PAL: Diplomacy Thread #2

[sunrise089]

@Zeviz - I don't think the format matters when it comes to actually agreeing to terms, but I'm fine with your points 1 and 3. Point 2 should be closer to my original working though, IMHO. I don't want to limit PAL feeding techs because I want to do the same thing to Rabbits as soon as Banana sends them Feudalism.

@Soooo - Who cares what PAL's motivations are? All deals, in any context, are based around each side thinking they get the better end of things. Otherwise why trade?

Why do we need any assurances from PAL about anything? The offer is a 3-way NAP, so that's an ironclad assurance. I take your point about an opportunistic war with frigates, but that's small potatoes compared to a guarantee that at most we will face a PAL in control of 2/3 of their continent while Banana has 1/3. Of course I doubt PAL will accept such a deal, but maybe they value a safe backline while they expand to the new world while we prefer a guaranteed trading partner while we attack our two neighbors. That doesn't mean anyone has made a mistake, it just means we have different preferences.

After re-reading their previous message I did find out you are right on the gold-for-tech point, but since we'd rather have things go the otherway around we could always deliberately misunderstand.

Anyways, email is cheap, and we've gotten far with seemingly pointless emails in the past. PAL is our rival, but they've not done as much to deserve our hostility as Templars or Imperio, so why not keep the dialogue open and hope for a break?

[MyOtherCar]

I was under the impression the first and foremost purpose of the email was to stall the negotiations with PAL. We're in no hurry to agree on anything definite, apart from the NAP. But then, I think PAL will not be so quick to agree to that either.

[mostly-harmless]

I personally would send an eMail saying that all lopsided tech trades and gifts to our opponents has to stop and remain so, before we can seriously start negotiations.

mh

[sooooo]

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.

True, but I think we are in more danger of sufferring from imperfect information than PAL. For example, we don't know the position and state of PAL's military. 20 turns may be exactly the right amount to finish off rabbits, rebuild their catapult numbers and move their troops to a banana border. We just don't know.

@Soooo - Who cares what PAL's motivations are? All deals, in any context, are based around each side thinking they get the better end of things. Otherwise why trade?

When there's 5 teams in with a chance, every trade is beneficial, and both trade partners do get a good deal even if one partner walks away with a better one. But when there are only 2 competitors like they are now, there is a winner and loser to every deal. If we let them decide on the deal then they are likely to be the winner.

[Zeviz]

True, but I think we are in more danger of sufferring from imperfect information than PAL. For example, we don't know the position and state of PAL's military. 20 turns may be exactly the right amount to finish off rabbits, rebuild their catapult numbers and move their troops to a banana border. We just don't know.
...

However, since we aren't planning to attack PAL in the next 20 turns anyway, this deal carries zero opportunity cost for us: We are getting a guarantee that Banana will be safe for 20 turns, while promising to do something we were going to do anyway. (Unless you think we can convince Banana to attack PAL as soon as their NAP expires.)

Sunrise, my suggestion was more about format than substance. The substance of your proposal looks good.

EDIT: Here is a more formal version of my suggestion, including all the substance from Sunrise's message:

Hi Cres,

Here are some specific proposals to get the things going:

1. Any NAP has to cover our allies, so how about a 20 turn NAP between RB, PAL, and Banana? This can be a 1-time thing, or it can continue automatically with a 10 turn warning required for cancellation.

2. With no tech brockering on, a traded tech is far less valuable than a self-researched one. For example, we can not help Rabbits, while you've been supplying Templars with a lot of military techs. So while tech-for-gold deals aren't off the table, the price would have to be exceptionally good.

3. Since different resources have different value, we'd prefer resource for gpt trades to straight resource for resource deals. How much would you want for Ivory? How much would you pay for some of our resources?

Thanks,
RB

[Swiss Pauli]

I'd stick to the three way NAP offer and leave it at that: PAL might just agree, and now that they have Iron, there's little metagame incentive to prop up Rabbits with tech as we & Banana were planning/hoping to do.

At best, PAL may see an advantage to a 20-30 turn NAP so they can finish off Rabbits, but they won't forsee us steamrolling Imperio in such a short time. If we can give the right advice to Banana - along with our team-teching - then we'll be closer to PAL in 20 turns than they predict.

[mostly-harmless]

Ahem, have we considered that Banana might not be on board for a ???turn 3way NAP?

Surely we should ask for their opinion first.

mh

[darrelljs]

I'd stick to the three way NAP offer and leave it at that: PAL might just agree, and now that they have Iron, there's little metagame incentive to prop up Rabbits with tech as we & Banana were planning/hoping to do.

I agree...

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!

Why assume they know their interests better than we know ours?

Edit: MH, yes we should ask...but there is little doubt as to their response and no harm in asking PAL while waiting on a reply from Banana.

Darrell

[Swiss Pauli]

Ahem, have we considered that Banana might not be on board for a ???turn 3way NAP?

Surely we should ask for their opinion first.

mh

Of course we'll ask Banana before sending such a proposal to PAL, but we need to agree as a team that we see the benefits in it before asking Banana.

[mostly-harmless]

RB does not benefit from a NAP at the moment and in the near future.
In fact I would like to see us moving our two galleys into the channel and evaluate the chance to Viking-attack The Warning.

mh

[Swiss Pauli]

I can't say I agree with you there. If PAL declares on Banana within the next 20 turns, we suffer massively. We will still be fighting Imperio during this time.

[mostly-harmless]

I can't say I agree with you there. If PAL declares on Banana within the next 20 turns, we suffer massively. We will still be fighting Imperio during this time.

I meant that we as RB do not benefit from a NAP with PAL. Not including Banana.

I also think that 20turns is nowhere near enough to secure Banana will survive.

And finally, if PAL is set to attack Banana, they will never agree to a 3way NAP anyway.

PAl, RB & Banana have been peaceful with each other up to now. We should continue that. Any NAP between PAL and RB will just be an insurance to them that they have free hand to finish off their continent.

If we don't sign a NAP, they will always have to consider their channel cities in danger. Lets keep it like this.

mh

[Swiss Pauli]

You're missing the point, mh: PAL has made us a proposal, and we can choose to turn it down, ignore it, or make a counterproposal. I think the first two options offer no chance of any positive outcome, so the smart move is to make a counterproposal that has some chance - however small - of gaining some advantage.

The 3-way NAP proposal also shows PAL that we won't let them drive a wedge between us and Banana, which is what PAL is trying to achieve. In 20 turns, we'll be in much better shape relative to now with respect to PAL's tech lead.

PS: Our best move is to sign a 3-way NAP with PAL then brutally violate it to raze The Warning

[MyOtherCar]

I agree Swiss. And MH, I don't think we're ready yet for a 3-front war against PAL as well.
Oh, and about violating a NAP with PAL: we can always argue they didn't give us Gunpowder

[mostly-harmless]

Who said anything about a war against PAL?
Look, as you said, we are not going to finish off Imperio in 20 turns anyway. However, PAL does not know that. They have to take into account, that there is a tiny chance we will cause them a headache, when they go for Banana.
The moment we agree to a NAP with PAL, we will see a military build up on both side towards the end of that NAP. That cannot be our aim. At the moment PAL does not really know what we are up to. The moment we let the NAP expire, they will know exactly.

So I don't see a 3 way NAP with PAL as a positive outcome.
Let's sign a defensive pact with Banana and make that public.

mh