Turn 29

[Harovan]

Btw, does anyone know if spent beakers for a tech will be remembered for this tech, ar are they reset to zero on a switch? I mean, if it was so and the beakers spent for BW would not be lost for researching BW, we could switch to Alphabet at 100% now.

If Vox agrees, very good, we already went ahead 1 turn for the new deal. If not, fine, we switch back to BW and would be at the same point as we are now, assuming the beakers were stored. Even better, our research for Alphabet would already be at 12 beakers.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by nbarclay
An eye for an eye leaves both people blind, as the saying goes.

So far I agree with your statement, but this saying is lame. An eye for nothing leaves only us blind and them seeing. So either we trade for the sake of mutual prosperity, or it is ... an eye for an eye.

[alva]

Btw, does anyone know if spent beakers for a tech will be remembered for this tech, ar are they reset to zero on a switch?

The moment you switch and end your turn, all beakers are void/lost completely

[nbarclay]

Message sent (with another last-second edit or two). The final version is logged in ManicStarSeed's office. And BetaHound got it practically the moment it was sent! Amazing!

[Harovan]

Darn, I just ran a test and the beakers are indeed lost. They could have stored the beakers per tech . Oh well.

Ok then, I leave research at BW, turn the sliders to 10.0.0, make the turn and send the screenies. Turn will be sent in approximately four hours, to give Vox some time.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


So far I agree with your statement, but this saying is lame. An eye for nothing leaves only us blind and them seeing. So either we trade for the sake of mutual prosperity, or it is ... an eye for an eye.

You may be missing the point of the saying. Person A puts out person B's eye. Then Person B puts out Person A's eye in retaliation. Then Person A puts out Person B's eye in retaliation for that. And then Person B (if he can) puts out Person A's other eye. And the only reason the cycle of mutual retaliation doesn't keep going on longer is that they're out of eyes.

Not that I'm always inherently opposed to revenge in a game setting. I imagine I could be quite vindictive in ensuring that if someone takes me down, they'll go down with me if at all possible, especially if some kind of betrayal is involved. But the kind of petty revenge Alva was talking about seems like it would be likely to cause a lot more damage than it's worth.

[alva]

But the kind of petty revenge Alva was talking about seems like it would be likely to cause a lot more damage than it's worth.

It was not meant as revenge, but as a possible stall movement. Something they can hardly hold against us.

Revenge for the sake of revenge has no value and is as you say petty.

[nbarclay]

Message back from BetaHound:

Greetings Nathan.

Received your latest note, and yes, I full appreciate the pressure you are under. I too face similar tensions from my side. The life of a diplomat is not easy. You must be looking forward to getting back to a life of medians and means and chi squared analyses and indifference curves.

We are very close to be able to respond, and my sense is that both your persuasiveness with your people as well as their patience, will not go unrewarded.

To be honest - the pottery deal does not interest us. Your original proposal does - and we see your logic in wanting the two parts of the deal. It has appeal for us as well, particularly since tensions over territorial issues have diminished significantly.

I will be back to you in short order. Regards,

BetaHound, FVA, Vox C.

[Harovan]

That sounds promising.

Nathan, the saying is originated in the New Testament, and is justified by Him Who Suffered being rewarded by God. I don't see that God in our game. Either we trade or we bully each other. I prefer the former, but on even terms. We are suddenly in a good position. They soon run out of land and we're able to block them. Let's use this opportunity to trade land for contact.

[zeit]

Even this message from BetaHound is typical for Vox- they are "interested" and "appealed" by our proposal- and also see "our logic" in it- but maybe not theirs. They hint that they think the deal works good for us, but not necessarily for them. It is promising, as Sir Ralph said, but i wouldn't be suprised if we didn't hear from them for a while, or that they decline.

[Harovan]

I'm holding on posting our turn. If we get a positive diplomatic response within the next 3 hours, we might even switch to Alphabet this turn, not delaying our research.

[alva]

It's kins of funny, while ingame nothing really happens, whil outside this is one hectic market

[Shiber]

Vox are just abusing us, as always. I can't believe you guys still trust them after all those tricks they played on us.
We need to set a deadline. Notify Vox that they have three hours, or this would last for three days.

Talk to Vox. Tell them they have a deadline of three hours before we drop the deal. If they make it in time - good, they'll be more submissive next time. If they don't make it in time - we cancel the deal. Perhaps the latter will cause some harm to both Vox and ourselves, but this will also teach them that we will not tolerate their delay tactics, and next time they'll be more submissive (so in the long run we'll profit from this).

[Harovan]

So, I think we have given Vox enough time to think. I'll send the turn now:

- Movements as described.
- Leaving research at BW, but putting sliders to 10.0.0
- Offering The Wheel again to Vox.

Objections?

[Harovan]

Team stats:

58 (+2) Gathering Storm
66 (+1) Demogyptica
60 (+1) Glory of War
63 (+1) Role Play
58 (+1) Vox Controli
52 (+1) Lux Invicta
63 (+1) Legoland