Team Sarantium Diplomacy

[UnOrthOdOx]

Yeah, I'm reading that and wondering what in the sam hell they are talking about us getting annoyed with them not joining the war.

Did I say they needed to join the war at any time? No, I called them greedy onlookers, which is what they are. Does not mean they should have joined a war, just stating the obvious. They're playing neutrality by definition makes them onlookers. We have not asked for their aid in the war other than the info. Gah.

[UnOrthOdOx]

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.

I have said this once, in another game, when it involved a specific city site. The previous owner of the land had been removed from the game completely, and thus no active team had ever laid hands on these tiles.

[Togas]

I received this message via email (as I expect we all did) and just didn't have the energy to read through it all. Scrolling to the bottom of it I discovered it was written by Aidun. So now I'm REALLY confused.

You see, Aidun is a teammate of mine (and Unortho and many of you) on the Master Zen Online Civ4 DG where our concept is very similar. Sure it's "Pirates" over there, not mercenaries, but it has the same roots of neutrality and purchased friendship. More importantly, both teams have very similar honor codes. So what the hell is wrong with Aidun that he can't "understand" how to relate to our team ... but CAN muster up the understanding to write an essay on the subject.

I seriously want to just *****slap that skinny Dutch Boy and say "YOUR the Super Diplomat. YOU figure out how to handle relations with us!" but I can't. And we shouldn't. No. Seriously, we shouldn't.

I was once a famous Apolyton diplomat before I became a curmudgeon. So, occasionally, I have bits of DG Diplomacy wisdom to share from my clever tricks and complicated failures. This is my bit for this situation:

Aidun is not creative enough to handle our concept and "think outside the box" with our team, which is sad because the truth is that our team is THE MOST EASY TEAM TO MANIPULATE IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION DEMOGAMES.

We shouldn't share that fact. If anyone outside this team ever grasped that fact, they could easily pwn this game. However, we're going to have to give Aidun some little breadcrumbs to help him start to realize that we will do whatever his team wants. Without question. Without reservation. WITHOUT BETRAYAL.

For the paltry price of some gold they were going to waste on a colluseum, or a meager tech, they can have GUARANTEED security with us. Forever. Simply toss us a new tech every 20 turns for a non-aggression contract, and they know they're secure.

No games. No diplomacy tricks. Not even any trust involved.

If a war happens, they can know, without a doubt, that we will not betray them by placing up a small sum (or a tech) to just hire us first. They can let their valuable troops sit at home and let our troops die in distraction attacks against their enemies.

How much is that kind of security worth? Because I can promise you that it's worth a lot more than we'll charge.


So my proposed solution is this: One of us has to give Aidun some very elementary examples of how he can get both Alliance and Security (his two big ISSUES) from us for paltry sums and know that we are honor bound to the deal no matter how much it helps him win the game. No other team in the game has the strict code of honor that we do. Every other team could betray him at any time. We do not EVER break our word or contract. We are the only guarantee in the game.

Then once he begins to come around push him to ADAPT his methods to obtain his objectives by doing some of the things we've suggested. Heck, we'll even write the contracts for him.

And it probably shouldn't be me because I'm still very much in the mood to tell him what a freakin' idiot he's being.

--Togas

[UnOrthOdOx]

Sorry, I had to respond to one part personally.

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.

I am going to address this once, and once only, as UnO, not as a representative:

I made a claim once in another game: that land that had once belonged to a civ that had been removed from the game and was no longer IN that game reverted to neutral territory. I personally do not understand how one would classify such land differently.

But even that does not matter.

I am not Team Mercenary, we are a TEAM, with many personalities, and this is a different game.

Please do not drag anything I've said from previous games into this again. Those were different teams, different games, and I came here to play this game not relive the past.

When I speak to you in this game, it is as a representative of THIS Team Mercenary. The views I argue may or may not be ones I personally agree with, but they are those of the team and I will argue them fervently.

I will get you an official response when the team can digest that email

[UnOrthOdOx]

Alright proposed quick response:

Dear Team Sarantium,

We thank you for the response.

We can trade monolithic emails back and forth, or we can both agree to get to a point. Tensions are high on both teams, let's simmer down a bit and just get to the bone.

Let me first clear up a misconception by Team Sarantium:

Team Mercenary is perfectly happy with how Sarantium has helped with the war effort. We have not expected or asked of more. We are in no way unhappy, unsettled, displeased, angry, or otherwise perturbed over this particular issue. We thank you graciously for providing information and hope you continue to do so. If Sarantium forces enter into war with Team Horde, we expect it to be for motives that suit Team Sarantium, not for the aid of Team Mercenary.

Now, to break down the settler-horses situation:

Between all the political mumbo jumbo talk it boils down to this:

Team Mercenary is of the opinion that since the horses were once in Merc borders they are property of Team Mercenary. We have expressed this opinion, perhaps aggressively to reflect on you the strength of our convictions on this matter.

Team Sarantium is of the opinion that since there are no longer borders there the ponies are fair game.

Both are subjective opinions, compromises have been at least quietly discussed.

I do not know where you got the impression we are asking for anything approaching an alliance, but that has never been our intent.

As for your concerns on security and alliance: We can never guarantee you an alliance by our very nature.

What we can tell you: WE WILL NOT BREAK A DEAL. If we agree to trade...oh, say copper, to you for 20 turns, well, we can't trade if we're at war with you, now, can we. Thus we cannot contract against you till this deal is completed.

As such, we will never make deals that last till the end of time, but deals for shorter lengths are absolutely, positively guaranteed. We will fight to the last man before breaking. Now, getting creative and using this knowledge to your advantage to create whatever security you need...we'll leave that up to you. (And hope you remember hire us to go attack folks.)

[rush]

I haven't read the message from Aidun (just too long ) but i have read some of the postings the team made above.

Aidun and I are from the same Monarchist team in MZO C3CDG, we get along quite well. So if the team here needs me to send/tell Aidun anything, please let me know and I will do it.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Ok,

Quick chat with Flamer tonight, and he has an unofficial proposal along the lines of the one I sent, They are polling to make it official:

Sarantium settler moves 2-1 and settles (as Kloreep suggested earlier), and they get to settle 9 of the gold on the coast. We settle on Foxtrots remains and 7 of the fish. (guaranteeing the fish in Merc territory)

I am of the opinion this is the best for all involved considering the circumstances.

[UnOrthOdOx]

irUlias@AOL.com says:
Hey there
Tatu says:
hello.. and good morning
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Morning? It's 10 PM.
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
New Zealan?
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Zealand
Tatu says:
Finland
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Guess I knew that.
Tatu says:
you have a new diplo message BTW
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Just reminded me of conversations I had with MrWIA back when...
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Yeah, massive Email.
Tatu says:
it is a long one.. Aidun is one writer guy
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
You guys sure are funny, do we have to spell everything out for you guys?
Tatu says:
yes
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Concerned about the security of a team you can BUY.
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Funniest thing I've ever read. Start thinking outside the box over there.
Tatu says:
ok... in the meantime we have considered your "unofficial" proposal about the city sites
Tatu says:
is the proposal official now?
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Well, it's going to be a tough sell on the merc side, so no.
Tatu says:
ok...
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
You guys really pissed off the builderers.
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Are you wanting to make it an official proposal from Team Sarantium?
Tatu says:
Yeah... builders can be a little touchy
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Kloreep suggest you moving 2-1.
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
I honestly don't have the map in front of me so don't even know what that looks like.
Tatu says:
that is also one option we have considered
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Basically he wants one of the gems.
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
And that would be an easier sell for team Merc.
Tatu says:
ok..
Tatu says:
but in that case there is the issue of the gold hill
Tatu says:
let me show you what I mean
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
I think the border deal I proposed for the coast let you guys get the gold hill.
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Or is there another one?
Tatu says:

http://apolyton.net/upload/view/20498_CombinedMap.jpg

Tatu says:
another one..
Tatu says:
we were ok with the coast agreement.. as long as we got the site the settler is on now..
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
The Gold 6-9 of the horses?
Tatu says:
but .. the proposal.. that is not official because we have not polled it
Tatu says:
1) we would settle to 2-1 from the current site
Tatu says:
...as Kloreep suggested
Tatu says:
2) the next city would be to 9 from the gold hill
Tatu says:
you are creative
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Which was one of the sites in my coast proposal...
Tatu says:
nope
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Thought it was.
Tatu says:
your proposals were on the other side of the river
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Ok.
Tatu says:
2 tiles away from the gold
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Oh, settling 9 of the gold makes us fight over the fish.
Tatu says:
you are creative, so it would be difficult to keep the gold if we were so far from it
Tatu says:
your culture can push it to your favor
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
We're not even going to attempt to keep that gold, I can tell you that.
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Our city on that coast needs the fish to have any food to be productive around there, though.
Tatu says:
yeah.. I know, but it still would require us to allocate resources to culture
Tatu says:
and our builders would not be happy
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
We were thinking 6 of the river made better sense for you as it gave you the corn.
Tatu says:
we have other plans for that one
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Fair enough, gotta cramp up a bit on the ***** of a landmass.
Tatu says:
yeah... hoping IW will give us something
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
My history of seeing maps says your virtually guaranteed to have iron near.
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
But there have been thos oddballs.
Tatu says:
yeah... we just have to live with what we get
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Alright, 2-1 and 9 of the gold. We would settle on Foxtrots ruins and...I'm guessing 7 of the fish.
Tatu says:
If you could ask your team mates about the unofficial proposal, it would be great
Tatu says:
yep
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
This one now, yes, going to post it now, I think this one has a better shot than the 'move 2 and settle'.
Tatu says:
BTW... how is the IW coming along?
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Next turn I think.
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
A personal response to aiduns email I pm'd con, beta, aidun and et:
Tatu says:
ok.. could you inform us about the iron in near our lands? as a good gesture.. it would make the builders happy and they can start planning again
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Aidun had said: 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.
Tatu says:
yes?
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
I am going to address this once, and once only, as UnO, not as a representative:

I made a claim once in another game: that land that had once belonged to a civ that had been removed from the game and was no longer IN that game reverted to neutral territory. I personally do not understand how one would classify such land differently.

SirUlias@AOL.com says:
But even that does not matter.

I am not Team Mercenary, we are a TEAM, with many personalities, and this is a different game.

Please do not drag anything I've said from previous games into this again. Those were different teams, different games, and I came here to play this game not relive the past.

SirUlias@AOL.com says:
When I speak to you in this game, it is as a representative of THIS Team Mercenary. The views I argue may or may not be ones I personally agree with, but they are those of the team and I will argue them fervently.

I will get you an official response when the team can digest that email





Tatu says:
fair enough
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
I'll make you a new map with the iron locations when we get it.
Tatu says:
thanks.. that will be great
Tatu says:
I will make a poll and we will see if the proposal will be official
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
I just like to start each game fresh and really don't like folks draggin up old stuff, especially in a team game.
Tatu says:
yeah.. that is understandable
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
I got a PM awaiting approval to clear up all that email and some misconceptions you guys seem to have gotten.
Tatu says:
thanks
Tatu says:
we are humen and people can't always deal with each other with a clean start
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Well, I tend to push folks buttons at times.
Tatu says:

SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Sometimes on purpose.
SirUlias@AOL.com says:

Tatu says:
yeah.. we know that people from "one team" on this continent are very easilly pushed
Tatu says:
Yep... I will discuss this matter with the team and draw a official border proposal for you guys.
Tatu says:
is there something else you want to discuss?
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
Alright, I got a poll up on it as well.
SirUlias@AOL.com says:
No, I really need to get to bed now, gotta off to work in 6 hours.
Tatu says:
have a good night sleep

[polarnomad]

Wow, quite the explosion of text in this thread...

I've skimmed through some of what has been posted, and read through the chat with Flamer. If Sarantium settles 2 - 1 of its settler's current position, does this mean we are resettling Foxtrot on its ruins or on the hill we originally planned for?

[Kloreep]

The border proposal looks acceptable. I would prefer settling Foxtrot on the original Plains hill rather than the ruins, but with our Creative trait that may unfortunately be too threatening to their gem supply; the ruins will probably have to do. I want to run a sim to see just how fast the gems get taken if we go to the plain hill, but I'm guessing it's pretty fast unless Sarantium gets lucky with religion distributing to their new city. And even then, Creative gives +2, religion just +1.

Sarantium's city crossing the river means our choice of eastern city is forced, to the less attractive northern hill. That's okay though, the city's strongpoint has always been the combination of the two food supply resources, combined with the very minable but foodless plains hills.

BTW, you guys realize we're basically pushing their city to the border of Horde territory. Not really our problem, but may cause some interesting reaction on their side.

Response looked good for the time, after this latest chat I'd propose some alterations to bring it up to speed with the latest developments (and to make it a bit less derisive of Aidun's letter ).

[Kloreep]

My proposed edits. Deletions are struckout, additions in italics. The underlined addition is my thought on creating acceptable "zones of non-settlement" for each team, but is rough, might not be accepted by Sarantium (either in this form, or perhaps not in any) and I have no idea if even this team would support it. Basically trying to keep the west and east zones clear of each other's influence so far as potentially coveted land - they have both Dyes and Spices in potential monopoly to the east, and we have Sugar in the same condition. Not to mention there's some valuable forest and grassland in the Sugar's area I'd like to keep Sarantium hands off of.

Dear Team Sarantium,

We thank you for the response.

We can trade monolithic emails back and forth, or we can both agree to get to a point. Tensions are high on both teams, let's simmer down a bit and just get to the bone.

Let me first clear up a misconception by Team Sarantium:

Team Mercenary is perfectly happy with how Sarantium has helped with the war effort. We have not expected or asked of more. We are in no way unhappy, unsettled, displeased, angry, or otherwise perturbed over this particular issue. We thank you graciously for providing information and hope you continue to do so. If Sarantium forces enter into war with Team Horde, we expect it to be for motives that suit Team Sarantium, not for the aid of Team Mercenary.

Now, to break down the settler-horses situation:

Between all the political mumbo jumbo talk it boils down to this:

Team Mercenary is of the opinion that since the horses were once in Merc borders they are property of Team Mercenary. We have expressed this opinion, perhaps aggressively to reflect on you the strength of our convictions on this matter.

Team Sarantium is of the opinion that since there are no longer borders there the ponies are fair game.

Both are subjective opinions, compromises have been at least quietly discussed. We officially offer the following settlement agreement, some of which was unofficially discussed previously: Team Mercenary will re-settle the ruins of Foxtrot Stables (7 of the horses under contention), while Sarantium will settle 2-1 of its settlers' current position, or 2-2-2 of the horses. In the north, Sarantium will settle a city 9 of the gold hill by the mountains, and Mercenary will settle a city 8-8-8-7 of this gold hill.

We further propose demarcating certain limits for settlement; specifically, we propose certain areas in which each of our teams will agree not to settle. The southern extent of both "no-settlement" zones will end at (but include) the straight east-west line running through the wheat and the pigs near the Horde capital's borders. On this line and on the parts of this continent north of it, Sarantium agrees not to settle cities further west than the site by the horses - that is, west across the line going straight north-south from this city - unless permitted by further settlement dealings with Team Mercenary. Team Mercenary agrees not to settle cities further east than the site by the fish and pigs - that is, east acrees the line going straight north-south from this city - unless permitted by further settlement dealings with Team Mercenary.

I do not know where you got the impression we are asking for anything approaching an alliance, but that has never been our intent.

As for your concerns on security and alliance: We can never guarantee you an alliance by our very nature.

What we can tell you: WE WILL NOT BREAK A DEAL. If we agree to trade...oh, say copper, to you for 20 turns, well, we can't trade if we're at war with you, now, can we. Thus we cannot contract against you till this deal is completed.

As such, we will never make deals that last till the end of time, but deals for shorter lengths are absolutely, positively guaranteed. We will fight to the last man before breaking. Now, getting creative and using this knowledge to your advantage to create whatever security you need...we'll leave that up to you. (And hope you remember to hire us to go attack folks.)

[Kloreep]

Here's a picture of the border proposal

Bottom line is the southern limit of the no-settlement zone for both. Black line is the limit of the Merc no-settlement zone, Blue line is the limit of the Sarantium no-settlement zone. Black dots are Merc cities under the specific settlements already proposed, Blue dots are Sarantium cities under the same.

I don't mean to propose so much these exact lines as a defining of definite space whose settlement rights belong to each side (or the Horde), with a little wiggle room in between up for anyone.

[Kloreep]

Argh, settlers placed using WorldBuilder can't build.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that if we were to settle the plains hill, we'd have the Sarantium gem under our control in short order after the first five turns that it takes to expand. And after that we'd just keep building a culture advantage they'd have to try to catch up to. With Foxtrot 2 built on its ruins, on the other hand, we delay border expansion to the gems to 50 turns (and 100 culture) after settlement as opposed to 5 turns (and 10 culture). And I believe the cultural buildup will also be weaker as opposed to if the Sarantine gems were in Foxtrot's city radius.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Sent editted message via PM to Aidun, con, Beta, and ET (I need to add flamer to my buddy list...)

Also sent your picture and quoted your post, but removed the reference to the horde.

[UnOrthOdOx]

hmmm...no word yet...