DIPLO: map trading

[Meshelic]

I'm glad you're keeping an eye on them Zeit. That information is very helpful and could prove useful to us.

Let me clarify myself a little bit. When I said I recommended "taking a hard stance" against GoW, I do not mean that we should outright oppose them, just that we should consider them (for the time being, depending on location) "High Alert" and should monitor them carefully. The GoW is so willing to wage war all across the board, and they are led by many capable leaders. We must not underestimate them.

I wouldn't want us to appear as blatantly targeting any specific civ. That sheds some poor light on our rep and it's not in our best interests anyway. It'd be safe to say our diplomatic stance is cautious.

[DeepO]

Well, I was thinking on this yesterday, and perhaps there is a way to use this. At this time, it serves both sides if we knew the others location, and doesn't do any good. So, swapping minimaps doesn't seem to be so bad, especially not if we can use the one before we are settled. It hardly has any information on it, in our case it only has 9 tiles which aren't black. It changes once we got settled, and will certainly change when we are going scouting.

How I would go with this: The legos seem to be willing partners, or at least they aren't aggresive towards us. Why don't I propose a deal with them, to test them out. We could package it as a test-of-trust or something, in that we announce it as a secret deal, and ask that all information gained is to be kept between the two teams, other teams aren't even allowed to know there was a trade.
Then, we ask them to swap minimaps at 4000 BC. We quickly find out if they are close or not, we get some idea of the general layout of the land, but all very minimal. We would be able to see if they are on a coast or not. Not much is gained, not much is lost if we give this to them either, our minimap is the most general one you could imagine, nothing can be seen from that (expect the position of our capital, of course).

Further advantages are that this is kept outside the normal map trading in game (which I will strongly object to), so that this knowledge doesn't automatically go to another civ if they somehow get access to the lego world map. But most importantly, it is probably the only balanced trade possible in this game: we are exactly the same right now, and both teams gain just as much as they lose. It's only done because we want a better relation with them, not because we need it in a way.

I'd first go with the legos here, and after that try some other teams as well, especially the RPGers and demogyptica (if they have protected fora already).

DeepO

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by DeepO
Not much is gained, not much is lost if we give this to them either, our minimap is the most general one you could imagine, nothing can be seen from that (expect the position of our capital, of course).

I'm not sure you realize just how big an advantage knowing more or less the exact whereabouts of an enemy capital can be in planning an early attack. With enemies not knowing where we are, we can pretty much count on its taking some time for them to bring together a strike force after they find us. But if they know, they can assemble everything they have to attack us (assuming they're willing to neglect their own defenses). As long as Legoland keeps faith with us, there shouldn't be a problem, but if they don't.... And trading minimaps more widely would add to the danger.

Also, I question the propriety of exchanging such information prior to the discovery of Map Making. It would be good if the team leaders or representatives thereof could get together and hammer out definitive rules about whether "anything goes" with exchanging such information or whether we want to wait for Map Making (and, for that matter, whether it's acceptable to exchange maps or portions thereof outside the game mechanism).

Nathan

[nbarclay]

I just gamed it out, and with three grassland with shield tiles, China can build a barracks, four archers, and a spearman by the time they build their second settler (and that's just in their capital). Note that this entire five-unit force would be all veterans. Maybe that explains a little better why I want to make sure GoW doesn't know where we are without wasting some time scouting if they start near us.

Nathan

[DeepO]

Nathan, I was certainly not going to give this information to the GoW! I am aware of the potential risk of giving away your position too early, however, that knive cuts both ways. It would be a sign of common trust if 2 teams could agree on this...

Plus, I strongly doubt that anyone other than the GoW is going to archer rush us, whether they know our capital or not. The legos certainly not... And even if they don't get the minimap, scouting with 5 units would quickly find us if we are close anyway...

I still don't know, I'm not saying we should do this, but I find it the debate worthy to discuss it. It is, in my mind, not a Yes / No thing of which you instantly see what is at stake, or can be won, it needs some thinking over. (at least from my side). It boils down to either going for safe isolation, or taking some risk, and possibly finding a game-long friend...

DeepO

[ManicStarSeed]

I would assume that this would not work for the Roleplay team until we at least get map making and established contact.

I say no map trading. The second we trade or give our map, then an opponent has a piece of information about us to sell. Unless it is an agreed upon trade and all act honorably, we will be in a worse position in regards to map knowledge. This idea is dangerous as our "enemies" can know too much at this time.

Mss

[nbarclay]

I know we aren't planning to give GoW our minimap, but once a cat is let out of a bag, there's no guaranteeing where it might decide to go. I wouldn't be too concerned with respect to the Legos (although my paranoia would still itch a bit), but the more people know a secret, the greater the risk that someone will compromise it.

As for the idea that five units could find us quickly, a symmetric search pattern would have some of their forces just as far away from them as we are, but in the opposite direction, while an asymmetric pattern would have a good chance of missing us entirely depending on what direction they focus on. Further, the need to guard the home cities against human opponents would make archers awfully expensive for exploration. But if they don't need to explore before they have a target, the prospects for gambling on an ultra-early rush become a lot better.

Nathan

[alva]

How about, if we start by probing,
for example by asking and telling wich side of the map
we/they are located???
That way we don't give any vital info away,
but at least we get an idea where they are located.
(are they near us, or won't we see them until the late middleages)

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alva848
How about, if we start by probing,
for example by asking and telling wich side of the map
we/they are located???
That way we don't give any vital info away,
but at least we get an idea where they are located.
(are they near us, or won't we see them until the late middleages)

That sounds a lot more workable. Then if it looks like we might be neighbors, we can consider trading more precise information. (Assuming trading such information before Map Making is considered a legitimate practice.)

[notyoueither]

Would people please stop looking for a way around the desires of many that the map not be traded in whole or in part, please?!

This is like a proposal with suicidal possibilities and trying to amend it slightly so it would be less suicidal. You reduce the odds from 1 in 500 to 1 in 1000, then you hit the 1 in 1000 number and 20 of us have flushed 100's of hours each.! Grrr!

I apologise, but I feel that little or no attention is being paid to the crux of the matter. Map information is more valuable than anything else in this game. If winning friends requires putting our heads in the noose, I would rather have no friends.

[notyoueither]

Instead of just being a grump, let me propose a scenario.

We merely talk with people. In the course of talking we learn their general locale, and they ours. So some team finds out that we are in the South East corner of the mini map. Now, it turns out they are in the central area. GoW is beneath them and West of us.

Lego meets GoW. Lego does not like being the only civ in contact with GoW. Lego tells GoW that we are to their East so that GoW has something to distract them. Now 2 teams know where we are (roughly).

During the course of a few days and many chat room sessions, word spreads that we are where we are. Now GoW, and whoever is North of us, as well as anyone who is East of us knows roughly where we are.

Are these teams looking at each other the way they see us? If you were on Lux, would you be looking for an edge against us, or against Vox? Right, I think most other teams would put getting an edge against us quite high on their priority list. So how do they do that by just knowing that we are in the SE area?

Whenever they have a choice of which direction to send an explorer, whenever they have a roughly equal choice of where to send a settler, they would send them towards that hole on the map that is the Gathering Storm. We could have civs to the West, North, and East all sending more towards us than they ever would if they were blindly deciding.

Until we settle a lot of land, we cannot keep the explorers out. How could we? If they come through before we settle a site, they will see when and where we build that next city. They will get a much better idea of what needs be done if they ever come to blows with us. In short, they will gain an edge.

So, who really wants to send up flares?

[Meshelic]

NYE I agree, how about we not even consider giving a part of our map away until another team approaches us with a worthwhile deal? And at that time, go on and decide from there what to do.

Maps are probably not worth trading away. There are other ways to trade with countries.

[notyoueither]

Mesh, I would not trade our map, or any map information for anything. Keep in mind that knowledge of us is more valuable to others than knowledge of others to others, if that makes sense.

Wait. It will become apparent how valuable that information is. If others are fools, let us reap the harvest. Let us not plant for others.

[zeit]

I agree with NYE on the map trade- we should try to avoid it as much as possible. We can't build trust by risking ourselves- that means we don't have enough trust to begin with (political remark: perhaps this was the problem with the oslo agreements-trust was not built before signing it, and wasn't built as fast as expected while implemented, so it was constantly violated by both sides). We can't built trust by just sharing power (=trading maps) this will only make each look more dangerous in the eyes of the other- which leads to distrust. We must have (or at least seem to) some common interests we can agree to work together towards (like each one having more luxuries=trading luxuries).

[DeepO]

Hmmm... NYE, I take your point, however I don't fully agree with it. I think there is a big difference between map information, and maps themselves... But enough of that, I agree on your examples, and general idea of map trading.

But let me ask an other question then: how are we going to build trust with one of the teams, wich is not built on need itself? Of course, trading lux would be good, but that can't happen until later in the game, and the first thing you do it for is because you want the lux itself. Indeed, you trust the other party a little, but there is no risk, hence not the true trust you would earn by trading minimaps.

I consider this a problem: we will need allies, and I would very much like the idea of longterm allies, instead of just buying a friend when you need one. Starting with deals long before we really need them would be a good idea, in this respect... but other then the minimaps, I'm not sure what we could use that doesn't damage us if abused by the other party. Any suggestions?

DeepO