DIPLO: Neu Demogyptica - comments

[Shiber]

Originally posted by vulture
They're probably hoping we'll click accept by accident, thus gifting them with Feudalism...

[Shiber]

Originally posted by DeepO
I know the idea is right, but we can't bring it to them like that, or they will laugh in our faces.

They won't do that, they'd fear that we'd let others know that promises from ND should be taken lightly and that ND should not be trusted.
If they do laugh in our faces though, I am all for making this public (but in a subtle manner, like we handled the GoW situation in Vox's war reports thread).

BTW, Maybe we should offer the same to RP and Lego. In which case, somebosy else should do it, tonight I'm leaving for my sister's wedding, and I won't be back until Sunday late.

RP: I won't mind, but I'm certain that they would do all they can to avoid giving either us or Lego any money.
Lego: We've already agreed to offer them Feud + gold for Theo. Btw, are we ever going to translate that apparently unanimous agreement into actions and actually make the offer?

[Shiber]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I could put together a complete message this weekend, but I doubt that I'll have time before then.

Nathan, I would be honored if you would rewrite my message (from the samples that you've posted I think that I'll actually be pleased with the changes, you raised good arguments and you always put them well and appropriately).
This weekend is fine, considering the rate at which this game is progressing.

[DeepO]

Shiber, sorry on Lego, but as said in the thread, I can't do it right now. But I agree we need some offer...

I'm not certain how far ND thinks it made promises, it never signed an official deal, only said things like 'sure, offer the tech, and we'll offer the money". I propose that if we have to press that point again, we quote from their messages. I don't look at this situation as a broken deal, maybe other Stormians do see it so extreme. Which is why I don't think we're in any position to demand compensation. But, we should try to get compensation for what they did, only not name it like that to piss them off.

As to making it public in case of a backtab: that will be a lot more difficult. GoW has members that comment all kind of stuff everywhere, which makes it easy to respond to. ND is different, they very rarely comment on the game itself. It doesn't create nice opportunities for subtlety

DeepO

[Shiber]

They've explicitly told us that they're going to pay.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=1905463#post1905463

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=1909789#post1909789

[DeepO]

Shiber, I know. But after that, they also explicitely told us that their ambassador was not handling to the group's opinions, and they fired him. As bad an excuse it is, it does mean that if it's true (and we have no reason to not believe that), they haven't lied to us, nor broken a treaty. We have not received a very official "our team has ratified your proposal" message... maybe that was intentional, maybe not. We can blame them for lousy diplomatic contact, but not that they are breaking a treaty.

Besides, it doesn't really matter how we see things, it's how they see things that counts. And from the sound of their messages, it doesn't show that they think they did something wrong, although they (or at least Borc) seem to realize that they have to keep GS as a friend, hopefully with as little commitment from ND as possible. We are a threat to them, certainly after we would take out Vox. So, if we ask for compensation, I think they'll see it as extortion instead, which is not what we want to achieve.

As to the RP situation: If ND and GoW would attack RP, the last thing they want is that RP pays for our help. It's not that they need us against RP, and I think they would even prefer us staying on our continent, as long as we won't attack them. This is what they're really asking for: a NAP, packaged into an alliance against RP. We might use that in negotiations.

DeepO

[Shiber]

Legally, if their ambassador gave us a false impression, it's ND's problem, not just the ambassador's problem, so they are responsible for this. But you're right in that we shouldn't confront them with direct accusations, and be more subtle about it.
I still think we should ask for compensation, one way or another, and I still stand behind the '100 gold partially used by us to establish an embassy' idea. I think that Nathan can put this well.

IMHO they are not being honest with us. 200 gold for Feudalism about 7-8 turns ago is more than reasonable, I see no reason why their team wouldn't accept such an almost generous offer, unless it's planning something (e.g. to give us one impression and then go and buy it from GoW or someone else).

IMHO offering them Feudalism again for 100 gold is a bad idea. It would set a precedent: buy later from the same seller for half the price.

I agree with your comments re: RP. Maybe we could add a commitment not to attack ND in the next 20 turns to the 100 gold thing, to address their concerns and to make the compensations easier to swallow for them?

[zeit]

I think Borc should be confronted with the logs of our previous communication- what they did IS making a deal, than backing off. They are the ones to deal with their ambassador's bad behavior- and compensate the ones hurt by his actions- as long as he acted as ambassador.

As for what to actually say- I think that Shiber suggestion for 100 gold for embassy and NAP is reasonable. If honor and keeping agreements really worths little in our world- at least we could try and get something out of it, ND should realise what they did is wrong and that we want compensation, and have a certain right to except one, if they consider themselves to be honorable.

As far as alliances go- Nathan's comment delivers the message: we have our own (war) politics to handle now.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by zeit
I think Borc should be confronted with the logs of our previous communication- what they did IS making a deal, than backing off. They are the ones to deal with their ambassador's bad behavior- and compensate the ones hurt by his actions- as long as he acted as ambassador.

It's possible that they haven't yet realized the severity of what they've done to its fullest extent. I think that quoting Borc and explaining that they are responsible for their ambassador's mistakes and responsible for compensating us for the damage that was caused to us would really help.

[Aeson]

I don't think we should demand anything. It can only serve to further alienate us from ND regardless of if they give the 100g or not. The 100g is rather inconsequential, it's 2/3rds a turn of commerce. ND's friendship could very well end up as our only chance to win this game.

I say we explain that the Embassy would cost about half as much if done from our end, and offer to split the difference. This keeps them from getting a look at EotS which nobody as of yet has good data on what it could be producing right now, gives us a better idea of what ND is up to, and shows we aren't into holding grudges. It also gives ND and us a pretty good deal, 15-20g for an embassy.

We politely decline the alliance vs RP, and perhaps start negotiating a NAP.

------------------

One of the teams (above and beyond Vox ) is cooked with the advent of Chivalry IMO. It's going to be the team with no friends...

[DeepO]

Aeson, we can assume each team knows about our production in EotS, if they bother to count. Vox surely would have sold that information, otherwise each new embassy we establish also reveals our territory. Given that we're size 12, and holding, it's easy to see where going for 30 tiles production in GA.

But I agree for the rest; we can't demand for anything.

Chivalry: it seems obvious that ND and GoW are splitting costs, and save for upgrade money. ND on 100% tax, GoW on research. The moment GoW gets Chivalry, all hell breaks loose. So, I don't think there will be much envy between ND and GoW, and they don't care about RP (or they are in on the deal). This game is going to turn very interesting, very soon

DeepO

[DeepO]

Actually, come to think on it (slightly off topic in the current thread of conversation): I think that the deal of Feud from GoW would probably have been reached at the exact same time as they offered us 200 gold in advance. It wouldn't surprise me, if part of that 200 gold came from ND, which e.g. paid GoW 80 gold up front, to get Feud after the GoW-GS NDA expired.

If this is the case, all offers on Feud from us will be futile, as they already paid.

BTW, I don't see any problems by offering a tech for half price when our NDAs start to run out. By doing it a few turns before others, we can maybe recuperate some of our loss. Teams can choose to wait for the open market price, but that also means they will be behind the others in tech. So IMHO we should start to offer Feud on reduced prices to everyone now, not within a few turns. If it can wait until Sunday or Monday, I'll write some proposals if needed.

DeepO

[zeit]

We can't demand anything- I have to agree on that- but we have a right to be compensated, and we could at least make it clear in a way that won't be difficult to understand.

Also- offering Feudalism for a reduced price is of course something we have to do, and it could be integrated in the message to ND (who is currently in charge there- is it Borc?).

[Aeson]

Given that we're size 12, and holding, it's easy to see where going for 30 tiles production in GA.

I meant more along the lines of what we were producing, have produced (improvements vs units), and how long we can run the food deficit for. Also they could get a pretty good idea where Hurricane (or a 'big' city) is by seeing what tiles we are using in EotS.

[Aeson]

ND has already shown they are willing to compensate us in some way. I don't think we should ask for more, or hint we want more than what they already have offered.

It would be better if we give ND some slack (less cost to them), while turning the embassy more to our advantage and less to theirs. That way we come off as generous and friendly, instead of opportunistic and greedy.

I also think we are helped by projecting a somewhat weaker diplomatic stance than what we have been sticking to. If teams start to think they can take advantage of us diplomatically, we get to choose when and where that stops, and they are less likely to want to gang up against us. Might be too late for using any sort of suprise, but it's better than strengthening the feelings already against us.