Overall Diplomatic Situation

[notyoueither]

I am very concerned with how the majority of other civs perceive us, and what our prospects for finding friends will be. Meshelic posted something that caught my eye and I feel the topic deserves a thread of its own.

Meshelics news:

I discussed the talent issue with Panzer32 and a couple of other diplomats on the Apolyton chat (purely unnoficial, as it was a surprise so many foreign ministers were there all of a sudden). From the talks I had there, I gathered from the others there that we are :

1.) VERY intimidating
2.) thought to be likely game winner
3.) probably superior in most aspects of the game

Either we should be wary that the others may gang up on us if they are too intimidated, or we should take advantage of their fears?

[Theseus]

/somewhat facetious

How about we declare war on GoW? As long as everyone else is polite to us?

/end facetious

This is actually a serious problem. I am sure, pending map issues and locations, that the other teams are discussing how to deal with GS. We should assume that we have been 'targeted.'

I think what everyone will be watching for will be our relations with our first known neighbors... ultra-early warfare? buddies?

Don't forget, diplomacy has a whole new nature (not SP).

Courtesy of some of the Strategy Forum regulars (moi?), they'll be expecting the worst.

Heck, even if we play nice, I've gotta think that the players who *know* us will be on top military alert at all times.

Apologies to the builders in GS, but we've got to be realistic about how we are viewed.

[notyoueither]

Now my comment.

I feel very vulnerable on our strength. It is entirely possible that too many other cvs will regard us as too big a threat to ignore. That might lead to an easy to arrange 2 on 1 against us early in the game. Very bad news indeed.

Therefore I propose the following.

1. No member of Gathering Storm say anything in the least bit threatening to other teams or team members in the public forum or any other chat unless that is the stance we all agree to vis-a-vis that civ. Intimidate when it is good to do so. We are already intimidating enough without adding to the rep with other potential friends.

2. For those prone to chit-chat, please seek out opinions about us at any opportunity without seeming to be too... paranoid. If the topic comes up ask what about us people fear. Do not go out digging for it, it will come to you if you are patient.

3. Again for those prone to chit-chat, waste no opportunity to let others know that we are likely to be quite happy to build, and build, and build. Sorry Theseus, but the more others can accept that we are not heck-bent on leather to build mixed armies of conquest, the less likely we are to face the 2 or 3 on 1 that we all would rather avoid. The time will come when we are secure, and we can take advantage of opportunities, which brings me to...

4. A general discussion of the reprecussions for us if we were to start wars rather than intervening in them.

Situation A. A war starts between civ a and civ b. It will happen. We are a neighbour of one or both. Who can blame us for picking a side that we would benefit from?

Situation B. We pick a civ and go after them out of the blue. Right there we may well pick up 5 additional enemies. If we are regarded as a threat, and we reinforce that view, we will reap what we sow at an early date.

Finally, there should be absolutely ZERO discussion of our start, beyond 'it is OK, not as bad as it could have been'. Any gloating of any kind can only heighten fears that we will be coming for them, soon. We need to allay these fears, not encourage them. Or have I got this wrong?

[nbarclay]

Pardon me for intruding in affairs of the Great Embassy, but...

If another civ has its heart set on winning, such a perception of us could easily paint a nice, big, fat bullseye on us. But if a civ merely wants to do well (as may be the case with LegoLand and RP), our reputation could make us the most potent ally they could hope to have and the civ they most want to be friends rather than enemies with. I don't feel comfortable trying to sell a strong "we're your friends" message to a civ we're planning to conquer eventually, but if long-term partnership is practical, we may be able to parley our reputation into trade partnerships and informal alliances. Another thing our reputation may do is buy us some time if prospective enemies are reluctant to try to take us on one on one and don't have help nearby, although I wouldn't count on it. (If GoW is next door, hitting us with archers before we get horses hooked up would have to be at least a little bit tempting.)

Nathan

[Theseus]

Hot topic... multiple cross-posts.

[Theseus]

nye, I totally bow to the needs of the team (i.e., no more Trash Talk )

Seriously, agreed with all above.

Diplomats, your job is tougher and more crucial ever.

Humans!!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by nbarclay
If another civ has its heart set on winning, such a perception of us could easily paint a nice, big, fat bullseye on us. But if a civ merely wants to do well (as may be the case with LegoLand and RP), our reputation could make us the most potent ally they could hope to have and the civ they most want to be friends rather than enemies with. I don't feel comfortable trying to sell a strong "we're your friends" message to a civ we're planning to conquer eventually, but if long-term partnership is practical, we may be able to parley our reputation into trade partnerships and informal alliances.

Excellent food for thought. The best possible scenario for us is to be seen as the strong, yet reasonable and honourable team. Others will seek our friendship and protection (for which we do not extort).

The worst possible scenario is that we be seen as the Mongols of this world. Those who all fear, and none trust except to pillage them.

[Theseus]

That's how I like to play anyway.

Better. Strong. Honorable.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by notyoueither
1. No member of Gathering Storm say anything in the least bit threatening to other teams or team members in the public forum or any other chat unless that is the stance we all agree to vis-a-vis that civ. Intimidate when it is good to do so. We are already intimidating enough without adding to the rep with other potential friends.

I couldn't agree more.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Excellent food for thought. The best possible scenario for us is to be seen as the strong, yet reasonable and honourable team. Others will seek our friendship and protection (for which we do not extort).

The ideal would be if wars fought on behalf of allies can pay for themselves through territory captured from the enemies of those allies. That would make our wars worthwhile without collecting a single gold from our friends. The second best case is if a neighbor attacks us at a foolish time, giving us an excuse to finish them (or at least wreck them) without the diplomatic "hit" of having started it. And I'm not sure anyone would shed tears if we take out Glory of War even if we're the ones who start it; mercenaries tend to have a hard time making genuine friends.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Theseus
That's how I like to play anyway.

Better. Strong. Honorable.

I am very happy that we agree.

Originally posted by nbarclay
The ideal would be if wars fought on behalf of allies can pay for themselves through territory captured from the enemies of those allies. That would make our wars worthwhile without collecting a single gold from our friends. The second best case is if a neighbor attacks us at a foolish time, giving us an excuse to finish them (or at least wreck them) without the diplomatic "hit" of having started it. And I'm not sure anyone would shed tears if we take out Glory of War even if we're the ones who start it; mercenaries tend to have a hard time making genuine friends.

Very. Wars should pay for themselves by our gains. The less we impose on others the better. Asking for a tech might not be bad. 'We'd love to, but we are researching right now. Could you help us out by giving us Iron Working? Then we do not have to wait.'

GoW? I think they are the exception to everything said so far, almost. I still would not like them to see us as required to go through to survive if they start close.

I am certain that Theseus and Arrian could stand us in good stead with War Chariots. Sir Ralph and I are no slouches either (among many others). However, it would be better to pick our own time for that reckoning.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by notyoueither

GoW? I think they are the exception to everything said so far, almost. I still would not like them to see us as required to go through to survive if they start close.

I am certain that Theseus and Arrian could stand us in good stead with War Chariots. Sir Ralph and I are no slouches either (among many others). However, it would be better to pick our own time for that reckoning.

The reason I make a special point regarding GoW is that if they start next to us, "our own time" had better be before they get Riders or we could find ourselves hurting pretty badly. They're avowedly militaristic enough that a preemptive strike to take them out before they get Riders could quite reasonably be construed as merely a matter of self-defense (and defense of anyone else they might choose to target).

On the other hand, we definitely don't want to make such a plan public. They'll probably suspect that the situation will come down to either them or us, but I'd much rather they just think we're the enemy than know we're the enemy.

[notyoueither]

I think our time would be with horse and sword, should they start near and should the situation allow.

Although, I am not afraid of defending against Riders with interior lines. They die as easily as Knights, and our roads would tip the balance. Assuming of course that we are bigger than they and can better afford a war. That is what it comes down to, against most any civ.

[Shiber]

Regarding the chit-chat issues, I must agree with NYE. I myself have been doing that for the past 48 hours and I've come up with the fact that most civs are satisfied with their starting locations, but nothing more as of yet. Still, I'm patient.
Regarding foreign affairs, I think that we have two primary options:
1. Find the civ that has the most success building (and therefore are afraid of war) and come up with some treaty where we'll be protecting them in exchange for goods (tech, gold, lux etc'). Then we can announce that anyone who attacks this civ messes with us and hope that our reputation is intimidating enough, and that the other teams are too divided.
2. Find the civ that has the greatest military strength and ally with them in the same manner.
All in all, we can't be friends with everyone. We have to identify an ally or two as fast as possible.

[nbarclay]

I think the main point right now is that we want to avoid weakening any diplomatic bridges that we might want to cross later. Until we see what kind of land mass we're starting on and who else is on it, we have no idea what balance between building and fighting will work best for us. If we start on a land mass alone with Glory of War and it's big enough, we might even want to engage them as research partners, perish the thought.

By the way, we also need to be careful not to get so caught up in resource denial that we get neighbors mad at us (except maybe if we're in a strong enough position that we want them to pick a fight). Going deep into another civ's territory to found a city where we can see a resource they can't, for example, would be asking for trouble, especially if we already have other supplies of the same resource.