Disputed Areas will be demilitarized until an agreement about borders?
3) Does Persia want an agreement that will eliminate a surprise attack and will allow a fair and civilized start of a war? (Now both sides claim they may attack anytime.)

It is tellingly obvious that when faced with TWO offers of mediation, Babylon has reacted be dismissing one (Egypt) and ignoring the other (Crete).

The only surprise is that Babylon has given up even the pretense of seeking to avoid a war.