Tweet
Zevis's draft, typos corrected, and a few abbreviations written out.
Dear Sir Aidun,
Firstly, many thanks for your long and comprehensive reply. It is good to see the growing cooperation between our people, especially in light of recent international developments.
Recently, PAL and Imperio have been cooperating more closely than ever, and by leveraging their superior land they threaten to run away with the game. The combination of superior land, high-commerce tiles, happiness resources, and key economic techs may soon create an insurmountable tech lead against any civilizations that lack consistent trading partners. While both Templars and Banana have made several prudent trades recently, we feel it's obvious that it will become more and more difficult for the other teams to research useful trading techs in the face of a Imperio/PAL trading bloc. Already PAL and Imperio have swapped to Civil Service and acquired Currency...in fact they traded those two techs between themselves.
Rather than sit idly by and lose the game, team RB believes that the three other teams who still possess developed empires (namely RB, Templars, and Banana) should work together towards our mutual well-being. As they say, if we do not hang together we shall surely hang separately. On the other hand, 3-way cooperation between RB, Templars, and Banana can keep us all in the game.
With that in mind, we are wondering if your refusal to trade for Metal Casting is due to lack of interest in techs we have to offer, or if Imperio made keeping Metal Casting out of our hands a requirement for their deals with you. A no-trade clause like this would hurt both of our teams, giving Imperio the only benefit, and is not something we would ever demand from our allies.
Regarding the NAP; we are certainly pleased to hear that it is already in place, and are eager to knock out the details. Would Templars consider an auto-renewal clause along the lines of the agreement resetting every 10 turns to an expiration 20 turns in the future unless official notification is received from either party? That would prevent us having to ratify a new NAP every couple of weeks, and also provides a 10 turn notice of expiration to both teams. For example, the current agreement is due to expire on turn 124. We propose that if neither team notifies the other of a desire to cancel by turn 114 the agreement renews to turn 134. If notification is received on or before turn 113, the NAP would expire on turn 124 as originally agreed.
Firstly, many thanks for your long and comprehensive reply. It is good to see the growing cooperation between our people, especially in light of recent international developments.
Recently, PAL and Imperio have been cooperating more closely than ever, and by leveraging their superior land they threaten to run away with the game. The combination of superior land, high-commerce tiles, happiness resources, and key economic techs may soon create an insurmountable tech lead against any civilizations that lack consistent trading partners. While both Templars and Banana have made several prudent trades recently, we feel it's obvious that it will become more and more difficult for the other teams to research useful trading techs in the face of a Imperio/PAL trading bloc. Already PAL and Imperio have swapped to Civil Service and acquired Currency...in fact they traded those two techs between themselves.
Rather than sit idly by and lose the game, team RB believes that the three other teams who still possess developed empires (namely RB, Templars, and Banana) should work together towards our mutual well-being. As they say, if we do not hang together we shall surely hang separately. On the other hand, 3-way cooperation between RB, Templars, and Banana can keep us all in the game.
With that in mind, we are wondering if your refusal to trade for Metal Casting is due to lack of interest in techs we have to offer, or if Imperio made keeping Metal Casting out of our hands a requirement for their deals with you. A no-trade clause like this would hurt both of our teams, giving Imperio the only benefit, and is not something we would ever demand from our allies.
Regarding the NAP; we are certainly pleased to hear that it is already in place, and are eager to knock out the details. Would Templars consider an auto-renewal clause along the lines of the agreement resetting every 10 turns to an expiration 20 turns in the future unless official notification is received from either party? That would prevent us having to ratify a new NAP every couple of weeks, and also provides a 10 turn notice of expiration to both teams. For example, the current agreement is due to expire on turn 124. We propose that if neither team notifies the other of a desire to cancel by turn 114 the agreement renews to turn 134. If notification is received on or before turn 113, the NAP would expire on turn 124 as originally agreed.
sure. Better a cancer to the team than a carbuncle on the backside of life (I think an Aussie politician actually called an opponent that (or words to that effect). 
Comment