Vox Controli comments part two

[DeepO]

Yoohoo! first thread to reach 500 in our forum

Nathan, you're right about #15 not being viable if we give tiles to Vox. So let's assume we scrap #15, couldn't #14 move 1 to recuperate a bit more tiles from #15? Less corruption, tighter territory, there are a bunch of advantages here

DeepO

[Dominae]

Here's another problem (which I hope someone will address because most comments have avoided the meat of what I've had to say):

Nathan initiates a chat with Jon Miller, fine (he's the special envoy after all). Nathan proceeds to not only agree to but propose a city placement plan. Let us assume this is fine, accepting the argument that Vox will only want to be friends if they're remotely powerful. Then Jon Miller actually has the gall to haggle over the specifics of the plan, as though their "weak and fearful" position is somehow deserving of a little pity. And now the main issue (according to Nathan, DeepO and others) is not peace, land, or whatever, but whether we should go ahead and build the Great Library! Note that this is something we would never have considered just 4 turns ago.

So now here's the problem: even though this whole affair started as a "unofficial" exchange between Nathan and Jon Miller, now we're in a position where we would be trusted less if we changed our minds. Let's say we drafted another border proposal, one that would be more than fair considering our capabilities. And let's say a majority of GS agrees to it. Suddenly, if we propose this, Vox is going to say: "hey, what are you up to, anyway?". More and more Vox will want to be an equal partner (in every sense), when it is clear that we are not equal (in some senses).

With the promises and dreams of a wonderful alliance, we've given too much and we're setting ourselves up to do it again. Considering Vox's lands and the jungle-heavy locations we've tentatively granted them, they are not good partners. We would do much better if 1) we controlled the whole continent, and 2) we created a worthwhile partnership with another, stronger team.

Vox's help technologically will only really help us until we contact other teams, at which point we've got better options. Their help in the form of Immortals sounds great initially, but probably would not work out so well if you step back and think about it. Thus Vox offers us nothing beyond the short-term. Which is why a long-term alliance with them is not a good idea. Which is why we should be making peace with them now, but not depending on it.

A war between us and Vox would surely put us back. But by how much? With our supposed production advantage, we should be able to roll them over by the time our economy gets going. All our fears militarily were very near-sighted. Once the jungle starts coming down and we're amassing WCs, Vox cannot stop us. By this time we will probably have contacted the other teams, and will be able to determine (for sure) which move is best. Perhaps not attacking them is the way to go, but there is no way of knowing this yet. Let us extend our hand, and keep the other in wait (or whatever that expression is!).

Finally I would like to say that I'm in no way attacking Nathan or his efforts (or any other member of GS). But when you believe certain courses of action are unwise, and the team is not making the decisions but one person, then you certainly have a responsibility to question his judgement. Hopefully we can all agree on something that is best for GS, or last come to a majority consensus.


Dominae

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by nbarclay
(Again, even if our goal is to keep our options open, one of those options we keep open should be a strong long-term partnership with Vox.)

Exactly.

More on Vox later. I have a meeting to go to. grrr.

[DeepO]

Dominae, I think one of the reasons why the border treaty seems to be approved, or at least considered by many of our members is that it is better then the worst case scenario we envisioned. Yes, it will give a lot of advantage to Vox, but also to ourselves, and we don't get out badly... maybe we gain less then Vox, but we'll still be on top.

The GL thing only came around because one of the things some sort of deal with Vox makes possible is to focus on something else than pure REX. E.g. the GL, which I see as an investment. I don't say we absolutely need to do it, which is why I started a poll on it, but all the discussions here are just so that we can see our options, and can pick what we think will make us win this game.

As to the speed at which this is going, where we absolutely didn't trust Vox 4 turns and 2 chats ago: true. But you might have noticed that as long as we've met Vox, I tried to pacify our relation with Vox, always asked for patience with them, while now, I'm far less forgiving, and I think more aggresive to getting what should be ours. Nobody has forgotten how they dealt with us so far, but they are finally doing what I wanted all along: play together with us, instead of against us.

Now, we just need to make sure we are always adequately protected against their opportunistic, short term nature, by both anticipating long term implications, showing force and superiority when needed. And be the good daddy in between

DeepO

[Dominae]

"(Again, even if our goal is to keep our options open, one of those options we keep open should be a strong long-term partnership with Vox.)"

There are ways of doing this without selling our souls. The way we're doing it, we're closing more long-term options than we're gaining.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Re: Vox Controli comments part two

Originally posted by DeepO

Nathan, you're right about #15 not being viable if we give tiles to Vox. So let's assume we scrap #15, couldn't #14 move 1 to recuperate a bit more tiles from #15? Less corruption, tighter territory, there are a bunch of advantages here

Moving #14 (the northeastern coastal city) could gain us more land tiles, but essentially just at the expense of an equal number of coast and sea tiles. We might be better off, but the combined total value to us and Vox would be less. Now granted, combined total value to us and Vox might not seem so important, but if we either conquer the land from Vox or get it in an exchange for Luxian lands, Vox's cities there become ours. At that point, the combined total value becomes the value to us.

Nathan

[Dominae]

Originally posted by DeepO
I think one of the reasons why the border treaty seems to be approved, or at least considered by many of our members is that it is better then the worst case scenario we envisioned.

"Better than worst case" is true of all our options; we're considering only one. We're doing this because we think the current option will bring us the best long-term benefits. I'm challenging that belief.

I commend you on playing devil's advocate, DeepO. That's what I'm trying to do too, only more forcefully.




Dominae

[DeepO]

Well... we gain the land tiles, and Vox gains sea tiles by placing the wheat city 7. No land tiles are lost, and we profit relatively from it... how can this be bad totally?

DeepO

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by DeepO
Well... we gain the land tiles, and Vox gains sea tiles by placing the wheat city 7. No land tiles are lost, and we profit relatively from it... how can this be bad totally?

Moving the wheat city 7 would make two mountain tiles unreachable by any city (at least in the absence of further shuffling). Further, with a harbor under a non-despotic government, the wheat and fish would provide enough food to work one of those two mountains (in addition to the others that would be available anyhow) without irrigation. That's why I went along with the move. (And by the way, wasn't it your map that that exact site was #12 on, or am I misremembering who did our city layout?)

[notyoueither]

Nathan, has the revised map been sent to Vox?

I think that one is going a bit too far. I think the draft from earlier should be OK. I believe that Jon was pushing for everything he could get. I do not think they will be offended if we go back and say that the team as a whole finds the revised to have gone too far, but that we could accept the earlier one. If that is what we decide is acceptable.

[notyoueither]

re dealing with Vox on the whole.

We are faced with a choice. We can choose to accomodate and allow for Vox to have a comfortable position. If we do, they will have no reason to come after us early. They will have every reason to leave us alone while we develop.

OTOH, we can choose to take a hard line. We can REX them into the ground. We can build as fast and as far North as we can. They will attack soon, very soon. probably while we are mid REX.

If we choose to accomodate and grant Vox some breathing room, we will have gained a large advantage in our own development. Instead of rushing settlers, barracks and troops, we will be able to adopt a more flexible schedule. We could pursue the GrLib or the GrLitH. Could we go for either one with a hostile Vox on the continent? Instead of settling marginal border cities first to claim the land, we can settle the most productive southern sites first and hense grow faster in the long run.

Those are the choices. I agree we should not go too far in accomodating. You can safely take what they asked for last night in tiles, lop off a third and they would accept that. However, what remains is that if we have no agreement, they will send settlers out far and back fill. Once they have settled some number of sites, the war will start. Either they will attack because they see an advantage, or we will have to attack some of their more (or less) brilliant city sites.

What then?

[Dominae]

I agree with nye. It's just that what Nathan is proposing is far more than "a little breathing room" during our expansion phase. We're negotiating to be partners well beyond that (consider the proposed joint attack on LI). Nathan's efforts at patching things up between our teams are commendable, and IMO, just what we need right now. For now some peace quiet would be nice. But, let's decide what to do later (after contact with other civs, perhaps after some Galley-scouting), later. This means not committing ourselves too much to Vox. I actually like the new GL plan, just because it's relatively short-term.


Dominae

[notyoueither]

re Vox, GS and the rest of the world.

It is clear that there is a concentration of civs who are already more advanced than Vox and us in tech. We are in a weak position tech wise, but strong in location. They cannot get to us easily, and they are unlikely to try.

Conversely, we can't get to them easily, and if when we are in a position to do so, we are likely to have obsolete forces, unless...

A fully open tech alliance with Vox does not sound like it makes sense from a beaker point of view, but is that the right point of view? Here is the simple truth, if Vox and we do not cooperate we will not catch up short of some diplomatic miracles. If we do cooperate, Vox can only trade with us so far before they fall behind even us. If we want Vox to be useful, we will have to give them the odd prerequisite tech so that they can research secondary choices while we research primary, or more expensive choices.

In short, when trying to play catchup with the leader(s), it is not wise for the trailers to quibble over total costs. All that will result in is more or less permanent obsolescence.

There is one other problem with not cooperating with Vox. If I were on that continent, I would want to give Vox all the tech they needed to be at an advantage over the 'ringers' and hense able to slow us up and cripple our development. That noone has decided to do that is a blessing of time and distance. No one has had time to decide to do that, and the distances are still great so not many who might would be in contact with Vox yet. The years will pass, and Vox will get contact with all, or most of the other civs. It will occur to someone that they can put us in the ditch by doing something like this. Oh, btw, just what did Vox have to trade for IW?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dominae
I agree with nye. It's just that what Nathan is proposing is far more than "a little breathing room" during our expansion phase. We're negotiating to be partners well beyond that (consider the proposed joint attack on LI). Nathan's efforts at patching things up between our teams is commendable, and IMO, just what we need right now. For now some peace quiet would be nice. But, let's decide what to do later (after contact with other civs, perhaps after some Galley-scouting), later. This means not committing ourselves too much to Vox. I actually like the new GL plan, just because it's relatively short-term.

Dominae

I agree, we should not cement any agreements to attack any others at this time. We may well decide later that is the way to go, but not yet. I think some of the things from that chat might have been going too far, too fast. However, we have planted the seeds in the mind of Vox. They can get along without attacking us. That may be very valuable indeed.

[notyoueither]

My minimum terms re Vox.

1. A reasonable border that takes into account that the cities that are being bargained for are more productive for us than for Vox. If the potential exists for a long term alliance, they will grant that more of those cities should be founded and developed by GS, and that more of those tiles would be more productively cultivated by GS.

1b. An unequal balance of cities is a consequence of our relative start positions. I would not be in favour of giving away our birthright.

2. I could agree to an open tech trading arrangement. However, I would require contacts to be fully open as well.

3. We should never allow anything less favourable than equal status vis-a-vis the Mil Advisor. A close eye should be kept on that. We are more powerful would be preferable, but that would have to wait until we have founded most of our city sites.

4. Agreements for joint operations against foreign civs can be made at a later date and on a case by case basis. Trading cities of civ X for Vox cities nearer the homeland would be welcome.

5. If there is any further sign of Vox deceit, we must extinguish them as soon as is feasible. After discovering deceit, and before opening hostilities, deception on our part would be completely acceptable.