Trade Issues

[ZargonX]

Well, in an interesting twist, Vox has just offered us Feudalism on the current term. They asked for nothing in return, but suggested we might consider in as a lien against a portion of their loan repayments. So, with that, we now have Feu. coming at us from three sources: Vox, GoW, and GS. The question is, which one do we want to take? I would be inclined to take the initial deal we had made with GoW, as a show of good faith. I don't think Vox will be offended if we don't take it from them, as we can simply say we had a pre-arranged deal in place. However, I would like to hear everyone's opinions on the matter before we move forward

Vondrack: I will play the turn, but I'd like to give us some thinking time on this issue...

[ZargonX]

Ok, had a little chat with Master Zen of GoW to see where we stood with the tech deal:

ZargonX> Master Zen, can I ask you a quick PTWDG question?
* MasterZen is not being logged
MasterZen> shoot
MasterZen> in the need for Mercenaries?
ZargonX> well, we recently had a government switch, and I have taken over as prez
ZargonX> heh, no no
MasterZen> want us to backstab someone?
ZargonX> but, there was some brief confusion with our FAM dept...
MasterZen> ok
ZargonX> did Vondrack contact you about our tech deal?
MasterZen> yes
ZargonX> ok, and he talked about the "no-sistene" clause?
MasterZen> I told him i was going to PM him with a written acceptance
MasterZen> he sent me a PM with the deal
ZargonX> ok, great
MasterZen> it included the no-sistince clause
ZargonX> and you haven't PMed back yet?
MasterZen> however, it also included a no-JS Back clause either
ZargonX> right
MasterZen> we feel that if you ask us not to get 2 wonders, we should ask the same of you
MasterZen> there's a no-Leo's clause for you originally
ZargonX> yes, that is correct
ZargonX> and you wish to add another?
MasterZen> it would be fairest IMO
MasterZen> 2 for 2
ZargonX> but of course
ZargonX> did you have a proposal in mind for the 2nd wonder?
MasterZen> I'm just waiting for a response from our guys about this
MasterZen> as soon as that's done I'll send you a PM with the proposal
MasterZen> that would be the only modification, we are fine with the rest of the deal
ZargonX> excellent!
ZargonX> yes, just pass it along to me, and we'll get down to final approval
MasterZen> ok
ZargonX> so, how's life on Bob these days?
MasterZen> consider the tech deal officially approved by us as of this moment
ZargonX> will do!
MasterZen> it's just that little clause we have to change
ZargonX> understandable
ZargonX> we don't want you to feel like you're getting a raw deal
ZargonX> and, of course, if we have need of mercenaries, we'll know who to call
MasterZen> don't worry, I think Lego and GoW must strengthen their relationship
ZargonX> I agree
ZargonX> I value GoW very highly as a trustworthy partner
MasterZen> if you were to have one friend in Bob, we'd like it to be us
ZargonX>

I think this is a very good sign, and I trust MZ in this matter. I really do think they value Lego as a solid partner, thus increasing my desire to accept their deal vs. the othres.

[vondrack]

OK, first: I consider it ABSOLUTELY unacceptable for GoW to ask for a 2/2 wonder balance. What the hell are they thinking? Have they noticed the beaker difference? Jesus, it is 960+1056=2016 beakers against 2*768=1536 beakers! I am personally strongly against a deal like that (and I'm sort of surprised to see that you expressed no objections to Master Zen, ZargonX). We tried to be VERY nice to them and this is what we get?

Second: with this in mind, I say: let's take Feudalism from Voxes. Immediately. We can talk about the price later. And then, when GoW sends us their "counterproposal", tell them plainly: guys, we already got Feudalism - but we are STILL ready to honour our deal, even though we no longer need Feudalism. But there is no way in hell we would agree to another wonder. Wake up, guys, and count the beakers! No bargaining.

Third, I consider it OUTRAGEOUS that Master Zen tells me the deal is accepted (see the comm below) and then comes up with a "modification". If someone tells me "accepted", then I assume he means "accepted", not "accepted with a modification".

Here is my quick chat with Master Zen yesterday:

Session Start: Tue May 27 20:03:53 2003
Session Ident: MasterZen
vondrack: hola!
vondrack: any news on our trade agreement?
MasterZen: accepted
vondrack: great!
MasterZen: I'll send you written confirmation shortly
vondrack: thanks a lot
MasterZen: np
vondrack: I will post it in our forum
MasterZen: tech trading makes the world go round
vondrack: glad to have this deal sealed
vondrack: yes
Session Close: Tue May 27 23:04:01 2003

So, I strongly disagree with waiving another wonder - even if it is a one we do not plan to build. Are they making fun of us? It is a matter of principle to refuse such a demand. And I consider the recent GoW approach totally outrageous. I believe that with GhengisFarb gone, we shall reassess their credit with us. This is something trustworthy trading partner never does.

[ZargonX]

While it may seem suprising that I raised no objections at the time, there was a specific reason for doing so: I don't like to deal with hypotheticals. Until MZ sends an actual proposal to me, I will take everything in stride. As he said, they are still debating internally as to what they want, so the whole 2 wonder thing may not ever materialize. However, if I do not have a proposal in my in-box by noon tomorrow (the 12 hour point for the turn), or if no one else voices any opinions here, I will accept Feu. from Vox and work out a new deal with GoW.

I do find it a little upsetting that he did tell you the deal was sealed, and then gave me a different story. I don't know if the motivations were sinister, or simply poor communication within their own team, but it is a pattern to keep our eyes on.

[lmtoops]

First off...Vondrack, please calm down.

What is the second wonder (that GoW wants a no-trade clause)? I don't see it in the chat logs. If it's something we don't want (which is probable), then the beaker value is not relevant. The key is that we get our No-No clause included.

Although it would be nice to get something from Vox (considering their war status), I would perfer the GoW deal.

I guess the alternative would be to get Feudalism from Vox and then negotiate some other deal with a No-No clause.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by lmtoops
First off...Vondrack, please calm down.

What is the second wonder (that GoW wants a no-trade clause)? I don't see it in the chat logs. If it's something we don't want (which is probable), then the beaker value is not relevant. The key is that we get our No-No clause included.

Although it would be nice to get something from Vox (considering their war status), I would perfer the GoW deal.

I guess the alternative would be to get Feudalism from Vox and then negotiate some other deal with a No-No clause.

Yeah, sorry - rereading my post, I now see that I may have sounded harsh regarding Zargon's chat with Master Zen - that was not my intention, just a rather unfortunate post structuring on my side. Sorry for that. I know it's better to pose friendly until there is a solid counter/proposal submitted.

But I am mightily po'ed at GoW, that's true. I find their... even if it is just an idea... quite insulting. I know it is sort of "business"... but still. If we wanted to make an agreement regarding wonders, we would not need to trade them Theo+Edu at bargain prices... my suggestion to turn down any demands regarding a second wonder waiver on our side stands.

And what made me really angry was that Master Zen told me "accepted" and then "needs a modification" to Zargon - I am simply sensitive to things like this.

Aaarrrrgh.

Yeah. It's better now.

[ZargonX]

Ok, as I said I would, I have accepted Vox's gift to us. This means we will have to renegotiate a deal with GoW, but I think we can work something out. They shouldn't be too upset as long as we can work out something that lives up to the original spirit of our agreement.

[Kloreep]

Considering they wanted to modify it after MZ told us it was officially accepted, I think we're within rights to renegotiate the deal, probably with some gold on GoW's side. Especially now that it'll only be Chivalry on GoW's side, I agree we shouldn't accept another no-wonder on our side, unless they want to pay some gold for it.

And I don't think we need to stick strictly to the old treaty. GoW never accepted the deal, except unofficially in chat, and then MZ went back on that... I don't think we need to stick to it at all. But we shouldn't press for too much. GoW is probably going to be a little angry as it is, even if it's more their own fault rather than ours.

[Sharpe]

Frankly, I would rather just waive the one of our wonders rather than give another no-wonder clause to GoW.

My opinion - only have a no-Sistine clause, unless some other civ builds Sistine before us. Then a no-Bach would apply.

Similarly have a no-Leonardo's clause against us, that could be replaced with a similar wonder in the same era if someone else builds Leonardo - must be stated by GoW before hand.

As for the feudalism, agree to honour the Theology and Education part but simply request that either we would get Chivalry earlier than planned or substitute another tech for Feudalism and/or some other minor consideration (eg GoW world map - we know that they have been scouting the GS coastline).

Explain to GoW that we just couldn't ignore the bargain of a practically free tech from another civ OR as a last resort say that we mistakenly hit accept thinking it was GoW that sent it again...

As for the unbalanced trade to start with - I don't recall did we "repay" them for the catchup techs earlier? If not, we can definitely view this gap as repayment for it.

We can also bring up a NAP/alliance idea - ultimately, of all the civs, it is currently most crucial that we get GoW on our side and not to attack us until we have completed the colonization of Legos Major at least (even better would be sometime during the colonization stages of Legos Minor ).

[Tiberius]

With all due respect to our upcoming president, Vondrack was right in his rant Maybe he was too harsh, but in essence he was right.

Zargon, you basically agreed on a 2/2 no-wonder condition. It is true that it wasn't official, but what's the difference in MasterZen saying that the treaty is OK then renegotiating it and Zargon saying that a 2/2 no-wonder condition is Ok then later renegotiating?
The situation is exactly the same: there weren't signed/written agreements and both sides changes their minds "on the fly" after verbally agreeing.

So now if we tell GoW that we changed our mind and don't accept the 2/2 no-wonder thing, they will be just as upset as we are about thier move.

And what made me really angry was that Master Zen told me "accepted" and then "needs a modification" to Zargon - I am simply sensitive to things like this.

This is exactly what we are going to do now.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Tiberius
This is exactly what we are going to do now.

Fortunately, we sent them a WRITTEN proposal with detailed clauses. They did NOT come back with one of their own and even their "idea" of including another wonder in the agreement was so vague that we can reject it without feeling bad.

Though... I agree that Master Zen may feel a bit upset about us first posing as "no problem, that would be fair, yes" and then saying "ah, sorry, another wonder is a no no".

And I happen to agree with Sharpe... I would rather waive Bach's then include another wonder guarantee for them. I do not see wonders we would be willing to waive... no "clear" ones.

Actually, what about this: we trade Theology for cheap to everybody (to GoW for Chivalry+noSistine clause, to everybody else for few gold pieces+noSistine clause), using its value to make sure NO other team will try to build Sistine's - and then rush to build.... BACH'S... backfilling the Sistine's only later (since that wonder would be "guaranteed").

[Tiberius]

If we could make everyone agree on our beloved no-Sistine clause, then it's a good idea.

[ZargonX]

Well, for exactly the reaons you mentioned, Tiberius, I am stepping down from the GoW ambassador post. The Pres. cannot function as an ambassador, because everything I say may be taken as official whether it is or not.

In this case, however, you may notice that I clearly stated that while I was understanding of their position, that I needed a written proposal from them, which I could then take to the team for approval. I do not think this is the same as what MZ did to Vondrack, as he gave absolutely no indication that there were any issues.

[vondrack]

Guys, I have had two long chats with Panzer32 and Master Zen. Do not do anything regarding GoW until I post them, please. Will do so after I wake up (4:25am here).

EDIT: let's continue the debate in the GoW F.A. thread.