Another pacting question

Flubber · October 6, 2003, 10:52

Hey folks

The HIVE wish to pact with us. An exerpt from their latest message . . .

_______________________________________

Furthermore we bring more good news; the Hive has accepted and approved the pact with PEACE. Though in order to take into account changes in public opinion we would ask that our non-aggression pact have a clause stipulating that the pact will be brought up for review and renewal in 35-years. We would appreciate if you could pass this information along to the PEACE government for approval, if you do not agree with the stipulated review-renewal period you may reject the issued proposal and we can continue negotiations further until both parties are satisfied.

voltaire
_______________________________________

Now-- I have never offered a pact but just gave some flowery language about looking for treaty and maybe a pact. I left the option open but never committed us to anything

Flubber · October 6, 2003, 11:02

I have mixed feelings on this one

1. Trade wise-- we should do better than them-- Their econ minus SHOULD give us more trade than they get

2. Infiltration-- This is equal and given that we are unlikely to be governor ( which they could get) the intelligence would be nice . . .. it works both ways though

3. Security-- The mechanism that tosses you out of a pactmates territory if relations sour . . . Could this work to our advantage. Also a pactmate can't probe us without our relationship going down

I like the trade advantage for us and more energy is always good. I also admit that my desire to see their empire is strong.

Hercules · October 6, 2003, 11:14

I look to read more views but I am generally in favour, bar the 35 years review period. Is that too long or is its very length a good guarantee of something. How about 25 years and let's see if we can have it consistent, though not crucial.

In the Topped Dip thread we should include year when Treaty/Pact established. It's one of those details you tend to forget.

Mark123jansen · October 6, 2003, 12:39

NO, No, no the hive is Evil, all our dealings with them should be limited to peace treaties and tech deals.

johndmuller · October 7, 2003, 02:54

I voted for this figuring that the advantages to us are greater than the disadvantages. I chose the immediate version because the terms are as good as any. In other words, I don't have real strong feelings, but am generally positive.

Kody · June 13, 2004, 09:56

Ahh we offered you 35 years afterall.

The time period was so long because at the time we didn't think we would meet the rest of the world anytime soon. Also we felt a short time period would be misinterrupted as possible war?

Snowflake · June 21, 2004, 16:57

I was actually against the 35 year term limit, and for open ended pact, exactly because 35 years is so long. But Kody and Voltaire supported it, I think. I actually complained about it, being not following the poll result.

No matter what you say Kody, you pretty much got everything to go the way you wanted.

Kody · June 21, 2004, 21:54

That's because I always discussed everything with other people extensively beforehand. If am idea I came up with doesn't hold water I usually drop it.

Anyway I was right in that we would have the miltiary ready at the 35 year mark. I remember hearing that the peace pact limits expired around the time Hive got MMI. Pretty good planning hey?

Snowflake · June 22, 2004, 11:03

Yes around that time I believe, I mean it is planned by the father of the Hive industry himself, what would you expect?

Although nobody even cared to remember anything to do with the expiration of the pact at the time I think.