The Foreign Affairs Thread

[Dis]

we could let them move their warrior up through there (repecting territorial boundaries as we are)- but no settlers.

This would be the only fair thing to do. We must appease them until we found our city there. It would be nice to get quick respons from the team before we play our next turn. If we all agree, I can back the warrior up one square and keep an eye on their warrior.

[Jon Miller]

this is going to be close

we have to keep from being pushed arround too far, but also not go to war

this will be delicate (And if they get past the choke point, they will know we lied about talking to others!!!)

Eli, anyone else, how long before we get another settler?

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

wait, we might have enough territory that they will think that there is land to the north (that our 'continent' extends farther than it does)

Jon Miller

[Dis]

yes Jon, our two cities should prevent them from seeing the northern part of our continent. As long as they respect our borders that is.

At this point I vote to move our warrior back and let 1 of their warriors past.

[Dis]

And if we could write a response back to them.

We could point out in our response that we are crowded in (which is true in a way), and we do not have much land north of the chokepoint. So we will let their warrior explore that small patch of land and leave. Make it be known due to our small patch of land we do wish to settle the chokepoint soon. It seems in their respons they conceded our right to settle there- which is good. And we can state that we just wanted to stage our warrior there for our city site.

Or something like that .

[Wittlich]

Tell them to go jump in a lake and face and early war (that we're not prepared to fight), or let their one - and I do mean one - warrior though to have a look around. Tuff call. But with our current situation, I say to let their 1 warrior through as an act of good faith....now we need to get out southern most warrior down to their land to look around too.

[Eli]

Both cities are building a spearman now. I guess that when it's ready they'll start with settlers.

If they are allowed to see our land they will understand how lousy our starting position is. That might be a problem.

[Beta]

Well - I agree to some degree with all the comments made to-date. Especially the one about jumping in the lake.

If we do let one warrior through - we would need their promise that they not enter our territory. That would at least leave them in the dark about the land north of us and possible contact with another civ, as jon has mentioned.

However, they may be bluffing, and may simply break that promise and continue north. Then what are our options - kill him - or let him go.

The questions are-

1.)what will they do if we don't move Thadeus. Will they actually go after our first two warriors?

2.) what do we gain and lose by not letting them pass. Other than p***ing them off. And I don't think GS is a team that will be ruled by emotion. There are two many good players on the team. And that means trying to win favors, or stay on their good side will be meaningless as well. When they need to do something to win the game, they will. And they won't think twice about squashing a neighbour if need be.

So - that being said - what does letting them through gain for us. Not much as far as I can see. I can appreciate the point about trying to appear meek, until immortals are available. But again, they know the facts, and the therat we may pose. Our diplomatic stance will likely mean very little to them.

As Eli pointed out - our start was not fabulous, but the one geographic advantage we have is the chokepoint. I for one would hate to give that up early.

Let me ask you this - if the roles were reversed, what do you think GS would do?

[Dis]

If I was GS I would attack unless Vox withdrew their troops from outside their cities (I do think we are getting close to their boundaries)

I do think they will respect our territory boundaries- just remind them of that agreement- as we will not pass through theirs.

We can move our warrios back to block any attempt at passage through our territory. And by block I mean attack them if they set foot in our territory.

Do we need to take a vote on it? I say we let their one warrior in. And make it clear that any intrusion on our land will be viewed as a hostile action and will be responded to.

[Eli]

We should let that single warrior in.

[Eli]

But stall it.

Tell them we are discussing the issue, and let's stall for another 3-4 turns.

[Beta]

Diss - good points.

The question I am asking is - if GS were us, and they controlled the chokepoint, would they let us through?

I'm suspecting they would not.

But I will go with the team on this one.

The one plus to giving in is how it will look. What I mean is - we tried to act tough - they didn't buy it - we back down and give up our geographic advantage. Therefore, they think we are somewhat scared of upsetting them - after all, they are Gathering Storm. We would appear meek from the get go.

This may help give us an advantage of surprise when we really need it - ie in about 40 turns.

The other point which would need to be made to them- is that we are considering it for a city site. What do we do when we plunk a city down there and their warrior is still north of the chokepoint?

What happens if they ask us not to put a city there, as it effectively closes it off? If we would tell them to jump in the lake on that point- why don't we do it now, and keep them guessing on our starting position.

My first choice is still to say no.

[Beta]

Eli - yes, if the decision is to let them through - one only - and yes we stall.

But I still say no. Build a city there - build walls. And then expand south with Immortals to ensure our well being.

[Wittlich]

Interesting points Beta. I for one do not like letting their warrior through...but if it wil delay a hostile outbrake...but then again, a question that needs to be asked: Is GS ready for war? I don't think so. We could save face an inform them that our warriors (yes, put 2 of them there) cannot move because our settler is on its way to settle a city on that loaction, and if we allow their warrior through, the warrior will be stuck behind our lines. How does that reasoning sound?

[Beta]

I agree Witt. I don't think they are ready for war. And the rationale about a city going up there makes sense, even if it is a few turns away.

I believe they realize we have a geographic advantage here and they are trying to bluff their way in.