Drone Negotiations - Page 3

Snowflake · July 11, 2003, 10:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Kody
The tech trade would hence be.
Hive -> Planetary networks -> Drones
Drones -> Industrial Economics -> Hive
Hive -> Industrial Automation -> Drones
Drones -> Flexibility -> Hive

Kody

Sounds to me that they would like to get Information Networks very much. We could use that to exchange IE in my opinion. Let them research their own PN. It'll be later than us and give us enough time to build our probe team in defense of their future potential probing activity.

Kody · July 11, 2003, 12:25

Here's a possible email I'm planning on sending to them.

------------------------------------------------------------
Email sent and now shown below
------------------------------------------------------------

I might send this later. HongHu wanted me to put the emails up before I sent them, but I doubt I'll get replies from most hive members considering the lack of response to some of the other things I have posted.

It's mainly fluff, to sumarise this email.
* I'm kindof annoyed of the lack of decision
* We want the inital negotiations to finish before the start of their next turn. (If pernament pact we can implement the partial tech tree manevour and perhaps out-tech the other factions with significantly reduced cost techs)
* Shouting and point to the south away from our continent. Look LAND!!!!!!

Kody

Email

Due to the continued delays I will no longer be actively watching
for your response. However, I usually check my email on average three times a day and the longest delay you can ever expect from me will be 36 hours.

I hope that your members will be able to return and complete the "inital" negotiations before your next turn. Depending on what you decide on there may be much to discuss. When your next turn comes consider delaying it so inital negotiations can finish first and we can begin to implement deals that will be to our mutal advantage. The hive more proposals that depend on what kind of alliance if any you choose.

The astronomical observations, once I realised what you meant, have been reviewed. They do not show any land near to our east. However there appears to be some elevation to your south and bumps that could be islands to your south-west. Of course since you brought this issue up you already know this. You have our blessing to follow the river south and meet up with your transport ship.

Kody

Snowflake · July 11, 2003, 13:01

Kody thank you for your great effort. I really really appreciate you posting it here.

I think it's too much to ask you post every emails before you send it out however. Except for the one that contains specific tech change order and such, I think you are much better prepared for direct contact with them than perhaps any of us. So please don't wait if you want to send it out. BTW I think it is a great point you raised to them that they should delay their turn until the initial neogiation is finished.

Kody · July 11, 2003, 22:21

Email

Kody,

I apologize. I did not realize you were waiting on a response from me in
any certain time period.

I have been letting the discussion in our forum ramble to a great
degree...role-playing, smart-aleck posts, etc.. I'm sure you know what I
mean. The poll that was posted has so many options as to have been made
meaningless. Drones aren't much good at polls, you understand.

We have
yet to hear from Buster (on holiday, but he's supposed to be checking in
from time to time) or from Mark. (who would be considered of high rank if we
egalitarian Drone-types bothered with rank)

I don't think time is really pressing us, whether in game terms or in the
pace of the game itself. (UoP still hasn't passed it...going on 27 hours
now)

I expect we'll want to keep the trades on a one for one basis until we
decide to Pact.

I personally think we ought to manage tech transfers between us to keep our
ongoing lab costs minimized, as much as we can manage. Drones will be
another 15 - 20 turns getting a respectable research effort going, I think.
To the trade at hand...as you probably surmised, we are researching
Information Networks currently. We will redirect that research, of course,
when we receive InfoNets from you. Our F2 now shows discovery due in 2125,
but I think that will slip by a year when we complete a colony pod next year
and lose the worker on a monolith for a couple of turns. The point of this
that if you aren't going to complete PlanetNets before your 2127 turn, it
would be faster if we redirect to PlanetNets and pass it to you just before
your discovery, allowing you to redirect immediately to Automation. If you
will discover PlanetNets before your 2127, we should probably send just
Industrial Economics now. That will provide the prerequisite for you to
select Industrial Automation as your next goal while keeping an additional
tech (Industrial Base) from driving up the research cost of Automation. As
soon as you have set Auto as your goal, we can trade Base and Planetnets.
If we can redirect to PlanetNets after InfoNets, we'll be able to redirect
again after receiving PlanetNets from you. Follow me? Maybe not...

***A feature of redirecting from a current research goal that is obtained by
trade is that not only is the redirection free of loss of accumulated labs
(as in your last letter) but that the cost of the new goal is NOT re-set.***

As for our scout, I had it in mind to move back north, toward our only boat,
rather than south. It would take that slow Unity foil of ours forever to
work its way around your continent to embark the scout on the south coast as
you suggest. - 'You have our blessing to follow the river south and meet up
with your transport ship.'

Regards,

Mongoose

Kody · July 11, 2003, 22:25

Email

To speed up future negoitations I will reveal more of our intentions.

The hive doesn't actually want to trade techs just yet. Analysis has
revealed we speed up industrial automation if we start researching our
next tech before we get your industrial economics. Then we switch to IA
taking a small research penalty but getting a much faster tech research rate.

I haven't calculated when we will finish researching plantary networks. I
think, from what you said, our two techs will be completed in roughly the
same amount of time.

There's a river that runs parallel to the channel seperating our
continents. You should be able to reach the shore near the base that the
hive can see in 5 turns. I think the foil will have arrived there in 5
turns too. If you really want to go east and attempt to subtlely explore
our bases we can't stop you. I will see about providing partial maps of
the area, so you can plan your move back to the foil.

Kody

Snowflake · July 12, 2003, 02:15

Mongoose's email makes great sense to me. And looks to me his suggestion is kind of in line with what we have been talking about. I think we should aim to a treaty and tech exchange for now. I would like to know how strong is everybody else feeling about a pact.

Kody · July 12, 2003, 02:56

It doesn't make sense when you consider the drones can't choose planetary networks next turn. Do the simulation.

For such a tatic to be worthwhile. We have to give them applied physics and information networks first. They will then be able to research planetary networks. They can then give us planetary networks and industrial economics. We can then change research to IA and finish almost immediately.

For them to agree to it I think we have to give them IA after. So we need one more tech to trade as well.

Kody

Vev · July 12, 2003, 06:57

As for the land negotiation, if it will result in a free for all grab, we may have an advantage, because our current colony pod can be redirected and use the river system to head west within 5 turns and build a city near the monolith to claim all of the western land. So if they wish to build on our island, they will have to start a war.

Snowflake · July 12, 2003, 09:54

I have one question about the drone scout. They have agreed that they'll go back where they come from. Why don't we just let them do that? Why do we want them to do another route that may mean more exloration on their part? Unless it's a perm pact I don't think we should give them any more maps then they have.

Snowflake · July 12, 2003, 09:54

For now we should assume treaty not pact.

Kody · July 12, 2003, 09:59

We actually have 2 more turns before we have to make that decision.

However, in my dealings I'm working on the premise that I look out for their interests as well when it doesn't affect us. Of course this will change if it looks like there may be war.

Kody

Snowflake · July 12, 2003, 10:02

GooglieGod, one thing I need ask you. In single player game we often see AI said that they have pretend friendship with a certain faction and want to joint hand with me for a surprise attack. Is this a valid technic used in PBEM also or is that considered something bad? I really don't want this happen to us without us fully prepare for it.

Snowflake · July 12, 2003, 10:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Kody
We actually have 2 more turns before we have to make that decision.

However, in my dealings I'm working on the premise that I look out for their interests as well when it doesn't affect us. Of course this will change if it looks like there may be war.

Kody

But wouldn't they want IN as soon as possible? If this is the case we have to get IE the same time. It is risky if we wait and give them what they need first if no pact is reached. Even if a pact is agreed there's still possibility of backstabbing.

If we try pursuade them to wait they may just go ahead and seach for other factions and maybe they'll never need us any more.

Kody what's your reaction about my comment on the scout? If you agree we might need to clarify that to them.

Snowflake · July 12, 2003, 10:07

Also I think we need to have a fuller discussion about the tech thing before we give them our final proposal. It is counter productive if we email them something and later we change our mind.

Kody · July 12, 2003, 10:19

The measures that have been taken when I did the last turn ensures that the scout can be easily destoried if that is required.

I will bow to the majority opinion though if the hive does not trust the drones enough to pact. I'll start working on strategies under that premise then.

Kody

Kody · July 12, 2003, 10:34

On the hive side of the table, from the opinions I have been busy gathering, there is a growing number of people that have misgivings about the drones.

The two main reasons that appear to be destorying the goodwill for the drones is their lack of solid response to our diplomatic efforts. The other reason is there has been quiet outrage at the demands for land on our continent. Combined with previous misgivings that the drones may wish ill of us there is the possibility that the hive will be unwilling to pact even though the drones agree to.

My suggestion is when the drones finally decide to reply, the hive needs to repoll on our dipolmatic stance. I will need to know exactly what our dipolmatic stance is. After discussions today the hive's position has been thrown into doubt in my mind.

Kody

Vander · July 12, 2003, 16:39

I'm still for a perma pact with the drones. For one, it's one less enemy to worry about. And remember, they haven't been too quick to respond because their two best players (Buster and mark(?)) are MIA and they don't want to make the wrong move.

Googlie · July 12, 2003, 17:58

Quote:

Originally posted by HongHu
GooglieGod, one thing I need ask you...........

That would be a legitimate tactic in PBEMs. More usually found where 2 factions are in Treaty status rather than Pact (see below)

In SP games, at least, there usually is a decent time interval betwen being in pact, then downgrading to treaty (usually 'cos of SE choice friction), then the "I have been patient, now I will see you destroyed" message that signals vendetta.

In PBEMs, the game mechanics do give you a slight warning - on breaking pact all units of the respective factions are returned to the nearest base - but if that base is within striking distance of one of yours all it does is ammass his troops in that base.

G.

Googlie · July 12, 2003, 18:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Vander
And remember...........their two best players (Buster and Mark are MIA

At the risk of "meddling" (where some might suspect that the Drones' spokesperson is diplomatically lying - but never assume that a player is always telling the truth in negotiations) in this instance I can confirm their absence on the CGN Board for the past week or so

(I'd hate to see a possible Pact disintegrate 'cos of vacation absences)

G.

Kody · July 12, 2003, 22:06

http://www.civgaming.net/forums/show...G&pagenumber=5

Quote:

if it makes a difference, markos is on a year-long vacation

http://www.civgaming.net/forums/show...3351#post73351

Quote:

Away for a couple of weeks

I will be away for the next two weeks. May check in a few times but I won't be able to do any serious admin stuff. So requesters/complaintees will need to have a bit of patience or check with one of the other admins.

I have used plenty of ducttape and chewinggum on vital components so I expect it should run OK while I am away.

If they're really waiting for buster and mark to come back it might be a while.

We know the reasons for the delays, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause some problems. I'm still for a strong pact, but I think the number of members supporting it is dropping closer to only half.

Atm I would say about 3 people for it, 1 against and 2 people that are becoming too distrustful to support it. Oh and one person that I haven't been able to extract an opinion from.

Everyone else seems to be MIA.

Kody

Googlie · July 12, 2003, 22:11

Naw - markos isn't mark of CGN - he's Mark G one of the 'Poly site owners (with DanQ)

Kody · July 12, 2003, 22:13

Is "mark" the person on civgaming? There was a mark that hasn't posted at all in civgaming since 4th july.

Kody

Snowflake · July 12, 2003, 23:18

If they really want to pact with us, my guess is that it will not take them that long, even with Buster being away. So I suspect that now they are talking about what is the best strategy toward us, that might mean temporary pact and then they would probably "backstab". If that is the case, I would prefer treaty rather than pact, with full realization that this is not going to last the entire game and we'll part the way some point of time, it may even be initiated by us. Basically I'm suspicious in any kind of partial deal. If they agree to "die or win, we are in this together" pact, we would have to think about whether this is what we want to do either. The main thing that hang in my mind is if we do perm pact with drone, what our relationship toward CyCons is going to be. We need to make a decision right now, not after we met CyCons. So I would still like to hear the benefit of a perm pact with drones (other than the player factor, which is not insignificant).

Snowflake · July 12, 2003, 23:20

So far I have only heard opinions from Kody, Vev, and Vander. I would really appreciate if other comrades could weigh in on this.

Googlie · July 13, 2003, 00:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Kody
Is "mark" the person on civgaming? There was a mark that hasn't posted at all in civgaming since 4th july.

Kody

That is he. However he made no mention about vacation or unavailability - but he hasn't posted since contact was reported (CGN's Mark is also 'Poly's and ACOL's mark13)

Also, in their vacation thread, Buster said he wouldn't be back until July 20th

Kody · July 13, 2003, 01:18

If they're going to take a whole week that might put a spanner in the works of some of the tech trading scenerios I've looked at.

Googlie also check your private message I have a question I need to ask you.

Kody

Nubclear · July 13, 2003, 16:39

Greetings again Comrades.

Yes, I fully believe that they intend to pact and backstab. They seem to be the only faction with a large resistence against me becoming an Assistant God...which indicates that they are hiding something that they don't want me to know (and they think I will spill to the Hive). I believe this is it.

Also Comrades, if the other poll(s) say that I am to become God....I would not be able to offer such advise to you any longer

Googlie · July 13, 2003, 17:13

Tass:

I'm sensing a consensus among the faction leaders for you to return to the fold of the Hive, trusting that you would keep your knowledge of the whereabouts of the other factions a secret until the Hive meets them (or otherwise, in-game, gets their locations)

But even if inadvertently spilled, the drones don't care, as negotiations are now underway; The CyCon have said that to them it's no biggie; the Uni have steadfastly opposed the Godhood elevation, so can't complain if re-instatement is the ultimate option; Miriam and Roze don't care (they are smug and arrogant in their strength, they tell me

) - so the only ones with a gripe would be the Pirates, fearful that their monopoly on meeting other factions first might be jeapordized. (not to mention popping the ocean goody pods)

However so long as they don't trade flex they are not challenged by another faction for maybe 20 to 25 more turns, time enough for them to have explored the whole map.

So I would not oppose a return to your comrades in the Hive - after all, I can monitor any leaks of information unless given privately, and I'd trust the others to close their ears to that

G.

Googlie · July 13, 2003, 17:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Kody
Googlie also check your private message I have a question I need to ask you.

Kody - I don't think I can provide the "guarantees" that you asked. But I have replied with some suggestions and planted some seeds for you to consider.

And as you ponder the possibility of a PermaPact, Tactical Pact or just a Treaty, and why the Drones might be stalling, ask yourselves this ....

Should the Drones be afraid of the Hive at this point in time?

G.

Googlie · July 13, 2003, 17:44

Re: Tassadar5000's status with the Hive

I have posted my ruling here