Team Info and Contacts - Templars

[Sullla]

Regarding the future: your communication implies that we should be sharing our plans with you? Personally, I'm not convinced that you actually meant this, but my Team has asked for clarification. Truth be told, members of my team were actually very upset about this statement and there were heated comments about "are we meant to be there vassal?". Some saner heads poured water on this but I was asked to ask for clarification.

I really like this for some reason. Whether it was a mistake or not, definitely keep the "there" misspelling in place. That's priceless. Nothing like making your foes think there is dissention where none exists.

I'll also add that I like Zeviz's edit #2 as far as explaining the conduct of our settler. We trust the Templars, but we're not taking any silly risks with our first settler either.

We should *NOT* enter into any agreements we flagrantly don't intend to keep. We definitely don't want to be known as the team who can't be trusted, or the "backstabbing" team. I certainly don't want to see us pinned down with some sort of inflexible 100 turn agreement. Better to keep things nice and vague, so we can claim later that we were never really allied with the Templars...

Someone else is going to have to handle the dealings with Imperio, as I'll be away all next week on vacation. Sorry!

[ruff_hi]

updated draft retaining the unintentional spelling mistake

Sir Aidun,

Thanks for reaching out regarding our settler and presentation of your concerns. Firstly, this is not an aggressive act, it is not intended to be read as an aggressive act and (truth be told) our team has tried very hard to ensure that it is not observed as an aggressive act.

I'm sure you have discovered by now that our continent is fairly small; there are few directions that we could move our settler that would NOT be towards your capital. Also, we have quite a number of scouts out and have a good view of the land. The land to our North is (by and large) a ice wasteland. The land to our West and East has some attractions but nothing major. The land to our South, while towards your Capital, does hold our desired second city site. We have specifically identified a site that contains no strategic resources (metal, horses, stone, ivory, marble) so as to pose as small a threat as possible. Again, our actions are not designed to be an aggressive act in any way.

We too have peaceful intentions, thus the careful site selection and the attempt to open discussion with you. It gladdens us that you have responded so quickly rather than the usual response time that we have grown accustom to with you.

Regarding our settler movement, our original movement plan would have put him on flat ground next to your quecha for a turn and we didn't want to test our friendship in such a way.

Finally, we expected that your first expansion would be towards the strategic resources to your North East and that the site we have selected was not in dispute.

Regarding the future: your communication implies that we should be sharing our plans with you? Personally, I'm not convinced that you actually meant this, but my Team has asked for clarification. Truth be told, members of my team were actually very upset about this statement and there were heated comments about "are we meant to be there vassal?". Some saner heads poured water on this but I was asked to ask for clarification.

Also, some members of my team raised the possibility of a non-aggressive pact between our two teams. We would like to discuss this with you, including the meaning of 'non-aggression', the pact timetable, renewal options, etc.

I didn't know how true this was when I wrote it but ... beginnings can be difficult times.

Cheers,

Ruff
Your Voice to the Realms Beyond Team

[Zeviz]

Looks good.

[ruff_hi]

above version sent.

[darrelljs]

Originally posted by darrelljs
I'd go one step further and offer a pact of non-aggression for, say, 100 turns. I'd suggest the continent is only large enough for two civs and offer to divy it up accordingly, ceding all lands east and offering to help claim those lands from Imperio.

Of course, we don't plan on keeping to this pact past the 50 turns and all the land is ours, but they don't need to know that until we have Iron .

Hmm...I actually meant we keep the pact; I changed the suggested duration from 100 to 50 in the second paragraph but not the first. As evidence to my innocence I point out the phrasing "we don't plan on keeping the pact past the 50 turns". If I had meant to break the pact I would have said "we don't plan on keeping the pact past 50 turns" .

Darrell

[ruff_hi]

new email from templars ...

Dear Ruff,

I will send you a message shortly. Unnecessary to say, but we have of course had fierce debate and discussion and it is now my duty to form of that a coherent proposal. I am waiting for the final comments from the team on my proposal, as our democracy requires, before I can send it away. You will receive a letter from me shortly.

Regards,


Sir Aidun
Foreign Affairs Minister of the Knights Templar.

[ruff_hi]

email from templars ... I'm going to mark it up with paragraph numbers (the little s) for better discussion ...

Dear Ruff,

<1> Thank you for your very informative letter, the information has provided us a better understanding of the situation and especially how your team has also considered our interests when deciding on the location of your new city. First in this letter I want to address two issues with respect to the current situation. Second, I will touch upon your suggestions for future cooperation.

<2> One thing I wish to clarify now already is that my team does not demand that you share (all) your plans with us. We do not expect such from an equal and fully sovereign neighboring team. What I have tried to say, and which I should perhaps have clarified better, is that in some occasions, depending on your own judgement, not ours, you might want to share information about your plans, on your own initiative, not per our request. The same is true for us. Such sharing of information between our teams could have avoided the little crisis we have at this moment, and will likely help to avoid potential future crises.

<3> We suppose your intention is to settle on the hill towards which your settler seems to be heading, to build a city that has the combined benefits of the cow and rice. We would rather see that you would settle closer to your capital, but that decision is not up to us. Despite your explanation, we still think that your plan to build your new city far to the south challenges us in a way we had not expected from your team. We will, however, not respond to it militarily.

<4> As a solution to the crisis you have offered a Non Agression Pact. We think this is a good initiative, but it does not really solve the issue of the land problem. Therefore we think such a NAP should be accompanied by a border agreement as well, so we can evenly divide the land on this island. There is, however, a problem: we do not have full information about the land that surrounds you, mainly to the west and southeast. We need such information first before we can sign a border agreement and a NAP.

<5> The general issue of settlement and land of course plays against the background of competition on this island and the chances of winning in the game. Just like yourselves we cannot afford a neighboring team, no matter how friendly, to get more and better land than we (can) get. We also cannot afford them to build cities on strategic spots. That whole matter would be less a problem when this friendly neighboring team would be a long-term ally, perhaps for the rest of the game. Under such conditions, we would profit from the well-bing of our ally, for which land division and settlement are essential. Such an alliance would take more or less the shape our cooperation has taken so far, only in a more coordinated way. Besides, we would agree to defend each other in case one of us is attacked by another team. The goal of the alliance would be to turn the current competition between our civs in a structured cooperation from which we can both benefit more than the current competition. My team would be positive to such an alliance and we would like to hear your ideas regarding it.

Beginnings can be difficult times indeed, very true and well written.


Best,

Sir Aidun
Foreign Affairs Minister of the Knights Templar

I've acknowledged receipt.

Sir Aidun,

Just a short note to acknowledge receipt of your communication. I have circulated it to our government and we are discussing it.

Ruff

My comments ... re <2> in response to my vassal comment - we win the diplomatic game as they have acknowledged us as equals. I feel this is important since they are role playing so heavily.

re <3>, note the last sentence. Thank you Sullla and his bluff!

<4> is, I feel, a backwards way of asking us to share maps. Maybe we can show them what is to their East.

<5> is a complete ramble and hard to pick apart - guess they are asking about the possibility of a long term plan.

I wonder where Impala (the other civ on our land) figures in their calculation ... hmmn

[Zeviz]

#5 sounds like an offer of either a Defensive Pact, or a Permanent Alliance. (To translate it into in-game terms.) To be very blunt about it, I'd prefer a long-term ally who is more committed to winning the game. (Even if we have to fight our ally in the end, it's better to have strong partner with whom we can be the last 2 teams standing, than to have a weak partner we have to defend all the time.)

#4 says (quite reasonably) that they are unwilling to sign NAP without negotiating the borders first, and are unable to negotiate the borders without full map information.

In response, perhaps we can let them know that the southern "half" of the continent contains most of the cottageable land, while our start is on a peninsula with room for only a couple cottage locations. I'd be very non-committal about possibilities of an alliance, perhaps saying directly that we need to better understand long-term diplomatic picture before we can make any long-term decisions.

[Sullla]

Let's see... (thanks for conveniently numbering paragraphs!)

#1 is pure diplomatic pleasantries and can be ignored. #2 is pretty much the same. What we can deduce is that the Templars realize they overstepped their boundaries with their last heated message, and have backed off. This is good, because it was our goal with the last message.

#3 states that they are unhappy with our current move, but don't plan to challenge it militarily (good). Of course, there's always the possibility that they're lying. While the Templars don't seem like the kind of team that would do that, let's not push it. Trust, but verify.

As I mentioned about a month ago, possession is 90% of the law. Whether they like it or not, the Templars are just going to have to deal with our presence in the south.

#4 says that they want some kind of agreement on dividing up the land. It also reveals that the Templars haven't done a particularly good job of scouting... which means that our push to the south was even MORE important, because that's where they were planning on settling first! Can you imagine how dire our situation would be if we were locked out of all that land, and they could later move to the east at their leisure? Good thing we pushed aggressively in their direction at the start, eh?

I don't think we should give them any information for free. Maybe give them some vague information about there being some excellent land to the east of Jerusalem (which is true), and suggesting that this would be a good area to settle. We could say that we will not contest their control of this region, which sounds good - and also happens to reflect the strategic reality that we can't possibly get over there anytime soon. We could potentially promise not to settle any more cities right on their doorstep, although I don't like locking ourselves into a committment like that. Better to be vague on the subject.

Another suggestion we might send them is that they should move towards Imperio quickly, because there are some important resources between their capitals. This is both true and would potentially foster ill-will between their civs. Remember, Templars still do not have Bronze Working and do not know where the copper resources are located...

#5 is pretty vague, but it sounds like they want a full defensive alliance with us. We probably DON'T want to make any kind of committment like that, but what we can do is string them along with some vague statements that sound supportive without actually agreeing to anything. Diplomats have been doing that for centuries, right?

Anyway, I think we played things well so far with this team. We bluffed in their direction and got them to stand down. Obviously, the Cloak and Dagger info helps a lot here. We need to determine our standing with Imperio before we can make any more substantial agreements with the Templars. If Imperio wants to commit to our side, I would also favor sticking with them over what seems to be an incompetent team.

[Zeviz]

I like Sulla's suggestion, as usual. We can say something like the following:
"We were surprised by your interest in the south-western part of the continent, considering that the area to the east of your capital contains just as much grassland, hills, and food, and almost no annoying jungle. And your strategic resources are located to the north-east of your capital. In fact, the only sources of Copper and Horses we've seen in the eastern half of the continent are located to your north-east. While Imperio might have one military resource in the area south of their capital we haven't seen yet, they have nothing to their west and immediate north, so they might be interested in the resources located closer to you."

How is that for trying to stir up trouble between Templars and Imperio?

[mostly-harmless]

Huh! Seems the settler stirred up quite some diplomacy action.
My opinion on the matter is, that I don't like handing out map info to them for free. It might be ok to do so with PAL, which is not a short term rival, but Templars should scout for themselves and get eaten by barbs! We got scouts from huts and they risked their necks out there revealing the map. Templars definitively popped an important tech from a hut and most likely some cash. I don't hear them offering that for free!
I think I was against revealing the location of horses to them. I would also have voted against the phrase in our reply stating Pink Dot will have no strategic resources in reach. Templars do not have BW, why give them hints on location or non-location of metal???
So needless to say I am against offering them map info so they can decide on a border pact. The facts are, that we will settle 8 tiles away from their capital. Both cities will have cultural production. So somewhere in between is where the border will go. What does it matter if we have lands of plenty in our backyard.
There is also no rush in signing any agreement yet. Our gamble will pay off in a couple of turns and then we will really negotiate from a position of strength.
If they want an agreement, the first thing I want to see is those Quechas moved out of an area defined by culture+1 as a sign of good will.

I have drawn up a first line in-game which could mark a potential agreed border.

Just read Zeviz reply and I am against revealing that much info.
We have not seen a single Quecha moving northwards and contact Imperio-Templars was initiated by the Imperio warrior moving southward.

To come back to my stance on the rush discussion. I am still against an all out rush but have no problem in dismembering the Templars early on and have them as a vassal throughout the game.

Any future reply to the Templars should remind them of us revealing horses to them and maybe say something along the line:
"From your isolationistic attitude towards yellow civ, and your focus on spiritual matters, we assumed a lack of interest in acquiring large lands."

EDIT: it just occurred to me that Templars are expecting us to settle on the bare grassland hill the settler is on now (turn41). In fact, we will settle even more aggressively. Should be fun!

mh

[Zeviz]

The reason I want to reveal this information to Templars is to push them towards conflict with Imperio. If the copper was in SW, I wouln't have mentioned it. In fact, if we do find copper near Imperio's lands later, I would suggest "forgetting" to update Templars on that info.

So in summary, I support revealing information only when it is to our advantage to do so. For example, a map trade with PAL will not give them any substantial advantage, but will look like a friendly gesture. In this case, map information should direct Templars towards conflict with our rivals.

[mostly-harmless]

Yes, I see the point. Nevertheless, it could lead to a situation, in which Templars grab horses and copper with their settler, before we have secured a source of iron.
mh

[sunrise089]

It's too bad relations with the Templars have declined so much, but I think it's really unavoidable considering the land. Their desire to share maps would only reveal that we'd have to be awarded too much land in their direction to end up on a level playing field, and their desire to form a permanent alliance with their neighbor just isn't realistic in a game where land ='s power.

Furthermore, what does forcing conflict between Templars and Imperio really accomplish? It simply makes one of them stronger and therefore harder to kill, and makes both of them prioritize military techs and builds.

I think it's obvious that our future lies with PAL in this game. If we knock out Imperio our land will be hard to defend and leave Templars with too little. If we knock out the Templars Imperio will likewise have to fight for more. If either Templars or Imperio knock out the other we will have to fight them to gain land.

I agree with Darrell that any non-dastardly diplomatic moves that can forestall their realization that conflict is eminent make sense, but that likewise a strong attack with classical era units is the best medium-term plan.

PS - A production-heavy cap seems to make the most sense for early aggression.

PPS - I love the Templars threat of an attack on a city defended by warriors with Quechuas. perhaps they need to check the Civilopedia more carefully.

[Zeviz]

Can we send something to Templars in the next couple of days?

When they see our pair of workers building a road, their most natural assumption will be that we settled on their Copper. (The reason it's important to tell them where their Copper really is before they see the workers is that it's a lot harder to change people's mind once they've decided on something than it is to direct them beforehand.)