GoW- Diplomacy comments #2

[Shiber]

Let's tell GoW that we understand that they fear an attack, but so do we. If a Bobian were to invade with knights and we were unprepared, we'd be screwed completely.

[notyoueither]

I think all we need do is stick to the topic. We have a deal. We expect it to be kept.

[Theseus]

I agree. Our philosophical stance re trades / deals is now pretty much accepted as fact.

The communication to GoW should be in that tone: "We have a deal, we expect it to be consummated... what else could possibly happen?"

[zeit]

Was a deal ever ratified?

I'm not sure it was, but then again, it definitely felt like it...

I agree that not supplying us with the tech now is a serious offense, perhaps even a breach of the agreement.

I havn't gotten UnO's reply yet- but any "clarifying" effort by any of you- via a chat or any other method is welcomed, in order to get the message through: that we find it rather offendingg (if it is true) that GoW is thinking about holding back the tech or something of this sort, at this point, after the deal was negotiated and seemed to be ratified.

[Shiber]

Let's take a unified stand, that we have a deal for Chivalry. Being uncertain and insecure about this can only do us harm IMHO.

[notyoueither]

Hello. Anyone home? What's up with this Chivalry situation?

[notyoueither]

Just chatted with MZ. Shortly after I started, zeit had the same idea. We moved to the GoW diplo channel.

My summary of GoW.

They are looking for a reason to renege on the deal of Chivalry for 200 gold. Unfortunately, all the talk of alternate payment methods almost gave them the excuse to do so.

With all the chatter about NAPs I think it is unlikely that they want to withhold it from us for the reason that we are a target, but that cannot be ruled out. Rather, I think they have no idea what is going to happen on Bob. Thay may have, but they are doing a very good job of concealing it.

I am convinced that we should obtain Chivalry ASAP and brook no delay. I checked the last save I have, 210bc, and they dis not have Chivalry then. We can not discount the possibility of Vox trickery in conjunction with RP and GoW in the near term. We also want to be well positioned in the event that war breaks out on Bob. That means having knights at the ready.

It occured to me during chat, that we might be able to defuse two issues with one document. If we assured GoW that we would neither attack them by ourselves nor join a coalition against them, and they reciprocated towards us, then we would set them at ease and encourage the completion of the Chivary deal, and we would secure our own interests in Northern Stormia.

So, I put it to GS, should we negotiate a seperate and narrowly defined NAP with GoW? I believe it is in our interests that we should. I also believe that it can be done in such a way that no other powers would feel threatened by it, and that it would leave us free to intervene in the two cases we would most need to intervene. Those cases being:

GoW and RP attack ND. We cannot sit by if and when that happened. We would be free to intervene against RP if this happened, and most likely against GoW too, depending on final wording.

ND and GoW attack RP. We would need to join in. It would be imperative that we grab our chunk of South Eastern Bob. We would be free to do so.

[notyoueither]

Oh, it should have a secrecy clause. We do not want RP to approach us asking for the same deal.

[Theseus]

nye, I don;t think you described the limited NAP. I read that chat, and didn't quite get it.

[DeepO]

nye, it didn't read like that to me in chat... perhaps that's just me, though. You said:

would a signed agreement that we would not start a war with you, and we would not join a war started against you help?

At the time, I thought you meant you didn't want to join a coalition, but instead offered a normal NAP: no direct war, and no alliance against you either.

That's different from 'no direct attack, and no joining of coaltions against you' (ruling out a 3-1 war).

Well, anyway, if we could avoid it, I wouldn't sign it. we already have to be very careful with a lux deal: if we sign one for 20 turns, we can't declare war on anyone on Bob for the next 20-turns... and we might want to.

One thing's for certain: Bob is getting awefully nervous. But so are we, it seems

DeepO

[Aeson]

I've said before that I think true no agression pacts are acceptable.

We certainly don't want to have to sit and watch GoW or ND hit the Domination limit as more conventional NAP's would require.

I'm also not so sure we wouldn't want to side with RP if it was ND and GoW vs them. RP has pretty decent territory to defend against Riders/Ansars, and GoW's main body of troops would have to be wildly out of position (in regards to protecting that nice Rivered Grassland they have) to really do any good against RP.

[notyoueither]

[16:21] *notyoueither* mz, under what circumstances do you fear action by gs against gow?
[16:21] *MasterZen* I already told you the three possibilities facing the Bobians:
[16:22] *MasterZen* GoW vs ND-RP, GoW-ND vs RP, GoW-RP vs ND
[16:22] *notyoueither* i'm trying to see if i can find a way to present your case to gs in such a way as we would make an exception to our nap policy
[16:22] *MasterZen* under any of the two last ones I see the possibility of GS intervening to maintain a "balance of power" should RP or ND be in the brink of defeat
[16:23] *notyoueither* i see. so you really have no idea how things are going to go down.
[16:23] *notyoueither* just assumptions that something is gonna happen
[16:24] *MasterZen* we might have a "bobian" conference in a few turns... try and gauge the other teams
[16:25] *notyoueither* hmmm
[16:25] *MasterZen* we know RP is a little paranoid too... what I find suspicious is that they really haven't approached us as of late...
[16:26] *notyoueither* that is curious
[16:26] *MasterZen* especially since, personally, I think part of their paranoia is towards your team
[16:27] *notyoueither* would a signed agreement that we would not start a war with you, and we would not join a war started against you help?
[16:27] *notyoueither* with the same reciprocated?
[16:27] *MasterZen* that would be highly valued by our team
[16:28] *notyoueither* i can see if we could make that fly.
[16:28] *MasterZen* we would really appreciate it

Well, under those terms we would be free to lend aid to ND in the event that GoW and RP attacked them, would we not? We would not be joining a coalition started against GoW, we would be evening things up. We would also not be so concerned with GoW anyway, as our targets would be much further South.

[notyoueither]

It does however, give us assurances that riders are not about to begin ferrying across the Channel just before Vox exits stage left, and they both tell us to go screw ourselves.

[Shiber]

I was about to suggest the secrecy clause myself before I read your last post NYE. This is essentially what makes such a treaty acceptable by me.
Edit: I'd give it more time, though. GoW don't have Chivalry yet, and if we wait or stall we might learn more before finally signing any kind of treaty.

[Aeson]

It does read somewhat confusing NYE. If you read it as one clause, then it sounds like we would be able to join a war against GoW if the war was started by GoW. If you read it as seperate clauses, it sounds like we can't start a war against GoW regardless of circumstances.

I read it initially as 'we won't start a war against you, but reserve the right to go to war to stop agression on your part', as I think it comes off redundant read the other way. We won't declare war on you (in any case), and we won't declare war on you (in the case of other people declaring war on you).