Drone Negotiations

[Kody]

On the hive side of the table, from the opinions I have been busy gathering, there is a growing number of people that have misgivings about the drones.

The two main reasons that appear to be destorying the goodwill for the drones is their lack of solid response to our diplomatic efforts. The other reason is there has been quiet outrage at the demands for land on our continent. Combined with previous misgivings that the drones may wish ill of us there is the possibility that the hive will be unwilling to pact even though the drones agree to.

My suggestion is when the drones finally decide to reply, the hive needs to repoll on our dipolmatic stance. I will need to know exactly what our dipolmatic stance is. After discussions today the hive's position has been thrown into doubt in my mind.

Kody

[Vander]

I'm still for a perma pact with the drones. For one, it's one less enemy to worry about. And remember, they haven't been too quick to respond because their two best players (Buster and mark(?)) are MIA and they don't want to make the wrong move.

[Googlie]

Originally posted by HongHu
GooglieGod, one thing I need ask you...........

That would be a legitimate tactic in PBEMs. More usually found where 2 factions are in Treaty status rather than Pact (see below)

In SP games, at least, there usually is a decent time interval betwen being in pact, then downgrading to treaty (usually 'cos of SE choice friction), then the "I have been patient, now I will see you destroyed" message that signals vendetta.

In PBEMs, the game mechanics do give you a slight warning - on breaking pact all units of the respective factions are returned to the nearest base - but if that base is within striking distance of one of yours all it does is ammass his troops in that base.

G.

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Vander
And remember...........their two best players (Buster and Mark are MIA

At the risk of "meddling" (where some might suspect that the Drones' spokesperson is diplomatically lying - but never assume that a player is always telling the truth in negotiations) in this instance I can confirm their absence on the CGN Board for the past week or so

(I'd hate to see a possible Pact disintegrate 'cos of vacation absences)

G.

[Kody]

http://www.civgaming.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2651&perpage=10&highlight=ACDG&pagenumber=5

if it makes a difference, markos is on a year-long vacation

http://www.civgaming.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=73351#post73351

Away for a couple of weeks

I will be away for the next two weeks. May check in a few times but I won't be able to do any serious admin stuff. So requesters/complaintees will need to have a bit of patience or check with one of the other admins.

I have used plenty of ducttape and chewinggum on vital components so I expect it should run OK while I am away.

If they're really waiting for buster and mark to come back it might be a while.

We know the reasons for the delays, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause some problems. I'm still for a strong pact, but I think the number of members supporting it is dropping closer to only half.

Atm I would say about 3 people for it, 1 against and 2 people that are becoming too distrustful to support it. Oh and one person that I haven't been able to extract an opinion from.

Everyone else seems to be MIA.

Kody

[Googlie]

Naw - markos isn't mark of CGN - he's Mark G one of the 'Poly site owners (with DanQ)

[Kody]

Is "mark" the person on civgaming? There was a mark that hasn't posted at all in civgaming since 4th july.

Kody

[Snowflake]

If they really want to pact with us, my guess is that it will not take them that long, even with Buster being away. So I suspect that now they are talking about what is the best strategy toward us, that might mean temporary pact and then they would probably "backstab". If that is the case, I would prefer treaty rather than pact, with full realization that this is not going to last the entire game and we'll part the way some point of time, it may even be initiated by us. Basically I'm suspicious in any kind of partial deal. If they agree to "die or win, we are in this together" pact, we would have to think about whether this is what we want to do either. The main thing that hang in my mind is if we do perm pact with drone, what our relationship toward CyCons is going to be. We need to make a decision right now, not after we met CyCons. So I would still like to hear the benefit of a perm pact with drones (other than the player factor, which is not insignificant).

[Snowflake]

So far I have only heard opinions from Kody, Vev, and Vander. I would really appreciate if other comrades could weigh in on this.

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Kody
Is "mark" the person on civgaming? There was a mark that hasn't posted at all in civgaming since 4th july.

Kody

That is he. However he made no mention about vacation or unavailability - but he hasn't posted since contact was reported (CGN's Mark is also 'Poly's and ACOL's mark13)

Also, in their vacation thread, Buster said he wouldn't be back until July 20th

[Kody]

If they're going to take a whole week that might put a spanner in the works of some of the tech trading scenerios I've looked at.

Googlie also check your private message I have a question I need to ask you.

Kody

[Nubclear]

Greetings again Comrades.

Yes, I fully believe that they intend to pact and backstab. They seem to be the only faction with a large resistence against me becoming an Assistant God...which indicates that they are hiding something that they don't want me to know (and they think I will spill to the Hive). I believe this is it.

Also Comrades, if the other poll(s) say that I am to become God....I would not be able to offer such advise to you any longer

[Googlie]

Tass:

I'm sensing a consensus among the faction leaders for you to return to the fold of the Hive, trusting that you would keep your knowledge of the whereabouts of the other factions a secret until the Hive meets them (or otherwise, in-game, gets their locations)

But even if inadvertently spilled, the drones don't care, as negotiations are now underway; The CyCon have said that to them it's no biggie; the Uni have steadfastly opposed the Godhood elevation, so can't complain if re-instatement is the ultimate option; Miriam and Roze don't care (they are smug and arrogant in their strength, they tell me ) - so the only ones with a gripe would be the Pirates, fearful that their monopoly on meeting other factions first might be jeapordized. (not to mention popping the ocean goody pods)

However so long as they don't trade flex they are not challenged by another faction for maybe 20 to 25 more turns, time enough for them to have explored the whole map.

So I would not oppose a return to your comrades in the Hive - after all, I can monitor any leaks of information unless given privately, and I'd trust the others to close their ears to that

G.

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Kody
Googlie also check your private message I have a question I need to ask you.

Kody - I don't think I can provide the "guarantees" that you asked. But I have replied with some suggestions and planted some seeds for you to consider.

And as you ponder the possibility of a PermaPact, Tactical Pact or just a Treaty, and why the Drones might be stalling, ask yourselves this ....

Should the Drones be afraid of the Hive at this point in time?

G.

[Googlie]

Re: Tassadar5000's status with the Hive

I have posted my ruling here