Turn 30

[Harovan]

They can not expect commitment of peace for the whole game in return for a single trade deal. However, a commitment, that covers a certain amount of turns (say 40, or 50) or even the ancient age (nobody attacks, if the other part is still in the ancient age), could get a consensus.

Perhaps we should propose them a trade agreement like this: Each trade of advances, regardless if military techs or not, means automatically a peace commitment for the next 20 turns. So if they want to be safe for longer, they just could trade with us again. On the other hand, if one side rejects an obviously acceptable trade (equal beakers, mandantory techs, no preresearch), this will give the other side a hint about arising hostility and they will have time to raise their defenses.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
They can not expect commitment of peace for the whole game in return for a single trade deal. However, a commitment, that covers a certain amount of turns (say 40, or 50) or even the ancient age (nobody attacks, if the other part is still in the ancient age), could get a consensus.

Perhaps we should propose them a trade agreement like this: Each trade of advances, regardless if military techs or not, means automatically a peace commitment for the next 20 turns. So if they want to be safe for longer, they just could trade with us again. On the other hand, if one side rejects an obviously acceptable trade (equal beakers, mandantory techs, no preresearch), this will give the other side a hint about arising hostility and they will have time to raise their defenses.

I think this type of proposal strikes way too much of a "trade with us or else" tone, especially for this early in the game when we don't really have anything to back it up with. In effect, you're having us commit extortion.

Have you read their message or my proposed response yet? If not, please do so.

Nathan

[Harovan]

I have read it. In effect, they are saying "Make peace forever or we won't trade". Or do I see this wrong? This is also a kind of extortion.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I have read it. In effect, they are saying "Make peace forever or we won't trade". Or do I see this wrong? This is also a kind of extortion.

Agreed, although I can hardly fault them for the attempt given their starting position. Can you?

But I think the kind of explicit extortion based on military force, not just the withholding of trades, that you propose would be an enormous turn-off. Even if they go along with our proposal in the short term, they would be a ready-made ally for anyone who wants to invade us, and we would never dare turn our backs on them in the slightest when invading someone else either.

What I want to do is offer them as much of what they want as we reasonably can, and do so in a way that makes it hard for them to avoid facing a lot of the blame for our inability to offer more. That sets the stage for a possibility of a truly positive long-term relationship without giving up a promise of game-long peace.

Nathan

[Harovan]

I think a limited commitment of peace will do it. As you already stated in your prepared response, we could research both techs too within a couple of turns, and given a bad will from our side, they wouldn't be safe for the entire game either if they denied the deal.

There are no peace and friendship agreements "forever". Neither in games nor in real politics. They are all time limited. VC can not blame us to have broken a treaty, made in the stone age, if we decide to attack them with tanks. Adjust time up, say, to 40 turns, or if you want, the entire ancient age (although this would be too expensive for a single deal). This is more than enough.

Note also, that a peace commitment would allow them all ways of aggressive settling without having to fear a response. What would you say if they plopped a city on our incense? The AI would do it. Don't say that it would be an economically mistake in the present. With a peace commitment from our side, this would matter less. And it would pay on the long run.

[nbarclay]

What advantages do you see to setting a specific duration over the open-ended approach I took? If I were Vox, I'd tend to read a specific endpoint almost as a plan for GS to attack sometime not too long after that endpoint. That directly undercuts the idea that the trade is an investment in good relations.

And from a GS perspective, the reative vaguenes (edit: of an open-ended commitment) makes dirty tricks a lot more difficult. If the their behavior becomes so outrageous as to outweigh our preference for peaceful expansion, we aren't breaking a deal if we declare war.

Nathan

[Harovan]

You have promised nothing, and they will see that as a rejection of their proposal. To guarantee, that we hope we can coexist peacefully, means nothing. We could attack the next turn and say, "we hoped, but it was just not meant to be". What I'm proposing, is a time limited peace treaty, without any "could, maybe, and hope".

[DeepO]

I agree on both opinions here... maybe just explaining the dillema to them would be good? e.g. tell them:
'we would like to agree to an indefinate peace treaty, but we can't. We have agreed to play honorably, so it would mean we wouldn't be allowed to attack you for the remaining of the game. While we aren't planning on doing so, we can't commit to such a deal at this instance in time, I hope you understand. However, we could propose a non-aggresion deal for a limited period, but fear that you might see it as a deadline, after which hostilities will erupt... we don't want that either, as we would like to stay peaceful, but simply cannot promise to remain so until the end of times.'

DeepO

[nbarclay]

From my draft:

That said, however, we of Gathering Storm can guarantee you of two things. First, it is our great hope to avoid even the hint of warfare for a long time to come. We have far too much to do settling cities and building infrastructure to want to waste our resources fighting.

And second, our interest in obtaining Iron Working so early is purely defensive in nature. Were it not for defensive concerns, especially concerns about the power of your immortals, our focus would be entirely on peaceful lines of research. But you do have immortals (or at least the basic technology needed to build them), and in light of the recent tensions, we regard the ability to build swordsmen as an important counterweight.

No offense intended, but if you can't read this as a promise of a fairly long period of peace as long as they don't provoke us into a fight we'd rather not have, you need your eyes checked.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by DeepO
I agree on both opinions here... maybe just explaining the dillema to them would be good? e.g. tell them:
'we would like to agree to an indefinate peace treaty, but we can't. We have agreed to play honorably, so it would mean we wouldn't be allowed to attack you for the remaining of the game. While we aren't planning on doing so, we can't commit to such a deal at this instance in time, I hope you understand. However, we could propose a non-aggresion deal for a limited period, but fear that you might see it as a deadline, after which hostilities will erupt... we don't want that either, as we would like to stay peaceful, but simply cannot promise to remain so until the end of times.'

Good angle, DeepO. I'll incorporate a variant into my draft.

[nbarclay]

Paragraph added after the "And second..." paragraph:

(If you would feel more comfortable with some specific duration attached to our promise of peace, that could be arranged as long as the duration is reasonable and there are reasonable protections for each side's legitimate interests. But durations imply endings, and I much prefer to view this as merely a beginning.)

[Harovan]

Originally posted by nbarclay
but if you can't read this as a promise of a fairly long period of peace as long as they don't provoke us into a fight we'd rather not have, you need your eyes checked.

Yes. Perhaps I need my eyes checked. I still can't.

[nbarclay]

Is the message acceptable with the latest changes? I was up all night last night, and I really need to get to bed. (I lay down for a while and ended up drifting off to sleep for an hour or two, but I really need more than that.)

Nathan

[Harovan]

I accept it, and from the GS point of view the first version was acceptable as well, but somehow doubt, that VC will agree on that. My concern is, that I don't want to delay the trade deal and our further research. I suppose they have accepted the deal in their turn, and as far as I can see, you want me to reject it, or otherwise you would not have opposed to my proposal to switch science to Alphabet.

[nbarclay]

The problem is that their acceptance of the full two-stage deal seems to hinge on our commitment to peace, and I don't like the idea of accepting the first stage of the deal in-game only to have the second stage fall through because we aren't willing to give them as strong a promise as they require. If the second stage falls through with us already invested in researching Alphabet, that would leave a truly horrible mess from the perspective of us wanting to make sure they don't have a shot at an immortal rush.

Nathan