The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Then we have to make the most of it, even exploit it...
and IF we give them the isthmus , then warriors definately have to go!
(If they place it on the hill, it will cost dear when we have to 'pass' through... Which will have to happen eventualy anyway.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? - Epicurus
Well... we can put it like this: We want to give you ownership of the Isthmus, but on either of two conditions:
- you retreat for 2 turns, allowing our scout to pass
- you immediately retreat your scouts from our territory, and move them back behind the Neck.
Any other option will be looked upon as an act of aggresion, and will certainly sour(?) our relation. (I think I'm teaching those foreigners some more Dutch here )
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? - Epicurus
I agree with DeepO's proposal, but i think it's pretty obvious to them, but we must put it clearly that they are approaching our land and that it goes against the very principles we agreed upon- mutual exploration- we must make it clear that we see these conditions as the only fair solution for this isthmus issue. Other than that- let them figure out the consequences themselves- from Eli's posts on the strategy board it seems like he's already planning for those consequences.
But i think that in some way, this proposal (DeepO's) should be integrated in the next message to Vox.
Save the rainforests!
Join the us today and say NO to CIV'ers chopping jungles
Only passage for Grog is realistical, we can't ask them to give up an advantage if we later on threaten them with 2 warriors. They would not go for that, or at least I wouldn't wihtout other compensation. Keep in mind that passing an additional scout can be part of another deal, e.g. one involving techs. There is no gold to be shared, so those are the things we can trade with.
DeepO, you have a good point about their need for us to agree to respect their claim to the chokepoint before they move aside. Let me try another revision of my message.
Greetings BetaHound and Vox Controli,
Since you have been so kind as to share with us passages from the One Book, we would like to share with you a passage from the Book of the Storm, specifically from Wisdom 3:1-2.
“Blessed are they who treat others as they would wish to be treated, for their rewards are respect and trust all the days of their lives.
But cursed are the hypocrites who demand from others that which they will not give themselves,
For the seeds of anger and distrust they sow may flower into the fruit of their destruction.”
Since word came back of Thadeus's blocking the way to North Estonia, questions have arisen among our people concerning whether or not the people of Vox Controli share such a belief. You have made it clear in words that you regard a mutual right of exploration as important, yet at first glance, Thadeus's fortified position seems to contradict those words.
Because of your clear statement, we would like to think that Thadeus is there merely to establish your claim to that piece of land, and that once we agree to respect your claim (which we hereby do), he will be willing to move aside long enough for our explorers to pass through. That way, both your sovereignty over a key strategic location and our right to explore will be respected.
But some are concerned that your words regarding the importance of a right to explore may not have been as sincere as they seemed, and that Thadeus's job may include denying us in practice the very right that you seemed to regard as so important in theory. These suspicions have even spurred some to go so far as to demand a death sentence for any "spies" (to use their word) who approach our lands without permission. Clearly, this situation is not ideal for promoting the kind of peaceful and mutually beneficial relationship that we strongly desire, and we hope that you will soon show us that these people's concern was unwarranted.
Originally posted by DeepO
Any other option will be looked upon as an act of aggresion, and will certainly sour(?) our relation. (I think I'm teaching those foreigners some more Dutch here )
Two comments: I would propose to them that if they do not want to move Grog, they can of course retrait their scouts back to their side, as it would be show of good will.
Further, I would press the timing issue: that if they agree to let us pass, that they please do so in this turn, so that we don't lose a turn of exploration. After all, we only want one scout on their side, while they already have 2 on ours, we need some way of compensating this.
One question though: can we include a message saying that we are preparing trade proposals, and will send them as soon as we have word of the movement of Thadeus?
Originally posted by DeepO
Only passage for Grog is realistical, we can't ask them to give up an advantage if we later on threaten them with 2 warriors. They would not go for that, or at least I wouldn't wihtout other compensation. Keep in mind that passing an additional scout can be part of another deal, e.g. one involving techs. There is no gold to be shared, so those are the things we can trade with.
If they explore our lands with two warriors, they cannot reasonably object to our exploring theirs with two. If they do, they are demanding a greater right for themselves than they are willing to grant us and, according to Wisdom 3:1-2, will bring a curse down upon themselves.
Hmmm... I wouldn't go for that deal, so let's focus on one for now. They have the advantage, and must know that we can't do much about it. Also, there would be no point in giving them the claim to that tile if we are just to pass whenever we like... so for me, just one warrior at the time.
I'm starting to think we're better off letting them be the ones to propose a withdrawal if they've changed their minds. With someone beyond their lands for us to contact, we're better off if they're willing to live with their original claim that exploring is a right they respect.
Originally posted by DeepO
Hmmm... I wouldn't go for that deal, so let's focus on one for now. They have the advantage, and must know that we can't do much about it. Also, there would be no point in giving them the claim to that tile if we are just to pass whenever we like... so for me, just one warrior at the time.
If the number who pass (or have already passed) in each direction is equal, that does not constitute "whenever we like."
Hmmm... you're right. let's keep that part out then, and just propose the "retreat for us to get Grog through, if you want to uphold your own principles" thing in.
Tweet
, then warriors definately have to go!
)
Comment