The Empath Guild

[Darkness' Edge]

Welcome to The Empath Guild. This is a think-tank for foreign affairs policy. Feel free to join, and put your thoughts forward about where we should stand with the other factions.

By posting in the thread, you are considered a member. Anyone can join.

Of course, at the moment there isn't really much to discuss, but that'll change soon enough.

Members

1. Darkness' Edge
2. Maniac
3. AdamTG02
4. Diablero
5. Haon
6. Ade
7. The Bloody Baro

[Haon]

Count me in!

[Anodyne]

Now, excluding the Director of Foreign Affairs (who did sign up in the NGO-thread) from your list... and creating the thread by yourself...

Ok, I'll accept your apology (the one you were probably planning by now? )

Hope this will spring in life as soon as the game begins!

[Gnool]

This will really depend on how quickly we get a military built up, but if we end up having bullies (Miriam, Yang) near us & they demand we give them 90% of out energy credits, will we follow a policy of appeasement or say "no" and hope they don't attack us?

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Count me in.

[Anodyne]

Originally posted by Gnool
This will really depend on how quickly we get a military built up, but if we end up having bullies (Miriam, Yang) near us & they demand we give them 90% of out energy credits, will we follow a policy of appeasement or say "no" and hope they don't attack us?

As the Director of Foreign Affairs I do have to say that peace is my first goal; but in a situation like this we'll have to ponder our chances. Miriam and Yang are very likely to attack us sooner or later if they start near us - so we wouldn't want them to have the advantage of those energy credits off our stashes. So, if our army was strong enough (like I'm eventually trusting it to be), I wouldn't even think of paying.

[AdamTG02]

My opinion:

Particularly on Thinker difficulty, we shouldn't have any problems getting into war. Wars will seek us out, based on ideological conflicts or other factions' power grabs. Thus, I'd favor signing a treaty with even the Hive, because even though we oppose their ideology, we can predict that their ditrust of us will make them attack first.

Waiting for our enemies to declare Vendetta has several advantages. We are virtually guaranteed that our Pact Brothers or Sisters will join us in the war. Our reputation does not take a hit, allowing us to credibly sign treaties in the future. And, with the Citizen's Defense Force and cutting-edge garrisons, we can be reasonably assured of minimal losses until we are able to assem
le an assault force to take the battle to our enemy.

But rather than become sidetracked onto military policy, I'd like to talk about reputation. Maintaining a Noble reputation is in my mind the most important diplomatic goal of the game. Other factions trust is slim enough on Thinker; in order to hope for other factions to Pact with us and borrow money from us, we need to maintain our credibility. With that in mind, I recommend the above policy of letting our enemies attack first. Maintaining an army geared toward defense rather than attack will allow us to both weather the initial assault and maneuver our enemies into playing their hand too quickly, by underestimating our defensive capabilities based on the size of our forces. Production, and to a lesser degree probes, would be used to supply our attack force.

Our first goal must be peace rather than war. However, when a faction threatens that peace, repressing their population by choosing totalitarian values in Social Engineering, we should not rule out the possiblity of war. I would recommend caving into ultimatums only if the faction making them is another Democracy, and only if we cannot afford a limited war to chasten the other faction and convince them that their best interest is peace.
As far as Pacts go, I think we should seek and maintain Pacts with fellow Democracies. Early on, we may wish to PAct with a Frontier government; after Ethical Calculus is widely available, we should honor existing Pacts but not be magnanimous with non-Democratic neighbors in order to maintain the Pact. We should expect our allies to aid us in wars, but if they switch away from Democracy in order to prosecute a war, we should seriously consider making peace with our mutual enemy, in order to restore Democracy.

In no case do I suggest breaking a Truce or Treaty in order to maintain a Pact. Our reputation is contingent on our honoring our commitments, and Pacts are not automatic commitments to go to war. If our allies are threatened by enemies who insist on maintaining a Treaty with us, garrisoning our allies' cities with our own units will face the belligerent faction with a choice -- leave the cities alone, or go to war with us as well.

Basically, my proposed policy comes down to two goals: honor and peace. We honor our commitments, and we seek peace -- but are not willing to submit to the dishonor of giving in to ultimatums.

Edit: Ade's policy, which he posted as I was writing this, has my support. If we can fight a war, we should not knuckle under. However, if we cannot fight a war, giving in to demands might give us time to prepare, even though it would strengthen our enemy somewhat.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

[The Bloody Baro]

I'd like to join.

[Anodyne]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
But rather than become sidetracked onto military policy, I'd like to talk about reputation. Maintaining a Noble reputation is in my mind the most important diplomatic goal of the game.

Agreed

In no case do I suggest breaking a Truce or Treaty in order to maintain a Pact. Our reputation is contingent on our honoring our commitments, and Pacts are not automatic commitments to go to war. If our allies are threatened by enemies who insist on maintaining a Treaty with us, garrisoning our allies' cities with our own units will face the belligerent faction with a choice -- leave the cities alone, or go to war with us as well.

Agreed

Basically, my proposed policy comes down to two goals: honor and peace. We honor our commitments, and we seek peace -- but are not willing to submit to the dishonor of giving in to ultimatums.

And agreed

Edit: Ade's policy, which he posted as I was writing this, has my support. If we can fight a war, we should not knuckle under. However, if we cannot fight a war, giving in to demands might give us time to prepare, even though it would strengthen our enemy somewhat.

Are you probing my thoughts or what?

[Method]

might i suggest that if we want to declare war for some reason (such as to clear our continent, or to wipe out miriam or the hive while they're weak) we do so by
A)Demanding something. if they are already in a bad mood they declare war on us, no integrity hit. if they're afraid of us, we get what we demand.
B)Demanding withdrawl. no integrity hit, and it p*sses them off
C)Probing...i'm not sure if you get an integrity hit or not.

in SP, i wanted to wipe out the drones without getting my reputation damaged. they were weak (what else is new ), so they gave in to my threats, and i got about 3 bases this way. finally, i got bored of this and probed them. they declared war, and their synthmetal garrisons fell victim to my missle rovers . no integrity hit, IIRC.

[Anodyne]

Hmm... I remembered probes would affect your integrity.

[Method]

oh...well then ignore "C"

[Haon]

Regarding the Yang Miriam Quesiton.

Yang hate it when we choose to go to Democracy, it will almost certainely start war, and the longer we stary off Fundementalism the quicker miriam will attack us.

So we should not appease them but buy the bare minmum of breathing space needed to get our tropps to the front and upgraded.

[GeneralTacticus]

Sign me up too.

A)Demanding something. if they are already in a bad mood they declare war on us, no integrity hit. if they're afraid of us, we get what we demand.

I find that bases work best for this. If they give in, they can be very useful, and if they declare war, so what? That's what we wanted. The most annoying thing they do is when they ignore the threat but don't declare war.

[Gnool]

*bump*