Team Info and Contacts - Templars

[sunrise089]

Quick change:

"Also, as you are taking the unit risk - feel free to keep the gold proceeds - it was a nice offer - but its only fair if you keep the gold."

is maybe too long. How about...

"Also, as you are taking the unit risk - its only fair if you keep the gold."

[ruff_hi]

email sent with sunrise's word changes.

[ruff_hi]

another email from Templars ...

Dear Ruff,

I wish to discuss with you with what will probably be an important step in both our team's foreign policy. While no doubt it will take a lot of discussion in your team, it is important that we handle this fairly quickly.

Today we received an offer from PAL for an agreement on the exchange of techs. This has again brought up the question about how our two teams will continue to engage each other. So far our cooperation has been on an ad-hoc basis. Because you are our neighbor, however, and because we have both indicated a desire for closer cooperation in the future and building trust, I have deemed it appropriate to first contact you about this offer.

In connection with my previous letter, I wish to stress again that I think that we would mutually profit if we would coordinate our foreign policy a little and prevent ourselves from being played against each other. The misunderstanding that could result from such is potentially very harmful to our relationship. While we see no such intention in PAL's offer, we consider the scenario that a techtrade agreement signed by one of our teams could benefit that team to a level where it is doing a lot better than the other team, causing frustration with the other. My team wishes to prevent this scenario.

Again I want to underline that we desire more cooperation with your team and also on a more structural basis. Now that PAL has made an offer, it seems to us that our teams are standing at a crossroads. We could agree to enter in a techtrading agreement and give such an agreement prevalence over future bilateral tech agreements. It would most assuredly bring our teams closer together, it will certainly build trust, and will help to avoid misunderstanding and mutually harmful foreign policy.

My team would very much support that idea. It seems to us that such an agreement will be a good first step towards a solid partnership and perhaps one day the alliance we both have expressed to desire.

We hope that you will see the usefullness of this and understand that we need to decide this quickly, because we cannot let PAL wait too long.

Yours faithfully,

Sir Aidun
Foreign Affairs Minister of the Knights Templar

Hmm - what are PAL playing at? I thought we were their trading partners! And the "the scenario that a techtrade agreement signed by one of our teams could benefit that team" has already occurred.

Comments?

PS: Sometimes something like this comes up and I would love the ability to 'buzz' the team. Do we have a list of personal emails that we could use to do this? Or are we just happy to wait for people to view the forum?

[sooooo]

The doublecrossing bar stewards! Hmm, not sure what to say. The Templars seem much more friendly and open towards us, only problem is that I doubt they'll be good techers and are rivals for our lands!

PAL are good techers but very sneaky. However, I doubt that either of us when we entered this tech agreement presumed that we wouldn't trade with anyone else. We shouldn't say anything to PAL until at least we make the trade for alphabet.

As to what to say to the templars ... not sure. I wonder what their intentions are by telling us this? It's very nice of them to tell us. Makes us seem a bit sneaky by saying to them that our PAL contact is limited.

[sunrise089]

Yep, PAL is playing sneaky here for sure, but we can't exactly call them out on it

My only question is what PAL has offered. They can't trade Iron Working or Sailing due to the "no tech brokering" rule (it sure we be great if they had forgotten about that though) so they're probably going to trade Alphabet to the Templars. The question is what can the Templars offer that's equally valuable? Perhaps all of the religious prereqs for Monarchy?

[regoarrarr]

Yeah - let's see if we can figure out what they have offered

[ruff_hi]

for me - the big question is do we fess up to Templars about our PAL tech trade?

[sooooo]

Well, when we trade IW for alphabet every team will know what we did. We can't really hide much.

Perhaps we could say:

Very recently they offered us the same proposal. We were wary, but agreed to an initial tech trade of our next tech (Iron Working) for their next tech (alphabet). We did not agree to a long term alliance, and from your infomation we now regard them as very sneaky and are unlikely to do so. We do plan to go ahead with that tech trade, but would warn you that they are trying to play us off against each other. Perhaps you would be interested in trading some of your religious techs for our sailing or archery?

[Sullla]

OK... I spent about a half hour pondering this message and thinking about how to respond. Here's how I see it.

The Templars aren't looking for any specific tech trade offers at the moment. What they want is some kind of general plan, in which we both pledge to enter a "techtrading agreement" to work together in the future. As far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have any problems signing a vague gesture of goodwill like that. The more tech trading partners, the better. That's one of the reasons why Kylearan's Epsilon team was so successful in their Demogame. Besides, weren't we just talking about running min science after researching Iron Working, while negotiating an agreement with Templars to trade for their cheap religious techs? This just plays into our hands.

At the same time, we need to state that both parties in this agreement (RB and Templars) should be free to make tech trades with other teams if the opportunity arises. This gives us an "out" for our current planned trade with PAL. We can therefore avoid telling Templars that we negotiated a trade dozens of turns ago. (Lying by omission is not the same as flat-out lying! ) So, to recap:

- Friendly greetings, we really appreciate you asking our advice on this, etc.

- Yes, we would be interested in a general tech trading agreement. Teams will work out specific details as time progresses. Suggest that we would be interested in trading Fishing + Sailing for Mysticism + Meditation, once "one of our teams discovers Alphabet".

- We aren't willing to commit to an exclusive tech trading agreement. Too early, maybe in time? We wouldn't want to tell them they can't trade with PAL.

- We would love a missionary from one of your religions, if you get the chance. (Don't need to tell them we are desperate for happiness right now. )

What do you think about something along these lines? If Templars want to be Piffle to our Epsilon, I say let them.

[ruff_hi]

Originally posted by Sullla
If Templars want to be Piffle to our Epsilon, I say let them.

Not 100% sure what that meant so I googled it ... came up with this ...

I can offer a bit of advice here..

We are taking out the cities of Piffle to the SW. you will find transports in route to the city. We are aiding Epsilon in all aspects of military conquest. I have dropped research adn culture to have cash for upgrades.

To former alohans.. my whole goal has been to try for victory but at least get 2nd. Piffles double cross and their demand for all the techs and gold we had after they got nukes. Sealed their fate. I started moving troops by land to their area. I then contact Epsilon and asked for their support. They gifted me 2 galleons and the transport. In addition they gifted us a bunch of techs. I was shooting for second adn hoping they woudl nuke each other completly dead. This works just as well.

from http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=289340

[mostly-harmless]

My suggestion would be to reply along the following lines:

"Our believe is that each civ should capitalize on the assets it has, especially in the early grab phase. Our team has emphasized early scouting and could therefore spot good city sites, whereas you for example managed to outrace your rivals by being the first to both Polytheism & Monotheism consequently landing two early religions. (mh: the slight hint that we know about their techs is deliberate)
Other civs may gain gold from huts to allow them higher tech rates, while others might learn important early techs from huts like Animal Husbandry revealing strategic resources. (mh: again, deliberately hinting on our knowledge, stressing our perceived superior position here)
Our past diplomacy is ripe with disputes about those clashing strategies (city placement, aggressive positioning of units). Early alliances and mutual agreed strategies are exceptionally hard to agree on, as they run the risk to constrain one or both parties involved in their expansion phase. This said, we are happy we could solve our frictions peacefully.
We are of course attempting to come to the same peaceful understandings with other civs we meet and build up a foundation of trust and cooperation whenever possible. Our increased scouting efforts are well demonstrating that desire.
On the other hand your team seemed, for we are sure very good reason, to have followed a more isolationistic policy towards other civs, especially "yellow civ"/PAL.
Finally coming to the point.
We are happy for you to follow your own interests on the tech market, as we will expect nothing less in return. Once Alphabet becomes widely known in the world, we are sure tech trading opportunities will arise between our two civs, as we seem to have followed divergent tech routes up to now.
We want to emphasize that we appreciate your concerns, but feel the need to at least "test the waters" in the world in this early "shake down" era.
We urge you not to be alarmed but to see this an improvement of relationship as both parties are free to follow a more relaxed way forward."

Yadda, yadda, yadda.


Basically my points are:
o starting next to each other, does not make us automatically allies
o alliances may constrain development in this early phase
o they and we are free to do what we want on the tech market
o we are happy to cooperate with them should the opportunity arise
o no direct mentioning of a tech trade with PAL, as nothing has happened there at all.

Regarding PALs policy:
This is nothing backstabbing or alarming. We never claimed preferred tech traders status and they (like us) would never agree to that anyway. We approached Imperio and Templars as well with the prospect of future tech trades. So PAL contacting Templars if totally fine and above the table. After all Templars have some nice religious techs. If we are planning on selling away Monarchy to others later, they surely must know the basic tech for that first.

mh

[Kylearan]

Hi,

I'd like to echo Sulla: The more tech trading partners, the better. I'm a bit surprised that some of you think if we trade with PAL, we should do so exclusively (and assume the same of them). Trading with more than one team does not constitute "sneakyness" or "treachery" or anything like that, at least not in my book.

-Kylearan

P.S.: Sulla, I did read your question about how the CFC demogame went some time ago, but never got around to write a summary that might be able to provide insights for this game. Sorry for that, but daughter is keeping me very busy at the moment, and I have to confess I very much like it that way.

For a summary of events at least, I can direct you to a video our diplomat has made after we've won:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1D60lNiO5M (Somehow, linking to youtube from apolyton doesn't wok ("malformed video id), so please copy and pase the link manually to your browser address bar)


The quality is low thanks to Youtube, so here's a hi-res version:

Hi-res video

[sooooo]

Hmm, I much prefer Sullla's approach to mostly harmless'. I don't think the read-between-the-lines criticism of their opening strategy is productive or the mention of our previous disagreements. Whether we want to conquer them or befriend them, we don't want them to get wary of our intentions towards them.

I think my previous comment about telling them about PAL's agreement isn't very good and I retract it. I like the idea of a general goodwill gesture to trade techs, not exclusive, the more trading partners the better etc.

[mostly-harmless]

I don't see were Sullla's and my approach differ that much. I was more aiming at the issue of us already trading with PAL and how we justify this.
mh

[Zeviz]

I also agree with Sulla.

On the subject of justifying our existing agreement with PAL, if we send the message Sulla suggests now, we can tell them after a deal is made that "PAL approached us with an offer", without mentioning the "little" detail that they approached us weeks ago, rather than in the intervening period.