Imperio: Diplomacy Thread #2

[sunrise089]

No Ruff, the only thing that happens next turn is that our galleys and trireme move adjacent to Imperio's land.

[sooooo]

We should also remember that we are putting two galleys on their border on T168. Doing that and then faking confusion about which city to gift just looks way too obvious. Do you expect them to believe that we didn't notice the gift of jerusalem in the offers box? What's the downside to the gift? If we hand it over T168, then recapture on T169, we lose 1 population, the theatre (not relevant if we get a second border pop) and the hammers from 1 turn. That's practically nothing.

I think my vote is to log in this turn, hire an artist and then gift the city early next turn.

There is still danger of them sending in a defender from main stack and accidentally discovering our SoD, so giving them the city might be as bad as sending a bad message.

I think that if they are going to send troops to Jerusalem then they will do it anyway. I doubt refusing to hand over the city will stop them sending a scout into the open between Jerusalem and Damascus.

[sunrise089]

Ok, I agree with Soooo. Better safe than sorry, although the risk of them moving a defender does suck.

[T-hawk]

Some members of our team believe that witholding Jerusalem is an adequate punishment for you failing to give us Gunpowder (article 1? of the peace treaty). We are still discussing the course of action internally. However, we are wondering if you can offer alternative compensation for failure to provide Gunpowder.

Reading along here, of all the approaches, I like this one the best. It's plausible as actual discussion - it's not obviously just a stalling tactic - and it sets out our actual complaint that we're going to use to break the treaty (no Gunpowder). I'd word it a little friendlier (no "punishment"), something more like: "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?"

[sooooo]

It's a good idea and if we weren't sailing two galleys next to their border I'd say go for it.

[Sullla]

I'm against giving up the city, personally. All of the buildings inside will have a 50% chance to disappear on recapture, not to mention we waste the whipped theatre, the work boat produced for our new city, and lose another population point. Just to hand the city back to Imperio? Plus, we have no two-movers right next to Jerusalem, so Imperio will have a chance to whip a defender in the city, AND we have to move units back from our attacking stacks to recapture it... Yearg. Not worth any of that pain in the rear.

Just send off some kind of confusing message to Imperio. They log into the game precisely once per turn, and are non-native English speakers, so by the time they start figuring out what's going on, we'll already be at war with them.

[Zeviz]

It's a good idea and if we weren't sailing two galleys next to their border I'd say go for it.

Actually, that could explain our Galley move: "Speak softly and carry a big stick". So we are sending them a polite request to renegotiate the treaty, and moving the Galleys to show that they have to take us seriously. In fact, if we give the city the galley move will be suspicious. But if we send a message like this, Galley move can be seen as a negotiating tactic. So it would be seen as a long-term threat, rather than a precursor to an invasion.

I like T-hawk's wording better than mine.

[sooooo]

Hmm, I didn't think about them whipping a defender in Jerusalem. Probably Sullla is right then.

In retrospect it's a very good job that the Islamic missionary failed at Jeruslem. That would have been uber suspicious as Imperio will get alerted since they have the shrine.

I'm not sure about the Zeviz plan. I think I'd prefer them to keep thinking we're best of friends until T169. I do like Dreylin's missionary plan except that we have no way to actually build a missionary from Jerusalem. We could try anyway and assume they won't figure that out?

[Dreylin]

I do like Dreylin's missionary plan except that we have no way to actually build a missionary from Jerusalem. We could try anyway and assume they won't figure that out?

Idea was mh's, not mine! Are we not in OrgRel, I thought we still were?

[Sullla]

Thankfully Templars ended their turn early, so we're up to T168 now. That means we have to stall only until Imperio ends their turn, which should be roughly 24 hours. Then we're in the clear...

Anyway, I do think we need to say something, since we're going to be moving the galleys up to the border. Are we any closer to consensus as a team? I'm OK with the confusing message option, telling them we're training a missionary in Jerusalem, telling Imperio we'll swap both cities in 3t, etc. Anything like that.

[Iamjohn]

Edit: Never mind.

[sunrise089]

How about:

"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"

[Dreylin]

Answering my own question from earlier:

Christianity - Pink Dot
Buddhism - Cape Town

So we don't have a /really/ good excuse for building a Missionary out of there, but we could still use it.

Perhaps something like:

Imperio,

Sorry about the confusion over Jerusalem; one of our non-turnplayers who was not familiar with our peace deal logged in for a look around and cancelled out of the dialogue box. We are in the process of pushing a Missionary out of the city - due in a couple of turns (actually next turn now the turn has rolled) - and were wondering if you'd mind if we held on to the city to complete the build.

We feel it's the least you can do after voiding the Gunpowder trade from our Peace agreement

TeamRB

EDIT - sunrise's suggestion of WB is better than Missionary!

[sooooo]

Yeah fair enough, Sunrise's email sounds OK. I'd say T170 rather than 2-3 turns though.

[ruff_hi]

I'd be happy with Dreylin's version but substituting in sunrise's workboat.