New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

very important

Dear Persian brother,
Question 1 was answered, questions 2 and 3 not. Since our time is short, I will simplify things:
We have these Persian threats/warnings

Originally posted by Sinbad in 2380
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.
...
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.

...and now this sentence

Originally posted by Sinbad in 2370
Persia's reluctance to talk now is entirely based on past Bab behavior, not on any desire for war.

So it sounds you DON'T DESIRE a war, but you are READY TO START IT at any time (and you refused to answer if you plan a total war, so I must expect you do).
It may be surprising for you, but Babylonians don't intend to wait like sheep. We stopped to retrocede and we accept Persian methods from now.

In case I am mistaken and the threats of last cycle are not valid anymore I expect you will say it clearly now. I notify you that I won't study ambiguities, but I will choose first meaning that will get to my mind.

edit: bold highlights

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Sinbad
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.

In 5 of 7 your last posts you repeat you believe it was Babylon who foiled talks last cycle. 2 remaining posts are short notes only.
Do you think Kings have extremely poor memory? And do you think Kings are really unable to create their own inferences?

[Peaster]

It is completely obvious to everyone that you ran away. Your silly unanswered questions about unrelated topics were a flimsy excuse to back out. If I had answered them, you would have found a different way out. You always do.

Likewise, you ran away from the arms race talks. Though I warned you repeatedly that they were urgent, you broke off for over a week during the F11 delay. Then you sent a surprise response a day late - well after my turn had started - and promptly blamed Persia.

You also disappeared from the original border talks, which led to the Tushpa line. I don't feel like digging thru ancient emails to document the whole thing, but even the one YOU posted shows that I was waiting impatiently for you to return.

Either you are completely stupid (which I don't believe) or you are trying to manipulate the neutrals. I don't think you could obscure things so easily with a mediator watching carefully, and some bargaining guidelines. If you deny this, why don't you accept mediation and show us how agreeable and peaceful you really are ?

[SlowThinker]

It looks you missed my first post, the important one. I edited it now (only bold highlights).

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
It looks you missed my first post, the important one. I edited it now (only bold highlights).

It looks like you missed the important part of Persia's reply. I quote it below in bold highlights:

Originally posted by Peaster
Either you are completely stupid (which I don't believe) or you are trying to manipulate the neutrals. I don't think you could obscure things so easily with a mediator watching carefully, and some bargaining guidelines. If you deny this, why don't you accept mediation and show us how agreeable and peaceful you really are ?

[Kull]

I will be away (and unable to play) until late Sunday.

[Zedd]

I am willing to act as a moderator, however I don't consider myself a good candidate due to my frequent long absences from email and the forum.

However, If each king would post a "Yea" or "Nay" to such an intervention I will gladly put forth all my resources and stand for the best interests of each civ.

Be Warned, I expect by the end of things you would each end up disliking a few things so I will not be trying to make friends or take a side.

[SlowThinker]

Babylon gladly accepts you as a moderator. I suppose you will take a similar role like in past in the Bab-Egy conflict on Euphrat? I.e. you will be a third person that will be present in the peace talks, and you will play an active role (you will issue propositions etc.)?

(A note: In the meantime Babylonians found a peaceful way how to deal with the last Persian advance, although the solution causes a damage for Babylon again.)

[SlowThinker]

not important (who foiled talks now and before)

Originally posted by Sinbad
It is completely obvious to everyone that you ran away...
Likewise, you ran away from the arms race talks...

I really won't comment again and again who foiled last talks. The case is fresh and Kings are able to create their own conclusions.


But I must comment this one:

Originally posted by Sinbad
You also disappeared from the original border talks, which led to the Tushpa line. I don't feel like digging thru ancient emails to document the whole thing...

Stones will cry out.
I stepped into the digging, and I found out the end of talks:

Public boards:
Persia asks clarifications of The Minimal Land announcement in the thread.
Babylon answers.

Then private runners:
Again several Persian questions about The Minimal Land announcement.
Bab answers.
Then Babylon urges Persia:

ST (Re: More on borders, 24 Sep 2006): "With my 2520 report I sent also an answer to this message. Did you get it?"

Sinbad: "I got your barter and your answer. I haven't thought of very much to say. It looks like our border talks are stalled, and we will have to live without an agreement."

[Peaster]

ST: I don't remember the context of that email, but it doesn't really say much. Apparently, you answered some question and it didn't help.

Zedd: Of course Persia is glad to accept your help. Thanks again. I was not actively involved in the Bab-Egypt dispute and don't remember your role exactly. Could you describe that briefly ? While I await your answer, here is my view.

I imagine negotiations in which Babs and Pers take turns making proposals about neutral zones and/or borders. You could make them too, if you wish. This goes on until one is accepted, or we have to give up. Your role would be mainly to keep the process clean - to deter bulllying, needling, going off-topic, and so on. Maybe you could not do this by force, but you could judge and report blatant violations. The weak point of this system is that no resolution is guaranteed at the end.

For that, you might have to arbitrate - eg, make a final binding judgement. That's not what I was asking you to do - is that what you intend ?

Anyway, let's discuss basic ground rules like that. Also whether to allow preconditions, unlimited questions, off-topic demands, and so. For example, I'm assuming that Persia will not have to explain all her troop movements (behind the T-line), tech choices, plans for our children's education, etc. But that either side can include almost anything in their proposals (gold, troop withdrawals....). Your thoughts?

[SlowThinker]

not important

Originally posted by Sinbad
ST: I don't remember the context of that email, but it doesn't really say much. Apparently, you answered some question and it didn't help.

It says your words "You also disappeared from the original border talks, which led to the Tushpa line." are false.

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.

Did I bully you by asking neutral zones? Can you post any example/quote where I bullied you?

[Peaster]

Re: not important

Originally posted by SlowThinker
It says your words "You also disappeared from the original border talks, which led to the Tushpa line." are false.

Well, that is an amazing leap of logic. IIRC you disappeared for at least 5 turns. Probably more like 10, if we don't count two unrealistic Bab proposals. Apparently, I then asked some question (which you have not even specified) and you answered it in some disappointing manner (also unspecified). Whatever that was about .... AFAIK you didn't return to the table with any reasonable counter-proposal (in that time period).

Did I bully you by asking neutral zones? Can you post any example/quote where I bullied you?

I believe you are by nature a bully. IMO you bullied my predecessor into accepting a ridiculous border [but that whole story was before my time and is admittedly obscure]. You attempted to bully me into paying for Bab roads and cities, and to avoid learning Chariot Tactics. You DEMANDED that I follow those orders - they were NOT just ideas. You were extremely angry when I did not obey, and you cut off trade with Persia for it, knowing that Persia was highly dependent on the CA plan to offset the Persian trade penalty.

I do not consider your recent proposals about neutral zones to be bullying. However, Babylon appears to be larger and stronger than Persia (or any other kingdom), based on the known statistics. You have declined many chances for a stable honorable peace. You are giving the impression that you intend to expand northwards, unless Persia caves in to your "minimal claims", blowing verbal smokescreens all the while. This is not just my opinion - two other Kings have said so to me privately.

And you are a verbal bully IMO. You will not back off the tiniest dispute until the other fellow screams for mercy, or ignores you for a very long time. Pharaoh learned to ignore you before I did. I once advised him to answer your questions/accusations, because his silence made him seem guilty. Which was true, but the good answers didn't end it. So, I must apologize for the bad advice, which I no longer follow myself. I guess you also drove Didanu mad this way, even though Assyria was the bigger civ then (but again, much of that episode was before my time).

So, those are some reasons why I believe you are a bully. And that is why Persia drew a line in the sand.

[SlowThinker]

Re: not important

> You are giving the impression that you intend to expand northwards, unless Persia caves in to your "minimal claims", blowing verbal smokescreens all the while. This is not just my opinion - two other Kings have said so to me privately.

I am usually trying to speak matter-of-factly and not to use colorful sentences. But this is a calculated verbal terror, by which you want to upset my psychic, or you are trying to foil the peace talks again.
It was Persia who expanded south REALLY (not "gave the impression" only), and still you venture to say Babylon is the agressor?

But you probably forgot most civs have Babylonian maps from all the duration of the conflict: they know
* all the line of Babylonian northern cities was unguarded and there were no Bab units between Babylon and Persia in the very first stage of border talks. Surprisingly a Persian C2 appeared 2 squares from Zariqum on a square that seemed to be disputed (Bab maps in 2580)
* later and until now Babylon had only unstacked skirmishers in the disputed areas, while Persia sent stacks and built forts there

And how Babylon could "gave impression" she wanted to expand northwards, if she asked wide neutral zones?? She even offered she would disband Zariqum in order that zones may be large enough.

I suppose "two other Kings" will sign in if they exist.

> Well, that is an amazing leap of logic. IIRC you disappeared for at least 5 turns. Probably more like 10, if we don't count two unrealistic Bab proposals. Apparently, I then asked some question (which you have not even specified) and you answered it in some disappointing manner (also unspecified).

Nothing is true. And it is significant that you never document your false statements. Send clear dates between which I should dissapear, and I will disprove your words easily.

> IMO you bullied my predecessor into accepting a ridiculous border

How you can say it if you know almost nothing about the story? Besides I remember in our private talks you came up with an idea that I probably disgusted Achamenes and he retired because of me. How you can say such calumnies if you know nothing? Babylon and Persia had very good relationship. I offered you old Bab-Pers correspondence several times, and you always refused it.

> You attempted to bully me into paying for Bab roads and cities, and to avoid learning Chariot Tactics. You DEMANDED that I follow those orders - they were NOT just ideas. You were extremely angry when I did not obey, and you cut off trade with Persia for it, knowing that Persia was highly dependent on the CA plan to offset the Persian trade penalty.

Demanded? Bully? Orders? You speak about normal bussiness offers, and you name them demands, bullies, orders?
Persia asked Central Asia bussiness would grow and simultaneously you asked that we had no neutral zones and that CharTac was not delayed. I don't say it was a demand/bully/order. You were right to say that proposal.
But Babylon was right to refuse it. And our refusal wasn't a demand/bully/order.
(Babylon was highly dependend on CA too. Surprisingly Persia was better prepared to the end of the CA business and never stopped to grow, while Babylon stopped at 50 cities for a while until we were able to start a new bussiness.)

> However, Babylon appears to be larger and stronger than Persia (or any other kingdom), based on the known statistics.

Mf. goods is the most authoritative statistic, and Babylon is 4th while Persia is 3rd very likely.
And gold revenues of Babylon are less than half of revenues of strongest civilization in the world.

> I guess you also drove Didanu mad this way, even though Assyria was the bigger civ then

I commented this kind of your behaviour already. I wonder why you don't say that you guess I eat Babylonian children, because Bab cities don't grow enough.

[SlowThinker]

to Lycastus - about verbal attacks

I wanted to answer "not important" first. But I am tired now, so I will write turn info, post my turn and write thoughts about peace talks tomorrow.

I edited this post in order to keep things together

Originally posted by Lycastus
constantly digging up negativity to keep the situation aggravated we can get away from meaningless postings of rhetoric and snappy come-backs or accusations so that this thread can once again be INTERESTING to read

Lycastus, please perceive one point:
It is Sinbad who starts all verbal attack here. My part in those boring debates are quotes of Sinbad's attacks followed by my answers.

Just an example: I could complain that Persia obstructed the first phase of border talks that ended in 2520:
I could complain Sinbad didn't want to talk just after The War, because he said he was busy, and so talks were postponed almost 10 turns. I could complain I had to urge Persian answers many times. I could complain Persia refused to work out any principles (like distances etc.) that would help to get an agreement. I could complain when only 3 squares were disputed Persia suddenly increased her claims by more than 10 squares (yes, I complained, but only as a part of my defense against Sinbad's verbal attacks).
I don't do it, I only try to answer most of Persian attacks.

The fact that Sinbad constantly repeats "you dissapeared from border talks" (although he never documents it) while I don't complain about Persian obstructions might cause readers could get a wrong impression. But I believe Kings are able to detect and filter propaganda.

[Zedd]

Mediator

My proposal is to act as more of a Referee than anything else. The goals being:
1. Facilitate communication
2. Filter information and content
3. Provide 3rd party un-biased advice and opinions.
4. In the event of a stale mate in negotiation, make a command decision.

#1 I propose each side begin by sending emails to me detailing thier goals/concerns. The more detailed and honest the better I can appreciate you position. From that point each side can communicate through me rather than directly, leading to #2

#2 Either side may feel free to Rant & Rave, write a 3 page email or 3 word scentence. Either way my job is to discern a direct question and get a direct answer. Insults and accusations will be filtered out and questions will remain factual rather than accusitory.

#3 I will be nosey. Offer advice and suggestions, but for the most part I hope to see each side reach thier own conlusions and decisions based on a more clear line of communication.

#4 is obviously the hardest part, and the least likeable. I have no way to Force either side to listen or agree to any terms that I may set forth in this eventuality, so each side would be honor bound to accept such a decision. Please bear in mind that my hope is to successfully find a solution without resolving to such measures.

Pre-Conditions: Each side would be honor bound to follow my direction, should either side feel i am being biased or unfair at any point we can ask for opinions from the Forum members.
Also, Military action will need to cease in the mountains. There should be a clear line of tiles as a buffer between the two sides similar to the no man zones of before. This would not hold any sway over the negotiations or by any means be a permenant solution, but we can't very well negotiate peacfully while FEinf units are testing each other along the boarders.