GoW- Diplomacy comments #2

[Shiber]

I think what UnO means by our stance regarding breaking lux deals is whether we might attack a civ while we have a lux deal with them, and effectively, whether a lux deal counts as an informal NAP.

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by Shiber
If and when we forward this suggestion, we should IMHO emphasize that we have no urgent need for Chivalry (hopefully GoW will do the thinking and realize that we may buy it from someone else later instead if GoW doesn't lower the price, and GoW will end up in the same position as we have with regard to Feudalism).

This is a good approach.

Mss

[notyoueither]

I would prefer if we did not give them any excuse to withhold chivalry for any length of time.

We already have a deal for it. Let's go through with it.

Something is up. GoW is asking for additions to the chivary deal (NT clause) and pestering for an NAP. They are seeking a safe flank and trying to increase the time that someone is kept away from chivalry. A 10 turn NT is fine, it is the same as we had with them for feudalism.

Also, Nathan made some very good points. We really do not want to face the big horse units while having to research it ourself if everything goes to hell.

[zeit]

I think us suddenly saying we don't need Chivalry all that much would have been a bad diplomatic move- with all the previous talks about trading generally, as well as trading this tech and the growing mutual interest in one another- us backing down would have been seen as an alienating, perhaps even suspicious behavior.

Being inconsistent might be good (or not so bad) for of the teams, for it just doesn't fit in the impression and the expectation of the others.

Like I said- what is done is done. 200 gold for Chivalry is quite fair, and the NDA is reasonable. I think we can be satisfied of the results so far.

One more thing: Those strings attached (further Lux trade, Iron), might actually do us some good- in making sure both teams have something to look forward to, and knowing the other is expecting it too certainly can't do bad to our near-future relations

[notyoueither]

Very interesting chat with GoW. It just happened after UnO contacted me in Poly chat.

Very interesting vis-a-vis Lego. The best bit for that would be UnO's question to me:

[22:03] {UnOrthOdOx> Is there any other teams you are close enough to to also bring in on this?

UnO's question struck me as odd. This may be the first mention of such an anti-Lego alliance among any teams. We need to proceed very carefully. No mention of this should be made to any others.

[notyoueither]

btw, when is the next official GoW chat?

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by notyoueither
UnO's question struck me as odd. This may be the first mention of such an anti-Lego alliance among any teams. We need to proceed very carefully. No mention of this should be made to any others.

Agree. That was a very interesting chat. It's nice to see how you managed to get as much info out of them as possible without committing us to anything (other than another chat ).

NOTE: GoW claim that their scouting galleys have discoverd Lego's continent to be split in two halves and joined by a one-tile chokepoint - just like our continent, only bigger.

[zeit]

There is no scheduled time for an official chat- I did want to schedule one with UnO- at a time that would suit me as well (0300 GMT is close to impossible for me- as I'm in no shape to start chatting when the sun starts to shine and the birds are chirping outside my window...) He didn't say anything about it, though. I'll try again in my next message.

[Theseus]

Well done, nye.

GoW and RP versus ND seems inevitable...

As does a massive IC invasion of Lego. Dominae brought up this subject yesterday in the ISDG forum... we need to put some thought into it.

[vulture]

With regards to GoW not understanding / being concerned about our not wanting a NAP with them, perhaps we should send some clarification to them. First draft for comments and ideas:

To explain our position regarding Non-Agression Pacts more clearly. After team discussions, we came to the following positions:

All NAP deals we make should be public, since private ones will probably get known of around the grapevine in short order anyway. So secret NAPs aren't an option for GS.

NAPs with all three Bob civs would be undesirably, since it would leave us unable to offer any assistance to allies on Bob in the event of a war, and block us from intervening should we wish to do so.

NAPs with two Bob civs would be undesirably, since the civ left out would understandably start to worry about our intentions, and be in the unique position of facing a possible 3 on 1 war. It was felt that this would be destabilising on Bob.

A NAP with a single civ was initially viewed in a positive light by some, but others felt that this would also have a destabilising effect on Bob, one team essentially having an implicit ally. In addition, we have been approached by another Bob team regarding a NAP. Since, as per the paragraph above, we feel unable to commit to both NAPs, to sign one NAP would mean publically signing a NAP with one team that requested it, whilst declining it with another. This would obiously worsen relations between us and the declined team, not to mention between the NAP and non-NAP team.

So, given this situation, we have decided not to sign any NAPs. It is possible that had we been approached only by GoW regarding a NAP that it would have been accepted, but with the circumstances as we see them, we worry that signing NAPs would create more problems than it solves.

The issue for me is whether we want to tell GoW that we were approached by another civ for a NAP (obviously we aren't going to name the civ). I suspect that some people might not be happy with doing this.

[alva]

approached by another civ for a NAP

Something tells me they know already.
-
Tru to get neutrality in there perhaps.

[Arrian]

I like that draft, Vulture.

-Arrian

[zeit]

Hmm...
Check UnO's new message- something fishy is going on. Unless I misunderstood their intentions, It seems to me they are trying to back off from the Chivalry deal, at least for a while- are they getting some heat from other Bobians ([hint] RP [/hint]) for selling us this tech when war is around the corner?

I don't like this at all, and I hope I was able to convey this feeling without being too blunt...

[notyoueither]

We need to point out that a deal was concluded, and that we expect our tech. We have np with a 10 turn NT.

If you wish, I can grab MZ for a short chat later on.

[notyoueither]

We do have a deal for 200 gold paid for Chivalry, don't we? I just dug through the GoW contact log and did not find their ratified reply. They did however mention it as 'still being on' in a later exchange about their landing of the two horsemen.

Some things of note. The agreement was for us to send 200 gold half way through their research. Did they ever ask for the gold? When we approached them with different forms of payment, did they decide to take that as a breach?

Things on our side. GoW has a pathetic record with us as far as honouring deals is concerned. First, there was the CoL fiasco. Then there were the faked screen shots. Now...

We should simply shush about alternative payment methods, and insist that they provide Chivalry for the 200 gold, otherwise, we will have to conclude that they do not intend to keep any deals they make with us, and we can proceed from there. Spoken softly, and non-threateningly, of course.