Announcement

**Aeson** · July 27, 2003, 09:43

It's a pretty funny message. It would be great to be able to reply that we want all the GoW cities, and GoW holding onto them is clearly a violation of the NAP. It is "hostile" to our intentions.

The Elipolis analogy is even worse than their last attempt.

**Shiber** · July 27, 2003, 10:08

Proposed response:

Hi Ghengis,

To expand into the subject of disappointments, we too were disappointed to hear that GoW intends to violate a NAP. Rest assured, we have no intention, interest nor the slightest of will to wage war with GoW, but if a NAP is broken then we may find ourselves without any other choice.

Your team has purposely accepted Roleplay cities for THE SOLE PURPOSE of preventing our capture of them. This violates the spirit and intent and virtually violates the specific wording of the following document:

We (reluctantly) decided to interfere with matters on Bob in order to prevent a situation where a continent more than three times as big as ours (according to the tile count) would be divided between two civs. Our concerns and requests for small territories for strategic defense were ignored, and instead we were presented with promises to go out to Lego Land together in the very far future, but had no assurances.
We were not going to sit idly and forego this game.

Finally, to relate to the comment regarding Elipolis, we'd of course have conquered Elipolis from your hands. We half-expected that Vox would try such a thing with one civ or another, and had already made up our minds before we got to conquering Elipolis. That change would have posed no problem at the time, since we did not have a NAP nor any other agreements with GoW, and IIRC we were still at a technical state of war after we were forced to remove two invaders from our shores. But frankly, we don't see how that situation is any similar to the current one.

Please inform us of your final decision.

Sincerely,
Whoever ends up sending this message out (NYE? MSS? Me?)

**Aeson** · July 27, 2003, 10:52

My thoughts on a response:

-----------------------

GS doesn't take the accusation of breaking an agreement lightly. Here is GS' response to those accusations.

Your team has purposely accepted Roleplay cities for THE SOLE PURPOSE of preventing our capture of them.

GS is in control of Bilbao and Toledo, so certainly we do not wish GoW to capture them. Surely GoW realizes the importance cities play in many facets of the game. Part of that which applies to the given cities is gaining control of territory, possible resources, ect.

GS has been able to expand through diplomacy, and lay claim to some of the area deemed of vital interest to GS security as well as give us access to Silks with a cultural border expansion. We realize that GoW also wished to control those areas, but only one team may, and GS was able to secure them without action against GoW. If GS were to make claims on cities currently under GoW control, would GoW feel it was a violation of the NAP to withhold those cities from GS? Such an arrangement wouldn't work of course, as GS could claim all of GoW, and vice versa. This is not what a NAP is, and is precisely what a NAP is designed to avoid.

GS does not feel that it is a violation of the NAP by either team to hold onto territory rightfully claimed, even in cases where the other wishes it could control that territory. A NAP is to give both teams security in holding onto their rightfully claimed territory.

By denying us the right to continue on our campaign you ARE WAGING WAR AGAINST US.

GS does not feel that a NAP is an explicit ROP.

GS is denying GoW an ROP agreement. That is all. GoW forces may go around GS territory and continue their campaign. GS realizes that it is an inconvenience to GoW, but it is also an inconvenience to GS if GoW were to pass through GS territory. As it is GS territory, GS has the right to allow peaceful passage or not. GS respects the same right of GoW in determining peaceful passage through the lands of GoW.

If we had accepted Eliopolis as a gift from Vox before you took it, how would you have felt?

The analogy is flawed. GoW and GS were already at war by that point, and so GS would have likely just waltzed into the newly available and undefended city. There certainly wasn't a NAP in effect between the two teams.

Hypothetically, if GoW was at peace with GS and had a NAP, we would have respected the NAP and used other routes to pursue Vox. One of the arguments raised for peace with Vox was the realization by GS that other teams would gift cities to Vox to keep them alive. GS was not interested in chasing Vox to the ends of the earth just to see them appear again on the other side.

GS would not have enjoyed the inconvenience of a NAP partner holding Elipolis, but GS realizes the other teams do not exist to do our bidding or try to convenience us. GS expects other teams to honor any agreements made, and to act in their own best interests as allowed by those agreements.

**Theseus** · July 27, 2003, 12:57

We (reluctantly) decided to interfere with matters on Bob in order to prevent a situation where a continent more than three times as big as ours (according to the tile count) would be divided between two civs. Our concerns and requests for small territories for strategic defense were ignored, and instead we were presented with promises to go out to Lego Land together in the very far future, but had no assurances. We were not going to sit idly and forego this game.

quote:
Your team has purposely accepted Roleplay cities for THE SOLE PURPOSE of preventing our capture of them.

GS is in control of Bilbao and Toledo, so certainly we do not wish GoW to capture them. GS has been able to expand through diplomacy, and lay claim to some of the area deemed of vital interest to GS security as well as give us access to Silks with a cultural border expansion. We realize that GoW also wished to control those areas, but only one team may, and GS was able to secure them without action against GoW.

GS does not feel that it is a violation of the NAP by either team to hold onto territory rightfully claimed, even in cases where the other wishes it could control that territory. A NAP is to give both teams security in holding onto their rightfully claimed territory.

quote:
By denying us the right to continue on our campaign you ARE WAGING WAR AGAINST US.

GS does not feel that a NAP is an explicit ROP.

GS is denying GoW an ROP agreement. That is all. GoW forces may go around GS territory and continue their campaign. GS realizes that it is an inconvenience to GoW, but it is also an inconvenience to GS if GoW were to pass through GS territory. As it is GS territory, GS has the right to allow peaceful passage or not. GS respects the same right of GoW in determining peaceful passage through the lands of GoW.

quote:
If we had accepted Eliopolis as a gift from Vox before you took it, how would you have felt?

Finally, to relate to the comment regarding Elipolis, we'd of course have conquered Elipolis from your hands. We half-expected that Vox would try such a thing with one civ or another, and had already made up our minds before we got to conquering Elipolis. That change would have posed no problem at the time, since we did not have a NAP nor any other agreements with GoW, and IIRC we were still at a technical state of war after we were forced to remove two invaders from our shores. But frankly, we don't see how that situation is any similar to the current one.

Hypothetically, if GoW was at peace with GS and had a NAP, we would have respected the NAP and used other routes to pursue Vox. One of the arguments raised for peace with Vox was the realization by GS that other teams would gift cities to Vox to keep them alive. GS was not interested in chasing Vox to the ends of the earth just to see them appear again on the other side.

Please inform us of your final decision.

Sincerely,
Whoever ends up sending this message out (NYE? MSS? Shiber?)

**Shiber** · July 27, 2003, 14:04

I would remove 'Finally,' from the Elipolis paragraph, and add this before 'Please inform us':

If you accept Toledo or any other city beyond Bilbao it may be viewed as an act of war and violation of the before ratified NAP. We do not wish war with GS,

**Theseus** · July 27, 2003, 14:07

Good... then make the final paragraph:

We do not wish war with GoW, either. Please inform us of your final decision.

I think it's good to go.

**Shiber** · July 27, 2003, 14:27

Final?

Glory of War,

We (reluctantly) decided to interfere with matters on Bob in order to prevent a situation where a continent more than three times as big as ours (according to the tile count) would be divided between two civs. Our concerns and requests for small territories for strategic defense were ignored, and instead we were presented with promises to go out to Lego Land together in the very far future, but had no assurances. We were not going to sit idly and forego this game.

Your team has purposely accepted Roleplay cities for THE SOLE PURPOSE of preventing our capture of them.

GS is in control of Bilbao and Toledo, so certainly we do not wish GoW to capture them. GS has been able to expand through diplomacy, and lay claim to some of the area deemed of vital interest to GS security as well as give us access to Silks with a cultural border expansion. We realize that GoW also wished to control those areas, but only one team may, and GS was able to secure them without action against GoW.

GS does not feel that it is a violation of the NAP by either team to hold onto territory rightfully claimed, even in cases where the other wishes it could control that territory. A NAP is to give both teams security in holding onto their rightfully claimed territory.

By denying us the right to continue on our campaign you ARE WAGING WAR AGAINST US.

GS does not feel that a NAP is an implicit ROP.

GS is denying GoW an ROP agreement. That is all. GoW forces may go around GS territory and continue their campaign. GS realizes that it is an inconvenience to GoW, but it is also an inconvenience to GS if GoW were to pass through GS territory. As it is GS territory, GS has the right to allow peaceful passage or not. GS respects the same right of GoW in determining peaceful passage through the lands of GoW.

If we had accepted Eliopolis as a gift from Vox before you took it, how would you have felt?

To relate to the comment regarding Elipolis, we'd of course have conquered Elipolis from your hands. We half-expected that Vox would try such a thing with one civ or another, and had already made up our minds before we got to conquering Elipolis. That change would have posed no problem at the time, since we did not have a NAP nor any other agreements with GoW, and IIRC we were still at a technical state of war after we were forced to remove two invaders from our shores. But frankly, we don't see how that situation is any similar to the current one.

Hypothetically, if GoW was at peace with GS and had a NAP, we would have respected the NAP and used other routes to pursue Vox. One of the arguments raised for peace with Vox was the realization by GS that other teams would gift cities to Vox to keep them alive. GS was not interested in chasing Vox to the ends of the earth just to see them appear again on the other side.

If you accept Toledo or any other city beyond Bilbao it may be viewed as an act of war and violation of the before ratified NAP. We do not wish war with GS,

We do not wish war with GoW, either. Please inform us of your final decision.

Sincerely,
The People of Gathering Storm.

**Theseus** · July 27, 2003, 14:38

**nbarclay** · July 27, 2003, 15:35

I've made a few more edits, including a couple grammatical things and:

- Changed "promises" to "proposals" in referance to the idea of a joint Lego campaign.
- Added '(if "continue" is the right word when GoW and RP are not even at war in-game yet)' to the section on a NAP's not being a ROP.
- Replaced "IIRC" with "in fact" regarding the fact that we were still in a technical state of war when we took Elipolis. GoW did not offer peace until it was clear that their mercenary services would no longer be required, which was after Elipolis fell.
- Added a paragraph regarding the fact that we already held Toledo in GoW's last turn and explaining that we're merely borrowing New Madrid. I put in a bit of misdirection emphasizing the need to defend our new cities against ND (which is true, since a ND MedInf has been spotted not too far from them if I recall correctly) and leaving out any notion that we might be planning to attack ND more directly.
- Added the idea that we are not willing to give up our sovereignty to avoid war to the last paragraph.

Glory of War,

We (reluctantly) decided to interfere with matters on Bob in order to prevent a situation where a continent more than three times as big as ours (according to the tile count) would be divided between two civs. Our concerns and requests for small territories for strategic defense were ignored, and instead we were presented with proposals to go out to Lego Land together in the very far future, but had no assurances. We were not going to sit idly and forego this game.

Your team has purposely accepted Roleplay cities for THE SOLE PURPOSE of preventing our capture of them.

GS is in control of Bilbao and Toledo, so certainly we do not wish GoW to capture them. GS has been able to expand through diplomacy, and lay claim to some of the area deemed of vital interest to GS security as well as give us access to Silks with a cultural border expansion. We realize that GoW also wished to control those areas, but only one team may, and GS was able to secure them without action against GoW.

GS does not feel that it is a violation of the NAP by either team to hold onto territory rightfully claimed, even in cases where the other wishes it could control that territory. A NAP is to give both teams security in holding onto their rightfully claimed territory.

By denying us the right to continue on our campaign you ARE WAGING WAR AGAINST US.

GS does not feel that a NAP is an implicit ROP.

GS is denying GoW an ROP agreement. That is all. GoW forces may go around GS territory and continue their campaign (if "continue" is the right word when GoW and RP are not even at war in-game yet). GS realizes that it is an inconvenience to GoW, but it is also an inconvenience to GS if GoW were to pass through GS territory. As it is GS territory, GS has the right to allow peaceful passage or not. GS respects the same right of GoW in determining peaceful passage through the lands of GoW.

If we had accepted Eliopolis as a gift from Vox before you took it, how would you have felt?

To relate to the comment regarding Elipolis, we'd of course have conquered Elipolis from your hands. We half-expected that Vox would try such a thing with one civ or another, and had already made up our minds before we got to conquering Elipolis. That change would have posed no problem at the time, since we did not have a NAP nor any other agreements with GoW, and in fact we were still at a technical state of war after we were forced to remove two invaders from our shores. But frankly, we don't see how that situation is similar to the current one.

Hypothetically, if GoW were at peace with GS and had a NAP, we would have respected the NAP and used other routes to pursue Vox. One of the arguments raised for peace with Vox was the realization by GS that other teams would gift cities to Vox to keep them alive. GS was not interested in chasing Vox to the ends of the earth just to see them appear again on the other side.

If you accept Toledo or any other city beyond Bilbao it may be viewed as an act of war and violation of the before ratified NAP. We do not wish war with GS,

We were already in control of Toledo in your last turn, so your expression of concern over that acquisition comes a bit late. We have temporarily borrowed New Madrid from Spain for tactical reasons; both we and RP would consider it a tragedy if ND could walk into our new cities with a single unit, and the loan of New Madrid lets us get defenders to our new cities more quickly. But New Madrid will be returned to Spain shortly, and we have no plans to acquire any further Spanish cities.

We do not wish war with GoW, but neither are we willing to give up our sovereignty to avoid it. Please inform us of your final decision.

Sincerely,
The People of Gathering Storm.

**asleepathewheel** · July 27, 2003, 15:41

Good message, Nathans additions are great.

**Aeson** · July 27, 2003, 15:44

Not final...

If we are going to mix and match statements, someone needs to go through and rewrite it all to use a coherant writing style. I was using 'GS' and 'GoW', and it sounds clumbsy when combined with other paragraphs using 'we' and 'you'.

The phrase "We (reluctantly) decided to interfere with matters on Bob" needs to be reworked. 'Interfere' is definitely not the word we should be labeling our actions. It has a negative connotation, and makes it look like even we find our actions 'wrong'. The 'reluctantly' part is superflous and not the truth. I don't think we need to delve into how we feel we've been wronged at all, because it reads like an admission to what they are accusing us of. Read: "GoW wasn't nice to us, so we aren't being nice to GoW."

Just address their points, refute them, and leave it at that.

GS would not have enjoyed the inconvenience of a NAP partner holding Elipolis, but GS realizes the other teams do not exist to do our bidding or try to convenience us. GS expects other teams to honor any agreements made, and to act in their own best interests as allowed by those agreements.

I think this should be in the response to the Elipolis analogy, or something of a similar nature. It's the "answer", while the previous paragraphs were more an explaination of it.

--------------------------

It looks like now we should include a request that they withdraw their troops from our territory.

**Aeson** · July 27, 2003, 15:50

I don't think we should mention why we are in possession of NM. Maybe GoW will see it as RP giving us everything and them nothing... then they have a choice. Break the NAP to attack us outright, or go away.

Their arguments as to us accepting cities breaking the NAP don't hold any water. They look like they are trying to weasel out of the NAP, but in the end they'll have to be the ones to break it.

If GoW hears that we are giving NM right back, they are just going to keep heading S to take it from RP.

**notyoueither** · July 27, 2003, 16:55

Aeson is quite correct that we should not mention NM being temporary.

This is a turn of decision for GoW, let us not give them anything to make their decision to continue on easier.

**notyoueither** · July 27, 2003, 16:57

If it is OK with all of you, I would like to vet the final letter. Contact with GoW has been fast and chaotic. I would like to stay on top of it.

**DeepO** · July 27, 2003, 17:59

fine by me.. as long as a letter gets send out before we end our turn.

And I agree on keeping the "NM is temporary" info from them

DeepO

Announcement

GoW- Diplomacy comments #2

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment