Team Info and Contacts - Templars

[Zeviz]

I just stupidly posted something in public thread instead of private one. :headdesk: I am sorry about that.

I think I need a long break from internet.

EDIT: I have no idea how my post ended up in that thread. The thread is several month old and I am sure I didn't have it open. Could that be a forum glitch?

EDIT2: Actually, there was nothing particularly bad in there, if I make it clear that this was my personal opinion. The only potentially damaging part is the bit in the end. The message was literally:

Why don't we just send the following to both Imperio and Templars:

Dear ,

We could take one of the following courses of action:

1. Team RB allies with Templars to split Imperio lands, then split PAL lands.

2. Team RB allies with Imperio to split Templar lands, then split PAL lands.

3. We redefine our victory condition as control of our continent.

Which option would you prefer us to take?

Sincerely,
TeamRB

Since we aren't actually going to give them any consessions, these are the only courses of action I see. (Unless we are hoping for a continent-wide alliance, which will not work anyway.)

[ruff_hi]

I think we can offer them a prisoners dilemma ...

1. First team to align with us gets carried to victory
2. If neither align, then both teams get eradicated
3. If both teams align, then them become semi-independent states that cannot declare war on their own, but still run their own civ, feed us tribute and still share in our victory

[Swiss Pauli]

I disagree on this. With Templars, "keep the dialogue going for as long as it suits us" means that we will end up talking forever and never achieving anything. We have a better chance of coming to an agreement by telling them "we are not giving up any of our cities" and starting out negotiating from that position. Otherwise, we keep going in the endless Templar dance of circular negotiations that go nowhere.

I mean, look at the message we were just sent. LOOK at that steaming pile of bull. Does this sound like a team that is firmly planted in reality? Aidun is off in some kind of lala land of his own imagining. This is one situation where humoring the other team is NOT to our advantage. We need to bring them back to some serious, pragmatic negotiating to move forward.

Unless everyone actually enjoys receiving messages about "trying to play a diplomacy sub-game of this demogame"? I mean, aside from the unintentional comedic value.

You seemed to have missed the point that all Templars have left is talk, so whatever we reply with there will an 'Aidun Epic' coming right back at us, and it's better for us to look pragmatic rather than closed-minded. I'm not for a second suggesting we should hand over a city, but I'm surprised at your lack of empathy for Templars: as T-Hawk rightly says, the only role they have left to (try to) play is that of kingmaker. So we need engage with them to some degree, rather than simply butt heads. After all this stalemate war is nothing if not a continuation of politics by other means.

[sooooo]

Finally, we shouldn't say 'you cannot have any of our cities out of principle'; it makes us look closed-minded and inflexible (this may be the case, but we should never appear as such).

I don't think this is true. It cannot be wrong to have principles and this is a good one. If we do not say firmly that we will not give away a city then they will go on and on about acting as a buffer etc. The fact is that we will not give away a city and therefore it saves times stating that.

[Swiss Pauli]

I don't think this is true. It cannot be wrong to have principles and this is a good one. If we do not say firmly that we will not give away a city then they will go on and on about acting as a buffer etc. The fact is that we will not give away a city and therefore it saves times stating that.

Principles just get in the way

We can simply state that we won't hand over a city. If Templars were to offer (for example) Jericho for Something Fishy, then we'd have to consider that seriously as it would secure us Iron. The same should be true of Cape Town: it's just another gaming chip, albeit a 100'000 dollar one. If the price is right, it's for sale.

[mostly-harmless]

Principles just get in the way

We can simply state that we won't hand over a city. If Templars were to offer (for example) Jericho for Something Fishy, then we'd have to consider that seriously as it would secure us Iron.

No.

The same should be true of Cape Town: it's just another gaming chip, albeit a 100'000 dollar one. If the price is right, it's for sale.

And no.
My opinion.

Don't be afraid of a little military conflict, its part of the game we play.

mh

[sunrise089]

Right, there's supposed to be an element of democracy here, right? So if a majority of us agree we would rather loose the game than give Templars a city can we end the discussion?

Also, even if Swiss is right the only city trades we'd accept are ones Templars have no reason to offer, so again there is little point in this discussion.

[sooooo]

It's not the fact that I'd rather lose the game than lose the city. If I had the option presented to me of (a) lose a city, win the game or (b) keep our cities, lose the game then obviously I'd go for (a). However, I think there is such a negligible chance that giving up a city will help us win the game that I think we should state that to the templars to save time in negotiation.

[MyOtherCar]

I'm in favour of loosing the game ,then

[regoarrarr]

I know that it seems to be the minority opinion, but just wanted to register that I agree with Swiss that we should continue talking to Templars and trying to figure out a way to incorporate what they are trying to get out of this game with our goal (i.e. winning)

I know Sullla that you have mentioned the game of big-D Diplomacy several times, but I'm not sure how much you have played or what your experiences have been there.

Haven't you ever been in a situation in Diplomacy where you were the "big power" and you got a 1 or 2 center power to aid you to a solo, rather than band with all the other guys to stop you? I'm in the middle of such a game right now, where a 1 center power (and it's mostly MY fault that he only has 1 center) has chosen to help me rather than continue to fight me, because I was the only one who continued to talk to him and I provided him with something interesting to do rather than just "die quickly"

I see a lot of analogies from that general type of situation and our current game. I still think that we should play into their role playing and offer the Templars some sort of "quest". Something along the lines of "Convert every city to Christianity" or "establish Christianity as the world's major religion" or "raze every other holy city in the world"

I just really see aidun (and Templars by extension) as almost BEGGING to find some sort of purpose in this game, and if we can offer that to them, we could easily gain them as a vassal.

[sooooo]

I'm still all for dialogue with templars and agreeing a peace deal, just not one that involves giving up a city.

We got this in our inbox today:

Hi Ruff,

I'll wait for your response to my last letter by PM ok?

Aidun

Regoarrarr, since you are the main proponent of the "quest" strategy, could you come up with a quest proposal, written in a way that you'd be happy to send to templars? That way we can understand it more and get a better idea of if it's worth it.

[Sullla]

Just for purposes of clarification, I'm well aware of the value of a one or two SC power in "capital D" Diplomacy. I have always pushed throughout this game for us to keep chatting up everyone else constantly, even when it seems like there's nothing to be gained. Right now, I am most definitely not saying we should stop talking to Templars. I am instead arguing that we need to set boundaries on our talks in order to move forward. It does not benefit us to leave Cape Town on the table, when our team has made it clear that we are not going to accept any deal that involves giving away cities. Why waste time going through a round of negotiations on this? That's not limiting our options, it's clearing the rubble in preparation for hammering out a deal. I get the sense with Templars that they will run around in circles endlessly if we let them. We should work to avoid that.

Our best move, in my opinion, is to send a list of bullet points on what we want for peace, and then ask Templars to make a counteroffer. We have already drawn up that bullet list, actually, we just didn't send it. We want tangible details. They seem to want nebulous dialogue. But the key point is that we are in the driver's seat. We do not have to cater to them. We offer Templars our terms, and give them some leeway to make suggestions, and if they continue to be intransigent, well, it's not our head on the chopping block.

So yes, absolutely continue to engage with Templars, but do so in practical, level-headed terms. I honestly do not want to hear more BS about "diplomatic sub-games" and "role-playing quests", with all due respect to regoarrarr. I'd like to see us work from the position of level-headed, realpolitik diplomacy. Here's our offer. Make us a counter offer. Tell us what you want for peace. If Templars continue to throw up an impenetrable fog of mumbo jumbo, then screw 'em.

It's not the fact that I'd rather lose the game than lose the city. If I had the option presented to me of (a) lose a city, win the game or (b) keep our cities, lose the game then obviously I'd go for (a). However, I think there is such a negligible chance that giving up a city will help us win the game that I think we should state that to the templars to save time in negotiation.

And this was so well stated, it deserved repeating.

[sooooo]

Can we have more input over whether we should send (a) the email Sullla suggested, (b) Swiss Pauli's version or (c) a quest.

[TAD]

I am with Sulla, I am a proponent of Realpolitik.

Then again I lost once or twice to an old friend of mine in diplomacy who managed to make 1-2 SCs powers (underdogs in Diplomacy terms) his friends.

We should go ahead with Sulla´s plan and offer them to be our vassals if they want to do a quest or something. But that does for damn sure not involve us giving away cities!

[Swiss Pauli]

At the risk of sounding redundant, I vote for my proposal