Diplomacy Thread

[ruby_maser]

Ada,

If you haven't sent it yet, you might clarify how no agreements have been broken since we can't not trade them Writing when we don't have it yet. I think they were under the impression we did have it and were holding out.

All in all, very good document

[Hot Mustard]

Good letter adaMada.

However, there is no mention of our desires with respect to their warriors in our land. Are we giving up this point and letting them fully explore the/our terrain, while we are politely not exploring theirs? That was the starting point of this most recent conflict - and it isn't addressed at all.

[pikesfan]

Originally posted by dejon
Are we giving up this point and letting them fully explore the/our terrain, while we are politely not exploring theirs?

We can’t do anything about it anyway.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by pikesfan

We can’t do anything about it anyway.

The only thing we can do is harass them - block/trap them with two or three units. Of course, I would rather not tie up units in such foolishness. I merely ask that we say something like:

"We wish to maintain peaceful relations with GoW. You should know, however, that some of our people are upset and insulted at the rude intrusion into our lands after our polite request. They insist the incident will not be forgotten. In their minds, the Chinese have demonstrated that they are arrogant hotheads, who overreact, misconstrue, and unfairly accuse all who they meet. I am afraid it will take quite some time to repair the damage done to repair your reputation here, though I am trying hard. I pray that those of this sentiment never rise to power, for then I fear our relations would not simply be under strain, they would break.

Maybe not quite so heavy, but you get the drift.

[DAVOUT]

Ada,

You dont give up anything, that is fine for me.

Ruby maser idea is quite strong and could be incorporated.

I agree that the quotes could be dropped since they just focus their attention on their claims.

And you omit their warrior (and our escort ) which is the best way to solve the problem.

You did it ada !

[adaMada]

Sorry -- I did forgot to mention that we still want them OUT. I'll go back and reclarify.

ruby_maser,
Good point. I'll make sure to mention that we don't even HAVE writing yet.

Any other thoughts?

-- adaMada

[Ninot]

I raise a point

we never at all canceled the prospects of a deal, nevermind a deal.

we merely warned them we didnt want them finding tactical information against us, and if they did so, we wouldn't trade. we never canceled anything.

this can be pointed out if they insist we had a trade agreement.

[Arnelos]

adaMada,

This was quite well written. No objections... hope you sent it already

[Togas]

ada,

Minor changes or not, get that sent out tonight.

I like some of the suggestions so include them if you can, if not, save for your next letter. We need to keep up a dialogue with them.

--Togas

[jdjdjd]

OK - to clarify, I am telling Lux that we have Mysticism, and would theyt care to make some type of trade - and move research elsewhere.

Is that correct?

I will send it out by tomorrow night, assuming nothing else needed.

As for those who think Lux is in for an early war - its still too early and they do not have the population or production base to fight one yet, not to mention we still are on par or better than them in military size.

We should be worried about a war - don't concentrate on Lux - it could come from anywhere. And with Lux we still have an Alliance for another 15 turns or so.

[adaMada]

Togas,
Sorry this took so long to get out -- it was hard to write. I'll try to do it faster in the future -- more than a day's wait is really bad while the game's moving so quickly. Sorry.

Here's the final message to Panzer. A lot of word changes and meaningless things cut out to get it to fit in one PM, but I managed to squeeze in the ideas behind the above suggestions. As for content, it's basically what I posted above, minus a lot of little things and plus a sentance or two addressing the above stuff.

-- adaMada

Panzer,
I apologize to you and your team for the late reply; it’s taken a day or two for me to sort everything out.

** NOTE: I've had to snip out all but the first few words of each paragraph of your message to make the PM within size limits, but each reply addresses the full text **

There are several things at this juncture that I think are needed to continue good relations between our two teams:

Obviously, good relations between our two teams are most important to us. We want this behind us as much as you do – any other deals are impossible while this hangs over our heads. As soon as this is behind us – with both teams having a mutual understanding and your warrior safely away from our villages and children – we can begin to work together again. Partnership between our teams can only benefit, and strife can only harm. We must understand each other now so we can reap the full benefits of cooperation.

1. We need to trade maps.

I'm afraid that my team has decided that .jpg trades (other than minimaps) are against the spirit of the game. Though I tried to convince them, they feel that minimap trades were agreed upon by all the teams as a way to speed the game up, and that the game is too close to mapmaking for full screen jpg trades to be an acceptable alternative. I'm very sorry, but it's been put to a vote, and there's little I can do about it unless the team decides otherwise. As soon as we have mapmaking, we will happily trade maps using the in-game function.

2. We need to develop trust for each other.

This has me slightly confused. Though I understand several members of our teams discussed such an agreement, I know that I personally never discussed it, and I don't believe it was ever truly agreed upon. To be very honest, we don't even have writing at this time – something we've, to my knowledge, never been misleading about. This was clearly a lapse in communication – on my part as much as anyone else's, and I apologize. Though we need to keep contact at all levels, we also need to ensure that all deals work their way through official channels, so that everyone's always clear on what is mere discussion and what is a binding agreement. Roleplay will honor any agreements it feels that is has made, but I won’t lie to my team – I can’t recall any message from myself agreeing to Writing-Horseback riding. Obviously, if one exists, you should just tell me when it was sent, and you’ll have my fullest apologizes at the lapse in my memory. If a message between our diplomatic branches doesn’t exist on the issue, then we should clarify where the miscommunication occurred, and jointly decide what constitutes a binding agreement and what does not.

3. We need to acknowledge each other's territory.

Indeed. As I've said, Roleplay currently has a very small territorial claim. It's the only ideal territory for cities that is within striking distance of our capital. Obviously, there is other land we'd like to settle at a later time, but for now, that is the extent of our claims – and as I've said, we are well on our way to having the area settled. We will later move on to other territories, but I don't see our settlers meeting each other any time soon – we've no desire to expand that far north.

To be honest, I don't see any reason why territory should be an issue between us. We have no reason to settle the upper parts of the continent, and any cities you found by us would be riddled with corruption. As far as my team is concerned, our teams have no conflict of interest in this matter – we'd even be willing to sign an agreement in this regard.

Thank you for your time, adaMada. I hope you will take these points seriously.

We take these points very seriously. As I've said before, we stand to gain nothing through needless bickering except valuable time while the other teams pull ahead.

Thanks again,
adaMada

[Thud]

Smashing.

EDIT: Anything about us wanting them "OUT"? Maybe I missed it...

[Thud]

Lux is a real mystery : they seems to be militarily weak unable to launch an attack before long (they setteld their second city nine turns after us.

This could mean anything, though. Perhaps they instead built warriors and sent them out to take cities as they were formed, (and undefended). Perhaps they built a granary first. Maybe they have a position sheltered by mountains. It does not necesarily indicate weakness.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Thud
This could mean anything, though. Perhaps they instead built warriors and sent them out to take cities as they were formed, (and undefended). Perhaps they built a granary first. Maybe they have a position sheltered by mountains. It does not necesarily indicate weakness.

I agree. We have no idea what it means.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by Thud
Smashing.

EDIT: Anything about us wanting them "OUT"? Maybe I missed it...

Line in the second paragraph says:

As soon as this is behind us – with both teams having a mutual understanding and your warrior safely away from our villages and children – we can begin to work together again.

A little blunt, but that's the only thing about them removing the warrior in the whole message. Unless they somehow manage to not read that line, they should get the message .

-- adaMada