[ooc]: GS vs. Vox?

[Togas]

Whenever I play Civ3, I hate starting next to Persia. The Persians will suddenly drop 3 Immortals into your territory and attack you at their first opportunity. If I'm not prepared, the first city they attack is toast. From that point on, I can usually fight off the AI's lousey tactics, but I absolutely hate fighting Immortals. You cannot defend against them, you must attack them.

Now, imagine playing against a Human with Immortals. Large stacks, hidden tactically by fog of war, following good defensive terrain, sacking cities easily as they march almost effortlessly through your territory. You know they're going to win, the only question is how much territory they can take before you can stop them. And once they win, Golden Age starts up and they come out even faster.

Sure, the Egyptians have cheap WCs to throw up against Immortals to slow them down. Sure, they can counter with their own GA, but can you imagine the dread they're facing daily as they try to come up with battle tactics to fight the best UU in the game? Add to that the fact that their enemy is Scientific and can probably beat them to research if on an even pace.

They need an edge. They need a counter. And They feel like they need some friends.

--Togas

[DAVOUT]

The real problem would be for GS the lack of horses or of iron; in this case, we could help them seriously (it is sure as for horses, and probable for iron) without risk.

[DAVOUT]

GS (first figure) score compared to Vox

3450......27.......33
3100......43.......47
2630......58.......58
2230......70.......64

GS has recovered from his bad start (He felt necessary to move his settler on the first turn), and has just settled his 3rd city in 2270. GS is now producing basic score points at the same rate as ND and Spain.

IIRC, the last message of Betahound was the first of two parts, and the second part was apparently never received. We could send a reminder or something.

[Arnelos]

Personally, I think GS can overrun Vox even with the immortals as a consideration, but we'll see... those immortals certainly stack the deck.

I agree that it is quite near to CERTAIN that Gathering Storm's pretence at being a "peaceful civilization" is false... they're talking up a storm in that forum about how on earth they're going to conquer Vox Controli... I don't even doubt it.

The things we want from them:

1. Do not found settlements on our claimed subcontinent - period. Perhaps we can say they shouldn't found any cities on our continent at the level of our capital or south of it? Perhaps we could extend the line to so many tiles north of our capital?
2. Non-aggression - will not attack us.
3. Will not invade any nation on our continent without at least consulting with us first (respecting sphere of influence)

Things we can afford to give them:
1. Will not found settlements on their continent
2. Non-aggression - will not attack them.
3. Will not invade any nation (Vox) on their continent without at least consulting them first (respecting sphere of influence).

Other agreements:
- Tech trading (eventually)
- Map trading (eventually)

Our business on our own continents is our own business, but each side would obviously agree that it might be of mutual interest to keep each other informed if they want any help, etc.

The above needs some alteration (especially part #3 - I'm not quite sure how that should work... perhaps not invading on the other continent at without *approval* from the other team... but that will seem somewhat lopsided to GS... we'll see), but it's a start.

Thoughts?

[Arnelos]

What I'm after with Gathering Storm is something along the lines of an agreement to respect each others' spheres of influence in addition to a mere non-aggression pact... that's a better agreeement and it handles the problem of worrying that the other team will plop a settler down right next to them.... as a prohibition against that is incorporated into the same agreement.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Arnelos
What I'm after with Gathering Storm is something along the lines of an agreement to respect each others' spheres of influence in addition to a mere non-aggression pact... that's a better agreeement and it handles the problem of worrying that the other team will plop a settler down right next to them.... as a prohibition against that is incorporated into the same agreement.

I have been badly impressed by their reluctance regarding the non agression pact : a 10 turns delay when they refuse to renew such a pact reduces immensely the interest as well as the meaning of the pact, all the more that it is a rolling ten turns. If they stick to that, we cannot contemplate more than ordinary trades.