Team Info and Contacts - PAL

[Swiss Pauli]

*BUMP*

Can we decide on our response to PAL before the game restarts on Tuesday. Cheers.

[sooooo]

I think you should send out your email, with the last paragraph replaced by

"We have Monotheism now, so when you research Code of Laws we will trade. When you expect that to be? Regarding our future plans, we expect to persue some techs on the upper half of the tree - we have not finalised the details yet. If you guys want to research feudalism or metal casting then I'm sure we can work out a trade."

[sunrise089]

I wouldn't give then ANY hints about GL. I would send:

Originally posted by sooooo
"We have Monotheism now, so when you research Code of Laws we will trade. When you expect that to be? Regarding our future plans, what sort of time-frame are you thinking about for Metal Casting/Feudalism?. If you guys want to research either one of them I'm sure we can work out a trade, we just need some sort of time estimate so we can properly prioritize our research path."

[Zeviz]

I prefer Sooooo's version, because it sounds more cooperative. Sunrise's version asks about their detailed plans without giving any hint of ours. There are plenty of things aside from GL at the top of the tree, so we will not be giving away too much by using Sooooo's.

[Swiss Pauli]

Version 0.2

I think you should send out your email, with the last paragraph replaced by

Thanks for the recent emails regarding the Code of Laws-Monarchy deal. We were obviously very concerned when we saw that your team had traded in Monarchy from Imperio. However, we are happy with your proposed swap of Monotheism for CoL, and we're willing to consider further deals requiring co-ordinated research.

We have Monotheism now, so when you research Code of Laws we will trade. When you expect that to be? Regarding our future plans, we expect to pursue some techs on the upper part of the tree - we have not finalised the details yet, not least because Monarchy is an important tech for us.

We'd be happy to trade in either Metalcasting or Feudalism in the next deal, so we'll leave it to you to choose which tech you research next.

Added the bit about Monarchy to give more weight to our tech dilemma, and reworded the MC/Feud part.

[mostly-harmless]

..., so we'll leave it to you to choose which tech you research next.

For a sensitive person that could come over wrongly.

A sentence like this from Templars for example and we would be steaming.

mh

[Swiss Pauli]

I could change it to 'which of these techs you prefer'.

[mostly-harmless]

Sure.

btw. shouldn't the game be up and running by now?

mh

[Swiss Pauli]

Snoopy said he'd be back on Tuesday IIRC.

[Zeviz]

Most of the message looks good, but I have a few comments:

Originally posted by mostly-harmless

For a sensitive person that could come over wrongly.

A sentence like this from Templars for example and we would be steaming.

mh

It might be better to just skip this part. Anything that we add can only make it sound like we are giving them a permission on what tech to research next.

I also would remove the line about "not least because Monarchy is an important tech for us", because it's best to refrain from intentionally misleading statements. This line is most likely to be interpreted to mean that we are still researching Monarchy, which isn't true considering that we've already started Aestetics research.

PS Don't forget to remove the first line from your quote.

EDIT: Looks like nested quotes get removed. So I was suggesting to limit the last paragraph to "We'd be happy to trade in either Metalcasting or Feudalism in the next deal."

[Swiss Pauli]

I'm fine with cutting down the final sentence to "We'd be happy to trade in either Metalcasting or Feudalism in the next deal."

However, we need to decide whether to obfuscate or not. We can spell out the techs on the top part of the tree (Aesthetics, Drama, Literature, Music) and mention that we need Monarchy soon by trade, or by learning it ourselves. Or we can stick to the vague wording.

We need to trade them at least two 'top tree' techs for either Feud or MC, so I don't think it's so important for them to know our next tech (esp. as they have to complete CoL as well).

[Zeviz]

I agree.

I also consider Math and Currency to be "top of the tree" techs. Or even CS for that matter. So should we say: "We'd be happy to buy either Metalcasting or Feudalism for one or two (depending on cost) techs from top or middle part of the tree in the next deal."

[Swiss Pauli]

Hmmmm. That didn't quite work as intended...I proposed an alternative style of response (open on techs we're planning) and didn't really get much feedback I'll send something to PAL tonight (CET) so feedback would be appreciated.

[sunrise089]

I like the new response Swiss.

[Sullla]

I think the wording of version 0.2 is already fine. Just make the minor adjustments suggested, and we should be ready to go. Vague wording doesn't seem offensive to me - we aren't obligated to tell other teams our exact research path, right?