Vox Public Announcement - Peace in Our Times?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The fun thing about pulling dirty tricks on AIs in SP is that whether we treat them honorably or dishonorably, it's all 1's and 0's to the computer. No one is hurt, and no one with a vested interest is offended. MP is an entirely different matter in that regard.

Oh yeah? Gen. Protection Fault, who usually is commander of AI armies gets pissed whenever I kick his ass and crashes my computer whenever he can. Is that not a grudge?

[nbarclay]

Keep in mind that any comparison between GS and other teams (besides Vox) needs to add the better part of 20 turns' GA bonus to wealth and production for the other teams. Your GAs are ahead of you, while ours is mostly behind us. That's (at a minimum) hundreds of gold and hundreds of shields that you have to look forward to and we don't. Further, after the war is over, the large military we needed to build up to fight will be a serious drain on our economy. I certainly won't say we're in terrible shape, but I don't view us as being in the kind of dominant position others try to portray us as being in either.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Master Zen

Oh yeah? Gen. Protection Fault, who usually is commander of AI armies gets pissed whenever I kick his ass and crashes my computer whenever he can. Is that not a grudge?

Sounds like maybe your computer has a bit more personality than most. Fortunately, Gen. Protection Fault seems to spend most of his time AWOL on mine.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed


We also see why Lux did not make it... Remember people, this is important...
Pillage first, Then burn....

Mss

Yes, yes, very important. Bread and wine taste much better if you remove them from the farmhouse BEFORE you burn it to the ground.

[vondrack]

Just few re's:

Originally posted by Arrian

Originally posted by vondrack
"We were looking for ways to expand on Estonia anyways, so this war is basically welcome..." - I believe I am quoting this correctly.

Quoting whom, from where? -Arrian

Honestly, I did not even know it was Aeson saying that... I just happen to remember that line well, since it is exactly how I feel about AIs daring to attack me in SP games. (I often limit myself to "retaliation wars" in SP, to make games more of a challenge).

When I mentioned that statement I knew it was said in the best spirit of trash-talking... but trash-talking is not talking nonsense, it's exaggerating and making fun of what everybody understands or views as natural, inevitable, or obvious. I mentioned it to point out - and I hope the later part of my post made that clear - that if Voxes did not attack GS, GS would, sooner or later, attack Vox. Perhaps with a 10-turn notice, perhaps not.

I view that as totally ok. I believe those of you that are members of the ISDG team understand I've got absolutely no problem with this concept. It's not a problem of the people playing the game, it's the problem of the game, of how it's designed. I mentioned that statement to somewhat lessen the importance of the "it was them attacking us" argument. Right, Voxes fired the first shot. But if it was not them, it would be you. All this "we could never trust them any more" stuff is... no offense meant - a bit pathetic. It is just a matter of making sure Voxes would not be able to do any harm to you again - which the Voxian peace proposal (I would call it a "surrender proposal") seemed to guarantee. And if - in your eyes - not, then it would be - from the PR-image PoV - better to counter by publicly posting your demands, instead of just stating you don't accept anything but all of Estonia.

Originally posted by Arrian

Originally posted by vondrack
Legoland is committed to keeping Vox Controli alive, yes. We will certainly consider doing more than just letting vondrack express his own personal ideas here.

Why? -Arrian

Perhaps because dealing with Voxes has always been a pleasure, cordial, bringing fine deals, and a feeling we were treated as an esteemed partner and not as a second rate dumb AI?

This is NOT meant as an attack at any team. Merely pointing out Voxes have always been easy to deal with.

Originally posted by Shiber
What puzzles me, though, is how come when GoW and ND were almost frantic about driving Lux off of Bob few have publicly expressed their discomfort with the idea, whereas when GS wants to remove Vox from its territory, a civ that has caused much more trouble than Lux ever did (according to my knowledge of their actions that have agitated ND and GoW), so many people raise an eyebrow and frown at our declarations (which are much less harsh than the ones that ND and GoW have released during the war with Lux, particularly the Tripula the Impaler folklore).

This is difficult for me to comment as Lego was not part of that event at all. Or, almost no part. But I'd guess that the primary reason was the balance of power - at the time of Luxian Wars, the "balance of power" was only being formed. Spoils of Lux went or could have gone to three different teams. That's probably why nobody actually considered that a major problem. This time, whatever Voxes lose, GS gains.

Yes, it is definitely not "fair", I agree.

Originally posted by Shiber
Maybe there's something that I'm missing. Maybe I'm not reading the political map correctly, or maybe GS has made some diplomatic mistakes in the past to make the other teams "wary" of it. If you have any idea, and can talk about it, please tell me - I am very curious.

Well, I am probably going to be executed for actually commenting on this. But... I hope the purpose of this game is to improve ourselves, to realize one's weaknesses and such, is it not? So... c'mon... GS has probably the most brilliant builders, the most brilliant generals... and the worst diplomats the world has ever seen. I mean no offense, really, I am just honest - but GS diplomacy is a plain disaster. Instead of listing examples, which would inevitably turn into a quote-war we have no need for, I will mention one of my rather old SP games here. May give you a hint... it is not an exact parallel though, mind you.

Dunno what civ I was, does not really matter... but I was the best one, feeling so good about how great an empire I was running. One of my neighbours declared war on me... admittedly, a bit unexpectedly. I thought I would handle it easily... just reshuffled some units to better respond to the initial attack wave. Then, on the next turn, another civ declared war on me... huh?... ok, few more troop relocations and things should be fine. Then another one... hell, what's problem??? Why did they join HIM and not me? I did NOTHING to them... needless to say I lost that game in a rather humiliating way. Fighting all my neighbours at once was too much even for my glorious empire...

Now, answer one simple question here for yourself: why did those civs join or support my enemy? Yes, the answer was trivial: because I have never asked them to join ME...

Several times in the Civ3 Strat forum, I noticed the idea that it was not so important to OWN a great wonder, as it was to DENY it to others. Now, can this be applied to wars and allies? If one warring side tells me "yeah, no problem, we can handle that, don't worry" (read: no deal available) and the other one says "look, we cannot make it on our own, we'd really appreciate if you could support us, even indirectly - if you can help us here with this, we could give you that..." (read: a deal available). So, what does a civ having no interest in either warring party winning the war do? Yes, right, it sticks to doing business. Wherever it is available.

Do not read too much into this, you could easily get mislead as to what actually applies to this very game and how. But try thinking this over a bit, people of Gathering Storm... and you may better understand why it's you defending your stance here and not Beta... which I can surely understand may feel quite unfair.

Originally posted by nbarclay
I certainly won't say we're in terrible shape, but I don't view us as being in the kind of dominant position others try to portray us as being in either.

What did GS do to ensure other teams would perceive its strength "properly"? Is there any reason for "others portraying you this way"? What if they actually see you that way?


And one last notice: please, keep in mind that I'm ATM the MoW of Legoland only, not its leader. I did make it clear I was presenting my personal views, not those of Legoland. I just feel these threads are becoming a bit dull with mostly the same stuff being mulled over every time, so I'm posting even things that probably should remain untold until the game ends - considering that hinting at mistakes being done can affect the future events...

[Arrian]

All this "we could never trust them any more" stuff is... no offense meant - a bit pathetic. It is just a matter of making sure Voxes would not be able to do any harm to you again - which the Voxian peace proposal (I would call it a "surrender proposal") seemed to guarantee.

Not so, at least not from our perspective.

Look, it's all very well and good that your diplomatic exchanges with Vox have gone well. Ours have left us with a RADICALLY different impression of Vox than the one you hold.

Call it pathetic if you wish. We do not trust them. I cannot see how we ever can.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. We're not stupid.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Oh, and Whitebandit, you rock! Thank you for chiming in.

At least SOMEBODY sees our side of this.

-Arrian

[BigFree]

Nice post vondrack; I like the part about how all the AI turned on you BECAUSE you did not ask them to join YOU.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by vondrack

I mentioned that statement to somewhat lessen the importance of the "it was them attacking us" argument. Right, Voxes fired the first shot. But if it was not them, it would be you. All this "we could never trust them any more" stuff is... no offense meant - a bit pathetic. It is just a matter of making sure Voxes would not be able to do any harm to you again - which the Voxian peace proposal (I would call it a "surrender proposal") seemed to guarantee. And if - in your eyes - not, then it would be - from the PR-image PoV - better to counter by publicly posting your demands, instead of just stating you don't accept anything but all of Estonia.

I find it amazing how people seem to miss the central point no matter how many times we repeat it. It is not the mere fact that Vox attacked us that makes trust so nearly impossible. Rather, it is the elaborate deception they used to set it up. Not just breach of a treaty, but a series of outright, direct lies, both to us and to the world at large. Vox couldn't have done a better job of destroying our ability to trust them if they had deliberatley set out to do so.

As for making sure Vox can't hurt us again, by far the surest way is to remove them from the continent, if not from the game. As long as they are here, they tie up our troops defending a border, which in turn forces us to maintiain a larger and more expensive military than we would need otherwise, which in turn distracts from our building efforts. If we could trust them, potential for future cooperation might offset that cost or even make their continued presence an asset, but in the absence of trust, what redeeming value does their continued presence have to us to offset its cost? We get value from eliminating them; what value can we count on getting from letting them stay here, aside perhaps from having the rest of the world pleased with our willingness to place ourselves at a disadvantage?

All Vox can really offer that we can't claim by force is future considerations, and future considerations aren't worth much in the absence of trust. Even the AI knows that much.

Nathan

[HarryH]

Originally posted by Arrian
We had a border treaty with Vox which they discarded at their whim. There was a set method for renegotiating or withdrawing from the agreement, but it required several (10?) turns notice. Vox instead wanted suprise on their side and attacked, breaking the treaty outright.

GS had already said they wanted to renegotiate the treaty and sent a proposal so the clock was already ticking to expire the initial treaty. How many turns passed between the start of the renegotiation and the start of the war I do not know.

Vox's troops are running N. In our view it is because Inchon flanked the majority of their forces. They need their units N of Inchon to defend the bottleneck.

We had units that could attack Inchon but they were moved further north instead while other units were moving north to vacate the land to the south.

AFAIK, no statement of this type was ever made to GS.

A statement was sent to GS (as posted in Beta's message that started this thread). We got a reply back. My guess is the message was not read very carefully or fully.

Their supposed "good will" move also threatened several of our workers.

Once our units were down to one HP they no threat to the pikes in the area. You could have protected the workers with pikes. Our units were moved to the plains to show "good will" as stated in the message. If you wanted to show good faith, you could have protected your workers and left our units alone.

Shiber wrote:
Maybe there's something that I'm missing. Maybe I'm not reading the political map correctly, or maybe GS has made some diplomatic mistakes in the past to make the other teams "wary" of it. If you have any idea, and can talk about it, please tell me - I am very curious.

When I joined this game it was well underway. I spent a lot of time reading the old threads of my team. There was a lot of talk about and with GS in the early days as they were the only other known civ for a while. Some things I read in the chats told me that GS did not take Vox seriously and would use them or their land one way or another. When GS started to renegotiate the intial treaty it set off some warning alarms in my head. I don't want to get into an argument about what the statements actually and whether my interpretation was right or wrong. I only want to show this as an example where an event that occurred some time before can affect one's interpretation of a later event. In viewing the same events someone else may come to different conclusions. What may appear to be good diplomacy can be interpretted very differently by someone else.

Diplomacy is the one area of the game that is very different between SP and MP. Diplomacy is also very different in MP as the game does not impose more than just a few basic rules (e.g., you can not trade a resource you do not have, you can not trade maps without the technology, etc.). Add in a lot of human factors (e.g., team dynamics) and you can see that diplomacy in an DG game can be the one thing that can be very different from one game to the next. That can be good or bad. Although individual teams may develop their own rules for diplomacy there are none for the game unless those rules are made and all teams agree to them. Diplomacy and these announcement threads are contentious in this game. As this is the first team DG game I hope it is something we can all learn from.

[ManicStarSeed]

Personal observations….

Arrian:
I think Vod’s point is it is up to us to approach diplomacy as if it was a business transaction lots of give and take, take the time to understand the undercurrent and the mind of our friends in the world, nurture it

BUT…

It is easy to be a diplomatic good guy when you have your own land mass, haven’t fought a war with a neighbor, haven’t had to defeat an enemy, are the underdog in a war, don’t look like the tough kid in the class and are adept at manipulating public sentiment. GS’s biggest problem is that we are INEPT and manipulating public sentiment. I would like to see what happens when another war breaks out that does not involve GS and RP, GoW, ND or Lego cries uncle…Lets see who the real spin doctors are.

From what this thread seems to imply is that it is not OK to eliminate a foe. Be the nice guy, GS we like Vox. High road… Bahhh it is just rhetoric I ask…Is it good strategy to weaken a foe to the point of forever furious but not eliminate them from the game just because of feelings? This threads whole basis is that a civ must accept peace when offered.

Our diplomatic issues are unique to the geopolitics of our unique land mass. Wait until Bob mixes it up. This is likely not the last war, nor is GS the last bully. We are apparently the first to cross the bridge; however.

Careful people, or you might prove to be hypocrites if you are not careful.

[Tiberius]

ManicStarSeed:
hint: when Vondrack said "but GS diplomacy is a plain disaster" he wasn't referring only to the DS-Vox war, and it has nothing to do with having your own land and not fighting wars and so on. You either face your own mistakes and correct them (or try at least) or lie yourself and further "suffer" the consequencies.

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by Tiberius
ManicStarSeed:
hint: when Vondrack said "but GS diplomacy is a plain disaster" he wasn't referring only to the DS-Vox war, and it has nothing to do with having your own land and not fighting wars and so on. You either face your own mistakes and correct them (or try at least) or lie yourself and further "suffer" the consequencies.

Actuallly I understood that. Personally I understand where he was coming from. I have not been too involved in the diplomacy up to recently. I watched what went on and I cringe quite a lot. If it was up to me it would be different. I just focused on the war as that is what this thread is about.

Vox (beta) is masterfull at manipulating public sentiment, I helps that they have been coorperative throughout. It makes you receptive to their influence. I know that GS is a bear to deal with. I hate to see some of my team "negotiate" I can't tell if the are using a gun, baseball bat or steam roller when they should be using a feather. Again I said too much. I will take it up with the team later, but this is about a percieved injustice regarding a war we did not start but intend to finish.

Mss

[Arrian]

Tiberius,

Speaking of reaping what you've sewn, what do you think Vox is doing right now?

-Arrian

[Theseus]