Announcement

**notyoueither** · December 5, 2002, 23:51

Very welcome news.

On the topic of general directions, I do not know if it is kosher. I have stated my reservations about this before. Having thought about it a bit, I feel that trading some general information about map position MAY be OK... AFTER we have made contact with at least one other civ. At that point our position will be known (roughly) depending on where that contact takes place. At that point, it may be fine to say we are in the bottom, right quadrant. They can reply that they are in the ??? quadrant. At that point it may become moot (if they are in the upper left).

That being said, this overture should be encouraged.

**Meshelic** · December 5, 2002, 23:57

Ok diplomats (and team members), lets hear it out. We need ideas, opinions and questions. I shall provide the most up-to-date information here as time allows.

From the desk of the Foreign Minister

THE SIDES
Lux Invictica and Gathering Storm

MAJOR PLAYERS INVOLVED
Trip (LI) team leader
Admiral PJ (LI) official Foreign Minister
CalcII (LI) ambassador to GS

NYE (GS) team leader
Meshelic (GS) official Foreign Minister
Dominae (GS) ambassador to LI
-------

Lux Invictica player stance

Admiral PJ - Originator of alliance idea, is "receptive" and "enthusiastic" concerning the alliance.
Calc II - Supporter of alliance idea, is also "receptive" and "enthusiastic" concerning the alliance.
Trip - Witnessed the discussion of the alliance, is definetely "cautious", although "supportive".

Gathering Storm player stance

NYE - "enthusiastic" and "cautious"
Meshelic - co-architect of alliance plans, is
"enthusiastic" yet "cautious"
Dominae - "receptive", "cautious"

INFORMATION
Admiral PJ and Calc II contacted me in the public chat room, and in discussing these ideas we came to a few ideas that may work for us:

1.) TRUST - In order for an "alliance" to work, whether it be purely a mutual defense, a cultural exchange or an offensive alliance, both sides established that trust is a major issue, and ways need to be found where we can establish that trust and build upon it. Some ideas for these were:
(A) Trade mini-maps
(B) If no to 'A', then perhaps communicating general navigational information so both teams may contact each other in a nuetral location away from our start locations.
(C) If no to 'A' and 'B', then perhaps stating "general location" ie "we are in the western hemisphere", etc.
(D) IF YES TO ANY OF THE ABOVE - Admiral PJ suggested that maybe the GS plant a city in the Lux Invictican area, and they plant a city in our area. This means that both sides have an equal opportunity to lose if the deal falls through and we go to war, and if it doesn't, then both have cities that will stand the test of time.
Regardless of how we go about it, both sides need to establish a way to trust each other, and first contact is one of the main issues regarding "trust".

2.) LOCATION - In order to even establish good relations with each other to lead into a possible alliance, we will probably need to be willing to exchange information regarding both our locations so we may contact each other. The issues surrounding Location are the same as those that surround the issue of TRUST.

3.) MUTUAL GOALS
The Lux Invicticans desire greatly to have a tech trading partner, one who will research one spectrum of the tech chart while they research the other, and then we exchange technology that way.
They, like us, seek an active partner in the game with whom they can trade with, wage war alongside, and be there for mutual protection.
They also are aware of the potential threat the Glory of War presents.

So far this is all I have, off the top of my head. Once I get those log files from Admiral PJ then there shall be more to post. Watch for those files on our gatheringstorm email. and watch for updates here.

/edit changed Dominae from "enthusiastic" to "cautious"

**Meshelic** · December 6, 2002, 00:05

I have also suggested to the Admiral PJ and Trip that it may be in our best interests to hold a chat involving the key players in this alliance: Trip, AdmiralPJ, CalcII, NYE, Meshelic and Dominae. Possibly a good time is several days from now, maybe a week max. This way we can ask the questions that need answering, and make sure that the two teams are represented equally by 3 members involved in the process.

Sound like a good idea?

**asleepathewheel** · December 6, 2002, 00:13

I like the royal marriage.

I vote we send Alva off as the Bride.

Originally posted by Meshelic
1.) (A) Trade mini-maps

To dangerous, IMHO, right now. Don't want this to be a setup.

Originally posted by Meshelic
(B) If no to 'A',

I could see that, but what if they are on the opposite side of the map, would take a long time to get there, what then? what if we are on different islands?

Originally posted by Meshelic
(C) If no to 'A' and 'B', then perhaps stating "general location" ie "we are in the western hemisphere", etc.

Would be ok with me, general directions.

Originally posted by Meshelic
(D) IF YES TO ANY OF THE ABOVE - Admiral PJ suggested that maybe the GS plant a city in the Lux Invictican area, and they plant a city in our area.

Hmm. I'm not sure we want to waste a settler this early in the game (or at least before 0 ad). Unless they are next to us, it would take forever for the settler to get there and it would ahve to be escorted.

edit: and this city would be a corruption drag the whole game. Not to mention LI city could be used to spy on our unit movement.

Another thing-if it was in the heart of their territory, or even the outskirts, it would be susceptible to culture flip. Ah, but you can always decline that then, so nevermind

Originally posted by Meshelic
Regardless of how we go about it, both sides need to establish a way to trust each other, and first contact is one of the main issues regarding "trust".

I agree

Tech trading, I would be ok with....but I would never want to trade them a "war" or "wonder" tech unless traded another one. Very, Very dangerous.

I do agree that we should ally with someone against hte GoW and eviscerate them ASAP.

but, first send off Alva, then we'll work on the rest. (We could even name the unit to go make contact that

)

**notyoueither** · December 6, 2002, 00:26

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Another thing-if it was in the heart of their territory, or even the outskirts, it would be susceptible to culture flip. Ah, but you can always decline that then, so nevermind

In Simultaneous MP, you do not get a choice. I am not sure how it works in PBEM.

**Dominae** · December 6, 2002, 00:29

Comments from the Ambassador:

1. The proposed chat sounds great. Make it happen!

2. Meshelic, you describe me as Receptive and Enthusiastic. I would like to change that to Receptive and Cautious. Certainly, I'm enthusiastic toward the potential benefits of this alliance, but nothing is set in stone yet, so there's no point in getting too excited. For Caution, see the next point.

3. I must reiterate that, despite the assurances of trust, this could be a plot against us (call me paranoid, someone's got to bring these things up!). Not long ago we hear that many teams fear us for being the favored team. Now we get a message proposing a joyous alliance. How could LI betray us? Well, even if we're allies, there's plenty of information that they could give other teams about us that we would never dare give ourselves. For instance, trading maps with LI means knowing where we are as well. At worst, this could be an elaborate plot to pin us down so that the world can deal with us swiftly. Or, perhaps LI will provide techs to GoW "on the side" (in hopes of eliminating us).

4. At best, we've made an alliance that ensures scientific superiority over all other teams. LI is surely one of the better teams, and to benefit from their research would be a tremendous advantage. Also, if we end up on the same continent with other civs, militar endeavours would surely be a lot less painful.

5. Concerning the "city plant" (1d above): I don't see this as being useful. The city in question will surely be highly corrupt, so its worth as a token of trust is dubious. Also, wasting a Settler on a useless location isn't exactly strategically sound.

6. Proposal: As a way of exchaing location information as well as creating trust, perhaps we should agree to exchange cities for a period of, say, 3-5 turns. This should be done after contact in-game, of course, and ideally after initial expansion is over. Agreements would need to be made concerning the specifics of the exchange, such as no selling of improvemnts, etc. Perhaps highly dangerous, for this very reason there is nothing that says: "I trust you" more than giving up a city. Conveniently, it would be very difficult to severely cripple us in event of a betrayal, short of razing the city.

I look forward to new developments on this surprising proposal.

Dominae

**notyoueither** · December 6, 2002, 00:31

Originally posted by Meshelic
(B) If no to 'A', then perhaps communicating general navigational information so both teams may contact each other in a nuetral location away from our start locations.

An intriguing idea. It could take time to set up, but it would be possible some turns down the road.

We explore Northward and discover a mountain range about middle of the map above us. We establish whether they are on the same side (left/right) as us. We describe the mountains to them and they send someone to meet our scout.

This keeps general geographical information verrryyy general and facilitates contact. I would be in favour of such activities. It will take a while though before it is possible.

**asleepathewheel** · December 6, 2002, 00:33

Originally posted by Dominae
6. Proposal: As a way of exchaing location information as well as creating trust, perhaps we should agree to exchange cities for a period of, say, 3-5 turns. This should be done after contact in-game, of course, and ideally after initial expansion is over. Agreements would need to be made concerning the specifics of the exchange, such as no selling of improvemnts, etc. Perhaps highly dangerous, for this very reason there is nothing that says: "I trust you" more than giving up a city. Conveniently, it would be very difficult to severely cripple us in event of a betrayal, short of razing the city.

how many cities are you talking about? and for how long? I mean, how many 3-5 turn periods? Each time we trade, it would destroy all cultural improvements, so it would ahve to be a small city, not needing a temple.

**Dominae** · December 6, 2002, 00:44

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

how many cities are you talking about? and for how long? I mean, how many 3-5 turn periods? Each time we trade, it would destroy all cultural improvements, so it would ahve to be a small city, not needing a temple.

Ideally, it would be a city with no Cultural improvements, somewhere clost to the heart of our empire (i.e. a Settler/Worker factory). I'm only suggesting we do one such trade, just to show we mean business. LI gets a nice look at our homeland, and if they're nice enough they might even build (rush!) an improvement for us. Obviously, we obtain the same benefits from them. As I mentioned, the potential harm is minimal, other than revealing ourselves (which is the point).

Dominae

**asleepathewheel** · December 6, 2002, 00:46

Originally posted by Dominae

Ideally, it would be a city with no Cultural improvements, somewhere clost to the heart of our empire (i.e. a Settler/Worker factory). I'm only suggesting we do one such trade, just to show we mean business. LI gets a nice look at our homeland, and if they're nice enough they might even build (rush!) an improvement for us. Obviously, we obtain the same benefits from them. As I mentioned, the potential harm is minimal, other than revealing ourselves (which is the point).

Dominae

Oh, ok, I see what you mean. I wouldn't have a problem with that

**Meshelic** · December 6, 2002, 00:49

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

I could see that, but what if they are on the opposite side of the map, would take a long time to get there, what then? what if we are on different islands?

We discussed that as well. Odds are, MUCH of this depends solely on location. However, we would need to find out beforehand where each other are in the first place, and if it turned out that we were both on different islands across the ocean, then much of what we discuss is a mute point. We have to prepare ourselves with the "what-if-they-are-on-the-same-continent-as-us?" question.

Assuming we are seperated by large oceans, or cannot get to each other, then this is all mute, and the Lux Invicticans understand that.

Which makes it ...eh, risky if we tell them where we are.

Meeting in a nuetral place sounds like the best proposal we could figure out so far. But there could be better ones out there.

**nbarclay** · December 6, 2002, 00:50

The first step in negotiating a possible meeting is probably to find out if we're in the same hemisphere. If so, we could try to refine coordinates for a meeting in a neutral location as we go (maybe start off by both sending a unit toward the center of the hemisphere and give away more details for more precise vectoring as we start meeting other civs). If not, there's probably not much point in trying to set up a meeting at this stage of the game.

I'm really not sure what the point would be in having cities in each others' territory. Corruption would make their hostage value essentially zero (aside from purely symbolic value), but a "hostage" city along the border could actually make betrayal easier because it could be used as a staging area. (Think Trojan Horse.)

Nathan

**asleepathewheel** · December 6, 2002, 00:53

Originally posted by nbarclay
but a "hostage" city along the border could actually make betrayal easier because it could be used as a staging area. (Think Trojan Horse.)

Nathan

I certainly agree. And since this is PBEM, we won't see their moves, will we? I mean, if we have a ROP, they could move tons of units to that city without us knowing, right?

Scary

**Meshelic** · December 6, 2002, 00:54

Trading a city with them for a couple of turns is potentially a good solution, but then again, we would still have to make contact with them first.

I suggest we tell them which hemisphere we are in and they tell us. Simply knowing that will clear up many issues for us in the first place.

Announcement

NEWS! An alliance with Lux Invictica??

NEWS! An alliance with Lux Invictica??

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment