OFFICIAL: Diplomacy: Peace Treaty

Locutus · January 21, 2003, 03:48

We've already signed a treaty with the Austrians that we would not violate their borders, we've given them 100 Gold and made a successfull map-exchange treaty. Overall, we should be fairly friendly to us, for the time being.

Should we offer a peace treaty to them, to strengthen our relationship (or to at least give them that impression)? And if so, what should we ask in return (if anything) and should we threaten them if they refuse?

The advantage of a peace treaty is that our ties will be closer, trust and regard will considerably improve and they'll be less likely to attack us. The disadvantage is that it will cost a lot of trust and regard if we attack them while we have such a treaty (and such a treaty is permanent). If we do so without declaring war in advance, our trust and regard towards other AIs will suffer considerably as well. Of course, this won't happen if they declare war on us, but there's no guarantee that we can provoke them.

Note that although we have already agreed to withdraw ourselves, we have a unit inside their territory, which might make them more receptive than usual to accept such an offer for the 2nd time.

Note also that we don't have much gold, so offering more than 100 Gold is not a realistic options. Offering less is not possible of course.

This poll will last 3 days (until Friday ~8:00 GMT), but the turn-chat is already tomorrow, so I will probably have to act on it sooner (~36 hours from now). So please vote ASAP.

Devil of Truth · January 21, 2003, 04:49

A peace treaty will only hamper our “plans” for the future.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · January 21, 2003, 06:54

we need peace.
we won't have any chance i a war now, but we will be able to build up more cities and better deploy our to be forces than any ai.
having a look at the map shows, the question is not going to war now or in 20 turns, but going to war in a few hundred turns or at all.

Turambar · January 21, 2003, 07:42

Don't sign a treaty. They won't be attacking us any time soon and we're only going to stab them in the back.

We need a good rep with other civs to stop ourselves getting into multi front wars later on.

HuangShang · January 21, 2003, 21:06

as all the famous generals agree:
attack those people w/in ur reach, and befriend those u will conquer later

Pedrunn · January 21, 2003, 21:21

Peace? Why? If we are going to kill them soon

Like the Warrior unit says

"Blood Shall Run"

HuangShang · January 21, 2003, 21:29

the Austrians must be the first to die

Devil of Truth · January 22, 2003, 04:54

Timing boys. Go ask your girlfriends – timing is everything

. If we rush into Austria, we may be the first to die.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · January 22, 2003, 05:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Devil of Truth
If we rush into Austria, we may be the first to die.

yep, those sachertorten really make you sick

Tamerlin · January 22, 2003, 07:19

We should make peace with our neighbors and prepare for war while they think they are safe. Time is our best ally... if we don't wait too long.

child of Thor · January 23, 2003, 17:34

No, no,
waiting is just waiting for our death - at the hands of a much more superior Austrian army. Give them time and we will have to wait a few thousand years before we will have caught up in the tech tree. These early years mean we will all have the same type of units. As it stands with 5 cities to our one(two) we will need to get them now or wait along time 'till we can get them, or they crush us.
So no treaty as this will affect our reguard with other nations later.

Frozzy · January 23, 2003, 21:16

We've got to go early, we can't mess around. We're just marking time, and waiting for death at the moment.

Let's get a move on

HuangShang · January 23, 2003, 21:20

i agree w/ u both of u

Devil of Truth · January 24, 2003, 05:18

I don’t. Since when was fighting a superior force a good idea? Especially if we have no backup plan (or even a second city) when all of Austrian hell descends upon us. At least later we’ll have a fighting chance. Now we just have a chance to fight.

I can see the news items already:
Jan 24 2003 – Lumeria invades Austria!
Jan 25 2003 – Shortest Demo Game in Apolyton history ends!

Zacharov · January 24, 2003, 14:16

We don't really need a peace treaty at this time. It will slow us down. The benefits of a peace treaty do not weigh up against the costs.

mapfi · January 24, 2003, 14:32

I really didn't pay attention to this enough - but I think the vote's totally going the wrong way. Everyone believing that we'll be able to win this game without the trust and regard benefit of an early treaty is a fool in my eyes. There'll be other nations than the Austrians to fight, but a treaty as soon as possible is a must. We're playing on impossible for God's sake!

Zacharov · January 24, 2003, 15:44

I'm sorry. I voted wrong. I should have looked at the map and the powergraph before i voted.

Tamerlin · January 24, 2003, 21:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Zacharov
We don't really need a peace treaty at this time. It will slow us down. The benefits of a peace treaty do not weigh up against the costs.

I agree with you Zacharov, I am against a war but I think we don't need a peace treaty as we will have to fight against Austria in the future (not now) and break such a treaty and this would lower down our regard towards the nations we will need to make peace with.