Exchange Map Proposal Rejected!!!

Pedrunn · January 13, 2003, 21:36

following the advices of our Minister of Defense Immortal Wombat...

Quote:

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Agree to withdraw, and request an exchange of maps.
Do not threaten, and advise you do not offer gold (or anything else for that matter).

I have sent a withdraw proposal to increase the regard of our nation with the Austrian.

And as expect they accept our proposal.

Pedrunn · January 13, 2003, 21:44

Then nothing was to be done unless end the turn. I had a doubt if i should send the proposal in the next turn and in this same turn. So i met our Minister of Diplomacy in the Lemuria Chat when he clearly said to me to send in the next turn. And i asked him to make sure if we should not threat them at all. I asked IW:

Quote:

Chat Conversation
Pedrunn> Are you sure we should not threat?
Zephyr> yep

So following his advices i ended the turn and sent the Exchange Map proposal. Unfortunetly:

HuangShang · January 13, 2003, 21:49

damn, what now, threaten?

Pedrunn · January 13, 2003, 22:00

This is the screenshot for the year 3860 BC (turn 12).

We have finally finished our second warrior and funnily the settler did not moved this turn. My guess is that he want to go to the same place our first warrior is standing.

We are 65 turns to ballistics and have 201 gold. All others settings are the same as the old turn except that i removed the farmer specialist from the city.

Pedrunn · January 13, 2003, 22:03

And doenst seems like our regard with the Austrian is doing so well:

Frozzy · January 13, 2003, 22:16

Oh goodie.

H Tower · January 13, 2003, 23:04

we had another turn chat?

from looking at the map i suggest we go north, north, and then follow the river some more

Maquiladora · January 14, 2003, 00:45

Hmm its always best if you ask to exchange maps on the turn you actually meet them

Oh well we wont get the map now without exploring it ourselves.

Okay we're in the **** so I think we should withdraw our warrior from their land and try to keep them sweet abit longer. At a guess i reckon we've got 20 odd turns before they start roaming around us.

Oerdin · January 14, 2003, 02:10

I say we threaten them. The AI is dumb so even if we piss him off and he goes to war with us we can still whip him.

Locutus · January 14, 2003, 03:11

We're inside our borders, they don't like that... Give 100 Gold, wait one turn for the effect to kick in, then ask for a map and prey it'll still work so soon after the first request... (You should have given 100 Gold to begin with)

H Tower · January 14, 2003, 03:14

IW said don't pay or threaten though.

Locutus · January 14, 2003, 03:21

IW's an idiot

I win 70% of my games through diplo victory, I don't think IW would recognize an Alliance if it hit him in the face

Maquiladora · January 14, 2003, 03:42

Theres some sort of bug where you can get anything off any AI on the same turn you meet them. I dont get many diplo victories but i always go for the exchange map deal first turn, if theyre slightly pissed at me i go with meek attitude, if they okay with me but stronger than me (strength 4) i go for meek too, if not then a friendly tone is usually enough.

We may aswell try a gold gift now, if only to calm them down for long enough before we have enough units.

Oerdin · January 14, 2003, 04:45

I'm starting to get the feeling I'm the only militarist in a room full of diplomats. Wouldn't it be better to go for the juggler early and try to eliminate a few civs while they're small; before they get big enough to cause us problems?

Devil of Truth · January 14, 2003, 05:16

I usually grease the wheels with some gold myself – so I would agree with Locutus’ plan (except the "IW is an idiot" part.

)

I don’t think threatening them would gain us much now though. Maybe later.

We could of course "eliminate" those pesky settlers.

Who would know? Just look the other way. This won’t hurt a bit.

Immortal Wombat · January 14, 2003, 07:52

IW's an idiot. Yes, but that was only our first proposal, to gauge the scope of their opinion. We can offer gold and stuff when we have it. They won't take a threat seriously at all, since they are far more powerful than we are.

If the president agrees, then give some gold, I don't care.

Locutus · January 14, 2003, 08:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
IW's an idiot.

Sorry 'bout that, I was a little cranky this morning

I had seen your orders yesterday and disagreed with your recommendation not to give gold but was too tired to write a resolution to force you to chance your recommendation - I figured I'd do that today. Then I woke up this morning and saw Pedrunn had already played

So I suppose I should be calling Pedrunn an idiot instead

Pedrunn · January 14, 2003, 09:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Locutus
So I suppose I should be calling Pedrunn an idiot instead

And who's not?!?

I know you are...

I did not liked the idea of giving them money at all. So i am agree with IW. Wasting our resources like that with someone that clearly dont like us. Remember we are neighbours and CTP2 makes neghbours hate each other. Maybe we could be friends of the next civ. This one is stupid to contunue.
So i believe we should threaten them to go to war. If they dont accept so we go to war. I dont like that people.

Devil of Truth · January 14, 2003, 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Pedrunn
Although i believe we should threaten them to go to war. If they dont accept so we go to war. I dont like that people.

Idiot!

Nah, I’m just kidding; but aren’t Brazilians supposed to be a peaceful people?

Can we afford to go to war with the Austrians this early? MoD?

ískallin · January 14, 2003, 11:47

Kill'em and we don't will have to worry about the
DREPA! DREPA!

child of Thor · January 14, 2003, 17:00

Yeah i've decided giving gold is maybe not a good idea, so i agree with Iskallin. Rush out another warrior, leave our city undefended and take all we have to find that nearest city and take it.
Also i think we should really reconsider our production/science output etc - we obviously need max production at the momment, probably at the expense of everything else untill we have subjued the austrians(so ignore my post in the other thread).

H Tower · January 14, 2003, 17:29

we aren't doing much science right now. as it is ballistics will take another 90 turns IIRC

child of Thor · January 14, 2003, 17:46

So basically we are just very weak compared to the austrians. Can't we crank the production up a bit by over feeding our people to keep them happy? I'm feeling worried about our survival.

Locutus · January 14, 2003, 19:01

We have nothing to fear as long as we don't foolhardly try to take on the Austrians before we're ready, or even have a clue of how strong exactly they are...

Taking on a civ with ~6 cities with only 2 or 3 Warriors is suicide. We should first get their map, then decide if and when to attack. In the meantime we should give them the illusion that we like them. It's not like we need the gold for anything else at this stage...

H Tower · January 14, 2003, 19:54

as much as i desire to warmonger, its suicide until we grow.

HuangShang · January 14, 2003, 22:01

how will it be possible to play diplomacy w/ the austrians?

i think we should keep the warrior where he is, fortify the warrior in the city, and have 3 warriors before the settler

Pedrunn · January 14, 2003, 22:46

Actually i have finish a turn. So we do have 2 warriors. but i am not saying to attack now but when we have 4 warriors. We keep one in our city and attack with the others. The we distribute the alive warriors with the 2 cities and produces more units with the two cities to the next attack.

If the city is low defended we will reach our second city in the same time we would have built an settler and still keeping some alive warriors.

So the attack will probably be in ~10-15 turns from now. But we need to assume a military personality, building warriors and sucking all we need from the Austrians like using threatenning and killing their settlers (or follow them to kill th city later).

H Tower · January 14, 2003, 23:25

so no settlers then?

Pedrunn · January 14, 2003, 23:33

Thats my question will we assume a military attitute which means no settler and build warriors to war. Or a peaceful atitude which means build a settler and be nice to the Austrians.

IW, should run another attitude poll now that we sent the Austrians the proposals

H Tower · January 15, 2003, 00:05

IW told me he will only have limited access to the internet until the 26th and probablly won't be able to start the poll until then