New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Peaster
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.

I would be alarmed, and ask questions, if Egypt were to move troops up to the edge of Hittite land on the Euphrates. Egypt would react the same way in reverse.

If you want to negotiate away from war, maybe doing the same thing you've done for 300 years is counterproductive.

Just a friendly thought from your neighbor.

[Straybow]

Kull's emailbox is full.

[Kull]

Originally posted by Straybow
Kull's emailbox is full.

It is now empty.

I do think that before blood flows, it would be a good idea for Persia to post before and after pictures of the invasion so we can see just exactly what Babylon has done.

If the invasion IS of the scale described, the pictures should make it obvious. And perhaps the Allies will offer a different response when facts stare them in the face.

A note to Lycastus: I think we can all agree that the movement of one Persian stack south of the spine was perhaps overly provocative, but it also occurred BEFORE you agreed to mediate the dispute. So the real issue is which side has been true to the spirit of mediation since that point? If Babylon had moved a single stack northward into the Spine, it would have been unhelpful, but perhaps not uncalled for. However what we are hearing is that the Babylonian response was COMPLETELY OUT OF PROPORTION to the Persian move. Assuming this allegation holds true (and Babylon has not denied it), then it is not helpful when the mediator points to PRE-MEDIATION actions and states - in effect - "well, you got what you deserved".

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Pharaoh
I think we can all agree that the movement of one Persian stack south of the spine was perhaps overly provocative, but it also occurred BEFORE you agreed to mediate the dispute. So the real issue is which side has been true to the spirit of mediation since that point?

* Persia asked neutrals to mediate and SIMULTANEOUSLY moved her stack south.
* it was Persia who suggested free troop movement and no preconditions for peace talks.
And now she marvels? It seems she never expected the talks would really begin and her willingness to talk was all one Persian bluff.

However what we are hearing is that the Babylonian response was COMPLETELY OUT OF PROPORTION to the Persian move.

Babylon compared proportions in her "Persian war offer" message.

[Peaster]

Well, I don't remember how to post pictures, but here goes... this should be before (2380bc) and after (2370bc) of the Al Kabir.

[Peaster]

Here's the Zagros mts... both "after" pictures are what I see before starting my turn. BTW - In general, Persia has NOT been getting map info about the location of Bab units in Babylon. So, we've had no way to confirm or deny ST's claim that his cities were empty. Or, to check that he had no troops near our the border, without sending Persians to go look.

For what it's worth, the Persian "invasion" of 2380 consisted of a skirmisher and a spearman sent to the border for that purpose. But I am just too sick of Bab paranoia to explain stuff like that every turn.

[Peaster]

Here's the Persian capitol city in 2370BC. I have blacked out some fierce-looking Persian units and terrain in order not to shock the sensitive Babylonians, Minoans and Hittites. Wouldn't want to seem aggressive. Can I repeat that I've "tolerated" the Babylonian presence there for many years? Can we say "tolerated" in this thread ?

[Straybow]

How come your graphics look cooler than mine?

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Straybow
How come your graphics look cooler than mine?

It is another proof of connection between Persia and the Devil.

[Peaster]

These are the graphics someone posted in Game 2, about a year ago, which I also advertised here.

I am more-or-less waiting for some response from Zedd about his neutrality, and from a few unanswered emails. If Zedd can clear that up for us, I could agree to resume talks, with both sides withdrawing to pre 2380BC positions.

[SlowThinker]

Sinbad:
First two aerial photographies:
you should add especially 2490. Our positions were stable and quiet until 2490, before Persia started her advances.

3rd photography:
IIRC you complained twice before, I answered twice. Third time:
* this square is in Babylon, accredited by Persia. Since Persia asked maximum land around Ecbatana, and Babylon agreed, this is the only Bab defense mountain here, while Persia has many mountains. Therefore I would rather suppose it should be Babylon that complained Persia didn't stay back
* Babylon moved her FeInf here only after Persia moved a FeInf into mountains, Babylon stacked it only after it faced a Persian stack
Even without these two points, you claim civs can do anything within their territory until they join the insanity club, so why do you complain?

In general, Persia has NOT been getting map info about the location of Bab units in Babylon. So, we've had no way to confirm or deny ST's claim that his cities were empty. Or, to check that he had no troops near our the border, without sending Persians to go look.

(I suppose you talk about 2580 and answer to one of my "not important" posts.)
Babylon had no way to confirm what is north too, still we didn't care. Although we are paranoid and Persia is not.

[Zedd]

Originally posted by Peaster

Dear Mr Neutral:

Disparaging and unnecessary, but thanks.

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.

Sounds like the Same position!!! lets simplify it.
1. Persia assumes she has full right to a DISPUTED AREA and treats it as her own.
2. Babylon assumes she has full right to a DISPUTED AREA and treats it as her own.

1. Persia rejects Babylons claims
2. Babylon rejects Persias claims

1. Persia announces they can and may attack at any time.
2. Babylon announces they can and may attack at any time.

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)

Exactly my suggestion.

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.

No swallowing here, but I willl spit your own announcements and proclomations back at you. This goes as well for Babylon.

IMHO you are each simply being foolish and trying to provoke the other.

And I still feel that the Bab response was to "heavy". A show of force to block the offending stack would be understandable, but to advance a line would provoke me into a battle too.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Lycastus
And I still feel that the Bab response was to "heavy". A show of force to block the offending stack would be understandable, but to advance a line would provoke me into a battle too.

I have two (independent) reasons why I don't agree with you.

1) Why should Persia attack now?? She stated she wanted to talk exactly in the current situation:
Persia clearly stated that she expected free movement and no pre-conditions during the mediated talks. Babylon wasn't very happy with that, but we accepted it and showed how it looks.

2) Until 2490 we had a quiet and stable situation with no stacks and no forts. (a map )
After 2490 Persia started to advance (and advanced more than one line since 2490) and explained that she must defend against "strong and aggressive" neigbour (Babylon). The "aggresive neighbour" could blow away Persian units before they managed to build forts. Still Babylon only complained verbally.
So I don't understand why the "peaceful civ" (Persia) should attack now.
Especially if Bab stacks are not in positions from which Persian cities may be attacked, and Persian stacks stay in striking distance to several Bab cities.

Originally posted by Sinbad
I might consider resuming talks under certain conditions. These would have to include a withdrawal of the Bab troops (and possibly some Persian ones)

Originally posted by Lycastus
Exactly my suggestion.

to Sinbad: Two days ago Persia agreed to mediated talks and she asked not to allow pre-conditions. Why do you ask pre-conditions now?

to Lycastus: You say "Sounds like the Same position". Why Babylon should withdraw all troops and Persia only some?

[Kull]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
to Lycastus: You say "Sounds like the Same position". Why Babylon should withdraw all troops and Persia only some?

Here we see the Babylonian response to the very FIRST request of the mediator. Which was to suggest that both sides undo their recent moves north and south of the previous line of occupation. Clearly an OUTRAGEOUS suggestion!

[Straybow]

Found Palaiologos' unit graphics in the HOT test thread.