New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[SlowThinker]

Peace talks and mediating

Edit: I just noticed Lycastus' post, but I think I don't have to change this message.

I also edited my previous post in order to keep things together ("about verbal attacks").

Originally posted by Sinbad
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 ?

This idea looks unrealistic for me:
a) First we would have to accept some criteria that The Judge should base his decision on. What shall it be? Security of Post-War cities? Size of Babylon/size of Persia? Number of grassland squares in Babylon/Persia?
b) Sinbad, are you really ready to accept ANY decision? Imagine The Judge says a Three Lakes shall be Babylonian. Would you accept it?

Yes, without The Judge no resolution is guaranteed. This may cause we will manoeuvre during the negotiations in order to obtain better positions for a post-negotiation war or for a pressure during the negotiation. Also both sides claim they can attack anytime, and I don't think Lycastus would like his effort could be foiled anytime by a war.

This is why I repeat: first we should agree on a civilized and fair system how to start a war in case negotiations fail.
Edit: I see Lycastus proposes buffers/no man land, and I always asked them, but I thought Sinbad would never accept them. This is why I propose at least "the fair war system".

I also think in the beginning we should define which parts of Persia/Babylon are accredited. More accredited land is better, but any should improve relationship in the begining of peace talks.

edit: buffers/no man land

[SlowThinker]

bab 2370

Trade goes well as usual.
Ellipians returned from Caspic and settled.

Bab-Pers border
After The Fat Geezer, again a headache for our foreign office and defense sectors! And again our experts found a peaceful way how to deal with the Persian provocation (i.e. The Mystery Stack that Persia is silent about).
Hundreds of experts, specialists, sorcerers and seers handled the problem for long time. The problem was Babylon had a road east of Zariqum (you see an Engineer there), and any Persian farmer/engineer in the Mystery Stack could connect the Persian and Babylonian road system immediately. Then Persian envoys, C4s, asylants and other vermints could enter Babylon without undergoing immigrational procedures.



Gossips say all humans were lost and only Gzhu-gzhu found the solution ... but eventually Zariqumian unemployeds pillaged the Zariqum's road (Babylon had to abandon her projects in the area). This is unpleasant for us, but peace was saved! Now from The Mystery Stack no C4/envoy can hit any Bab city (except Zariqum, but this city was founded only after The Great War). Persian LtCavalries could still hit some parts of Babylon (for example Hekallush), but we will increase a budget of Babylonian army and also this problem will be solved.

Peace was saved but we must state that Persian "tactics" based on an idea "we will increase the pressure, then Babs will be more docile" is appraised extremely negatively in Babylon.
It was the "feel lucky, punk" warning and advances of Persian troops during first phase of negotiations, it was the "we can attack anytime" threat in 2390, it is The Mystery Stack now.
In past we retreated and it looks it only supported Persia in her behaviour. So from now we use the Persian methods:

Babylon moved also her stacks into Disputed Areas (we also accepted a plea for asylum from one group of Persian geezers (bronze infantry)). It looks number of Persian and Babylonian stacks in Disputed Areas is approximately equal now.

edit: in Disputed Areas

[SlowThinker]

the save

[Kull]

Re: Peace talks and mediating

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Edit: I just noticed Lycastus' post, but I think I don't have to change this message.

This idea looks unrealistic for me:
a) First we would have to accept some criteria that The Judge should base his decision on. What shall it be? Security of Post-War cities? Size of Babylon/size of Persia? Number of grassland squares in Babylon/Persia?
b) Sinbad, are you really ready to accept ANY decision? Imagine The Judge says a Three Lakes shall be Babylonian. Would you accept it?

This is why I repeat: first we should agree on a civilized and fair system how to start a war in case negotiations fail.
Edit: I see Lycastus proposes neutral areas, and I always asked them, but I thought Sinbad would never accept them. This is why I propose at least "the fair war system".

Utterly ludicrous. First Babylon says "we accept mediation". Then they lay out all the reasons why it is bound to fail, and move on to their REAL agenda, pushing this ridiculous "fair war" idea which is nothing more than a blatantly obvious mechanism to get the Allies to somehow think that a Babylonian War isn't a "Real" war. It's also pretty clear that AFTER the Minoans offer to mediate, Babylon has gone ahead and moved additional stacks into Persia, and bribed at least one unit.

So, as usual, we have Babylon saying one thing and doing another. The Great Liar fools nobody.

[Kull]

From an email received today. (God only knows what he was hoping to achieve with this.)

Pharaoh,

your try to enter the talks as a "neutral mediator" was really foolish. Babylon has her source of information, and we know Persia and Egypt established a secret and very close form of an alliance, that started around 2580 when Egypt passed CharTac to Persia.
Your endeavour to pose you are "neutral" is needless.

The Immo

As I said before, Egypt wanted to try and restart a mediation effort. And it worked, since Lycastus agreed to lead it. But of course, Babylon is not really interested in mediation, since that removes your justification to start a war. And Egypt's alliance with Persia is the same as yours with the other allies, a method for moving units easily through one another's territories.

I'm surprised you didn't try to disqualify Lycastus, since as your "Ally" he obviously can't be neutral, right?

[SlowThinker]

I will explain:
Just before the disputes between Persia and Babylon started, Persia offered a very close and secret alliance to Babylon. Babylon refused. What is interesting, in the offer Persia asked a very prompt response.
Why that? I see only one explanation: Persia offered the alliance also to another civilization, and so she needed our response quickly.

BTW one could guess Persia has a close ally also without this information. Otherwise she couldn't afford to aggravate the situation with Babylon, a "strong and aggressive" neighbour. Normally you don't search disputes with strong and aggressive neighbours, do you? (I remind situation was stable and quiet until Persia started to build installments on The Spine.)

Who could be that secret ally? Egypt seemed to be a natural ally, since he was in a strong dispute with Babylon.
Still I thought the secret ally could be Hatta, because there were very good trade opportunities between Hatta and Persia, and Straybow came with his 18'Pike initiative, that allowed Persia to keep Chariot Tactics, and simultaneously fleeced Hatta of gold from Leadeship sales. But if Hittites were that Persian ally, they wouldn't cooperate with Babylon in war technologies, and they do.
Minoans and Greeks are out of question, they are too far.

[Peaster]

Mighty Kings - Babylon has invaded Persia. My generals count at least 4 new Babylonian stacks in Persia, plus several more advances just south of our border. We have no choice but to repel these invaders by force. This means war, now, in 2370BC.

I announce this in the very slim hope that some clever King can still find a way to peace, or that the neutrals will finally take a strong stand and persuade Babylon to withdraw. Obviously, I will need an answer before I play.

[Zedd]

Peaster, is this not the "Eye for an eye" approach that you yourself initiated? You moved a stack into attacking position of a babylon city and have yet to announce ANY reason for it.
Babylon could have easily said "We have no choice but to repel these invaders by force. This means war, now"
But rather found an alternative to attacking and in typical form for Perso-Bab negotiations retaliated by mimicing your own agression on a larger scale.

It could be easy to infer by your actions that there could indeed be a plan to bait Babylon into a war. I sincerely doubt this is the case, but your actions are not helping prove your point.

I implore each side (again) to agree to arbitratons and cese the activity in these disputed areas.

[Straybow]

It seems we've got our own Jammu-Kasmiri India-vs-China "war" on our hands.

[Peaster]

Originally posted by Zedd
Peaster, is this not the "Eye for an eye" approach that you yourself initiated? You moved a stack into attacking position of a babylon city and have yet to announce ANY reason for it.
Babylon could have easily said "We have no choice but to repel these invaders by force. This means war, now"
But rather found an alternative to attacking and in typical form for Perso-Bab negotiations retaliated by mimicing your own agression on a larger scale.

Dear Mr Neutral:

Persia's position for 300 years: We can move our troops within Persia (including the T-line) as we please. Babylon has no right to intrude there, bribe there, or demand 1000 explanations there, until we join their insanity club.

Babylon's position: Persian claims mean nothing. We have equal rights to move, bribe and attack in any region that we choose to dispute, with or without good reason.

Minoan position = Babylon's position? Why didn't you tell me sooner?

I implore each side (again) to agree to arbitratons and cese the activity in these disputed areas.

After the Babs have invaded ?? I might consider resuming talks under certain conditions. These would have to include a withdrawal of the Bab troops (and possibly some Persian ones), with a barter made before I start my turn. Unfortunately, it seems that you have swallowed the Bab lies whole, and the other neutrals intend to watch the Bab invasion from the sidelines. I hope that Egypt, at least, will join us against the Snake.

[Peaster]

The latest Bab distortions -

1) ST claims he had good relations with Stephan, but also quotes himself as being willing to fight over Bab-Pers borders. No, I don't know the whole story, but I've waited 600 years for an explanation of this inconsistency.

2) I don't know why ST brings up old alliances at this time. As you all know, at one time Babylon and Persia were peaceful business partners. But it was never clear whether we were friends, or what our "alliance" really meant to Babylon. ST often asked for favors from Persia (free help against Egypt, for example), but he seemed unwilling to cooperate fully with Persia, to maximize trade and growth. Persia was somewhat confused by all this and asked for clarification, prefering a clear and full Bab-Pers economic alliance. ST said "no" and I accepted that without ill will.

But Persia stated openly to Babylon and several other Kings that we did not want to rely on Babylon as our sole trading partners (in fact, Babylon was already threatening to end the CA company IIRC). Yes, we sought other economic alliances - no secret there. But if you are implying this was a plot against you, that is just paranoia.

3) The Bab demands were accompanied by insults, obvious anger, and the threat of ending the CA plan (and IIRC we had agreed this would be bad for Babylon but worse for Persia). If you call this a "normal business offer", I'd have to call you a liar.

4) ST claims that I am responsible for starting the verbal attacks in this thread and that he is merely defending The Truth. He certainly has a talent for twisting things around! Clearly, he has posted more propaganda than the rest of us combined (would someone care to count posts?). I find it disgusting and post only a minimal defense - and I have often been criticized for not posting enough.

Certainly, I am angry that he does this, and that it seems to work on some people. But before you blame me too much for my anger, take a look at Didanu's reaction, and maybe ask Pharaoh his opinion.

[SlowThinker]

Persian war offer

It looks we don't have to argue who was bluffing about his willingness to negotiate:
First Sinbad assumes sides will not "have to explain all troop movements, tech choices and plans for children's education during the peace talks".
But in his next post he forgets completely that he pretended willingness to negotiate, and is surprised that Babylonian units move.

Lycastus, I don't think Babylon is mimicing Persian agression on a larger scale:
Now in Disputed Areas I see
on Persian side: 5 stacks, 3 roaded forts
on Babylonian side: 5 stacks.
But what is important, Bab units are not in striking distance to any Persian city (LtCavalries as well) - supposing Persia will pillage a road square that goes towards Kyroushata. But Persian stacks are in positions from which several Bab cities (including 3 post-war city positions) can be attacked by C4s, and more cities by LtCavalries.

I can only repeat Babylon suggests all units should leave disputed areas, or at least return to positions of 2490

[SlowThinker]

not important

Originally posted by Sinbad
The latest Bab distortions -
1) 2) 3) 4)

As usual you posted plenty of undocumented false/inaccurate words. If you really want to continue these debates (but I think we have more importants things to do now) then I will answer. But I am not willing to answer if I know you will probably ignore my effort.
In our last debate of this type there are some unanswered points: for example you said Babylon dissapeared from original border talks for at least 5 turns. Document exact dates, so that I can disprove your statement.
Then we can move further.

[SlowThinker]

new Babylonian lands:
We claim these are new Babylonian lands:
Entire upper Al-Kabir, western part of lake Urmia, The Spine and lands between.

---

Originally posted by Lycastus
I implore each side (again) to agree to arbitratons and cese the activity in these disputed areas.

Lycastus, I am very dissapointed Why Babylon should cease activity in Babylon??
Babylon's position: We can move our troops within Babylon (including the New Lands) as we please. Persia has no right to intrude there, bribe there, or demand 1000 explanations there, until we join their insanity club.
Persian position: Babylonian claims mean nothing. We have equal rights to move, bribe and attack in any region that we choose to dispute, with or without good reason.
Minoan position = Persia's position? YOU want to be a neutral mediator?

[SlowThinker]

A quiz (hard):

Which post is real and which one is not meant seriously?
a) The Sinbad's one (#3550)
b) The Immo's one (#3554)