195 - Forum Diplomacy Steel Rex

[Vulkar]

DW -> RA

RA -> DW
I caution you to have your messengers not deliver false missives.  Your latest messenger stated "DA -> RA".

An innocent mistake my Lord, now corrected.

My marine surveyor has assessed the replacement value of your naval losses at 13,000 gold, which represents the value of the single ship you lost. I'll pay you this replacement cost in the hopes this may placate your people, whose desire for reparations should be made of your own admirals for ignoring my clearly stated intentions. Will this allay the anger of the Ranger people enough to avert further talk of war?

King Oban

[j2klbs]

RA -> DW


The cost was much more significant than that.  I had ordered continual improvements resulting in my fleet quality going up to 15.8.  Now I must begin this process all over again starting from fleet quality 13.  The loss in time and materials is much more substantial than 13,000 gold.  And you make no mention of the loss of wizard or your willingness to disband your fleets.

~Lord Swordhand

[Vulkar]

DW

OOC: I thought it wasn't possible to have a single fleet at a higher quality than the initial fleet quality since changes were made to sea power rules/orders. Am I missing something?

[HeadHoncho]

OOC: Your first fleet needs to be at base quality, after that you can build multiple fleets at quality 16, leveraging the average up until you get to 15.95 or more, which appears to round up to 16 on the turn results.

[j2klbs]

RA


OOC - I'm bummed and think this is a flaw in game design.  I was trying to be efficient to get fleet quality up by selling then buying fleets.  This turn I started with 2 fleets, sold one (thus had 1 at 15.8 quality), got that one destroyed, then my subsequent purchase order failed stating that since I had 0 fleets, I had to buy an initial one at initial quality.  So, the increase fleet quality order in which I spent 11,000 gold failed.

The flaws I see is that, IMO, if I have worked my fleet quality up to 15.8 but then lose all fleets, then I should be able to start at that level and not restart at quality 13 again.  Also, my order in which I "overspend" should still go through and not fail.

[Vulkar]

DW-RA

Lord Swordhand,

I regret your losses, which I acknowledge are significant. However I intended no harm and you have yet to acknowledge your culpability in this matter. You ignored or missed my stated intentions that I was going to patrol the sea and build fleets and I don't feel I'm to blame, however I'm willing to make reasonable reparations. What cost do you suggest is adequate?

Concerning the dismantling of my fleet. I might consider such a move should the Darkelf and I agree to come to terms regarding how to handle the protection of our sea-based assets, however my strong preference would be that we patrol the seas together to increase the protection there.

King Oban

[j2klbs]

RA -> DW


King Oban - After the Great Imperator took office, there is no reason for you to have built or patrolled with a fleet in the Sea of Drowning.  That sea exclusively belongs to the dark elves and rangers.  My people are seething with anger.  To avoid war with the rangers, you must dismantle all fleets immediately and pay immediate reparations of 75K each gold and food.

~Lord Swordhand

[mafmiller]

DA - DW & RA

Gentlemen,
This seems to me to have been an unfortunate occurrence, but not an act of war. As long as the good dwarves are willing to come to terms with the lord Ranger, as it appears they are, this can be settled peacefully.  Perhaps the good dwarves might loan the virtuous Ranger a specified amount of magical assistance?
As far as our NAP, good King Oban, yes that does indeed stand. In our view, this means that we would not engage in hostile action against you, but if you are the one who initiates hostilities against an ally of ours to whom we are pledged to defend, that NAP would no longer be in force. It is our understanding that this is also the general consensus of how these agreements work, is it not? ... but as we have said, this instance does not seem intentional.
As far as the security of the communities in the Sea of Drowning, we would proudly make it our responsibility. Your town there will be protected in perpetuity, as long as we remain friends, so please feel free to reallocate your resources elsewhere, should this be what you and the lord Ranger decide.
With hope for a future of peace,
Roris, Rex
The Great Imperator of the Drow

[j2klbs]

RA -> EL


Most esteemed light-skinned elves.  We have recently discovered a portal linking our two lands.  Perhaps we could establish relations.  Of course, I am in a very tight alliance with your distant cousins, the dark elves, but perhaps with the rangers as a mediating force, even the two of you could set aside any long-standing feuds and usher in an era of cooperation.

~Lord Lothaedus Swordhand, First Ranger

[VballMichael]

With the second public diplomacy nearing a starting date, there are some lessons to be learned from this first one.
First, this much public discussion can lead to even bigger alliances than before. Second, with so many kingdoms discussing every conversation, it is hard to initiate hostilities.
For the second launch of public diplomacy, I will do my best to initiate hostilities somewhere and try to guide folks to not be making these NAPs all over the board even with people we will never meet .

It will be interesting to see how and when the first hostilities break out here, and then how the alliance/teaming plays out in this kind of forum. My prediction is that it will be total war after the first or second hostility, with every kingdom having to choose a side or be left aside to be trampled by a group. Though maybe a crafty UN can convince both sides to use his services and keep his neutral Switzerland status intact.

Ok, now I have fanned the flames, go to war you peace-loving hippies.