Imperio: Diplomacy Thread #2

[MyOtherCar]

Maybe we should reconsider the backstab operation and see if we can ally with Imperio against PAL?

There, we now have a discussion about what we should with Jerusalem.

Serious now: I dislike right out lying to Imperio. I'd rather stay silent than lie to them. Mentioning the failure of giving us Gunpowder might hint to them that we plan to attack them, at the least make them suspicious.
That said, I like Sunrise's suggestion best if we leave out the first sentence.

How about:
"Imperio,
Jerusalem came out of revolt and we're building a workboat we need there. We'd like to let the workboat finish."

[dsplaisted]

I like Zeviz's/T-Hawk's message: "We expected to receive Gunpowder from you in the peace deal, but you declined. Can you offer alternative compensation in exchange for Jerusalem and Constantinople?"

[Kodii]

I'd rather not mention Gunpowder. I like sunrise's message with sooooo's amendment.

[sunrise089]

Guys, I am really puzzled by what we would accomplish by bringing Gunpowder up. We don't want to receive any compensation, and we don't care about the court of public opinion, so why give them any indication we're not happy allies? The goal here is to 1) not tip off Imperio, and 2) if possible not hand over the city. Mentioning gunpowder after we made no reference to it for 10 turns the same turn we don't hand over the city and the same turn we move a naval squadron is asking for the plan to be revealed.

The simple message about a missionary, work boat, whatever seems to make the most sense to me.

PS - We also can't say we apologize for having a player accidentally close the box and then turn right around and say we don't want to turn the city over anyways

[Iamjohn]

I definitely like Sunrise's message, it's exactly the kind of message we want IMO.

@MyOtherCar: I dislike knifing a guy in the back as much as the next guy, but I simply don't think that allowing Imperio to live is a viable option. Right now they are trying to decide (or have decided) which of us, either PAL or RB is the most viable option for victory. IMO they'll be wanting to ride to coattails in while we kill each other at some point, then knife the winner so that they can cruise to victory. It's the only viable option for them at this point. So in my opinion, it's either now or later we'll be attacking or be attacked, and right now is the best chance for us to attack and have a chance for recovery afterwards. I really don't care too much what they've done in the past or not, what we're doing is very unpleasent, but it needs to be done if we're going to win. *shrug*

[Sullla]

"Imperio,

Can we hand over Jerusalem and Constantinople together in 2 or 3 turns? Jerusalem came out of revolt and we're building a workboat we need there. We'd like to let the workboat finish, and then we'll gift.

-RB"

Works for me too. Yes, lying is a cruel thing to do - but so was Imperio declaring war on us, and using their spies to pillage our copper. They're reaping what they sowed earlier.

[Compromise]

Checked in the worldbuilder and if you gift a city to a third party then declare war on them and retake the city then you don't have a period of revolt. Probably we hire an artist this turn to get a border pop on the interturn. That should seal it, didn't check what happens if only have one ring popped.

You don't have a revolt because of the party (ie Imperio) to whom you gave the city. But if the Templars are still alive, you have to re-experience the Templar revolt time again, even though the second time you capture the city, you're taking it from Imperio.

In fact, I just did a WB test:

If two civs (say Imperio and RB) are at war with a third (say Templars), and one civ (say RB) takes a city from the third (Templars), it has a revolt period.

If that city is gifted to a civ (say PAL) not at war with the original city owner (Templars), then it (PAL) experiences no revolt period. If after that, the city-taker (RB) declares on the giftee (PAL) and re-takes the city, it experiences a new period of revolt, just as if it had re-taken it from the original owner (Templars).

More relevant: If two civs (RB and Imperio) are at war with a third (Templars), and one (RB) takes a city from the common enemy (Templars), it experiences revolt. If the city-taker gives the city to the other war-buddy (Imperio), then the new receiver (Imperio) experiences a period of revolt for the city, just as if it (Imperio) had taken the city from the original owner (Templars) directly.

We can explain this to Imperio, and tell them that we are actually *doing them a favor!* by holding onto the cities until they eliminate Templars, because then there is no revolt period when we hand it over to them!

[Zeviz]

EDIT: Compromise's suggestion above is perfect. (I was going to say that Sunrise's sounds good too, but Compromise's is even better.)

[Compromise]

I just continued the WB test a little further. The revolt does not end if the original owner is destroyed before the end of the revolt period.

Therefore, it is to Imperio's advantage if we hold on to the cities until they eliminate the Templars completely.

[Compromise]

Edit: Added Zeviz's suggestion from the next post in navy.

Proposed draft:

Imperio,

Since we were both at war with the Templars when we captured their cities, you will experience a revolt--just as if you had captured the cities directly from the Templars--if we gift them to you before you eliminate the Templars.

If the revolt starts before the Templars are eliminated, it will continue past their elimination. If we gift you the cities after they are eliminated, you will not experience any period of revolt. So we can give you both cities the turn after Templars are eliminated.

RB

[Zeviz]

Sounds good. Just add one more sentence: "So we can give you both cities the turn after Templars are eliminated." (Or would that be redundant?)

EDIT: We should send something before we finish turn, to avoid looking even more suspicious.

[Compromise]

Draft modified per Zeviz's suggestion. Best to make it as clear as possible since English isn't their first language.

[sunrise089]

If we think Imperio will be suspicious, we can also add "That way you get the city without revolt, and we can use this turn to build a workboat."

If we prefer simplicity though I also think the message is fine as is.

[Swiss Pauli]

If I understand correctly the timeline to launch 'Backstab: Stack-smash' is as follows:

T168 (current turn) - road and move troops into position
T169 (following turn) - smash Imperio's stack

Imperio has indeed moved onto one of the tiles where we can attack them (1N of Acre), so we're good to go as far as I can tell.

So we can simply tell Imperio:

Hi Naldo,

We're training a Christian missionary in Jerusalem which we will whip this turn (T168), so we can hand over the city next turn (T169).

Cheers,

Team RB

By that stage we'll be at war with Imperio anyway, so we won't be handing it over (and we don't need to whip the missionary, either).

I don't think the 'we're doing you a favour' approach will work because, aside from the fact that it sounds a bit contrived, Templars will most probably be eliminated this turn (T168).

[mostly-harmless]

I am fine with Compromises draft plus the WB sentence:

Imperio,

Since we were both at war with the Templars when we captured their cities, you will experience a revolt--just as if you had captured the cities directly from the Templars--if we gift them to you before you eliminate the Templars.

If the revolt starts before the Templars are eliminated, it will continue past their elimination. If we gift you the cities after they are eliminated, you will not experience any period of revolt. So we can give you both cities the turn after Templars are eliminated.
That way you get the cities without revolt, and we can use this turn to build a workboat.

RB

mh