Vox Diplomacy

[Mudhut]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Am sending above message as Vox are next up for the turn.

Very happy with that second message (ie asking them to keep a pace back, but not including the bit about war to stop hindu spreading). Couple of people have said "they won't move them back a square", but nobody seems to be opposed to asking them to do it, even if they then ignore us.

[DeepO]

I kind of like the rationale of snoopy: tell them about our intentions and agree that no hostilities occur, and it might be questionable. Don't tell them, and there is no way this can be considered a faux war. Because that's what it really boils down too: whether Vox are in on it or not.

Look at it from their PoV, and this discussion dissolves itself. If we declare war to them, Vox has no obligation whatsoever not to attack us, the 'peace while at war' would be unilateral. After all, we gain, and we make promises. We can't push Vox in making promises too. So, if we declare war (for whatever reason, stated or not), Vox will be unbound to attack us... so why would we tell them our reasons then? It can only limit us. We don't want to get strung up in the H-thing again.

So the real question becomes whether we find the spread of religion enough reason to go to war for. Telling them why is optional, and we probably want to avoid that: we need to go to skirmishers asap, and letting them think we do it so we won't attack them is atm not the best diplo idea: better leave our options open instead of limiting ourselves.

DeepO

[DeepO]

pushed the wrong button...

DeepO

[Cort Haus]

If Vox agree to keep off the border, they won't take the possible projected path towards Grog, and we'll be lucky to get a swipe in.

In fact, if they stay off the border, we won't know where the scout is.

[Ennet]

Originally posted by DeepO
So the real question becomes whether we find the spread of religion enough reason to go to war for. Telling them why is optional, and we probably want to avoid that: we need to go to skirmishers asap, and letting them think we do it so we won't attack them is atm not the best diplo idea: better leave our options open instead of limiting ourselves.

Point taken. Im still for declaring war on them but i agree we dont need to hurry to tell them why as they are probably heading to archery and some defence at the moment anyway it wont make any significant difference to their buildup in the upcomming turns..

[DeepO]

Something else worth considering: if Vox' scout passes us, to explore past our borders, it will be near impossible to pose any no-scouting ban on us. Similarly, if they stay hugging our borders, we will do the same. What is happening right now is in their control... maybe we should get some of that message across, instead of the religion thing.

DeepO

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Arrian
As I recall it was Vox that refused to move from the chokepoint in the PTWDG, not the other way around!!

Great, then I believe that only reinforces my point that teams do not like it when you make a "peaceful" move that directly thwarts their strategy.

And NYE is right regarding the final trigger for war (I'd add our rather haughty border treaty negotiations).

You and he were certainly more active and I at that point, but I recall that our relations were tense from the beginning (or they said something to that effect after the game). We thought everything had cooled down, but it never cools down completely, does it?

NYE - I don't really understand this "it's custom to stay away from our borders" thing. I don't buy that at all, and were I Vox, I'd be irritated by it. They have a scout. They're scouting with it.

I agree, and personally I would resent someone informing me of that custom (no offense, nye!).

[Dominae]

Originally posted by DeepO
I kind of like the rationale of snoopy: tell them about our intentions and agree that no hostilities occur, and it might be questionable. Don't tell them, and there is no way this can be considered a faux war. Because that's what it really boils down too: whether Vox are in on it or not.

I'm not sure I understand this bit. Are you saying that, in negotations, we could hint at the fact that we're considering declaring war to prevent possible Religion spread, but not, in the end, tell them precisely why we declare war? Sounds like a faux war to me (if Vox "gets our drift, if you get my drift).

Look at it from their PoV, and this discussion dissolves itself. If we declare war to them, Vox has no obligation whatsoever not to attack us, the 'peace while at war' would be unilateral. After all, we gain, and we make promises. We can't push Vox in making promises too. So, if we declare war (for whatever reason, stated or not), Vox will be unbound to attack us... so why would we tell them our reasons then? It can only limit us. We don't want to get strung up in the H-thing again.

As I've said a couple of times, even if faux wars are allowed, it's not good for business. When exactly, would we end our state of war? When we spread our own Religion to all our cities, so as to prevent theirs from ever infecting us?

So the real question becomes whether we find the spread of religion enough reason to go to war for. Telling them why is optional, and we probably want to avoid that: we need to go to skirmishers asap, and letting them think we do it so we won't attack them is atm not the best diplo idea: better leave our options open instead of limiting ourselves.

Every turn we wait to declare war, assuming our tests are correct, increases the chances that they infect us (wow, that's dramatic!). So declaring war right now and telling them why might not be a bad move: they might get the impression that we just want to avoid their Religion, and not prepare for the worst. Thus we would avoid infection and possibly get the drop on them too. The alternative is waiting a bit to declare war and not say anything about it in the meantime, which obviously increases our the surprise value of our attack.

In short: if we declare war now, we tell them it's because we fear Religion spread; if we wait to declare war, we keep shut until then and give no reason when we do.

[Ennet]

NYE - I don't really understand this "it's custom to stay away from our borders" thing. I don't buy that at all, and were I Vox, I'd be irritated by it. They have a scout. They're scouting with it.

I agree, and personally I would resent someone informing me of that custom (no offense, nye!).

It might not be a standard rule, but Im sure that no human player has ever liked their borders being cruised by another human player. Specially when you are going to send out workers and settlers it's really nasty.
Yes, its a scout in this case but i think most people would object to their terretory being scouted out as its a good defensive advantage your terretory being black to everyone else..

[Metaliturtle]

NYE your box was full I got this from Dongeal:

Hey, nye PM box was full. Could you pass this on?

Hello again, Great Stormian Teacher!

Your praise of our faith discovery is immensely welcome, and if your peoples would like to discuss our faith, we would be happy to help you become brothers in faith...

We are a peaceful people, only wishing friendship and to spread the writtings of Ishvara. You have nothing to fear from our harmless Voxian explorer. He has no offensive bones in his body and is incapable of causing you harm. However, to ease your nerves and as a sign of peace, we will attempt to keep our armies away from your borders.

Peace, Friend!
Donegeal, The Voice of Voxism to Gathering Storm

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by VOX
Peace, Friend! You have nothing to fear from our harmless Voxian explorer.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dominae


I'm not sure I understand this bit. Are you saying that, in negotations, we could hint at the fact that we're considering declaring war to prevent possible Religion spread, but not, in the end, tell them precisely why we declare war? Sounds like a faux war to me (if Vox "gets our drift, if you get my drift).

No, what I wanted to say is that per definition, a faux war is only one where both parties know what's happening. Otherwise one of the two thinks it's a real war. Faux wars have to be bilateral agreements to not attack the other (or only do so in very precise circumstances, like offering warriors for vet-generation). If 1 party thinks it's a real war, it is a real war.

OTOH, whether we consider it a faux war or not doesn't matter in this case: even if we would declare to Vox that it is a faux war, and they have nothing to fear as we won't attack them, it doesn't matter to how they can respond to us. It's unilateral, that peace-while-at-war thing.

So, basically, it doesn't really matter if we are allowed to start a phony war or not: by not going for a peace-at-war deal and simply declare a good old fashioned war, we gain more. And if the only reason is to avoid the spread of religion, we simply don't build units and attack them. However, we need to defend ourselves anyway. Any war, faux or not, will provoke Vox.

As I've said a couple of times, even if faux wars are allowed, it's not good for business. When exactly, would we end our state of war? When we spread our own Religion to all our cities, so as to prevent theirs from ever infecting us?

I agree with you completely. I don't like the concept either. Going to war in order to destroy their scout is much easier: it ends when both parties are getting bored, and we need trade to pump our finances, or growth.

So declaring war right now and telling them why might not be a bad move: they might get the impression that we just want to avoid their Religion, and not prepare for the worst.

Everything depends on how we would state our intentions. If we say 'it's only because of the religion', we indeed give the appearance of staying friendly. Which is precisely the problem: we kind of promise we won't attack them.

What I prefer (in case we go to war asap, which I don't particularly like) is to shut up, and simply say nothing. They know we can't attack them right away, and so the religion thing has to be the main reason. However they can't be sure it's just that, and will forever second-guess us. I prefer that over deception, we can't deceive anyone if we don't tell them a lie.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Indeed. Since when is snatching our huts "nothing to fear"?

I wonder if they will move next to our borders again this turn...

DeepO

[Mudhut]

Originally posted by DeepO

I wonder if they will move next to our borders again this turn...

DeepO

And the answer is...yes. I can't believe they did it, but in spite of our warning to stay away, and their answering message saying that they would keep away, they moved 8-9 and are right next to Spinebreaker. How trusting...how foolish...how suspiciously stupid...

Anyway, we can discuss whether or not to kill it in the other thread. But in terms of Diplomacy, I think our response should be along the lines of:
-We asked you to stay away from our borders
-You said you would stay away from our borders
-You didn't stay away from our borders
-Therefore, you bring these consequences* on yourself.

Now, "consequences" could be us declaring war and attacking their scout, or could just be us getting upset with them - depending on outcome of the other thread. But I think it's a good idea to take this line in our discussion with them, since it leaves them in the dark about why we are attacking.

[Cort Haus]

No need to say anything to them before they get the turn. We don't want to spoil it for them.

ahem - we can kill that thing OK on the hill, I presume