Dimplo Scholia: - Vox Controli - comments

[nbarclay]

I know I'm not a diplomat, but the economic and tactical remifications of this situation are so enormous that I can't resist sticking my nose in. Here's a draft of a possible response for the diplomats' consideration.

You responded to our first proposal with the words, "Regarding the question of further exploration, we feel that at this early stage of our existence, it is important to both our civilizations to learn more about the world around us. We of Vox Controli recognize your right to expand your horizons. We humbly request that you recognize ours."

However, the positioning of your warrior Thadeus raises serious questions about your sincerity. If you truly believe in our right to expand our horizons, why do you have a warrior positioned in a way that seems deliberately designed to prevent us from doing so? And if you do not in fact believe that exploration on each other's side of the isthmus is a right, how do you justify your insistance on continuing to explore our side?

At first glance, your actions appear to be the height of hypocrisy. Worse, they appear to be a use of military power to try to gain a clear advantage over us, which would not be far from constituting an act of war. You appear to be implicitly saying that might makes right, and that it is okay for you to grant yourselves access that you deny us merely because you have the power to do so.

We can only hope that this situation stems merely from an oversight on your part, and that on further reflection, you will recognize the importance of reciprocity in relationships between nations. Otherwise, the effect on relations between our peoples cannot be anything but chilling. How can two nations possibly build a lasting friendship when one uses military power to unilaterally grant itself an advantage over the other?

And to give it further weight, attach not just the ambassador's signature but also the signatures of Sir Ralph as team leader, myself as chief economist, and Arrian and Theseus as joint chiefs of military operations.

Edit:

Incorporated Alva's "try to."

[alva]

1. Regarding the question of further exploration, we feel that at this early stage of our existence, it is important to both our civilizations to learn more about the world around us. We of Vox Controli recognize your right to expand your horizons. We humbly request that you recognize ours.

(our answer: note that this a work in progress)
You of Vox recognice our right to learn more about the world, yet you block the way!!
1 -We must ask you to let us through
2 - stop your exploring down south

( -If they don’t let us through, this will indicate, we are very close to their borders
(if so)
- they can’t refuse halting their warriors)

[nbarclay]

We probably also ought to contact both of the other religious civs, Roleplay and Demogyptica (one at a time), let them know that we have encountered Vox, and ask if they have. (They are, after all, the prime suspects.) We could also point out that if they have, there would be significant advantages if we could trade technology directly rather than allowing Vox to profit from all trades by playing middleman. If Vox faces diplomatic pressure from two civs, they might be more willing to relent and allow contact.

Nathan

[alva]

I like it Nathan

Perhaps dropping the word "war" (to soon? I agree to that word for the next message though )

hmm, maybe ;aggresion ? ( Damned, My English isn't good enough..)

power to gain a clear advantage over us

hmm, to try to gain an advantage...
(we don't want them to THINK we are weak..)

And try to give them a backdoor, an excuse to give in...
something like this

We can only hope that this situation stems merely from an oversight on your part,

We are sure that this situation is merely...

That way, they have the chance to say,:
"what?, oh yeah, oops, sorry.. haha, seems like we missed that,"

[Randolph]

I like Nathan's letter (no time for commets). We need to send a clear message that will (hopefully) get a clear answer.

[zeit]

Hmm...
Just as i suspected- the winds are blowing in the ways of war, and Vox have (almost) every advantage. I think that any compromise with the Vox, when they have a clear advantage would be foolish, since the full potential of blocking the isthmus can't be exploited- we should have no fear of being stern, and even subtely threatning them- should their warriors continue on their march north (potentialy taking the isthmus with two warriors and/or taking out those warriors on our land- as an act of self defence).

On this note, i should also repeat my plan- to expose information of our lux and contacts, to other teams- in order to find out who is out there behind the Vox, and to better position ourself in the coming conflict. That is, of course unless diplomacy works it out- which seems unlikely after Vox's chilling responses, and Eli's searches for an attack strategy against our fast moving WC. But, we can always hope.

[nbarclay]

Would we really capture the full seriousness of how we view their actions if we don't say that they're close to being enough to start a war over? Certainly, we don't want a war right now, but if they persist in their current course of action, aren't they practically guaranteeing war about as soon as we can get the appropriate military techs and Monarchy? The goal (as I see it) is to convince them of the seriousness of their actions without making actual threats or telegraphing when and how the military response would come.

I think "we can only hope that" provides a sufficient way out. If they give the "what?, oh yeah, oops, sorry.. haha, seems like we missed that," response, they are merely confirming our hopes. But "we can only hope that" also carries a connotation that we may be preparing for what to do if our hopes are proven wrong.

Nathan

[zeit]

This is indeed a last ditch effort- if they won't draw their forces now- what are our options? open threats? early war?
I think we should seriously consider attacking their two scouts, when we have the chance for it, even without warning, perhaps after us telling them that we consider the isthmust between us as a border. This gives us excuse of attacking them- which is an action we must consider, given the danger of them scouting us, and probably preparing for war.

[nbarclay]

Maybe we could consider hitting their warriors when we have the advantage of veteran warriors vs. regular. ("Your warriors are have violated the Reciprocity in Exploration Act, and have been sentenced to death. We do not wish war, but we cannot tolerate a prolonged, deliberate violation of our laws and our territorial integrity.") But I don't like the idea of attacking without both qualitative and quantitative superiority.

Nathan

[zeit]

Achieving a local superiority of numbers is possible even right now- if the Hack and Ouch move to cover the patch of grassland between the mountain ranges, an assault against the warrior would most likely end in Willy's demise. And in 3 turns- we get an extra warrior, and i won't object sending him- to make sure we end the threat of them scouting all over our lands.

[alva]

why do you have a warrior positioned in a way that seems deliberately designed to prevent us from doing so

[vox]
no, he's just here to prevent barbs comming through..
[/vox]
[gs
well, will you move him
[/gs
[vox]
we will have to discus that thoroughly with the whole team..
[/vox]

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by zeit
Achieving a local superiority of numbers is possible even right now- if the Hack and Ouch move to cover the patch of grassland between the mountain ranges, an assault against the warrior would most likely end in Willy's demise. And in 3 turns- we get an extra warrior, and i won't object sending him- to make sure we end the threat of them scouting all over our lands.

As I recall, all terrain offers a defense bonus, so odds that we lose a warrior in an attack are higher than the odds that Vox loses one. Numerical superiority could offset that somewhat, but if we get unlucky, Vox ends up with veterans instead of regulars and our defense is seriously weakened. That's why I want qualitative as well as quantitative superiority if we're going to consider an attack.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alva


[vox]
no, he's just here to prevent barbs comming through..
[/vox]
[gs
well, will you move him
[/gs
[vox]
we will have to discus that thoroughly with the whole team..
[/vox]

[gs - alternate version]
If you move your warrior aside just long enough for us to pass, that will not pose any risk of barbarians' entering your lands. Your actions, not your words, are what will ultimately tell us your purpose in positioning a warrior there.
[/gs]

Edit: Minor change in wording

[nbarclay]

Duplicate; please disregard.

[Harovan]

We could follow DeepO's plan and let EotS produce warriors instead of settlers for a couple of turns. We have 2 warriors shadowing theirs and if we make 4 new (2 in both EotS and Hurricane, our local superiority will be 3:1 and the odds will be clearly to our advantage.