Luis,

> We could follow like this for centuries.
>

Agreed, this will likely be my last response since most of this has already been
discussed between us, and the others are probably tired of listening in.

> Still:
>
> However, you and Andrew did cooperate, first kicking me out of BID, then
> advancing Andrew's troops southward. The fact that this active
> cooperation did not continue does not defeat the possibility that it may
> have.
>
> With your intervention in Bid, a piece of map I was not willing to cede
> to anyone, and in the "neutral zone" too, with your agression in more
> plain words, you provoked that I allied with Andrew and helped him to
> conquer all your mainland territories in the hope that I could get read
> of you. Anything, even Gondwana growing too big for me to manage was
> worth to get rid of an adversary that wouldn't accept to discuss peace,
> that would not yield to reasoning, that had only one objective in mind:
> to destroy Bahmana or force it to become a fleetless country.
>

Since this part of the discussion was about Rajputana's choices, I'm not sure
what relevance your response has. Regardless of why you and Gondwana were
cooperating, you were cooperating, and that wasn't a good thing for the Raj.


> I didn't have other options actually.
>
> In allocating the Gondwanan centers, it was reasonable to include those
> neutral centers he had access to so you would not have been working for
> free (BID and MAL as I recall).
>
> This is like me claiming Seylac or Aceh. Nonsense. Anyhow, I wasn
> totally uninterested in Malwa, a center for which I would have needed to
> fight. I wanted peace. :-)
>
> Andrew was willing to give me the only disputable center I asked for:
> Bidar, you claimed to accept the same deal.
>

Again, you are changing the subject to which my response was directed, namely
your claim that you wouldn't help me against Andrew because I wouldn't share the
spoils. You don't have to justify why you chose to work with Andrew - that was
clear enough. To respond relevantly, you would need to justify why your deal
was a fair one despite you not being willing to join me against Andrew.


> Besides, you had already claimed SEY, which fell as much into my sphere
> of influence as yours,
>
> Again nonsense. I could claim Seylac unopposed in 1501, you couldn't.
>

Perhaps technically correct, but not really. You could claim it if you were
willing to leave yourself vulnerable elsewhere. In fact, you did not move to
LaS in the spring and could not take it in 1501. After that point, it was
equidistant from my centers and yours, and Vijayanagar is more clearly a naval
power. Thus, it was part of the reasonable negotiations between us.


> The offense is what we were planning...
>
> No. I was planning defense. An homogeneous 6 SC Gondwana with no
> conflicts (other that the one Persia willingly was geting in): 5
> mainland SCs, 2 buffer neutral zones north and south and one natural
> colonial center in Somalia. After that I planned to start the offensive
> against Persia, as he had set clear that would not allow me any room in
> the seas nor wanted any DMZs nor any arrangements of any sort. He was
> maybe too straightforward to be succesful (as did I).
>

My point was that the negotiations were setting up paths of expansion, which is
offense, and that your plan left you a much more advantageous path of expansion
than it did me.


> Survival is sometimes the first step to victory.
>
> And I was trying to arrange my survival precisely. :-/
>
> Since we rarely were able to even start negotiations, there aren't that
> many proposals to judge.
>
> My offer was clear: peace and fight back with back. This zone for me
> that one for you. It was obvious that we didn't have the same interests,
> what I considered something positive but you considered a reason to
> blackmail me to adapt to your strategy.
>

Not so obvious from my end that your interests (particularly building a navy)
didn't conflict with mine (having a secure rear). The rest is repetition.


> My basic offer was that if you attacked Andrew, I would stop attacking
> you in order to also attack Andrew.
>
> That was your only argument after you started attacking me. But that
> wasn't what we had agreed in the early negotiations. Besides I wasn't
> willing to trust a treacherous blackmailer like you.
>
> At the time, you were also being attacked by Persia and Rajputana, and I
> indicated that I had influence toward being able to stop those attacks
> as well.
>
> I could fence off those attacks on my own.
>

"On your own" meaning due to Rajputana's NMR and Mughalistan's attacks on Persia
and Rajputana from the north.

And it is "extortion", not "blackmail". :) Whether you chose to deal with me
again or not was up to you, but to automatically preclude the possibility worked
against you. Insisting on the prior agreement wasn't going to get you anywhere.
Circumstances change, and you have to be able to adapt. But I guess I'm tired
of pointing that out.


> ...
>
> And with this I give as concluded my discussion with Paul, a person I
> hope not share board with again in many years.
>
> Best,
> Luis.
>

The feeling is mutual. It is not that I necessarily dislike you Luis, but our
perspectives are so different, it seems unlikely that we could ever work
fruitfully together, and I'd hate to put myself in a hole by having one less
potential ally at the start.

Paul "V"