Announcement

**Arrian** · January 10, 2003, 18:01

Do we need luxury spending to keep EotS happy?

The tech deal is the big question. Well, that and whether or not Tim & Willy really turn around.

-Arrian

**Shiber** · January 10, 2003, 18:02

Regarding the scouts, I'd wait for them to ask us to withdraw our scouts strictly. When they do, we can begin discussing the border line between our civs (thereby buying some more time and stalling Vox's growth). Furthermore, I'd expect Vox's own scouts to withdraw at least as far as to the North of the jungle belt before we move any of our scouts away from the Isthmus.

**Harovan** · January 10, 2003, 18:08

Originally posted by Arrian
Do we need luxury spending to keep EotS happy?

No, the game difficulty has in a wondersome way dropped. It seems to be Warlord or something like that. If loading it SP mode, it says Regent, but in this case we should have only 2 content citizens. I moved Gronk out and back in EotS, when the road was ready. When he was outside, all 3 citizens were content. Must be Warlord, at most.

PTW is far from being ready

. It's these little issues that spoil the game a lot. There is no way to load a game safely. You can always screw it, no matter what you do.

**Arrian** · January 10, 2003, 18:24

Ah, I see.

How silly.

So be it.

-Arrian

**nbarclay** · January 10, 2003, 19:51

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

No, the game difficulty has in a wondersome way dropped. It seems to be Warlord or something like that. If loading it SP mode, it says Regent, but in this case we should have only 2 content citizens. I moved Gronk out and back in EotS, when the road was ready. When he was outside, all 3 citizens were content. Must be Warlord, at most.

If it's not Regent, I bet it's all the way down to Chieftain. That's what happened in the Euro-PBEM game, anyhow. With one MP, EotS may not face happiness problems for over a millennium, leaving us more commerce for science. Also, happiness in #3 (any good names for a settler pump?) won't be nearly the issue I was afraid it might.

Conclusion: I bet we'll be the big benificiaries of this glitch, at least for quite some time.

Nathan

Edit: How about Cyclone for #3?

**Meshelic** · January 10, 2003, 20:41

I think our scouts should either remain where they are or push northward. Unless they specifically ask us to not to, there is no reason for us to halt their progress.

Our demands were that Vox not go southward, right? So they will probably return to the demarcation line.

In the meantime, our scouts can follow them back a ways...

**Harovan** · January 10, 2003, 20:46

Good to see you around Meshelic. I'm going to bed now. But I don't think we get the turn soon.

**nbarclay** · January 10, 2003, 21:02

We definitely want to keep shadowing Tim and Willy until we can set up a watch they can't get past (at least in my opinion), but that's not the question Sir Ralph was asking. The big question is that Vox wants us to withdraw Grog and Slash from so close to the chokepoint. Do we go ahead and do it?

I like the idea of keeping a strong early warning system in place, but if we do it, we have to let Vox do it too or we're the hypocrites. My inclination is to suggest that we move back to the mountain a bit to the southeast and let Vox set up a watch position using the mountain Willy was on earlier and another mountain to Tim's southeast. That way both sides could see any invasion force a long way away, giving us both the security to focus more heavily on economic growth (and benefitting us both relative to the other teams). Of course as the nations expand, the forward observers would have to back up to new positions.

Nathan

**nbarclay** · January 10, 2003, 21:54

Looking back at the map, in my proposal, Tim's lookout position would be 3-6 from where he is now, and Willy's would be 9 from where he is now. Our initial lookout position would be 2-2 from where Slash is.

It also occurs to me that if they don't respond to our trade proposal until during or after their turn, starting to withdraw Grog and Slash as they requested would very possibly edge them closer to accepting the deal. Toward that end, moving Grog 3 and Slash 2 would be inoffensive combination possible. But keep in mind that starting to withdraw them when we want something and then moving them back or setting up a blockade after the agreement is signed could easily (and, I think, legitimately) be viewed as an act of betrayal.

Nathan

**DeepO** · January 10, 2003, 22:02

I didn't read their message so that we should need to withdraw, so why don't you ask them to start withdrawing theirs, and we'll meet them half way. They haven't seen all our land yet, so why don't we tell them they were only a few tiles away from our capital, and if they want us to move Grog, they will need to move back their scouts farther then the first mountain they encounter. After all, atm they are closer to our borders then we are to theirs. As long as that doesn't change, keep our scouts in their 'territory'.

DeepO

**nbarclay** · January 10, 2003, 22:23

They have already said they will withdraw theirs, at least back to wherever the "Sierra Centralis" refers to. And they said, "More importantly, given our commitment to stopping all southerly exploration, and pulling our explorers back, it would be greatly appreciated if Gathering Storm could do the same." Not a demand, but definitely a clear request.

Actually, I recalculated, and my proposed positions for Tim and Willy would justify leaving at least one of our warriors in place. Tim would be at least as close to our capital as Grog or Slash would be to theirs. That would provide maximum security on both sides against an invasion of any significant size and would maintain a spirit of reciprocity that should help future relations.

Nathan

**nbarclay** · January 11, 2003, 06:52

Vox sent back an acceptance with conditions attached. See the ambassador's office thread for their message and the related comments thread for my proposed response.

Nathan

**Harovan** · January 11, 2003, 07:02

Good. I will set the research to Alphabet then and not halt it for one more turn, if the in-game trade deal is accepted. Seems it paid off, that I by purpose waited so long to send the turn.

**nbarclay** · January 11, 2003, 07:07

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Good. I will set the research to Alphabet then and not halt it for one more turn, if the in-game trade deal is accepted. Seems it paid off, that I by purpose waited so long to send the turn.

I don't think we're ready for that yet because I'm not sure the assurances we can provide at this point match the assurances they want. They want a commitment to peace from us, and talk lately has been about our wiping them out as soon as a good time comes.

Edit: I'm trying to strike a middle ground, offering assurances that we want peace at least for a long time to come but indicating that we can't develop a consensus to commit to a permanent peace in the time available.

Nathan

Announcement

Turn 30

Turn 30

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment