Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Old Game Forums » Bab5v2 team » Treaty with Shadows
Treaty with Shadows Fri, 06 April 2007 07:56 Go to next message
Skaffen is currently offline Skaffen

 
Senior Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 90
Registered: December 2006
Location: Germany
Hi guys,
if we ally more formally with the shadows we┤ll need a treaty as well as some border agreements for colonization.

I┤d suggest something along the lines of free passage / combined fleet operations but no colonization within the designated core areas except for the colonies already established. Minbari would have to be treated seperately of course. Everything in Vorlon / center space is open for whoever can grab and hold it.

How do you like those borders (green lines)?

I tried to keep the Lever-cluster in our area as it has good greens for us and the northern Gaim border is drawn to look like giving a lot of area to the shadows which they de-facto already have and where it┤d be difficult to get anything any more. I┤ve included the Narn space as core IA-territory but we can take that out as well to represent reality that it┤ll probably fall to the Vorlons anyway.

http://www.drew.de/images/map_boders_shadows.png

Suggestions welcome.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Treaty with Shadows Sat, 07 April 2007 01:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altruist is currently offline Altruist

 
Commander

Messages: 1053
Registered: August 2005
Location: Berlin
Just some short comments:

# our southern borders as shown on the map are a bit wishful thinking but that's of no importance with the Shadows anyway

# SPOOmun Complat will not give Shadows free passage. If it will be necessary due to tactical reasons in battles, yes, I'll set them even to friend. Other than that I'll have them on neutral and if I see armed Shadow ships appoaching my minefields, they will be warned and if moving on they'll get targetted. Sounds harsh but there is no single reason I could think of why I should trust them.

# Gaim shouldn't concede Rutebaga. It's a too important strategical planet.

# Apart from that, the map looks fine. You should add a comment that the Shadows planet Scorpius and the nearby Narn planet is on their side.


[Updated on: Sat, 07 April 2007 01:25]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Treaty with Shadows Sat, 07 April 2007 04:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
AlexTheGreat is currently offline AlexTheGreat

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 661
Registered: May 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
I have colonisers otw to Lever (ETA 2466), 98053 (ETA 2465) & Grape (ETA 2471) + a spare I haven't got a target for atm. I'm not sure that we need a border with the Shadows - we seem able to contain them & it may actually reduce our options rather than provide greater security to us.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Treaty with Shadows Sat, 07 April 2007 09:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skaffen is currently offline Skaffen

 
Senior Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 90
Registered: December 2006
Location: Germany
Edited 2007-04-09 for clarity and reducing duration of NAP, definition of Minbari-space added

Proposed Treaty between the Interstellar Alliance ("IA") and the Shadow Alliance ("SA") V1.1 (2463)


Members of the IA:
Minbari, Drakh, Gaim, Llort, pak'ma'ra ("Pak"), SPOOmun Complat ("Spoo")

Members of the SA:
Dilgar, Centauri, Martians, Shadows

Members of the Vorlon Alliance ("VA", "Lightbringers"):
Earthlings ("Earth"), Vorlons, Hyak, Ipsha

Independents:

Gates, Narn (soon to be dead)

Purpose: This treaty is to form the basis for the cooperation between the IA and the SA with the intended goal of the destruction of the Lighbringers.

Victory Conditions:
Due to the overwhelming strength of the VA it appears that a strong cooperation is required. To insure that the IA can fully support the ultimately required combined attack on the Vorlon HW an amendment of the victory conditions is as follows: It is not enough for the SA to defeat the Vorlons and have a fleet in orbit of their homeworld. After the defeat of the Vorlons this treaty is automatically cancelled as per manual cancellation and the victory shall go to the last team standing (admittance of defeat and/or losing all homeworlds of the respective races in the IA or SA to the other side).



Method of Cooperations:
A non-aggression pact ("NAP") is in force between the members of the IA and the SA. This treaty is to be kept secret from the members of the VA for as long as possible.

Information relevant to the destruction of the VA such as ship designs, enemy fleet movements etc. are to be shared.

As the IA is likely to bear the brunt of an initial VA attack should their cooperation with the SA become known, Shadows will provide the Llort and Gaim with weapon and construction technology level 12 to allow for effective defensive ultra stations with jihad missiles and range 3 beams. Further technology transfer and sharing of planetary information shall be decided on a case by case basis.

Minbari, Gaim and Llort will set the members of the SA to friendly to allow passage of minefields and refuelling stops for SA fleets heading to VA worlds. Messages about fleets entering IA space detailing their makeup and mission shall be sent beforehand.

SA members shall set Minbari, Llort and Gaim to friendly to allow unhindered passage to the already established colonies in SA space, IA will in return not establish any further colonies without explicit approval except for those within Minbari space. The worlds of Ball Bearing, Grape, Amontillado LGM 2, 14 Coli, Rock and Almagest are considered Minbari space in addition to the worlds already colonized by them.

Pak and Spoo will set the members of the SA to neutral for now and vice-versa because of strained past relations. Friendly settings can be discussed when required, e.g. for combined fleet actions or passage through strategic minefields near VA planets. No ships of the others shall be targeted unless clearly violating the other side┤s space though a diplomatic solution and warning to withdraw shall be send beforehand. A limited number of scouts shall be allowed in the other┤s space as a trust building measure.

Duration:
The treaty can be cancelled at any time by any side of the agreement. Automtatic cancellation occurs after the destruction of the Vorlon HW.

After notice of cancellation the non-aggression treaty stays in effect for 6 turns before hostilities are allowed. For the first 2 of these 6 turns friendly settings that were in effect have to be maintained to allow ships to move out of minefields and return to their own worlds. The rest of the 4 turns relations have to be set to neutral.



[Updated on: Mon, 09 April 2007 09:50]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Treaty with Shadows Sun, 08 April 2007 11:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altruist is currently offline Altruist

 
Commander

Messages: 1053
Registered: August 2005
Location: Berlin
Skaffen wrote on Sat, 07 April 2007 15:58

Duration:
The treaty can be cancelled at any time by any side of the agreement. Automtatic cancellation occurs after the destruction of the Vorlon HW. Otherwise a non-aggression-pact ("NAP") is in effect for 10 turns while friendly settings that are in effect have to be maintained for 2 turns after cancellation to allow ships to move out of minefields and return to their own worlds.


Just to make sure I got this right:
# NAP for 10 years or conquest of Volron HW
# when "friendly" 2-years-cancel time otherwise no cancel time at all

Report message to a moderator

Re: Treaty with Shadows Mon, 09 April 2007 02:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skaffen is currently offline Skaffen

 
Senior Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 90
Registered: December 2006
Location: Germany
Quote:


Just to make sure I got this right:
# NAP for 10 years or conquest of Volron HW
# when "friendly" 2-years-cancel time otherwise no cancel time at all


10 year NAP, two of which friendly settings have to be maintained to allow mine-field withdrawel, after that 8 years of neutral settings and no attacks.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Treaty with Shadows Mon, 09 April 2007 04:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altruist is currently offline Altruist

 
Commander

Messages: 1053
Registered: August 2005
Location: Berlin
Skaffen wrote on Mon, 09 April 2007 08:13

10 year NAP, two of which friendly settings have to be maintained to allow mine-field withdrawel, after that 8 years of neutral settings and no attacks.


Oha! Better phrase that differently, I would never have guessed those settings.

10 year NAP can be many things like lasting for exactly 10 years.


Now to my personal view of the NAP:
# I find a 10 year cancel time a too long time and would prefer 4 to 6 years.

# Changing the victory conditions needs to be checked with the host.

Did I mention that I don't trust the Shadows? *grin
Usually it is quite difficult to make a treaty with somebody you don't trust... it's not really worth the paper. I fear they will keep the NAP exactly for as long as it suits them and then everything is void. So, the less rules there are, the less rules the Shadows can break.


[Updated on: Mon, 09 April 2007 04:45]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Treaty with Shadows Mon, 09 April 2007 10:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skaffen is currently offline Skaffen

 
Senior Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 90
Registered: December 2006
Location: Germany

Shadows - Treaty or not?[ 4 votes ]
1. Yes, let┬┤s have a formal treaty! 1 / 25%
2. Nope, we┬┤re better off without one... 3 / 75%

OK guys,
edited the treaty and reduced the duration as per Patrick┤s suggestion. What do you say? Should we have a formal treaty in place? Do we trust them so little that even with a NAP in place we┤re afraid they┤d attack anyway?


[Updated on: Mon, 09 April 2007 10:08]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Treaty with Shadows Mon, 09 April 2007 14:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Micha

 

Messages: 2341
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1
I voted "no treaty". 1) I don't like spelling out all the rules, simple is best. 2) Like Altruist I do not trust the Shadows one bit, they don't even follow the game rules why would they keep their word in this NAP? Rolling Eyes

"We co-operate till Vorlon threat is gone." That way we can decide whenever *we* feel like the threat is gone. Smile

I would add: "Shadows give tech to the IA", but I doubt they will have lots to give after weap12 with their what seems to be a very poor econ. The only good thing they have is that they can compensate this with a cheap field ...

mch

Report message to a moderator

Re: Treaty with Shadows Mon, 09 April 2007 20:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
AlexTheGreat is currently offline AlexTheGreat

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 661
Registered: May 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
I'm less distrusting than SPOO & Pak tho I'm not convinced either way.

I am fairly certain that the Shadows would not agree to "our kill" if a combined attack succeeds at Abel - they directly said that they would combine up to but not at Abel & that the IA would have to take the final step. Later, if the IA is conceived as significantly stronger than the SA (& I think that could happen) they may change their mind.

If there is to be a formal agreement then IMO, it should be a simple:
1. NAP with 5-year exit (can be activated at any time but it remains in place for 5 years after such activation).
2. Border agreement IF Minbari space is included (note: for purpose of determining Minbari space &, for that matter any other race, the Shadows are considered not to have their own space - they are scattered all over the place: maybe allow them 101ly around Omega.

BTW Amontillado is colonised by Dilgars (28K pop).

I'm voting against the current agreement (thanks for all your work tho) but would vote in favour of the simple agreement above.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Treaty with Shadows Tue, 10 April 2007 06:54 Go to previous message
Micha

 

Messages: 2341
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1
AlexTheGreat wrote on Tue, 10 April 2007 02:54

I'm less distrusting than SPOO & Pak tho I'm not convinced either way.

A small detail I just remebered from last game vs Shadow leader. SD+IT alliance (sb and me) were fighting IT+IT alliance (Ptol and Vladimir IIRC), sb was working on a truce but we found it hard to come to an agreement, mostly because Ptol was talking but his ally ignored all that, between themselves they did not seem to talk. So in the end sb proposed a "gentlemans agreement" to not attack eachother any longer. Ptol said "ok" by mail and the next year he attacked us. Laughing

In return (can't stop typing now <g>) we wiped him out (or were in the process until the game came to a sudden end), my arma BBs vs their MD and later AMP nubs, with superior tech AND numbers on their side (only normal cost con for us). However their strategy and tactics sucked, for instance they gathered their newly build nubs at a planet right at the frontline, next to my fleet of 100 arma BBs, I went in with disengage orders, stacked their fleet might have gotten a chance, now all those small fleets were just massacred. Smile

mch

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Talking to Minbari
Next Topic: Narn
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Dec 09 14:07:45 EST 2019