Alliance with Lux Invicta

[Togas]

I have told Trip that my wise men would draft up a proposal for an alliance to be presented to Lux Invicta next week. I want us to use this thread to determine exactly what we want from such a deal.

Personally, I want something that doesn't tie us too heavily, something with loopholes that we can exploit. Something that has a set termination date. Something that spends a lot of time gabbing about how we will work together in friendship for the join successes of our great nations, etc, etc, but doesn't PROMISE anything too specific.

We should debate how long this should be, and we should debate if we want this document to be used to force Lux to fight when we fight (IF we ever fight first), or if we want this document to be used to keep Lux as a friend (therefore, not an enemy) while we keep from getting forced to over commit to a war they get into by the vauge terms in it.

I would like to have jdjdjd be the primary author of this document, but I would like all of the wisemen of Spain to contribute to what we should include, what our goals should be, and how we should phrase things.

--Togas

[Togas]

Note, should we decide that we DO NOT want to ally with Lux, we should draft a document that gives us very few requirements, expires quickly, can be voided under certain conditions, but still speaks in large flowery language about how much we value each other's friendship and cooperation and how this document is evidence of our great bond, etc.

Bottom line: We're going to give them something, but what we give them will be shaped by exactly what we want from them.

--Togas

[E_T]

Friends, but no wars, unless on our terms. We don't want to get involved in something that they start, unless it greatly benifits us. We should have it, were Lux will help us, if ND or GoW tries to come after us. We should only help them, if it more adventagious for us to do so.

We don't need to be tied at the hip with them, but it should appear to them that we are.

E_T

[Aidun]

Why not sign a military alliance? We MUST however include a line that obligates them to inform us of their plans to declare war to a nation SEVERAL turns before the declaration of war. We should together decide if we want our alliance to declare war to a nation and NOT let this depend only on the decision of Lux.
If they should not inform us, or we would not agree with them, we should have the right to abstain. Of course we can still help them in other way's, financially, technologically.

In this way it seems to be a real military alliance, but in fact only an empty promise.

It would be interesting to discuss what to do if we occupy a city that was occupied by the enemy, but formerly owned by our ally. Do we give it back to them for a reward or something or do we keep it?

Aidun Cian

[Aidun]

Another question: How can we trust Trip that he shall keep his word? Everybody here seems to consider him as trustworthy, but I'd like to here why. This is nothing personal on Trip, but we have first to decide if we trust them or not before entering in ANY agreement or pact. Compare: we have decided that GoW are mercenaries and thus not trustworthy to keep a promise.

Aidun Cian

[jdjdjd]

Please see my long rant in the Diplomacy thread. I say stay of an alliance with this man. He is opportunistic and has used the recent event with GoW against us.

I say the alliance be this:
**
RP agrees not to declare war on Lux and Lux agrees not to declare war on RP, unless circumstances between us are dramatically changed by either party's own aggressiveness, allainces with other civilizations or plotting against the other.

RP and Lux both agree that any defensive war initiated by another aggressive civilization is to trigger the alliance, and the non-warring ally agrees to assist the warring ally, so long as the war would not cause undue, unnecessary and irreversible harm to the non-warring ally.

RP and Lux agree that any aggressive war started by one ally is not a trigger to this contract.

Any aggressive or harming beahvior by ally against the other causes this agreement to be null and void and will allow the non-aggressive party to go to the international community with the aggressor's harmful and violating behavior.

This agreement expires in X turns.

I think that is what I would want to see - of course I rushed into and still a bit paranoid towards Lux after reading the posts int he Diplo thread re: what happened last night.

I am really against any alliance other than a non-aggression pact for 50 turns.

[Ninot]

to answer Aidun.... I don't trust Trip at all.

He can be a good guy, sure. But he will do whatever he wants to get HIS way. Teamwork goes by the wayside if it doesnt serve his purpose. If we can do something for him, he will keep an alliance. If we can't, he will break it without shedding a tear, and I believe in that firmly.

Hes an opportunistic guy, and thats dangerous in many, many ways.

If we had a choice, i'd opt to ally with another civ other than his own. As it is though, if we dont make a small alliance, thats suspicious.

So, yeah, I vote we make as few terms as possible, and terms that give ourselves the most freedom we can get.

[Thud]

We should put in a clause that will void the agreement if one of us signs an alliance with another civ. This will:

A) Discourage Lux from forming another alliance and dragging us into a war with the remaining civ on our continent and

B) Allow us to get out of the agreement if one of the other two civs turn out to offer a little more for our money.

[Aidun]

Originally posted by Thud
We should put in a clause that will void the agreement if one of us signs an alliance with another civ. This will:

A) Discourage Lux from forming another alliance and dragging us into a war with the remaining civ on our continent and

B) Allow us to get out of the agreement if one of the other two civs turn out to offer a little more for our money.

No we should not do so.

For A: If we give ourselves the right to decide whether we want to declare war or not, then there is no need to forbid signing other alliances.

For B: If we put that as a right for us, Trip is stupid if he doesn't claim that right for himself too. As he is not stupid but very clever, I fear, we won't get this line only for ourselves in the agreement.
We could then better send him a bouquet of flowers to show the close relationship between our countries. Such an agreement is worth nothing.

Aidun Cian

[Togas]

Some ideas I had this morning. Please discuss:

Make it a 20 turn deal. That's about a month. I can't see anyone going to war prior to 20 turns.

Neither team may declare war on each other or the allies of the other team for the duration of this agreement.

Make no promises in the agreement to declare war on anyone, but state that we will "defend our ally" should they come under attack.

Heck, we could send in troops as "peacekeepers" or something if there's a conflict.

State that there must be agreement for a JOINT declaration of war by our alliance. If our alliance cannot agree to such a joint declaration, the alliance can be voided if one side declares war without the other's agreement.

... just some thoughts to consider.

--Togas

[Hot Mustard]

I think a maximum 20 turns for agreements makes alot of sense, being the same amount of time for in-game agreements.

Also, I am not in favour of agreements that do not closely mirror possible agreements in-game (Alliances, MPP, RoP, etc). Any creative agreements could become onerous and open to interpretation by both sides, whereas everyone knows how the in-game agreements work and what the expectations of them are.

Finally, take a look at all the legal messes in the SPDG game - do we really want to start writing out formal agreements of this and that, and then contesting them afterwards, and so on. Blech.

[Aidun]

Very well my lord I fully agree with you.

To dejon: I think that we musn't sign only in-game agreements. Now that we have the possibility to think out and sign our own agreements and have a very strong diplomacy we should take this advantage. However, agreemets MUST be written in a very clear language so that the other side can't interprete it diffrent from us.
If help is needed, I'll be always willing to help.

Aidun Cian

[DAVOUT]

In the past, agreements were guaranteed by hostages, of course they did not have international courts. Why not send them high ranked hostages like Arnelos and/or dejon, and they could kill them if we dont stick to our words ?

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
In the past, agreements were guaranteed by hostages, of course they did not have international courts. Why not send them high ranked hostages like Arnelos and/or dejon, and they could kill them if we dont stick to our words ?

[OliverFA]

Hey this isn't such a bad idea at all!

Maybe not for now, but for other agreements, use a unit like hostage.