Current trade proposals

[vulture]

This is a list of trade proposals currently being discussed, collected into one place 'cos it's getting confusing to keep track of everything. Please feel free to update and add things as and when appropriate.


Neu Demogyptica

• Active
  Turn 230 we ended our fake war, and renew our spice and incense for furs and incense deal. Further, we get silks.
  We need to pay them again in turn 250 for their third lux
  
  AT given on turn 234
  Navigation given on turn 237
  Espionage arrived in turn 240 for us (NDA until 260)
  
  in turn 245, we received 500 gold. And sent computers in return
  In turn 246, we receive another 100 g (was a mistake the turn before, should have gotten 600).
  Normally, in turn 255, ND gives us rocketry. We respond by giving them 500 gold back (the 100 g difference to account for the difference in beaker cost)
  

Glory of War

• Active
  Wines for furs (started turn 160)
  given atmoic theory and combustion to Gow on turn 228 (NDA 248)
  Electronics on turn 229(NDA 249)
  Mass Transport on turn 230 (NDA 250)
  
  rubber deal renewed in turn 245 (should end in 265).
  We received 500 g in 245. Another 1070 g should follow in the coming turns, payment for computers, which are theirs when they ask for it.
  
  Does anyone know the precise date for the gems for incense deal? It is active in 244, but we can't check the active deals screen without crashing.
  

Roleplay

• Active
  Vassal treaty (terms and conditions)
  We give furs, incense and iron
  They give 100 gold per turn, amount subject to change
  We give techs once they are devalued

Vox

• News
  Communism for 2 lux (Furs and Incense), recieved turn 214, lux sent (near future, To be updated as and when sent)
  one lux sent on turn 227. The other still to be asked for.
• Being negotiated

[Arrian]

Let's keep all of our luxury deals as Lux-Lux, so that if we have to break them to jump in on a Bobian war, we're not in a position where we got a tech or something else up front for a promise of luxuries for 20 turns, and then screwed the other team.

-Arrian

[vulture]

Changed formatting a bit and included new GoW info.

Have we explained to other teams our position re lux-lux deals being cancellable at any time?

[OPD]

Originally posted by vulture
Have we explained to other teams our position re lux-lux deals being cancellable at any time?

whats the deal with that?

[vulture]

Originally posted by OPD
whats the deal with that?

Iy was in some other thread. The idea is that if we don't want to sign NAPs with the Bobians, and we won't break our word, then we can't sign guaranteed 20 turn lux-lux deals, since it is a guarantee that we won't attack our trading partner - a NAP in effect (but probably not offering us the same position). So we should treat lux-lux deals as indefinite, cancellable at any time by either party (maybe with a few turns notice). Otherwise we may give up the chance to intervene on Bob when it is necessary (or give up our reputation as being honourable).

[notyoueither]

UnO from GoW asked if we would consider a DoW on a civ while a lux deal was in place to be breaking an agreement. I told him that was a good question, and we would certainly consider those implications.

We are not commited to treating Lux deals as NAPs.

[DeepO]

Shouldn't we need to tell others we're closing lux deals with what we think is honorable, and what's not?

DeepO

[Arrian]

Yeah, probably.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

well, do we know already what is acceptable? I find a instant breaking of Lux by declaring war unacceptable, we need at least one turn warning (so that others can adjust their Lux sliders)

DeepO

[vulture]

I agree that it certainly shouldn't be done without warning. We should negotiate e.g. a 2 or 4 (or whatever) turn notification for cancelling lux-lux trades. Have to be careful though, since (at the moment) a technical declaration of war to cancel the trade may screw up other trade routes as well, while disconnecting harbours or resources may mess up the wrong deal. Once all Bob civs have harbours (and we have a harbour), then given the lighthouse, interrupting other trades shouldn't be an issue.

[zeit]

I say that 2-turn warning is good enough...

Gives enough time for each team to try and negotiate another deal if they can, and adjust themselves properly.

I wouldn't want us to make a big issue out of this, since we don't want to further delay the deals which are already in place. We should mention that this is how we see the nature of the deal (indefinite, cancelable at any time, with a warning beforehand), diregarding the technical issues of the game mechanics which set the deals to a 20 turns period (btw, does anyone know why Firaxis hasn't added a "set length of deal" feature, its kind of weird everything has to be set to 20 turns, especially in MP...).

[Shiber]

Zeit,
IMHO it'd be best if you sent another PM to UnOrthO, explaining our logic (that lux deals are ongoing turn-by-turn trades, unlike e.g. a lux for a tech, where the party that is giving the lux would be advantaged out of cancelling the agreement before the 20 turns are over).

[notyoueither]

No more than 1 turns warning should be required before a DoW. None of the other teams are operating under our self imposed restriction to never break the spirit, if not the letter of a deal, as far as I can tell. Let's not be chumps.

[notyoueither]

Tabernac!

zeit, why did you include a statement about 2 turn warning in the message to GoW? Don't you think the economists and military would want to say something about that? Don't you think it would be good if the team agrees before stating a policy on our behalf to other teams? Don't you think it would be a good idea to at least check with MSS first, or his assistant (I think that's me)?

Please don't take this wrong. However, I am extremely frustrated with the 10 individuals do whatever the hell they want approach to our foreign policy. We have shot ourselves in the foot a number of times, and I think it is way past time we had a little more cohesion in this area. That will require people to reign themselves in and perhaps to respect a chain of command in diplomacy.

How do you think the economists would react if we each took turns at random playing the turn and doing whatever we felt like with workers and work force? I'm pretty sure someone would have something to say. We are the power we are now because we have capable economists, one of them is running that show, and no one messes with it.

We have been a basket case diplomatically, largely because we have lacked that same direction and consistency with foreign policy and diplomacy. I would like to see that change.

Am I making sense? Does anyone agree with me?

[OPD]

You are making sense.

Not that I take offence to what you say. But how do you expect people to act when there is no direction given? other than to do what they think best. You are in charge if you give someone direction they will follow. The people in charge of foreign affairs need to be more active in setting policy and telling amabassadors to do things. That is where cohesion will come from.