Templars: Diplomacy Thread #2

[sunrise089]

Templars are out of their flippin' minds!

Ok, so they had no hopes to win...so somehow they will do better if we kill them completely?!?

RB is in danger of falling behind PAL...and 5 more cities will make us worse off?!?

RB should feel bad if we come in at second, but Templars should feel good if they come in dead last?!?

Finally, I love the incompetence implicit in his statement that we didn't move forward in the war until the attack on Jericho. Does he not realize from turn one of the war we were taking back the neutral lands, building cats, moving units into Jericho's forest, bombing the city down, and building roads? I guess not, because in Templar world you just march your stack straight into superior forces over a 15-turn period

[timmy827]

I'm going to miss these guys after we/Imperio wipe them out

@Ruff - good point about the target practice, although I fear we may get cocky. Especially people like me that rarely do MP, and mostly watch the trio of S's exhibit their tactical skill.

[Sullla]

Frankly, I think you or whoever in your team wrote that last message or took the general decision to refuse to compromise, made a serious mistake, because you are wasting your resources on a war that will get you what exactly? 5 Templar cities. Take it, if that is what you want.

That's right. We will be taking it, he he.

Anyway, this is the classic "sour grapes" message - we're going to lose, but it will cost you victory in the end, yadda yadda. Aidun even does have a point to some extent, since PAL is indeed benefiting from the conflict. However, for some bizarre reason he seems to believe that we declared war on his team. Umm... do the Templars forget that THEY declared war on US? We did not chose to start this war - they did! You can't go posting a schadenfreude "I hope the fighting was worth it" message when YOUR TEAM was the one that started it!

Even at the death, they believe we should have ceded them territory and cities. Like... wow. This is roughly equivalent to Germany in 1945 telephoning the Red Army and demanding that eastern Poland be turned back over to them. It's so insane that it stupefies the mind. I really want to see their team forum when this is all said and done. I simply cannot understand what they were smokin' in there.

timmy, you ARE right about being careful about getting overly confident. Imperio doesn't look to be all that tactically sharp (see the uber-stack of units), but they will unquestionably be better than Templars. And PAL is all MP guys, so they will be very good indeed. We certainly won't see a pitiful Templar-quality road network ever again in this game.

[ruff_hi]

This reminds me of the movie 'The Mouse That Roared' ...

The Duchy of Grand Fenwick decides that the only way to get out of their economic woes is to declare war on the United States, lose and accept foreign aid. They send an invasion force to New York (armed with longbows) which arrives during a nuclear drill that has cleared the streets. Wandering about to find someone to surrender to, they discover a scientist with a special ultimate weapon that can destroy the Earth. When they capture him and his bomb they are faced with a new possibility: What do you do when you win a war? Written by John Vogel {jlvogel@comcast.net}

The best laid plans of mice and men ... A cold war satire emphasising the new emerged American Superpower's use of foreign aid to buy friends and keep then away from the USSR's influence. Peter Sellers, as the scheming Prime Minister of Grand Fenwick, plots with Peter Sellers, as the scheming Grand Duchess, to declare war on the USA, lose and get that foreign aid. Unfortunately, they forget to tell Peter Sellers, as Tully Bascombe, commander of their mediaeval army. This honourable man does his best for his country and through a series of unbelievable circumstances (well, this is a comedy) to win. Now, who has to give aid to whom?

[T-hawk]

Time for another round of devil's advocate from me. I actually understand Templars' position here. Their only shot at getting back in the game was to somehow wheedle territory from us. So why not try it?

I can also understand "rather lose than play as your vassal". Take their elimination as a good sport and bow out gracefully, rather than spend another year playing out a farce.

Finally, as for who's the aggressor now... we are. They offered a white peace and we declined. They want peace, we want war.

The only place I disagree with their position is where they think an RB-Templars alliance has a better chance of beating PAL than RB alone after conquering Templars. They can't credibly research or attack, and we're better off just taking the land ourselves.

[Sullla]

Finally, as for who's the aggressor now... we are. They offered a white peace and we declined. They want peace, we want war.

I know you're just playing devil's advocate, but I feel compelled to point out that this was AFTER Templars declared war on us, and AFTER they rejected our own white peace offer. Again, it's Germany in 1945 saying, "what's all this talk of unconditional surrender? Let's just agree to status quo antebellum, ok?"

Diplomacy has to include at least some measure of the events that transpired.

[sooooo]

I don't think that Templars thought for a second that we'd accept the peace deal, but thought they have nothing to lose by trying anyway. I also agree with T-Hawk that their diplomatic strategy isn't that crazy. They had no reason to sign peace before but now they do have a reason to sign peace. I doubt they believed in either case that they'd get what they want, but they were right to ask.

Their predicament is simply that they aren't as good as us at Civilization 4. They just didn't build the right things in their cities in the early game. Didn't build enough workers or settlers and didn't use them efficiently enough. Didn't build the right military at the right time. Didn't improve the right tiles. Didn't work the right tiles. Sent their stack of units to get slaughtered. Didn't adequately defend Jericho. Didn't chop the forest outside Jericho. Didn't build enough defensive catapults.

They probably don't even know that they aren't as good at Civilization 4 and are blaming their predicament on bad luck, our sneakiness etc. That's why they believe that they are more help to us alive than if we have their cities.

[sunrise089]

Time for another round of devil's advocate from me. I actually understand Templars' position here. Their only shot at getting back in the game was to somehow wheedle territory from us. So why not try it?

I can also understand "rather lose than play as your vassal". Take their elimination as a good sport and bow out gracefully, rather than spend another year playing out a farce.

Finally, as for who's the aggressor now... we are. They offered a white peace and we declined. They want peace, we want war.

The only place I disagree with their position is where they think an RB-Templars alliance has a better chance of beating PAL than RB alone after conquering Templars. They can't credibly research or attack, and we're better off just taking the land ourselves.

Sullla is the historian, not me, but my sense is that if you were a maritime power in 1500AD your best bet for growing more powerful wasn't to invade your European continental neighbors, especially the strongest one. Templars could have either decided to gang up with us against Imperio or tried to head to the new world early, both of which make more sense than unilaterally invading their largest neighbor.

[T-hawk]

Again, it's Germany in 1945 saying, "what's all this talk of unconditional surrender? Let's just agree to status quo antebellum, ok?"

Except that Templars have not threatened to end the freedom of the free world. And don't have a past habit of trying once and then quickly rebuilding to try again. And the Allies vs Germany were not overshadowed by a bigger power threatening to run away. Templars never even approached a city. It's more akin to the Mexican-American War than WWII. A border skirmish declared by one party is used as an excuse by the other party to conquer gobs of territory on the way to global superpower status.

We're the aggressors now. It's perfectly justified as gameplay, but let's not pretend that we're not wronging the Templars here.

[ruff_hi]

Except that Templars have not threatened to end the freedom of the free world. And don't have a past habit of trying once and then quickly rebuilding to try again. And the Allies vs Germany were not overshadowed by a bigger power threatening to run away. Templars never even approached a city. It's more akin to the Mexican-American War than WWII. A border skirmish declared by one party is used as an excuse by the other party to conquer gobs of territory on the way to global superpower status.

We're the aggressors now. It's perfectly justified as gameplay, but let's not pretend that we're not wronging the Templars here.

re my bold above - there is some argument that Germany was forced into going to war again due to the heavy penalties levied on it out of WWI. At least that is how Hitler was able to position himself.

However, you Mexian-American war is a much better analogy.

Finally - pls note that I know next to nothing about history apart from the stuff I lean on band of brothers and similar true stories

[Sullla]

Templars never even approached a city.

O rly? What about this screenshot from T133?



That was after sunrise boldly attacked and killed their two horse archers with our maces, I might add. I suppose they were out for a Sunday stroll then, hmmm?

Or what about our latest escapade with Templars?



Come on, T-Hawk. Cut the revisionist history. (I get enough of that already in my line of work! ) It's not that Templars "never even approached a city", it's rather that we cut their attacking forces to shreds before they could reach our towns. Don't make excuses for their own poor tactical play! They thought that they were going to waltz right into Pink Dot because all our units were tied up in the north against Imperio. They were the aggressor, they were wrong, and now they're paying for it.

How about this analogy: Franco-Prussian War (1870-71). Emperor Napoleon III of France gets angry at the growing power and influence of Bismarck's Prussia, rashly declares war and invades the Rhineland, only to see his forces get ripped to shreds by the vastly superior Prussian army. France suffers a total military disaster at Sedan, Prussia counter-invades and eventually captures Paris, where France has to sign a humiliating peace treaty as the new German Empire is proclaimed. That's a better historical analogy than the ones we're been using thus far.

OK, I know this is all totally meaningless spinning in circles here, and of course I'm just messing around with T-Hawk, but I'm really anxious to get to the next turn. When are we going to get the patch in place? Argh.

[sunrise089]

Except that Templars have not threatened to end the freedom of the free world. And don't have a past habit of trying once and then quickly rebuilding to try again. And the Allies vs Germany were not overshadowed by a bigger power threatening to run away. Templars never even approached a city. It's more akin to the Mexican-American War than WWII. A border skirmish declared by one party is used as an excuse by the other party to conquer gobs of territory on the way to global superpower status.

We're the aggressors now. It's perfectly justified as gameplay, but let's not pretend that we're not wronging the Templars here.

Sure they did. RB is the free world, both in realpolitik terms and in real terms. Subjectively, it would be suicidal for our nation (for role playing purposes) or our team to see us as anything other than the best nation on the terra world. There isn't a mechanism for peaceful transfer of power with in a civ Objectively, we've played an honorable game to this point. So has Banana and Rabbits, but both have traded with the evildoers more than us. I think we have the moral high ground.

Furthermore while the Allies were not overshadowed by another power, the U.S. and Britain certainly were. By 1945s many Germans felt their best attempt at peace was to get the troops marching in from the west to ally with them and attack the Red Army. I don't care to get into the moral merits of that proposal, but the Germans were right that left unchecked the Russians would dominate (geographically) much more of the continent than any single other power.

[Swiss Pauli]

Their predicament is simply that they aren't as good as us at Civilization 4. They just didn't build the right things in their cities in the early game. Didn't build enough workers or settlers and didn't use them efficiently enough. Didn't build the right military at the right time. Didn't improve the right tiles. Didn't work the right tiles. Sent their stack of units to get slaughtered. Didn't adequately defend Jericho. Didn't chop the forest outside Jericho. Didn't build enough defensive catapults.

That's quite right, and we have to be thankful for that: their appreciation of the metagame was sound, their strategies of trying to wheedle land from us, then to ally with Imperio against us were both sound, too. They simply lack the requisite turnplay skills to turn a cunning plan into a winning one.

[MyOtherCar]

Finally - pls note that I know next to nothing about history apart from the stuff I lean on band of brothers and similar true stories

Don't forget your Civ education. You know almost all of the ancient world wonders, lots of famous world leaders in history and even get to chat with one of the most famous Dictators of ancient Rome!

[timmy827]

How about this analogy: Franco-Prussian War (1870-71). Emperor Napoleon III of France gets angry at the growing power and influence of Bismarck's Prussia, rashly declares war and invades the Rhineland, only to see his forces get ripped to shreds by the vastly superior Prussian army. France suffers a total military disaster at Sedan, Prussia counter-invades and eventually captures Paris, where France has to sign a humiliating peace treaty as the new German Empire is proclaimed. That's a better historical analogy than the ones we're been using thus far.

Not sure...France in 1870 was at least a great power, and surprised by a new model of warfare when their professional army was quickly outnumbered via Prussia's rapid mobilization of a large reserve force with railroads. (Too bad the templar DOW came too early for us to pull this trick!) Templars on the other hand were always incompetent.

I think I like Prussia's DOW of the original Napoleon in 1806 - the specifics don't line up, but the general model of clueless diplomacy (sitting out the Third Coalition, then going to war essentially alone against a clearly superior power) matches up OK with the lack of coordination between Templars/Imperio aside from the initial DOW. And of course, the rapid and crushing defeat the clueless aggressor suffered

re my bold above - there is some argument that Germany was forced into going to war again due to the heavy penalties levied on it out of WWI. At least that is how Hitler was able to position himself.

Forced? Sorry, even though ruff isn't directly advocating this view, I feel compelled to weigh in. The (in)actions of Britain and France in 1930's showed they were willing to live with a Germany that rearmed itself and annexed essentially all of the German-speaking peoples (Austria, Sudetenland). Saying they were "forced" to go further is absurd. But of course, many of the losers of WWI were eager to try to be winners in the next round...

Furthermore while the Allies were not overshadowed by another power, the U.S. and Britain certainly were. By 1945s many Germans felt their best attempt at peace was to get the troops marching in from the west to ally with them and attack the Red Army. I don't care to get into the moral merits of that proposal, but the Germans were right that left unchecked the Russians would dominate (geographically) much more of the continent than any single other power.

It is sort of tragic from the German perspective that they pulled so many troops off the eastern front post-DDay to oppose the western Allies, probably moving the Iron Curtain boundary west of Berlin in the process. Hard to feel to sorry for them though, the Communist postwar oppression was terrible but nowhere near as gross the wholesale butchery of the Nazis in Poland and Russia.