new mill game controversy

[Curumbor Elendil]

I'd like to post here my arguments for reloading next time at the beginning of 1340, when war is declared, and regarding the taking of undefended cities during the 1-turn interim between war declaration and the right to attack as illegal. But first I'd like to apologize to Capo for my harsh language immediately following this incident. Since this was Capo's first night, and I knew he had been involved in knock-down, drag-out controversies before, I immediately inferred that Capo was blatantly cheating and he knew it, and that he was just trying to play spoiler. I believe now that I was wrong. By the way, Capo, I'd like to take you off my Ignore List on ICQ - I just didn't see your explanation for why those offensive messages came. Was it in King Chat? I just missed it, I guess.

So here are the arguments:

1) Imagine that this had happened to one of you. Out of the blue, someone takes over your empty city (doesn't really matter whether war had just been declared the same turn or not). Wouldn't you consider this a violation of the rule that you have to declare war a turn before attacking? It doesn't really matter whether it was a settler or a tank: it was still an invasion, a conquest, a seizing of territory. All part of the normal, everyday understanding of "attack." Settlers must have some military capabilities - after all, caravans, freights, diplomats, and spies can't take over cities by moving in.

2) The fact that the rules specifically say that you may do espionage without waiting a turn implies that espionage is the only military action that one may take before 1 turn has passed. Plundering is likewise out. If people paradropped into empty cities the same turn as declaring war (and by the rules, before you could move), would that not be considered a sneak attack? Even if the paratrooper unit had a "0" attack rating? It seems pretty clear that when the rules say you have to declare war a turn before attacking, the sense is not "declare war before using any unit with an attack rating on an opposing unit," but, "declare war a turn before beginning any aggressive military action," the ordinary, everyday meaning of "attack."

3) The reason the city was empty was that it had contained a transport, but I disbanded it to buy a rifleman. So here's the irony: Capo's declaration of war induced me to disband a unit, which allowed him to march a settler in. Somehow I think that defeats the entire purpose of the rule saying that you must declare war a turn in advance.

4) The fact that I disbanded the unit indicates that I sincerely believed it was obviously against the rules to march a unit into an empty city before the turn required had passed. If I thought it was OK to take cities like that, I would simply have waited to disband the transport until Capo had said, "OK, my turn's all done; you can move." Why risk it beforehand?

5) The claim, aired by Markus, that I bent the rules earlier to favor myself in a war against him, turns out to be a complete myth. I examined the saved games. The allegation is that I waited until Markus had finished moving his units, then moved mine up to his city, then attacked the next turn because turn order favored me. Thus, he never got a chance at a preemptive strike. This is actually what happened:
840 AD: Austrians and Russians declare war on Turks; Austrians move units into Austrian city of Serbia. War is declared in the middle of the turn, so turn order is in force, but Markus has already moved. It doesn't matter because my units are just in one of my cities.
860 AD: Turn order is already in force. I use my first turn to move my crusaders into range of Turkish city Izmir. Markus uses his second turn but doesn't attack, even though he has the full opportunity to.
880 AD: Austrians destroy Izmir at the beginning of the turn.
Anyone who wants to see these saved games is welcome to. I think this vitiates the charge that I'm being inconsistent.

6) In the interests of compromise and reconciliation, I'm willing to offer the following concession. The turn after the "dead turn" that you get when you load up a game in simul, Capo will be allowed to attack. Normally, I should get the opportunity of a turn before attacking to move my units up to the front, launch preemptive strikes, etc. I'm willing to forgo this advantage in order to promote the friendliness and unity of the game.

7) I'm not asking for some special benefit or compensation. All I want is to play that turn over again, starting with Capo's declaration of war. Thus, the object is simply to erase the controversial incident, not to balance it out or make things "even." Let's play the game on fair rules known to everyone. I'm sorry that Capo wasn't completely clear on the rules. Of course, I've always played diplo games this way, and at the beginning of the session I articulated the rules of no city bribe, 1 turn declaration before attack, & turn order during attack. Of course, I didn't have the space to elaborate on all these; I assumed they were pretty clear. To answer a couple of Capo's questions: yes, you should declare war toward the beginning of your turn, as soon as possible. Here's the idea behind moving to turn order with attacker first. If you play with simul war, there are notorious problems, including defenders able to pick off attackers, the least lagged player having a big advantage, and incentives for everyone to wait till everyone else has finished moving so they have a clear field. So we move to turn order. We do attacker first because defender first, combined with the 1-turn declaration rule, would favor the defender too much. Attacker declares war, defender moves and rush buys, attacker moves but cannot attack. Next turn, defender can move and fortify the rush bought units, and only then can the attacker finally attack. That's too much of a defender's advantage. The 1-turn rule creates some defender's advantage in order to take mindless conquest out of the game and to make it more strategic. But too much defender's advantage can make all war impracticable.

Please post your reactions here.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Curumbor Elendil (edited April 12, 2001).]</font>

[drake]

Play the turn over....put it behind you...crap like this could ruin a good game...forget it and move on, or argue and watch it fall apart....

[markusf]

my point was i couldn't attack because because i spent all my gold, to buy improvements that turn. If you remember i built had a dip and i bought one of your units the next turn and attacked. Had i been able to buy a crusader the city would never have fallen(I would have had the cash to do so at the start of the turn.) not only that i couldn't move in reinforcements from cities further back etc etc.

[GNGSpam]

Ill be frank here.

I was talking to Capo while he was playing. We were discussing whether he could declare in the middle of the turn, as Curumobor did, and still attack. We had both agreed he better do it proper to avoid contreversy.

Not long after, Capo informs me he is having some tremendous arguement about what he did. I, confused because I thought he was following the rules, asked what happened. He explained he occupied a city. I asked him did he wait a turn? He said he followed the rules properly. I, realizing Capo is a lawyer in training, realized that obviously there was something more to this. So I asked a more pointed question, "Did you occupy the city the turn after you declared?". Thats when he said he had occupied the City with an Engineer.

Notice, Capo has not said attacked the city but "occupied" the city. Thats because Capo honestly thought he was obeying the letter of the rule. He begins with this tangent of how Engineers have an attack of zero and even Civ2 the game claims "This is not an attack unit" or whatever the hell it says when you go to move it onto an enemy unit.

Anyways, look, your faced with two options, two options you ALWAYS have to face with Capo. You can fight him about the letter of the rule, and your going to lose. The guy thinks he is Matlock or something. And besides, TECHNICALLY, he is right. But in the spirit of the rule, he is wrong. So offer a compromise. Start back one turn before war was declared, have him wait that one turn. I think Curuombor has already suggested that, and if he did, I encourage Capo to take it.

By the way, I think waiting a turn before fighting has got to be the most pussified way of playing Civ2. I know, I know, its not my game, and so I honestly dont have much of a say, you fellows choose to play it that way, and everyone, especially newcomers, should respect that, but geez, what kind of pansy thought of that? Like sneak attacks never occured in the real world.

Imaginary conversation in 1941
"JAPAN DIDNT DECLARE ONE MONTH BEFORE!!!" America
"He is right Japan, I think we ought to go back one turn" Britain
"America didnt declare one month before when he attacked Spain in 1897!" Germany
"Two wrongs dont make a right, I agree we should also go back one turn" France
"Oh shut the hell up, you surrendered you beret wearing geek" Everyone to France

[Curumbor Elendil]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by markusf on 04-12-2001 09:21 AM</font>
my point was i couldn't attack because because i spent all my gold, to buy improvements that turn. If you remember i built had a dip and i bought one of your units the next turn and attacked. Had i been able to buy a crusader the city would never have fallen(I would have had the cash to do so at the start of the turn.) not only that i couldn't move in reinforcements from cities further back etc etc.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

OK, but you had 1 turn to get more gold and buy stuff, which is the normal standard before a war. And you had a turn to move in reinforcements, and so on.

BTW, I had several units left over after the attack. Even more buying wouldn't have prevented the destruction of Izmir, though it may have delayed the destruction of the 2nd city.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

[Curumbor Elendil]

GNG - I agree that Capo was mistaken and really thought he didn't violate the rules. It was unintentional, but all the same it was a violation (both in the letter and spirit of the rules I think), and it seems to me the most sensible thing to do is just go back and replay it. If it had been an intentional violation, I would support kicking him out of the game, but as it was unintentional, we should just go back and do it right.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

[The Capo]

I told you guys, I am not giving the city back, and I am not replaying the turn.

It totally ruins all the strategy I had, not to mention the fact that my initial strategy was ruined by this stupid rule. Now to go back woudl totally change everything, and that is unfair.

The rules were not explained to me until DURING the action, and even then they were unclear and vague. You said we can't attack, I did not attack, I occupied a city that was left empty. If we are in a game where it prompts nations to leave their cities undefended, and this includes numerous cities in Austria's home country! Then this game is really a joke. You can't have your cake and eat it to, if you play Simultaneous you must fight Simultaneous cuz when you don't its unnatural and is complicated, especially when you have people using vague terminology and doing so in a matter of seconds!

Based on the strict letter of the law, and my personal interpretation of that letter, your law now Curumbor, I am correct. Thus I will not concede. I will accept a vote on the issue, but I will never accept going back and replaying the turn, because that is so unrealistic, I will accept an in game punishment. You must handle this in the game and not outside of it.

For everyone who doesn't understand here is what happened...

France was a pathetically strung together nation, I realized major reform was needed in the way it was being developed. Infrastructure and Military were the key aspects to bringing this nation out of the dumps. I focused on these areas. Austria three times attempted to turn Italy and I against our British allies, and levied huge tarrifs and bans on British goods. I, being a loyal and honest ruler, levied a similar ban on Austrian goods and extended this to their allies if they saw fit to do the same to Great Britain. I started thinking about how pathetically weak Austria was. They had 38 cities and 36 units I believe. Some of those had to be settlers and trade units, so I figured they were not well defended and deserved an attack for dispariaging me and my allies and attempting to tear us apart secretly. Not to mention Algeria, that should be a French colony! So I prepared for war secretly, building my army, modernizing my army, and deploying troops in strategic locations, preparing for what could very well become a continental war. I noticed that Tirol wasn't defended, thus I asked Austria if I could build a railroad in order to "trade" with them. They agreed like, no offense, fools. Meanwhile I filled a ship with Riflemen. Unfortunantly the game was screwy and my Woman's Sufferage didn't work, so my cities went into riot and as I was a Democracy the gov't collapsed (since the titles were changed from the French Democratic President to Prime Minister I was confused, but it was alright). Luckily for Austria, Zurich was rioting, food was lost, and thus the Engineer building the railroad that woudl bring us Tirol was lost as well. Minor setback. I decided to move upon Tirol and deployed Riflemen to the nearby mountains and forests. It was at this point that Deity explained to me I had to actually declare war. Now, I am in HOTW and in that game we have little to no restrictions on play. I found this rule quite ridiculous, and realized that it was this stupid rule that make all of Europe's countries have LITTLE TO NO DEFENSE. I think that is anti-condusive to realistic play. However I relented my invasion of Tirol and waited. Giving Austria time to respond and rush buy a unit. I then declared war on Austria. That same turn I landed on the African coast and let off a wave of Riflemen towards Beijaia and Algier, both Austrian colonies. It was at this point that Curumbor starts explaining how we move into turn based play with him going first. I had no clue this rule was in effect and really didn't understand the mechanics, he explained it so vaguely it could really be interpreted a number of ways. Then he said something to the effect of "You can't attack me first, but I can attack you first." So fine, I didn't attack. But I noticed Algiers was open, and I had an engineer that could move off of the ship and simply occupy the city. So that's what I did. I don't quite understand the concept of turn based, if he goes first that means I go afterwards, thus he couldn't have recieved his rush bought unit anyway right? Since the next turn wouldn't have occured. But then he said that I can't attack him first but he can attack me first? Does that mean that he can attack, but on my first turn I can't? I was so confused that I decided the best way to stay within the rules would be not to attack but simply occupy the empty city of Algiers, to further make sure I didn't constitute an attack I used a unit that the game said is unable to attack since its attack is NOTHING. Therefore I was following his vague and quite frankly retarded rules.

Since we are playing in Simultaneous turns, turn-based would be strange and unnatural, I don't think these people understand that. If you want to play Simultaneously you take everything that goes along with it, even strange warfare. Further the way the rules are made is so anti-condusive to war that this diplogame has lost MAJOR parts of diplomacy: War, Threat of War, and Fear. I could probably list more.

I feel that I did not act in an intentionally evil way, I did not "play dirty" or "cheat" like Curumbor accused me of (I still DEMAND a public apology for that Curumbor). I believe that this rule is being arbitrarily enforced against me by Curumbor, the man who pulls the strings, I have recently discovered that he too had been accused of breaking his own rules, so I don't see how he is in a position to decide this.

Again, if we vote I will only accept an in game punishment/repercussion, I will not replay the session.

As the Romans would say, Pax!

[GNGSpam]

Turn based warfare in a simul game huh?

Im afraid im not following this ethier, Curumbor, why dont you explain yourside of the story and what the rules are. Im afraid they do sound very complicated.


PS This is why we play diplogames turn based.

[drake]

Yeah I'm confused.....if its a simul game, why do you have to wait for someone else to move first? Doesnt simultaneous mean "at the same time"?

Doesn't waiting defeat the purpose

[OzzyKP]

Well as former player for France I'd like to add a few comments. First off, i think forcing players to declare war or to wait a turn is a dumb rule that is unrealistic. But if it is indeed a rule in this game and agreed upon by all initial players then it can't really be argued. Capo you are a sub, as was I, while we disagree with the rules we can't just change them or break them to suit our own purposes.

I agree with the turn based war during a simul game, i think its a fantastic way to get the best of both worlds. I've tried simul war briefly and i really hate it.

If people have to wait a turn between when they declare and when they attack, Capo is right it creates empires with empty cities. There is no threat of force or fear of your opponent. Plus it punishes the attacker so much no one would want to declare war. Especially if the defender goes first in turn order! That is ridiculous.

I think the best way to handle this is to assume turn based from the beginning even though it isn't real. This way the attacker gets to choose the flow of how the war will go. The attacker has two choices, either he waits till the end of the normal simul turn and does a surprize attack and then the game goes into turn order with defender going first. Or the attacker gives a turn notification so the defender can rush buy units and whatnot and then on the next turn they go into turn based and the attacker is allowed to go first. There are advantages and disadvantages to both sides with this. Either way no player gets the chance to move twice in a row.

Surprize attacks shouldn't be outlawed by rules, but should be stopped by international pressure and diplomacy. If Country X doesn't like surprize attacks, make it clear that anyone who does one will be on very bad terms with Country X with possible military involvement of Country X. I assure you Country Y will think twice before attacking Country Z by surprize.

But either way these weren't the rules that were agreed upon at the beginning of the game, Curumbor's rules were. So subs really have no choice but to go along with the rules.



------------------
Ozzy - King of Metal
Ozzy - French in Millenial Euro Dip
Ozzy - Formerly Proud Sayen member
Ozzy - Prez of NYRA, http://nyra.ecg.net

[Curumbor Elendil]

Here's the thread in which the rules were originally discussed and decided upon:
http://www.apolyton.net/forums/Forum...001912.html?42 .

We've been using the rule that you must declare war a turn before attacking in diplo games since before you ever heard of a diplo game, Capo. And I don't see how it's so complicated. Nor does it make for empty cities. You need more than one unit on defense to adequately defend a major city. Many of my cities were empty because I was in the process of disbanding pikemen to build improvements and riflemen. That process is nearly complete. Other empires seem to have 2-3 units per city, and I will soon as well. But regardless of these considerations, which we can debate about the next time we play a diplo game, rules are rules, and we must abide by them. When they are broken we must replay the right way. There is no question about replaying that turn; that must be done. I don't see how that affects your strategy in any way, Capo. You still move first, I still get one turn to rush buy.

If we let people get away with rule breaking and then just tried to come up with a "compromise" that left rule breakers with just "some" of their ill-gotten gains, then everyone would break rules all the time.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

[Curumbor Elendil]

This is the thread in which the rules for the game were finalized. See second page, "SUMMARY OF RULES CHANGES," subsection "House Rules."
http://www.apolyton.net/forums/Forum...001986.html?81

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

OK, got this from Elendil cos even I was getting a bit confused!
When we agreed on the House Rules I understood the pre-emptive strike part, but in the game I thought that got dropped during the Austrian war on Turks???
(my comments in brackets)
---
From CE to deity:

* attacker declares war (at beginning of Simul turn)
* then attacker moves, but cant attack (presumably turn order is now underway?)
* then defender moves and CAN make preemptive strike (ON the SIMUL TURN!)

* next turn: attacker moves first and can attack. then defender moves.

its really very simple!!
CE


------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

[GNGSpam]

Its really pretty silly too. Not at all historical. In that thread I see you guys talk over and over about making the game historical, but you wont allow sneak attacks? Its pathetic.

You say you were overhauling your army? Thats the price you pay for doing it. It makes you weak and open to attack. You cant play a game without risk, thats just ridiculous.

[markusf]

Funny all this talking of "cheating" Curumber could you please show us WHERE you posted that you would be changing the attack stats of marines, artillery and other units? These changes showed up in the middle of the game, with no one being told... I just happened to look and notice the changes in the very last game u hosted. Evidently you and bezerker had my world map, i would love to figure out how that happened, since i didn't trade maps with ANYONE the whole game! Then the whole thing about attacking me.. It looks like to me your disregarding all your own rules, when you get something out of it. But when something happens to you that you don't like all hell breaks loose. ie you lost a caravan we have to restart, others loose a bunch of settlars, you say its no big deal and tell them to stop whining.

[SunTzu]

Well coming from a civer, i feel that the 'wait a turn for war' rule is stupid and unrealistic it's was made because people on the recieving end of war want to have one turn to move all of their units to the front which is unrealistic. Attacking at any time w/o warning is the way to go

[The Capo]

1) I'm not a sub I am a replacement.

2) My argument was that the rules were so complicated that I could not have been held responsable not only for the vague way they were presented to me but especially in the manner. Not to mention, I couldn't ask Cur because I was going to attack him, when I asked the other players I didn't hear the same things Cur is trying to say the rules were. Where are these rules written down at? Anywhere?

[Berzerker]

Markus, you and I traded maps after I got mad about your explorer seemingly in my way the whole night, lol. As for the surprise attacks being ahistorical, not true. How many surprise attacks were really surprises? In this game a transport can load up with units and hit a city on a moments notice, but in history, there are always indicators of impending attack. The only "surprise" about Pearl was that the target was Pearl instead of some other target a little closer to Japan or her immediate interests in Indonesia/Asia.

As for this controversy, replay... Taking a city with an engineer is still an act of war and the only reason the city was open for the engineer to take was the defender was trying to prepare for war, the very reason for the rule was to allow defenders 1 turn to prepare for war!!!

[The Capo]

As I've said, if you guys want to vote on it go ahead. But I will only accept an in game punishment, I despise replaying diplogames and punishing anyone in a diplogame OUTSIDE of the game, it is ridiculous. Things must happen in a consistent way. If this game was restarted because Curumbor lost an Explorer or something of that nature I doubt the credibility of this as a "Diplogame."

Things happen in the world, there's no replaying or turning back. There's no redos. Any diplogame that doesn't offer punishments for their rules is an ill-planned diplogame, any diplogame that expects the punishments to occur out of the game and expects for things to be replayed is an ill-planned diplogame.

Further Curumbor, I take offense to you implying that I am a "newbie" in the Diplomatic Genre. Especially comming from a guy who is responsable for this "masterpeice."

I told you guys that I am not playing a redo, if my punishment is not given to me DURING the course of the game in a diplomatic manner then I will not accept it. That's my stance. I think it is a fair stance, and is probably the best thing to happen to this diplogame.

Why shy away from confrontation? This is GOLD in your game. Your game has no history, no contraversey, nothing. This is supposed to be Europe!?!?!? All Is see are a bunch of neutered leaders patting eachother's asses and doing nothing! At least I militarized and deployed, I gave your game some gusto, and now you want to go back because you don't want to deal with it? This is why HOTW kicks this game's ass in every regard: We've got balls.

Peace.

[Curumbor Elendil]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by markusf on 04-12-2001 06:06 PM</font>
Funny all this talking of "cheating" Curumber could you please show us WHERE you posted that you would be changing the attack stats of marines, artillery and other units? These changes showed up in the middle of the game, with no one being told...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Marines is the only unit I changed, and I changed that after you said, "I think we should make this change right away in the Eurodiplomacy game."

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>
I just happened to look and notice the changes in the very last game u hosted. Evidently you and bezerker had my world map, i would love to figure out how that happened, since i didn't trade maps with ANYONE the whole game! Then the whole thing about attacking me.. It looks like to me your disregarding all your own rules, when you get something out of it. But when something happens to you that you don't like all hell breaks loose. ie you lost a caravan we have to restart, others loose a bunch of settlars, you say its no big deal and tell them to stop whining.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I don't think I have your world map; I have part of it. Frankly, I don't remember that caravan incident, either.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

[Curumbor Elendil]

If I hear one more outsider say, "Your rule is stupid," I swear I'm going to blow a FREAKING FUSE!! This issue is utterly beside the point. The point is that it was a rule.

In every game I've ever played, if a rule was broken, then you replay. If someone forgets and bribes a city when it's no city bribe, you replay. Maybe if some rule was broken and five turns had passed, you seek some other remedy, that's still fair to the person who was damaged. But I'm asking that we replay the last turn. Deity even dropped during the turn, so using any savegame other than the very beginning of the turn is problematic just on those grounds.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Curumbor Elendil (edited April 13, 2001).]</font>

And they call them "diplo games"

------------------
The Mod war on Spam is a war on Fun!

Expose those who snitch to the OT mods! Do it today!

[GNGSpam]

There were more then enough suprise attacks in history. Agreed all parties saw war on the horizon, but this does not mean the attack did not shock them.

The German blitz of Russia was a suprise attack. Pearl Harbor was a suprise attack. The German invasion of Belgium in WW1 was a suprise attack. The reduction of Fort Sumter in the Civil War was a suprise attack (The Union had a support ship not to far away, but was being held off because they didnt want to encourage hostilities. Had the ship Sailed to Sumter, it likely would not have fallen, not then, but the Confederates SUPRISED the north and attacked, reducing the fort before the Ship even knew what was going on)

The Persian suprised the Medians. The Medians thought the Persians were their allies until the Persians slaughtered them.

North Koreas assault on South Korea was a suprise. Chinese entry into the Korean war was also a shocking suprise.

Look, do I have to go on? That was probably the most ridiculous statement ive ever heard, so dont try to funnel everyone that crap. Suprise attacks are not meerly throughout history, their a staple of it. While all sides knew war was coming, one cant launch an effective suprise attack without preperation, the actual attack was a "suprise". The world has a "declare one turn before you attack", but often aggressive nations only announce war with the sounds of their guns, and often in the most unexpected places.

[Curumbor Elendil]

GNG, please shut the hell up. We are not debating the realism of the rule. You do that *before* the game. Now go play elsewhere; this is none of your business.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

[Curumbor Elendil]

OK, this discussion is rapidly becoming counterproductive. Let's just vote and get it over with.

On the one hand, we have Capo's proposal. We just keep playing as if everything is OK, he keeps the city he got by - unintentionally - breaking the rules and my mistaken thinking that he would follow the rules.

On the other hand, we have my compromise proposal. We replay the turn, everyone abides by the rules. Capo gets to attack after the "dead turn" you get when you load a simul game.

Post your votes here.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

[GNGSpam]

Actually, Berzerker and I were debating the realism of the rule Cur, but your comments were amazingly constructive and have shown me the light. Thanks

[Zylka]

I'll be happy to scavenge a spot if this game falls apart in argument

[Curumbor Elendil]

Sekong - yeah, the option of in-game compensation is there, and I would prefer doing that if we had played a couple of turns. But as we stopped playing that same turn, it would be no big deal just to go back and play it over. Any compensation deal would be bound to be controversial, and anyway, Capo already rejected returning the city with as much vehemence as he rejected the replay.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

[cavebear]

I hesitate to post in another groups game thread or get involved in the disputes of it, but I have read the discussion carefully and have some thoughts on the situation.

1. The argument that there is a difference between "occupying" and "attacking" is weak, in my opinion. An undefended city is still the property of the Civ. There is no special "neutral" color assigned to it, it is only controlled by the possessing Civ, and the citizens/resources/assets of it only accrue to the possessing Civ. Any action to take control of the citizens/resources/assets of another Civ is an act of war and must be deemed an attack.

2. The rules of a game, however silly, illogical, or non-realistic, control the game. Breaking a rule of a game is not a matter for internal game negotiation by unilateral demand of one player. The rules exist pre-game and correction for rule-breaking may be appropriately assigned outside the game (replaying a turn, replacing a player, etc).

3. By the same token, rules must be known to all players ahead of time. That includes subs and replacements. Any changes to them during play must be agreed to by all players in advance.

4. In-game adjustments are always a possibility, if all players agree to the adjustments. This is logical because the players have the right to agree to change the rules in mid-play.

5. While there is no logical limit on the in-game negotiations that control play, Occam's Razor is still a useful guide. The least-complicated resolution of disagreements is usually the best. Given that the disputed action is in the current turn, replaying that turn would be the easiest and cleanest solution. If not that, then the next least complicated resolution is to undo the consequences within the game. Returning the inappropriately-acquired city(ies) plus "make-whole" fees would work well.

Hope this helps clarify the discussion...

[Curumbor Elendil]

Hey cavebear, thanks for your input. I was beginning to think I was crazy, as the only solution I saw as the logical and fair one was being trashed by almost everyone else! Maybe it'll sound more fair and logical coming from someone outside the game rather than from me as the one of the participants.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989