Team Sarantium Diplomacy

[OzzyKP]

I don't know how much of an admission it is to state that they have just as much claim to the land as we do.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Is that an offer to remove the Horde?

We have let them know we are seeking reparations, not neccessarily removing the Horde. They seem to assume the latter.

Agreed, an important point. Just because we want to take damage out of the Horde's hide in repayment (or reparations from them, but they seem to be snorting at that proposal at the moment) does not mean that we intend to eliminate them, or even "take" land that they might have claimed under normal settlement rush from them.

We weren't looking at any particularly large imprint on the continent in the first place, and that hasn't changed with the Horde war. It is A war for us, not THE war. The land chunk Sarantium wants to get is a pretty large fraction of what we were looking at having long-term.

Also, another important point is that iron is yet to be discovered. When we get IW next turn, the iron may well pop up in Sarantium's area. Should Sarantium have any iron of their own, their long-term need for copper is non-existant. They only need our copper so long as it takes for them to get to Alphabet, trade with us, and get their iron mining set up. This may be an important point, since they seem to be putting so much emphasis on their worries of making the resource trade balanced.

[UnOrthOdOx]

4) Con does not have any recollection of UnO telling him that he would consider us getting those horses an act of war. Thus as we have not broken any pacts or contracts and we have not attacked your civ, you DON'T have a casus belli to start a war agaist us if we settle near the horses! You have said that you will be neutral as long as no contracts are broken or you are not attacked.

You are settling on lands that belong to Team Mercenary. Yes, we have temporarily lost control of these lands by the aggression of a third party. However, these lands were once in Mercenary Control, and shall be returned to said control. This has not come up because we thought this self evident. No team can expect to settle on top of the dead citizens of another nation and not expect it to be called an act of war. If you continue this course, YOU are declaring war on us. If not by game mechanics, by your actions.

(5) You know what our terrain looks like, so you will understand why that spot makes good sense for Sarantium. If anything, your border "demands" and settling of Foxtrot could be construed as a long term threat to us.

So you are saying our original settling was a long term threat to you that was going to be dealt with eventually anyway? Perhaps it is best we know this to be your position now.

6) You may claim that you were the first to settle there (and we fully appreciate the loss and cost to the Mercs of recent events), but that is no different than us saying it is not settled now, and we are the first there now. Both are equally valid or invalid, depending on how you want to look at it.

It is VERY different. As stated before. One does not go settle on top of the remains of a neighbor and expect them to accept it. We are not asking for anything that was not already ours to begin with. You are looking to take such things from us just as surely as the Horde was.

8) There may be two horse resources in the north, but there are also two copper resources, both of which you have. Our intent with the new site was to provide you with horses, in much the same way as you will be providing us with copper.

And if you get iron and no longer need our copper? The fact remains you are taking a resource that was once in Mercenary borders.

9) You mentioned that we have not helped you (enough?) in your war effort. That is not true. We have provided you with vital information about the Horde's movements and their military strength. This all has happened very fast and we haven't had time to react accordingly. We WILL be able to assist you on the military front soon, if the plans are not delayed by re-thinking and re-locating of our next city.

I never mentioned lack of assistance at all. I merely stated you are swooping in like vultures to take advantage of our misfortune and expecting us to smile and accept it.

So, to move on from here, we are proposing a border arrangement for your consideration. It expands well beyond the border for the northern coast. It is an arrangement which we see as being fair and equitable in the long run. If we settle at the horses, you will get considerable better deal when dividing the Hordian lands.

Team Mercenary is not in a position to discuss the "dividing of Hordian lands". It is true that they have attacked us, and as a result we are seeking payment. They have refused to pay through diplomatic means and we are being forced to break a few fingers, maybe a kneecap, but we fully expect to return to normal relations with the Horde. We understand that this may be an ideal time for Sarantium to consider Horde removal, and Sarantium may wish to hire us to assist in this later, but in this event we would not be allowed to discuss accepting Horde lands in payment either. This argument is entirely inconsequential to Team Mercenary.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Proposed response anyway, very early in the morning..

[Kloreep]

Looks pretty good.
Points 1 & 2 may deserve a quick reply stating that we don't want conflict with Sarantium, indeed we would like good relations as well, but we feel they've forced us to seek it out.
Point 3 may deserve a response as well. Perhaps ask what their reaction would be if, upon discovering IW, we sent a settler to go claim the only iron near them - while hooking up the other iron we already have within our old borders.

[inamirrordarkly]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx

If you continue this course, YOU are declaring war on us. If not by game mechanics, by your actions.

I completely agree.

[inamirrordarkly]

When we reply do we want to quote them, responding to each point individually or should we have a more continuous message.

[UnOrthOdOx]

What do you guys feel about us suggesting they move 1 tile south, and then we rebuild on the old foxtrot location?

They would likely then get the gems and we'ld get the ponies in the resulting culture war. It's not a perfect solution, but might avoid war. We could (possibly) even agree to chop and hook up the gems for them in return for getting the gems gifted to us or something. *if that is possible with a border agreement, not entirely sure how that mechanic works.*

[UnOrthOdOx]

Sent to con, et, beta: (had to split into 2 PMs)

Greetings Team Sarantium,

We wish to thank you for your response and hope to work things out that we can continue a long and profitable relationship with Team Sarantium. Allow us to address a few of your points.

4) Con does not have any recollection of UnO telling him that he would consider us getting those horses an act of war. Thus as we have not broken any pacts or contracts and we have not attacked your civ, you DON'T have a casus belli to start a war agaist us if we settle near the horses! You have said that you will be neutral as long as no contracts are broken or you are not attacked.

You are settling on lands that belong to Team Mercenary. Yes, we have temporarily lost control of these lands by the aggression of a third party. However, these lands were once in Mercenary Control, and shall be returned to said control. This has not come up because we thought this self evident. No team can expect to settle on top of the dead citizens of another nation and not expect it to be called an act of war. If you continue this course, YOU are declaring war on us. If not by game mechanics, by your actions.

(5) You know what our terrain looks like, so you will understand why that spot makes good sense for Sarantium. If anything, your border "demands" and settling of Foxtrot could be construed as a long term threat to us.

So you are saying our original settling was a long term threat to you that was going to be dealt with eventually anyway? Perhaps it is best we know this to be your position now.

6) You may claim that you were the first to settle there (and we fully appreciate the loss and cost to the Mercs of recent events), but that is no different than us saying it is not settled now, and we are the first there now. Both are equally valid or invalid, depending on how you want to look at it.

It is VERY different. As stated before. One does not go settle on top of the remains of a neighbor and expect them to accept it. We are not asking for anything that was not already ours to begin with. You are looking to take such things from us just as surely as the Horde was.

8) There may be two horse resources in the north, but there are also two copper resources, both of which you have. Our intent with the new site was to provide you with horses, in much the same way as you will be providing us with copper.

And if you get iron and no longer need our copper? The fact remains you are taking a resource that was once in Mercenary borders.

9) You mentioned that we have not helped you (enough?) in your war effort. That is not true. We have provided you with vital information about the Horde's movements and their military strength. This all has happened very fast and we haven't had time to react accordingly. We WILL be able to assist you on the military front soon, if the plans are not delayed by re-thinking and re-locating of our next city.

I never mentioned lack of assistance at all. I merely stated you are swooping in like vultures to take advantage of our misfortune and expecting us to smile and accept it.

So, to move on from here, we are proposing a border arrangement for your consideration. It expands well beyond the border for the northern coast. It is an arrangement which we see as being fair and equitable in the long run. If we settle at the horses, you will get considerable better deal when dividing the Hordian lands.

Team Mercenary is not in a position to discuss the "dividing of Hordian lands". It is true that they have attacked us, and as a result we are seeking payment. They have refused to pay through diplomatic means and we are being forced to break a few fingers, maybe a kneecap, but we fully expect to return to normal relations with the Horde. We understand that this may be an ideal time for Sarantium to consider Horde removal, and Sarantium may wish to hire us to assist in this later, but in this event we would not be allowed to discuss accepting Horde lands in payment either. This argument is entirely inconsequential to Team Mercenary.

Team Mercenary is not allowed the luxury of planning based on another teams demise. Thus, we must fiercely defend what borders we gain if we are to remain in the business of supplying folks with our wares. This has been made clear through public statements from the beginning, and must especially apply when a strategic resource is in question, one that we obtained in our border, one which would vastly broaden the services we will be able to provide our customers. You have aknowledged that our borders were once there fairly, and there they must return if Team Mercenary is to run an effective business. We are sure you can understand this and hope a compromise can be reached.

-UnOrthOdOx
Team Mercenary Representative

[UnOrthOdOx]

This is an unofficial PM from UnO, not Team Merc and not acting as representative.

I have asked team Merc, and will ask Sarantium now.

What are your thoughts on moving your settler 1 tile south, and Mercs rebuilding foxtrot where it stood?

Sarantium would have the gems, Mercs the pony. I believe this is what both our teams are truly most interested in at this point. We would have to balance culture production, but I believe this to be something we can work out.

Again, haven't heard back from Mercs, so this is just supposition looking for a compromise at the moment.

(there is also a possibility the Mercs could agree to clear the jungle and mine the gems for you in return for a gem resource in this circumstance)

[polarnomad]

I'm not thrilled about them settling one tile south, but if it is the only way avert war, then perhaps. However, I do think the borders being that close will end up breeding tension. Also, if they agree to supply us with gems, how long will this last? Until we refuse something they ask us to do? Then what?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Well, we would set a number of turns for the service of cutting and connecting the gems in that situation. That is all hypothetical at the moment.

Yes the borders will be a problem, but it is possible we both agree to coordinate culture production so as to not crush the other's border (well, we can't control our +2 at the moment). It IS managable, and would be noticeable if one team started pouding culture and would then be cause for war.

We lose a source of gems in this situation. However, we would still have the ponies, and we would not have pissed off our neighbor or made war that could be difficult to justify and could become a continuing thorn in our side. The gems never technically fell under our border, and we really have no claim to them to begin with by our arguments to date.

Just something to think about.

[Kloreep]

Problem is, any long-term resource supply like this is inherently unstable for us. Unless we want to never take out a contract against Sarantium. Which seems unlikely in the short term, of course; but in the long term, how can peace last once the Horde have been bled and techs exchanged with Sarantium? "Best case" for any friendship with Sarantium is that the Horde become rather permanent enemies (or are wiped out) and our cooperation w/ Sarantium lasts until Astronomy, the latest date at which we make contact with more civs who might want Sarantium taken down a peg. And that's best case. So, count on NOT counting on those gems for happiness later on in the game when we need every happiness point we can get (we'll have the same supply issues with anyone we might want to buy a luxury supply from).

As such, I'm reluctant to give up both gems. Giving up one is certainly quite reasonable. So I'd still not be happy to let them settle 1 tile south if it can be avoided. Problem is, any more south and the city site becomes less valuable, and they get closer to the Horde.

I'd be quite happy to let them settle S-SW (2-1) of their current position). But whether they'd be happy is another matter.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Yes, luxury trade is going to be a problem with us permanently.

Even at 2-1 it will be a culture war to keep one of the gems. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that site is even more jungle-bound than just having them move 2 (thus less likely they'll accept), and would pinch us off worse in the event the Horde is removed. I'ld personally rather keep them East of the river.

[OzzyKP]

Dear Mercenaries,

As Sarantium's current Foreign Affairs Minister, I want to lay some cards on the table in an attempt to explain to you two big dilemmas with which we are trying do deal: first, Alliance versus Neutrality and second, Insecurity and Uncertainty. We feel the two dilemmas are closely related to each other. In order to solve them we need your help. I apologise for the enormous length, but I feel there is a real need to sort things out thoroughly, now that our teams are on the brink of war. We want to provide you with insight in how we perceive your team, how we reason and how we feel. We hope that this may help you to understand what consequences your mercenary-being has for our team.

We have long debated, for months actually, whether we would send this or not. The recent events have proved to be decisive. Please read this letter very carefully. It is our hope that after you have carefully read this letter and understood what implications a mercenary team right beside Sarantium has for our team, we can solve the issue of insecurity. We hope that this will also help to solve the matter of who controls the horses. This letter is not meant as an answer to any or your previous letters, although it does address some subjects raised in them. The subjects are addressed not as an answer, but to show you how Sarantium regards them, an often significantly different perspective than yours.

Nevertheless, this letter is also intended to help to find practical solutions for the central problem of the Sarantine-Mercenary relationship: insecurity. We hope that after you have read this letter, you can come up with constructive ideas that solve the problem of insecurity and allow peaceful coexistence of our two teams. We do not know enough of the Mercenary concept ourselves to propose a solution ourselves. We do not intend to warn you here, but without such a solution, we expect that even if the issue of Foxtrot/horses would be solved peacefully, other problems related to Sarantine insecurity will present themselves and trouble the Sarantine-Mercenary relationship. Such we would deeply regret.

Before I start to deal with the subject and provide you with our very nuanced opinion in the whole matter (which goes far beyond the settler issue), I want to express that we of Sarantium think positively of your team. The official stance of our team towards the concept of a mercenary team, I cannot repeat it enough times, is very positive, despite the initial reservations some members had at the start of this game.

We are very interested in an alliance with your team or any other formal agreement with a permanent character, that can bring our teams closer together. However, you are mercenaries.

Generally speaking, however, we are confused by what you want from us and we think that you are perhaps mistaking personal friendships of many of your members with many of our members and the positive stance of team Sarantium in general for some kind of alliance. While our out of game relations are friendly, in game our teams have a formal relationship that is characterised by neutrality and the absence of any institutionalized cooperation, such as treaties and NAPs. In general we are confused by what you want from us: a treatment that fits an ally at the absence of any kind of an alliance.

In your e-mail of January 7 and the chat you had with E_T you were annoyed by the fact that we had not joined you in the war. Perhaps you expected us to declare war against to Horde and assist you, we did not know that. This is only an example of the confusion I just mentioned. We are more than willing to help you, but it really is awkward, because helping is not something generally done to teams that are neutral. Fact is that this is your war and for us there is not a real need to get involved. Of course that sucks for you, but in this game our teams are only neutral and that means that strictly speaking we should not care how you fare.

The reality is different: we do care for how you fare, but with a mixed feeling, which I will address more in detail below.

One last remark about the ongoing war with the Horde: do not confuse out-of-game time with in-game time: out of game weeks have passed, in game only 3 turns were played. No matter how brilliant our planners are, shifting gears to adapt to new situations takes time, and not that much has truly passed..

The core of the first dilemmas I referred to is that Sarantium would love to have an ally, but the concept of alliance is not one that has been made available to us. That we cannot have one is hardly our choice, since the historical relationships of most Sarantium members with Horde members are terrible and your team is a mercenary team. You have from the start of this game been neutral to us and since we have not received any requests for an alliance. We have not even received a request for a military alliance against the Horde for the duration of your war against the horde.

The main problem with allying is that it goes against your concept of a mercenary team. Let it again be clear that we are not against the idea of a mercenary team. Again, the official attitude of Sarantium towards the concept of a mercenary team is positive. We do not want to force you into an alliance. We also do not want to force you to abandon your concept of a mercenary team. What we want you to understand is that you can't have things both ways: to be a mercenary who can stab us in the back at any moment and be treated as if you are an ally.

Your latest message, as we understand it, however, expresses a frustration that we do not act like allies, while you have maintained the neutral stance.

An ally we would like to support materially, but it is not unfair to only support one who remains neutral with nothing more than information. Even that type of support, is already going a long way towards military alliance in this war, while we do not have such an alliance with you. The only real reasons that we are supporting you with information is that we like you guys to win this.

But no matter how big our sympathy with you and your cause, so long as you maintain an official stance of neutrality towards us, we are and remain to be competitors and therefore we compete.

It is true that you did put forward something that falls into the category of a border proposal, but it was at least highly incomplete. As a result, much of the initiative was left by you for us to take, while you could have taken it yourself by presenting an all-encompassing border agreement. You certainly have the people on your team to design such a proposal. As long as there is no formal agreement signed by both teams, we have not agreed on any border and any team is free to settle where it wants. We understand that such has a nasty consequence now, but once again, we are not being unfair. Our behavior is the result of the absence of a treaty.

You claim that land that was once occupied by your team is still owned by your team. We recall that it was UnO, who has several times said that any land not within anyone's border was land not owned by anyone. It is true that other teams have claimed unsettled territory in other games to be theirs, but such were always unilateral declarations by teams, not a universal rule all teams have agreed upon. Your claim is also a unilateral one and we happen to disagree with it. We are trying to play this game by its rules, but if those or their understanding are being changed over the course of the game, without informing us in advance, we cannot help, but to use the latest rules or their interpretation known to us. We are very sorry, but if we did something that is not allowed according to common interpretation of the rules, it would have been better if you had informed us in advance.

"One does not go settle on top of the remains of a neighbor and expect them to accept it". Even though the above might be your perspective, there is no rule that has been universally accepted, not even an agreement between your team and ours, that states that a team cannot settle on land once owned by another team, whether or not a war is going on. We could enter negotiations about this and agree to adhere to a rule like this through an agreement, but at this moment your claim is a unilateral one: you are not asking us whether we agree or not, you are demanding our obediance. We are happy to deal with your claim through bilateral negotiations between two equals, but we cannot accept a unilateral decision on your part which we would have to obey as if we were your slave or servant.

In your latest e-mail of January 7 you are speaking of "a calculated attempt to plant a city prior to negotiating borders" on our part. However, have you not opened negotiations for a border only shortly after founding Foxtrot? We were pleased that the Horde did not succeed to settle there, but not pleased at all that you settled and then put forward a border agreement. Such is equally opportunistic as our current plan. Perhaps you did not intend to be opportunistic by presenting a border agreement after founding Foxtrot, but we have interpreted it as such.

To make a long story short, we don't think we have been unfair to you: we have treated you as competitors, as a neutral team, just like you wanted.

We would very much like to engage in a formal alliance with you, but we have, from the start left that choice with you. You have until now decided not to ally with us, because it is contrary to the concept of being mercenaries, so be it. We hope that despite the sour taste we have left in your mouths by the rather fierce competition in we are engaged, you will evaluate the possibility of some form of alliance.

You seem, expressed in your e-mail of January 7, to have certain needs for at least a more institutionalized form of cooperation, such is, as I said before, very welcome with us. If you desire closer cooperation and less fierce competition, please tell us. We value our relationship with your team very highly and we very much like to cooperate with you. However, by all means, be clear about which relationship you desire with us. If we both agree on the rules that accompany our relationship, we will play by them. We will, however, neither play by rules imposed upon us or nor fulfil any expectations for rules we have not agreed upon. One of the problems related to allying in one way or another is of course that we do not want to be stabbed in the back or see an ally of today turn our back on us tomorrow. If you want to be treated as an ally, please ally with us and let us promise mutual loyalty.

We cannot help to be watchful, and sometimes perhaps mistrusting of those who remain neutral to us or even threaten with war. Any team that explicitly or implicitly expresses that it does not want to be our friends, we have to treat as a competitor and a potential enemy. You are no exception to that, no matter how much we like your team. As long as you do not wish to ally with us, you are a potential enemy, one with which we are willing to cooperate with and remain at peace, but one we cannot favor at our own cost.

It is very difficult for us to trust your team. With any agreement we sign we ask the question: what if another team hires them to declare war on us, are these agreements then suddenly voided? Or do non-military agreements oblige the mercenaries to remain at peace with us? This goes for any form of cooperation: exchange of information, tech agreements, anything. We can never be sure that what we agree with you on, will also be fulfilled. As a result our entire current relationship with you is characterised by uncertainty.

As much as we like the people on your team and despite our positive attitude of a mercenary team, we have to be wary of you and your team's developments as long as you are holding on to the mercenary concept. With your team right beside us, we permanently live under the threat that we can be attacked at any moment. While other teams live under similar conditions, they can attempt to reduce that risk through alliances, non-aggression pacts and such. We can't, because you are officially being neutral, therefore we live at a significantly higher risk than any other team, except for the Horde. Actions towards you such as settling near the horses, must be understood against this background.

At this moment solutions are sought for both teams to coexist peacefully and profit from the resources on this continent and near the former city of Foxtrot. We welcome these efforts, but want to point out that these solutions only address the current Foxtrot/settler issue and only a small part of the two dilemmas discussed in this letter.

We hope we can keep diplomatic channels open and solve the issue of our deteriorating relationship by means of words, sharp edged as they may sometimes be, and refrain from using military means. We will very soon put forward a proposal which will be beneficial to both our teams, to deal with the situation as it is now.

Regarding the settlet/foxtrot/horses issue we are prepared to negotiate with you instead of acting unilaterally, but we expect nothing short of a solution that benefits both our teams equally. Also a solution has to be found to solve the dilemmas explained in this letter. Sarantium is happy to help to solve the dilemmas and to think constructively.

As a gesture of our good intentions we are willing to delay settlement until we have reached an agreement about the future partition of the continent. This is under the condition that your team will not threaten our settlers or our troops in the field, or will send settlers to areas near Sarantium. Any such action will be regarded by our team as a rejection of diplomacy and possible future border agreements, and a declaration of war. If such moves have already been made we would like to see you retreat, failure to do so will be regarded by Sarantium as a declaration of war.

We hope to have cleared up things sufficiently for you.

On behalf of the Sarantine Senate,

Aidun - Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Imperial Democracy of Sarantium

.