[Dom3] Draft: Etimhara Victorious

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Fri May 18, 2012 9:32 am

np

For your information: We did not attack the same province.

K · Post by K » Sat May 19, 2012 9:51 am

Greetings Huichan.

Shall we NAP-3?

Shiritai · Post by **Shiritai** » Sat May 19, 2012 5:13 pm

K wrote:Shall we NAP-3?

Let's.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat May 19, 2012 11:49 pm

Etimhara:

Let me be blunt. We sent you a message one turn ago discussing possible borders. You have not responded.

We take this as an indicator of hostile intent. We have already concluded NAPs with all of our neighbors except you.

So in the interest of peace: Do you accept a NAP-3, and the borders outlined in the PM?

If you have an issue with the borders, discuss them. Don't remain silent.

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Sun May 20, 2012 12:58 am

Greetings Nimtir,

Carthacia is prepared to discuss borders, diplomacy and possible trade.

DrPraetor · Post by **DrPraetor** » Sun May 20, 2012 1:41 am

RL requires me to be brief (Im doing this on my phone).
I barely had time to alter my turn based on your prev msg, and avoid conquering one of the provinces you claimed. Im not going to offer you anything if qll you do is make demands. I accept the borders because its not worth a fight right now, but not an NAP. Finish dealing with indies and then we can negotiate by PM if you like.

Zinegata wrote:Etimhara:

Let me be blunt. We sent you a message one turn ago discussing possible borders. You have not responded.

We take this as an indicator of hostile intent. We have already concluded NAPs with all of our neighbors except you.

So in the interest of peace: Do you accept a NAP-3, and the borders outlined in the PM?

If you have an issue with the borders, discuss them. Don't remain silent.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sun May 20, 2012 2:37 am

We gave you notice of our expansion plans. We did not make demands. That is why we specifically stated that we planned to stop at a certain point. We didn't even take the border provinces on the turn we sent the PM so you have leeway to negotiate if you wanted them. Again, if you had issue with our borders, you could have simply sent a reply. You did not.

You either accept the borders or you don't. If you don't like the proposed border, make a counter-proposal. None of this bullshit "Let's put it off until the indies are dead".

You either want peace or you don't. If you want peace, then outline your preferred borders via PM and agree to a NAP-3. We are not unreasonable. We already have NAPs with all of our other neighbors.

Make both items clear before this turn resolves, or we will simply consider you to be a hostile power. We do not look kindly to people who put off peace negotiations, because that will almost invariably involve backroom dealing and waiting for an opportunity to strike. There is no bullshit "peace but no NAP" with Sachs.

And that is a demand.

Shiritai · Post by **Shiritai** » Sun May 20, 2012 6:22 am

Hello there Manditou!

Huichan welcomes you as neighbors. How about a friendly NAP-3?

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Sun May 20, 2012 8:47 am

Shiritai wrote:Hello there Manditou!

Huichan welcomes you as neighbors. How about a friendly NAP-3?

We agree to it.

--
Manditou

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun May 20, 2012 8:49 am

Zinegata wrote: And that is a demand.

I just want to point out that your stance is completely unreasonable to even a casual observation. It is turn 8, and demanding that players commit to long term diplomatic contracts at this point in the game is basically absurd. That you even got people to agree to borders for initial expansion rather than have people take whatever they thought they could get away with is already more than you have any legitimate reason to expect. Let alone demand.

-Username17

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sun May 20, 2012 10:39 am

FrankTrollman wrote:...

You do your diplo whatever way you want. But if you want peace with Sachs and you border us, then you sign a NAP-3. Those are our early game terms. Otherwise, we assume that you are secretly plotting our demise and therefore a threat that must be eliminated.

Etimhara (Dr Praetor)->

We agree to your counter-proposal. We will fulfill our end of the bargain this turn.

In exchange, we ask for confirmation of the NAP-3.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun May 20, 2012 11:13 am

Uh... demanding that people choose to be with you or against you on turn 8 is fucking psycho. You can choose to conduct your diplomacy however you want, but a stance that aggressive is basically insane.

-Username17

DrPraetor · Post by **DrPraetor** » Sun May 20, 2012 5:25 pm

Well, since he supposedly has NAPs with all his other neighbors, and he's geared for a skinshifter rush - I assume he's going to attack me anyway and is just trying to extract concessions first.

Akula · Post by **Akula** » Sun May 20, 2012 7:34 pm

DrPraetor wrote:Well, since he supposedly has NAPs with all his other neighbors, and he's geared for a skinshifter rush - I assume he's going to attack me anyway and is just trying to extract concessions first.

I read it as pretty much this. I mean, you have to be expanding constantly to win in dom3, so even saying you have NAPs with all your other neighbors is basically a declaration of war against the last guy.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon May 21, 2012 12:33 am

Uh... demanding that people choose to be with you or against you on turn 8 is fucking psycho

No. Demanding that you make it clear if you want peace or not on Turn 8 is called "Sachs National Policy". You can call it whatever you want. But if you don't sign a NAP, then we fucking kill you, and we don't care how much you whine.

Because we know goddamn well what kind of bullshit people can pull with "peace but no NAP". That just translates to "Sneak attack when the army moves away".

====

Doc->

First of all, you're a fucking idiot if you think I'm gonna Skinshifter rush you when I'm actually offering a goddamn NAP. I don't know what kind of dishonorable idiots you play with, but Sachs takes its peace treaties seriously and does not break its NAPs. No idiot gives his opponent three turns warning if their objective is to rush.

So I'm going to say to your face that you were just spending the last two turns trying to drum up anti-Sachs support, possibly contacting other nations who neighbor us to start a gang-bang. And again, joke's on you because I'm pretty sure none of my neighbors are into oath-breaking.

Also: Despite your unclear terms, we will agree to your "corrections" and evacuate the province you asked for. So Sachs gives you 50 gold and a province. However, we require a public declaration of NAP.

====

Akula->

Or I might just be totally confident at having just 10 provinces. Again, if I wanted to rush Etimhara, why the hell would I even offer a NAP?

Akula · Post by **Akula** » Mon May 21, 2012 12:50 am

Zinegata wrote:Akula->

Or I might just be totally confident at having just 10 provinces. Again, if I wanted to rush Etimhara, why the hell would I even offer a NAP?

Dude, if you are havppy with having just 10 provinces (on a map with 15 per player average) you are really overconfident. Maybe you have a construction discount site and are hoping to clam up or something, but you can do that while fighting a war if you play well.

Having NAPs with all your neighbors is not a sustainable state in any event, you will have to break one of them soon or fall behind the nations that are waging successful early wars, or who just expanded better.

DrPraetor · Post by **DrPraetor** » Mon May 21, 2012 12:56 am

On which note - Zinegata and I have agreed to an NAP-3; he agreed to let me have province 49.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon May 21, 2012 12:56 am

Akula wrote:
Zinegata wrote:Akula->

Or I might just be totally confident at having just 10 provinces. Again, if I wanted to rush Etimhara, why the hell would I even offer a NAP?
Dude, if you are havppy with having just 10 provinces (on a map with 15 per player average) you are really overconfident. Maybe you have a construction discount site and are hoping to clam up or something, but you can do that while fighting a war if you play well.

Having NAPs with all your neighbors is not a sustainable state in any event, you will have to break one of them soon or fall behind the nations that are waging successful early wars, or who just expanded better.

First of all, Sachs doesn't break its NAPs. We might announce our withdrawal from one, but again that gives someone a three turn warning - which is the whole purpose of a NAP anyway.

Secondly, yeah maybe I'm overconfident. But given the map setup I'd say that maintaining good relations with your neighbors is more important than an extra two mountain provinces.

Heck, we're giving up 50 gold and a province to Etimhara for peace. Which they could have gotten two whole turns ago if they had actually replied to our messages instead of staying silent.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon May 21, 2012 1:01 am

DrPraetor wrote:On which note - Zinegata and I have agreed to an NAP-3; he agreed to let me have province 49.

We greet our new friends Etimhara.

Akula · Post by **Akula** » Mon May 21, 2012 1:02 am

Zinegata wrote:First of all, Sachs doesn't break its NAPs. We might announce our withdrawal from one, but again that gives someone a three turn warning - which is the whole purpose of a NAP anyway.

When I say break an NAP 3, I mean that you announce it is over and hostilities will start whenever the NAP allows. If you have a fixed length NAP then breaking it is shady, but for unlimited duration NAPs you have to break them to go to war.

Secondly, yeah maybe I'm overconfident. But given the map setup I'd say that maintaining good relations with your neighbors is more important than an extra two mountain provinces.

Ideally you maintain good relations with all of the neighbors you are not stabbing. But you have to be stabbing someone.

Heck, we're giving up 50 gold and a province to Etimhara for peace. Which they could have gotten two whole turns ago if they had actually replied to our messages instead of staying silent.

You're looking for a neighbor to jump or you're resigning yourself to losing.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon May 21, 2012 2:20 am

Akula wrote:When I say break an NAP 3, I mean that you announce it is over and hostilities will start whenever the NAP allows. If you have a fixed length NAP then breaking it is shady, but for unlimited duration NAPs you have to break them to go to war.

Yes, but that's still incompatible with a rush, wherein speed and surprise are key. The point is that Etimhara's Skinshifter rush fears are unfounded because we're the ones offering a NAP.

You're looking for a neighbor to jump or you're resigning yourself to losing.

Amusingly, I had a pretty cramped position as EA Ulm in OldestProfession and we didn't go to war until something like Turn 30. Granted, I got lucky with the sites in that one.

So again, I may just be overconfident that a 10 province setup can work - perhaps suicidally so. We'll see.

K · Post by K » Mon May 21, 2012 6:55 am

Hello Manditou,

How about a NAP-3?

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Mon May 21, 2012 2:34 pm

K wrote:Hello Manditou,

How about a NAP-3?

Manditou agrees to the NAP+3 with Tsimzam.
(Got finally around to looking at the turn.)

--
Manditou

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Mon May 21, 2012 8:43 pm

@Etimhara
Is that really your diplomatic message?
You claim 3 provinces, cut off my expansion but offer nothing in return?
(At a point where our nations dont even have a border yet?)
Not even an NAP? It looks like you are allready planing the future war anyway...

@Sachs
Bad Event?

--
Manditou

DrPraetor · Post by **DrPraetor** » Mon May 21, 2012 9:43 pm

@Korwin/Manditou -
I'm sorry, I thought I *was* offering an NAP. Unless you'd prefer something else (re-read my msg? I'll explain further if it's not clear.) Why does everyone want to conduct their diplomacy in PUBLIC??!!??!!

Anyway, yes we're not in contact yet - but those provinces are close to my capital and I've been massing a big force to take those Hvy Cav provs without losses. So if you march your army in there I'll kill it. If you want to make an issue of that you can, but I'm not going to cede those provs to you.