PAL: Diplomacy Thread #2

[MyOtherCar]

Ok, I see your point. But would a defensive pact with Banana force them to declare on Templars (and later Imperio) in MP? I know it probaly won't be forced on them by the game mechanics, but is there a rule in MP about DP's?

[darrelljs]

You can't sign an "in game" defensive pact while at war. I think he meant we'd e-mail everyone our pact info. Of course, then we attack Imperio and Banana does not and what does PAL realize?

I think 3 way NAP >>> defensive pact with Banana, but I think I also think it is unlikely.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If and when it fails, then we can decide if we want to have a defensive pact with Banana, although we need to make it clear to Banana that we will be unable to provide substansive help in the short term.

Darrell

[mostly-harmless]

You can't sign an "in game" defensive pact while at war. I think he meant we'd e-mail everyone our pact info. Of course, then we attack Imperio and Banana does not and what does PAL realize?

A defensive pact does not necessarily mean our ally has to copy every offensive move we make. We declare against Imperio, but our defensive pact with Banana is still in place. Or am I missing something? What is it that PAL realizes?

mh

[sooooo]

Don't want to repeat myself too often, but the way I see it is that there is very little chance of PAL agreeing to a 3-way NAP. "But why not ask anyway? Talk is cheap!" I hear you say. Because the very slim chance that they will accept it would be when it benefits them.

[mostly-harmless]

Don't want to repeat myself too often, but the way I see it is that there is very little chance of PAL agreeing to a 3-way NAP. "But why not ask anyway? Talk is cheap!" I hear you say. Because the very slim chance that they will accept it would be when it benefits them.

Exactly.

mh

[Swiss Pauli]

Don't want to repeat myself too often, but the way I see it is that there is very little chance of PAL agreeing to a 3-way NAP. "But why not ask anyway? Talk is cheap!" I hear you say. Because the very slim chance that they will accept it would be when it benefits them.

That's not strictly true. They will accept when they believe they'll get a benefit. There is no certainty that their perceived benefit on signing such a deal will actually be delivered. And it's up to us & Banana to make sure the reality in 20 turns is a lot less favourable to PAL than they had foreseen.

[sunrise089]

Feels weird to be on the dove side of the debate, but I agree with Swiss. Cheap to ask, NAP > defensive pact (do we even want to be forced into a war with PAL? I don't), we can make better use of 20-50 turns than they can, etc.

I think we're about 3 votes to 2 on this. Anyone else want to weigh in?

[darrelljs]

A defensive pact does not necessarily mean our ally has to copy every offensive move we make. We declare against Imperio, but our defensive pact with Banana is still in place. Or am I missing something? What is it that PAL realizes?

That it isn't a defensive pact, its an anti-PAL pact. I don't see any other way to interpret it. A NAP at least gives the illusion of cooperation. If I'm reading the vote count correctly, it is 5 to 2:

For offering 3-way NAP: swiss, sunrise, darrell, zeviz, MOC.
Against: MH, sooooo

Darrell

[Dreylin]

I tend to be on the side of "talk is cheap, so there's no harm asking". I do think we should try and talk to Banana about it before we make the proposal, but a 3-way NAP will benefit us more than PAL - we can close borders securing our international trade routes, we have two teams teching rather than one, etc.

Going back to something mh said; do we really not expect to have vanquished Imperio in 20t? Maybe they will still be in the game, but they should be irrelevant by then surely?

[Kodii]

Agreed with Dreylin.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

I'm in the same camp as Swiss and Sunrise. I don't see why we'd want to be forced into a war with PAL at the moment. What we need is more time for us to secure our continent (not necessarily control it completely, but fight until we have only two rabbits on our landmass left), and while doing that try to prevent PAL from doing the same on their continent by attacking Banana. A 3-way NAP would actually play into our hands, if PAL would agree to that. Now I don't really think they will, but if there's a slim chance, we should definitely try it.

So let's ask Banana what they think about this, and then ask PAL ASAP.

-Kylearan

[kjara]

I have to agree that since pal doesn't know we are going to be declaring on imperio, if we can get a 3 way defensive pact in before we declare, it might look better to them than it actually is (they might be worried about banana + us + imperio all going after them). Consider this a vote for asking.

[mostly-harmless]

Looks like the replacement player for PAL is someone called:
[FLY]Moineau
Currently place 12 in the ladder.

mh

[regoarrarr]

And I believe the person who made those MP videos that speaker posted over in the RB forums.

[darrelljs]

Sunrise, what's the scouting report?

EDIT: I found this post.

Darrell