PAL: Diplomacy Thread #2

[ruff_hi]

or just 'under consideration' without stating a timetable.

[MyOtherCar]

This is where an 'Aidun' on the team would come in handy. Stalling...

[Iamjohn]

I suppose we could try to come up with some silly staged peace agreement, something really long and complex with some weird boundary thing that would make it so that we had to argue over boundaries.

If we're not careful though it could hurt us later on.

[MyOtherCar]

Exactly: see 2 posts above

[Swiss Pauli]

How about: 'we be interested in a 3-way, 20 turn NAP between PAL, RB & Banana'. They'll never accept, of course, but at least we're not going all quiet, which telegraphs our need to attack PAL if we're going to win.

[MyOtherCar]

Sounds sufficiently fertile for further negotiations and discussion to me.

[darrelljs]

Offer them a NAP with clauses like they've been doing with everyone else. Actually, NAP with one clause is enough: don't attack Banana or it invalidates the NAP.

Darrell

[sunrise089]

I'm going to create a long draft of a complex deal that I'm sure they will object to but I'd actually be willing to accept. Stand by.

Ok, here goes.

Dear PAL,

We at Realms Beyond thank you for your recent diplomatic messages. We appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to re-open a dialog between our two civilizations. It is unfortunate that communications have at time been infrequent between us, especially since after all our in-game relations have always been cordial.

You have made several interesting proposals in your recent messages. We would like to take the time to respond to all of them and offer some proposals of our own. We understand these proposals may not be simple agreements, but we feel they reflect our legitimate security needs at this time while also treating your civ fairly.

First, you have offered a NAP. We would be happy to accept a NAP as long as it contains certain provisions. Specifically we propose a three-way NAP between RB, PAL, and Banana. We are flexible on the NAP length, but lengths of 20-50 turns seem reasonable to us at this point. We could also insert some sort of auto-renewal or notification of cancellation clause if you so desire.

Second, you have mentioned tech trading. We are very hesitant to engage in direct tech trading because of the brokering rules. For example, RB has been prevented from making mutually beneficial tech trades to the Rabbits because of the no tech brokering restriction, while you have made several successful trades with the Templar team recently. We are however open to your proposed tech-for-gold idea. We would be happy to trade techs to you in exchange for sums of gold, provided we can work on a suitable conversion factor. What do you think is a fair amount of gold per beaker?

Finally, you have asked about resource trades. We are in principle open to this idea, however we feel that many resource trades would be potentially unbalanced. Perhaps we could instead individually negotiate gold-per-turn deals for resources. For example, we would be interested in renewed access to your civilizations ivory resources. What level of gold per turn do you feel is fair for access to the resource? Likewise if we have a resource you would like access to, how many gold per turn would you be willing to offer?

We look forward to any and all responses you may have to this proposal. Thanks for reading.

-RB

[mostly-harmless]

20 turns NAP will not help Banana much, I think.
What about we sign a defensive pact with Banana before we reply to PAL. Then we can tell PAL about the pact. This way they might think twice about attacking Banana.

After all, their sole reason to ask for an NAP is to keep us on the sideline, while they attack Banana. I am not prepared to let that happen.

mh

[MyOtherCar]

Well-drafted Sunrise, there is an Aidun in you somewhere. Mh: you offer good points as well, and we can bring them up later in the negotiations. Not now, because we want to filibuster.

[Dreylin]

I really like the fourth paragraph ... very elegant way of pointing out their support of our enemies.

[ruff_hi]

nice - my favorite part is ...

"We would be happy to trade techs to you in exchange for sums of gold"

[Zeviz]

Sunrize, that was a great imitation of Aidun's messages. Just add an important-looking signature, and you are set. (I am assuming that's what you were going for here, since it's so different from our usual tone.)

However, I am not sure if PAL will appreciate the humor of it, so I'd prefer to send a more clear message. We've always been direct in our communication with PAL, so a message like that will look suspicious.

Or we could send this message with following addition:

PS Now that our diplomat is done channeling certain other diplomats, here is the summary of our proposal:

1. A 3-way NAP between RB, PAL, and Banana. Duration and renewal conditions are open to discussion. We are thinking of 20 turns, continuing with a 10-turn cancellation warning after first 20 turns are up.

2. Any tech trading agreement with you would require you to stop feeding techs to our enemies.

3. We prefer resource for gpt trades to direct resource-for-resource trades. How much would you want for Ivory? How much would you pay for our resources?

[sooooo]

Not to disparage your hard work sunrise, because I know the feeling of drafting an email and having it turned down, but I don't think we get anything from negotiating with PAL. Since we're direct competitors, there are no mutually benficial deals. The only way a deal can be agreed is if one team mistakenly things they are getting the better end of the deal.

The third paragraph regarding a NAP I think would be better served as a warning, saying something like "We may be interested in a NAP, but we must firstly be sure that our allies Banana are not in danger from you. Can you assure us that you have no plans to attack them?". I don't like offering them a mutual NAP because it limits flexibility and also there is no way they will agree unless it is in their interests. I doubt PAL would make a mistake, if they want a NAP they'll agree and if they don't they won't. Whatever decision they make it will be the best one for them and hence the worst one for us! If they ignore astronomy and we are first to frigates, it is absolutely in our interests to declare war on them and pillage their seafood.

The tech for gold paragraph is very cheeky but also amusing. I'm pretty sure they meant that we give gold for their techs, not the other way round. Gold is much better than a traded tech because we can convert gold into more trade fodder with banana but techs we receive cannot be used for this. Again, any deal they go for they will feel is to their advantage, so automatically is to our disadvantage. We're dealing with a very skilled team here.

Finally we have proposes an anti-PAL pact with banana (with good reason!), so we can't offer to break that.

[Zeviz]

Soooo, while in theory you are right about our inability to make mutually beneficial deals, there is also element of imperfect information. For example, as far as PAL knows, we have a secret alliance with Imperio to launch invasion of their continent as soon as Templars are gone. (In fact, that was the proposal we originally sent Imperio.) So until we officially declare on Imperio we can play on PAL's fears and make a deal that would be far more favorable than we could get if they knew the reality of the situation.

EDIT: As for anti-PAL pact with Banana, we would still continue trading techs with them, and 3-way NAP with PAL is the best protection we can offer at the moment. (It would take us more than 30 turns to consolidate control of our continent, so even if PAL for some reason agreed to this NAP, we could still attack them as soon as we are ready.)