- Location
- alphen aan den rijn
i see no reason to get into the argument about where we are having the talks. let diplo sort that out.
Attempting to Fulfill the Plan: GDI Edition
The diplomatic corps apparently disagrees with you, and it's their job to assess whether or not the people they are talking with are trustworthy enough to bother.
That's true, which is why I am aiming for a plan which has a long-term goal of not having a hot war break out in this area.
[X] Plan Walking the Tightrope
-[X] Establishment of Territorial Waters
--[X] Propose (-15 PS)
-[X] Taiwan
--[X] Campaign (-15 PS)
-[X] Dhaka Trade Route
--[X] Campaign (-20 PS)
-[X] Technological Transfers
--[X] Lobby (-5 PS) (-2 Mad Science)
-[X] Tiberium Abatement Coordination
--[X] Lobby (-10 PS)
So, the general thrust of this plan is to give Nod as little as possible (hence avoiding Karachi), while still meeting our political objectives, and de-escalating conflict throughout most of (non-Russian) Asia. We don't need this deal to last forever, we just need it to last long enough that when we next fight with Nod, that Bintang, the Bannerjees, and Yao remain neutral while we fight off Stahl, Krukov, Reynaldo, and Mehretu. As we saw during the Regency war, a divided Nod is a much easier fight than one that is united.
The keystone to the plan is holding Taiwan. Dhaka lets the Bannerjees hold a city hostage (as the city's existence or non-existence does not materially change the security of the Himalayas), but it allows us to hold all of China hostage in return.
The supporting elements, such as Territorial Waters and Tiberium Abatement Coordination, are in place to de-escalate conflict in general, and give positive reasons for both Nod and GDI to hold the deal. It would be nice if they were in the final deal, but we don't have enough PS to guarantee them.
While I am a big fan of technology, I see it as tertiary to our overall goals (meeting out political commitments, dividing Nod), so it, unfortunately, will be at the minimum value that Seo is willing to take.
-[X] Establishment of Territorial Waters
--[X] Propose (-15 PS)
-[X] Taiwan
--[X] Campaign (-15 PS)
-[X] Dhaka Trade Route
--[X] Campaign (-20 PS)
-[X] Technological Transfers
--[X] Lobby (-5 PS) (-2 Mad Science)
-[X] Tiberium Abatement Coordination
--[X] Lobby (-10 PS)
So, the general thrust of this plan is to give Nod as little as possible (hence avoiding Karachi), while still meeting our political objectives, and de-escalating conflict throughout most of (non-Russian) Asia. We don't need this deal to last forever, we just need it to last long enough that when we next fight with Nod, that Bintang, the Bannerjees, and Yao remain neutral while we fight off Stahl, Krukov, Reynaldo, and Mehretu. As we saw during the Regency war, a divided Nod is a much easier fight than one that is united.
The keystone to the plan is holding Taiwan. Dhaka lets the Bannerjees hold a city hostage (as the city's existence or non-existence does not materially change the security of the Himalayas), but it allows us to hold all of China hostage in return.
The supporting elements, such as Territorial Waters and Tiberium Abatement Coordination, are in place to de-escalate conflict in general, and give positive reasons for both Nod and GDI to hold the deal. It would be nice if they were in the final deal, but we don't have enough PS to guarantee them.
While I am a big fan of technology, I see it as tertiary to our overall goals (meeting out political commitments, dividing Nod), so it, unfortunately, will be at the minimum value that Seo is willing to take.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
It seems like most of what we've heard about the diplomats asking in return involved safety guarantees for the route itself- attempts to leverage Nod into accepting that the ships would have GDI pilots or be inspected by GDI agents, for example.
It may well be that the diplomats have a number of things in mind that they'd like to ask for in exchange, of course! But that is where our decision to spend Political Support comes in. The Treasury has a lot of influence, and may be able to sway GDI's government as a whole as to which things GDI tries to ask for, in exchange for granting Nod concessions.
The deal isn't already made in its entirety; that's why the conference is still upcoming. While existing negotiations up to this point have helped establish the general shape of what the two sides are thinking of agreeing to, and what options will even be on the table or discussed, there is no existing deal that only gets modified when Treasury sticks its oar in.
Yes, but we can't assume the diplomats will automatically negotiate a cutout for "and we can totally take a gigantic army equipped with the same weapons that beat all the other warlords during Steel Vanguard just a few years ago, and use that to invade territory that you, the Bannerjees, think is yours or at any rate is right on your border, and park those troops there indefinitely, and this is totally fine and within the boundaries of our agreement."
Historically, these particular Nod warlords have not had a history of treachery with us, so far as I know. The Bannerjees have basically sat back chilling, except for light pressure on BZ-18 during the Regency War, which made little impression on GDI lines. Bintang has fought us persistently, but her approach to warfare is relatively "clean," though this is partly by the nature of combat on the sea. Yao has hardly fought us at all, to the point where Kane called her out on it in conclave and not in a kindly way, because unlike the Bannerjees, she has few other achievements to her name.
Now, Nod as a whole has plenty of history of betraying us, and you can argue that because these people are Nod at all, by extension they will betray us. But we need to be clear, then, that you're judging the likely outcome based on your assessment of Nod as a whole, not of these individuals.
Also, because you'd have to hold a seance.
There's real ambivalence there. On the one hand, you're not wrong. On the other hand, if there are any Nod warlords we can trust to deal honorably with captive GDI soldiers, it's probably these, IF.
And also, it's entirely conceivable that there will be no more major wars. We know Kane has strong incentives to simply put an end to the strife and work with us to build the TCN. He has not yet chosen to do so, probably because he holds out hopes for leveraging a better bargaining position than he had in late 2061, inconveniently right at the end of the Regency War, which was a disaster for his forces. But he has good reasons to do so, and if he does, the odds are that we will never fight a full-scale war with those Nod factions again.
Then again, you never know, we might. I'd hate to put GDI abatement crews behind Nod lines in India and then invade Karachi without pre-clearing our setup of the planned city and transit corridor with the Bannerjees, for instance.
What happens to this deal when (for instance) we invade Karachi with a large army after having already deployed tiberium containment teams into India?
Clearly, the plan is to bypass that issue with the Dhaka route, but I'm not clear on how you expect that to work. You seem to have tried to explain and I may be confused, so could you unpack that a little?
Last edited:
Per @Ithillid, Dhaka also fulfills our plan commitments. So, if we get Dhaka during the negotiations, we don't need Karachi (politically).
Now Karachi is still better than Dhaka militarily, and it does do a better job of supplying the Himalayas even in peacetime (noting that we still have our northen railroute out of the Himalayas, that is currently threatened by Krukov, Yao, and Tiberium). And that's worth a whole lot. But, we'd also be paying a whole lot for it.
I surmise that there are a lot of concessions on the table that the diplomats have on offer that we as players don't see, and that the more that the Initiative gets, the more that the Initiative will have to give. I think that Karachi is an absolutely wonderful local win, but has a very good chance of strengthening Nod globally. Mind, I think that it's still probably a net gain for us, compared to having to invade.
But if we have the option to go for one that gives us a 'Sword of Damocles' against betrayal (and is much cheaper), while still fulfilling our commitments, that is a much, much more attractive in my opinion.
edit:
In summary: If we get Dhaka, we fulfill our plan commitments (after we construct it), and thus there is no need for Karachi. Dhaka and Taiwan together cost less than Karachi, and give us all of China as hostages against the Bannerjees good behavior. If the Bannerjees do take Dhaka anyways, the Himilayas aren't actually noticeably weakened, they've gained a city that only had value in peace, taken hostages that were volunteers, and in exchange they've lost Nod one of the most populated regions on Earth and given us an excellent rallying cry during the next war.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
They might cost us less political support to lobby for, but they may cost GDI more concessions. In effect, we'd be playing the militarists' desire to take Taiwan against their aversion to the indefensible Dhaka site, which eases our political task of "get the GDI negotiators to ask for what we want them to to ask for," sure...
But even if we get the GDI negotiators to adopt our chosen position, said position may involve a combination of "asks" that the Bannerjees (and whoever controls Taiwan, either Yao or Bintang I imagine) are uninterested in accepting.
- Location
- ?????????
Also the whole plan does hinge on getting both. They could just give us Dhaka and not Taiwan. At which point we don't have a guarantor for good behaviour and are left with…well Dhaka.
- Location
- USA
[X] Plan Diplomatic Support for Karachi
[X] Plan Treasury Needs
[X] Plan Treasury Needs
BoSPaladin
The Paladin
[X]Plan relieving karachi and controlling the crystal
[X] Seoul
A major Initiative city in the region would be a good pick for a number of reasons. While it would incur the costs of hosting, and have a number of major security issues, including what are likely going to be multiple Brotherhood warships in the port, it would, at the same time allow for the most support for the Initiative's negotiating team, and allow the Initiative to flex its economic and military muscles.
-[X] Propose (-15 PS)
[X] Limited Navigation
While not a true trade agreement, setting humanitarian naval corridors between Brotherhood warlords, well within range of Initiative antishipping missiles and naval artillery platforms in case they attempt to use such corridors as a means of launching an attack on the Initiative, paired with some attempt at verification that the Brotherhood is not using these corridors as a means of transporting military supplies.
-[X] Lobby (-25 PS)
[X] Karachi Trade Route
A land route between the Himalayan Blue Zone and the sea, allowing Karachi to occur would be a massive ask for the Initiative, requiring major concessions in other fields before it could even be considered.
-[X] Insist (-25 PS)
Other Items
[X] Technological Transfers
The Brotherhood still has many secrets up their sleeves. While extracting them is likely to be difficult, especially with the Brotherhood's own obscurantism in the way of making sure that the systems work properly. Extorting technology would be a bit of a grab bag, with little way to know for sure the value of what is being transferred until after the deal is finalized.
-[X] Lobby (-5 PS) (-2 Mad Science)
[X] Military Concessions
While not entirely in the Treasury's wheelhouse, demanding the Brotherhood step down military activity, or cease it entirely in the contested region would be a not particularly unreasonable position. Although it is very likely that the entire deal will fall through during a major flareup if this provision is added.
-[X] Insist (-15 PS)
[X] Tiberium Abatement Coordination
While the Brotherhood of Nod is an opponent, Tiberium is a common enemy of mankind, at least for the sane portions of it. While actively coordinating on projects to abate tiberium are likely to be extremely controversial, especially as many of the areas that it would be occurring in are Brotherhood backyards, where abatement teams would get cut off and destroyed in case of a resumption of hostilities.
-[X] Lobby (-10 PS)
[X] Seoul
A major Initiative city in the region would be a good pick for a number of reasons. While it would incur the costs of hosting, and have a number of major security issues, including what are likely going to be multiple Brotherhood warships in the port, it would, at the same time allow for the most support for the Initiative's negotiating team, and allow the Initiative to flex its economic and military muscles.
-[X] Propose (-15 PS)
[X] Limited Navigation
While not a true trade agreement, setting humanitarian naval corridors between Brotherhood warlords, well within range of Initiative antishipping missiles and naval artillery platforms in case they attempt to use such corridors as a means of launching an attack on the Initiative, paired with some attempt at verification that the Brotherhood is not using these corridors as a means of transporting military supplies.
-[X] Lobby (-25 PS)
[X] Karachi Trade Route
A land route between the Himalayan Blue Zone and the sea, allowing Karachi to occur would be a massive ask for the Initiative, requiring major concessions in other fields before it could even be considered.
-[X] Insist (-25 PS)
Other Items
[X] Technological Transfers
The Brotherhood still has many secrets up their sleeves. While extracting them is likely to be difficult, especially with the Brotherhood's own obscurantism in the way of making sure that the systems work properly. Extorting technology would be a bit of a grab bag, with little way to know for sure the value of what is being transferred until after the deal is finalized.
-[X] Lobby (-5 PS) (-2 Mad Science)
[X] Military Concessions
While not entirely in the Treasury's wheelhouse, demanding the Brotherhood step down military activity, or cease it entirely in the contested region would be a not particularly unreasonable position. Although it is very likely that the entire deal will fall through during a major flareup if this provision is added.
-[X] Insist (-15 PS)
[X] Tiberium Abatement Coordination
While the Brotherhood of Nod is an opponent, Tiberium is a common enemy of mankind, at least for the sane portions of it. While actively coordinating on projects to abate tiberium are likely to be extremely controversial, especially as many of the areas that it would be occurring in are Brotherhood backyards, where abatement teams would get cut off and destroyed in case of a resumption of hostilities.
-[X] Lobby (-10 PS)
Last edited:
For note, there are two rail lines from BZ-18, one going east to BZ-7 (Korea), and one going north-east to BZ-16. Both can be relatively easily cut off by enemy action, but the one heading directly east may not be all that easy for Krukov to access.
Taiwan is explicitly much cheaper than Karachi in concessions cost. Dhaka + Taiwan costs us more in PS to pursue, but the Initiative has to pay Nod a lot less for it.
Karachi is a 'massive ask', that involves 'multiple major concessions'. Taiwan is a 'major ask'.
But, we could just ask the QM. Because it's pretty clear that I read the text differently than others, and no amount of pointing back to it seems to have changed anyones minds when we keep coming back with the same conclusions that we started with.
@Ithillid
Can you clarify on the relative (to the best of our IC knowledge) negotiation costs on Karachi vs Taiwan + Dhaka?
I do believe you are missing an X in here Paladin.
- Location
- The Underdark
So, this is complicated and has a lot of "it depends on multiple factors" disclaimers going in, but generally speaking, Taiwan + Dhaka is less of an ask than Karachi, and much less of an ask than Taiwan + Karachi
BoSPaladin
The Paladin
Fixed. Thank you for the ping.
I'm absolutely opposed to any plan that includes Dhaka and will vote for literally anything else if it looks like Dhaka will win.
The entire point of doing Karachi is to have a supply route to the Himalayan blue zone so they're not cut off if war starts up again and Dhaka not only fails to do that but also essentially hands Nod a city full of people
I see it as worse than absolutely nothing, regardless of if it technically fulfils our political goal
I figure even if they are able to negotiate Karachi we'll be forced to pay through the nose for it and I'm very concerned with what concessions we'd have to give up in that case
The entire point of doing Karachi is to have a supply route to the Himalayan blue zone so they're not cut off if war starts up again and Dhaka not only fails to do that but also essentially hands Nod a city full of people
I see it as worse than absolutely nothing, regardless of if it technically fulfils our political goal
Right, but they have already been negotiating this for a while. I see coming in with minor requests (Tech, tib, etc) as something that would be relatively easy for the diplomats to fit into the existing discussions they've been having but something like Taiwan or even worse, Karachi as something that essentially forces our diplomats to start over from scratch. Less rocking the boat and more threatening to capsize it.
I figure even if they are able to negotiate Karachi we'll be forced to pay through the nose for it and I'm very concerned with what concessions we'd have to give up in that case
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Well, if we don't negotiate a deal including Dhaka or Karachi, then the deal is likely to collapse of its own accord if we go ahead with Karachi as planned, which leaves us over in Treasury in a very awkward position.
...
[X]Plan Diplomatic Support for Karachi
@Lightwhispers , I may be misremembering, but this is your plan, right?
I'd be a lot happier if it were spending more on actually getting Karachi, but I can take it as-is I guess.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
I mean, that is the dilemma here.
These are some of the factions that are actually willing to negotiate. And one of our objectives we really want to do makes a trade route and city right through their territory.
So the choice is:
Negotiate for it and give up some stuff to the factions willing to be reasonable.
Or
Have a war with them after some negotiations, which will probably make them less willing to be reasonable and negotiate in the future.
Of the two I vastly prefer the first option.
It's the carrot and the stick.
If nod warlords are willing to leave us alone or negotiate they can get a better situation. If not... look at Gideon.
I would much rather reward factions willing to negotiate than backstab them and drive them away.
Let nod do the backstabbing. Whatever concessions we give them can quickly be undone if they break the deal. But until then let's be generous and hopefully other factions will start getting on board.
Depends on the deal we make.
Something along the lines of "Humanitarian trade routes in return for some concessions" would be likely to continue despite us doing Karachi as Nod gets as much out of it as we do, if not more
Yes, it's mine. And as the Very Suspicious Furniture said, if there is a minimalist "humanitarian shipping for concessions" agreement that results from this, it would have a decent chance of staying in place when GDI invades Karachi. Which is why that would be my second preference, since I definitely want to not damage GDI's diplomatic credibility.
