NAPs with the Bobians?

[Shiber]

IMHO this deserves a separate thread from the topped one.

Originally posted by vulture
Some thoughts:

All the Bob civs are worried that we might be a factor in 'internal' affairs on Bob. Particularly if Vox do indeed disappear from our little island. Much to no-ones surprise, ND and GoW have offered NAPs. RP probably ought to be considering one too - although GoW are only seperated from us by 1 tiles of water, I think of us being closer to RP, simply because with our lighthouse shortcut, it is easier to get troops from our core to RP lands. From the chat logs, it appears that they are all worried about being on the wrong end of a 2 on 1 war on Bob, and are all worried that we are capable of shifting the balance of power.

I'd suggest that NAPs with both ND and GoW would be a bad idea. It would take RP all of three seconds to notice that if we are going to join in the fight at all, it would be against them. So I think that we can only have one NAP (or one publically announced one, but I wouldn't rely on a non-public one remaining secret, given that the Bob civs are probably all testing each other out to see how the alliances are going to stack up - it is the kind of info one team might offer up to persuade another that they are in a strong position, and then gets reported to the third team as a point of interest).

The alternative would be NAPs with all three Bob civs (if RP would go for it), as a declaration that we want to keep out of Bobs affairs for a while and let them deal with any military matters. While this has some advantages (they might let up on trying to out-maneouver us if they don't think we are a military threat for now) it does limit our ability to take advantage of the Bob situation should events turn out in a way that means we want to go and have a look around.

On the Lego front, do we really believe that they weren't one of the teams trying to organise an embargo against us. I know everyone will jump to the conclusion that it was RP, but it was ND and Lego who were stalling on buying Feudalism from us. It would make sense for Lego of course, since they particularly don't want us to get the Sistine, and don't want us growing into a threat to them. Plus why are they suddenly such good friends with Vox?

[Shiber]

My own thoughts:

A NAP with just one Bobian civ sounds like a good idea, but let's be sure to mention to them that we intend to sign a NAP with only one civ, because if we sign NAPs with two civs, the remaining civ will not take long (nor further evidence) to come to the conclusion that we are plotting against them, and if we sign NAPs with three civs, we might face a 3-pronged invasion on our continent when those NAPs expire.
This would be a subtle way of saying: possibly the most decisive war (and possibly the last one) in your civilization's history is about to begin, and the highest bidder will win a NAP with us; who would you like it to be, you or one of your enemies?

[Aeson]

I'm not sure any NAP's are a good idea. If we guess wrong, it could be game over for us. We become the runt (not counting Vox) if there are only 2 civs on Bob. Those two, and Lego, would all have roughly 1.5-2.5x the territory we do.

I think we need to remain unattached, so that if a 2 on 1 does break out, we can try and even things up if necessary.

[ManicStarSeed]

Yeah Shiber, I agree taht a seperat thread is needed...

Originally posted by Aeson
I'm not sure any NAP's are a good idea. If we guess wrong, it could be game over for us. We become the runt (not counting Vox) if there are only 2 civs on Bob. Those two, and Lego, would all have roughly 1.5-2.5x the territory we do.

I think we need to remain unattached, so that if a 2 on 1 does break out, we can try and even things up if necessary.

I agree with this, we do not want to tie our hand this way.

Our official stance can be such...

"GS feels that signing any NAPs will not bring any stability to Bob and can in fact lead to instability in the reigon. By signing one, we appear to be picking favorates (thus polarizing the other two), by signing with two, we are picking on someone and by siging with all three, we are saying that we are going to stay out of Bob affairs. While it is our current policy and that staying out of Bobs affairs is in everyones best interest, we perfer to act as a deterent by reserveing our right to get involved if we see fit. Put it this way, you will think twice before starting any aggression if we might get involved."

How is that?

Mss

[ManicStarSeed]

I would seriously consider signing a (20-40) turn 4-way NAP with ND,GoW and RP where we all commit to mutual non-agression, All parties are released from the treaty if one breaks it.

Mss

[zeit]

Like once was said- staying out of Bobian politics will be nearly impossible to keep doing for very much longer.

Once Vox is gone, we will be 1-tile from Bob, and projecting our cultural borders into it- this alone gives a feel of being Bobian, as much as England is part of continental Europe, as was said before.

I still believe that a NAP with one of the Bobians could be useful. This could be our diversion, if we choose to pick on Lego, for example...
I believe signing this would require re-consideration of the political balance in the world- which might cause many thing to happen, one of them might be a war on Bob- which we could use to hit on a Bobian civ or Lego. Perhaps this could cause a cold-war on Bob, weakening everyone, while know one gains supremacy.

But, if we're thinking of allying against Lego, perhaps this won't be a good move- as it would cause Bobians to deal with Bobians, and will turn attention away from Lego...

We indeed intend to have fun, but we wish to win as well- Lego is our target, in that case.

[DeepO]

Not having read all the discussion on this thread, I'd say one thing: I would like a 20-turn, not autimatically renewable, NAP with all temas (not just Bobians) on the same turn. Publicly announced if it needs to be. But make it very clear that we will not meddle in any foreign affairs for 20 turns only, after which we keep the right to take sides.

This would make things more interesting, in that it frees us from most long term commitments, in that it let us build up peacefully, in that it doesn't stop poossible Bobian self-aggresion, and in that it would give us time to build up diplomatically again. The problem is, of course, that it would deny us the possibility of opportunism (like e.g. taking a couple of RP cities if ND and GoW would ally), and that we can't hire the GoW either (which would be great fun, to start a war we're not involved in)

DeepO

[zeit]

and that we can't hire the GoW either

Who says we can't hire them for a future job...

[DeepO]

Zeit, not while we have a NAP with other teams... we can't hire the GoW against our public friends. That would be against honoralthough I have no problem whatsoever in hiring them against someone we have a trade agreement, but not a NAP or a PMM with.

DeepO

[alva]

Hmm, a short term NAP will do us good I think, it will give us some breathing space.
It will also give us a shot a seeing what goes on on BOB (as LEGO has done before).
See who comes to us for alliances and such once the NAP run out.

Let us be the puppetmaster for once.

[Arrian]

Speaking of hiring GoW, I'm not sure I ever want to. It's probably just me, but I don't like the idea of using mercenaries to do our dirty work.

As for the NAP idea... if we sign NAPs with all but Lego, Lego will think we're after them.

I think we might be better off just making luxury/resource deals and leaving it at that.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

I wouldn't mind signing a NAP as long as it is a true non-agression treaty, meaning that any unprovoked declaration of war against any other team would break the treaty.

Of course, 'unprovoked' would need to be defined. That way we could preserve our right to intervene on the part of an underdog (the small end of a 2 on 1) if necessary, and still give a guarantee that we won't attack our friends unless they go warmonger on their neighbor(s).

[Shiber]

Originally posted by DeepO
Not having read all the discussion on this thread, I'd say one thing: I would like a 20-turn, not autimatically renewable, NAP with all temas (not just Bobians) on the same turn. Publicly announced if it needs to be. But make it very clear that we will not meddle in any foreign affairs for 20 turns only, after which we keep the right to take sides.

I can already tell you what the Bobians would think. "They are waiting to see who turns out to be the underdog so that they could unite with him. Screw it, a war on Bob is not worth it if there's powerful outside interference that wishes to balance out the sides - let's unite against an off-Bob'er, preferably GS because they're trying to play us against each other."

[DeepO]

Maybe, Shiber. But it seems we have established one thing to all other teams: they all think that we are going to play it by the book. So if we offer NAPs (to everyone, including Lego), and sign them in-game (meaning they will get public due to embassies), they might take the shot in trying to fight on a 2 against 1 Bobian war. And even with their UUs, this will get messy enought to last longer then the 20 turns from now on, still leaving us the option to take sides later, or advantage from the situation.

In the current diplo context, we can't even mention to one team that we want to support them in a war (maybe only to ND), as it will immediately be used against us, and communicated to the others. And we don't want more isolation, I think.

DeepO

[Aeson]

If the 2 on 1 is against ND, it might not last 20 turns though. Almost certainly it would be over for all intents and purposes by that point.

A two front war... one against Riders, one against slowmovers coming up through the Jungles, with Mountains all the way through to their core, is too much for Ansars to take. Also consider that GoW is the one researching Chivalry... and are they going to trade it to ND if that's their target?

It could get very ugly for ND very fast.