[PB37 SPOILER] Coeurva, Bacchus -- Cyrus of Carthage

[Mardoc]

The alternative is a reload, but it will force everyone to play T78 again.

I'm confused: what is the harm that would be worth a reload? The only thing I see is the possibility of gaining some information? He didn't double-move you to attack, nor to win a settling race, did he?

If you agree to a voluntary turn split I see no reason to object, but from my skim of your past several posts, I don't see why it should be mandatory, let alone retroactive.

[Bacchus]

PM is ok, I would just rephrase this sentence: You may have thought it gave you no advantage; we disagree.

to

You may be confident that no situation can possibly arise where turn order would matter; we can't be so sure.

[Bacchus]

If you agree to a voluntary turn split I see no reason to object, but from my skim of your past several posts, I don't see why it should be mandatory, let alone retroactive.

We have been in a turn-split for the previous dozen or so turns, there are a whole bunch of things that can be affected by turn order in the next few turns, including a potential settling race.

The reason Coeurva brought up the reload possibility is that Savant might not want to let us double-move him back. But actually I agree that if he has any problems with us double-moving him back, he should raise them himself, we shouldn't offer it as an option in our own message.

[Coeurva]

I didn't see your posts in time to change the PM, so I sent this follow-up:

Savant --

I think I've given off a false impression. From how we see it, the situation is unclear.

The turn-split should be voluntary here, not mandatory. If you don't agree with it, we're fine with you moving first on T79 and then upholding the new turn-split.

Because really, we just want any turn split. Whether the old one or the new one.

I'm not comfortable with arguing over turn splits. Even in the clear-cut CML warrior double-move case, I felt like I was rules-lawyering for an advantage. In this case, it's much more difficult to assess from both players' sides whether an advantage was gained, and over what precisely.

But yeah, Mardoc, Savant himself has upheld a consistent turn split (not ending turn before us) from ~T70 up to T77, or whenever his sentry chariot first showed up. It should still be visible from looking at Civstats.

[Mardoc]

If you agree to a voluntary turn split I see no reason to object, but from my skim of your past several posts, I don't see why it should be mandatory, let alone retroactive.

We have been in a turn-split for the previous dozen or so turns, there are a whole bunch of things that can be affected by turn order in the next few turns, including a potential settling race.

So nothing that would demand a reload, then?  That's the main bit I'm concerned with right now.

Is it important for the settling race that there be no double moves at all, or simply no double moves of settlers?  I don't think you have any particular right to the first half of the timer, so long as he doesn't double move a settler or invasion force on you.

[Bacchus]

I don't think you have any particular right to the first half of the timer, so long as he doesn't double move a settler or invasion force on you.

And precisely to preclude that happening, we would rather that the established turn split was observed. It's not that we are demanding anything difficult here, we are just saying that play should procede as it has, and then no issue can possibly arise. Why is that somehow onerous now? I am not even asking this rhetorically, I genuinely don't understand why suddenly we have to justify a request for sides to keep to an established split, previously it has always been that the side that wants to deviate from the split has to seek permission, or at least confirm that the split is no longer relevant.

EDIT: Anyway, if Coeurva is happy to go ahead in whatever fashion so am I, but if turns out that Savant's troops land on that island the same turn we are about to disembark, I am going to be very puzzled why we didn't prevent this in the first place. Or if he uses the first half of the timer to garrison Fountain Head just in time. Or one of the many other things that can happen.

[Coeurva]

I sent this to Savant, in any event:

To make that absolutely clear -- our team wants a turn split between us for the following turns.

If you think we'd gain any unfair advantage by moving first on T79, then please play first instead.

I should also note that Mardoc said the situation didn't warrant a reload, and I think he can judge it better. EDIT: Added this sentence before I sent it off. To be absolutely sure not to coax him into anything.

Cheers,
Coeur

For the record, we can settle X8 on T83 (land on T82) if we road a certain tile. From what I've counted, the half-turn would make a difference if he whips the settler in Harmondale on either of the next two turns, as might his galley moves vs. our own galley(s?) by that point.

That's probably better-calculated when we reach that point where we could strike at his galley, though. Etc.

[Bacchus]

If you think we'd gain any unfair advantage by moving first on T79, then please play first instead.

This is more of a life thing, than a Civ thing, but making caveats like this generally invites trouble, rather than helps avoid it. If he thinks we've gained an unfair advantage, he'd raise such an issue himself, you can be sure. This is your letter, outlining your position, you should clearly state what you want or think is best, and leave it at that. Second-guessing what may or may not be convenient for the other party is a quick shortcut to a quagmire.

But anyway, hopefully we can move on without issue, this has taken up more posts than required anyway.

[Mardoc]

Why is that somehow onerous now? I am not even asking this rhetorically, I genuinely don't understand why suddenly we have to justify a request for sides to keep to an established split, previously it has always been that the side that wants to deviate from the split has to seek permission, or at least confirm that the split is no longer relevant.

95% of it is the word 'reload'.

The rest of it is that I don't see why the turn split was relevant in the first place - keep in mind that I'm skimming, not reading in detail. Why can't he refrain from double-moving on any turn where he's moving a settler or attack force, instead of maintaining a split always and forever as long as you're neighbors?

I guess it's fundamentally that you're arguing procedure and I'm looking for the object-level harm.

[Coeurva]

Mardoc --

Savant has a chariot in striking range of our warrior. He has upheld a turn split from ~T70 to T77, always moving second, which he himself initiated, by moving said chariot within constant striking range of our cities. He suddenly dropped this turn split on T78, moving first, after settling Fountain Head on T77. We can attack that city with a chariot off a galley. It has one warrior inside, and an uncovered worker next to it.

The tangible effect is that if he moves first on T79, he gets one extra turn to reinforce Fountain Head -- or cover the worker, which we could in fact capture on T79 if the turn-split had been upheld -- with any unit he might happen to have nearby, before we can legally attack the city. There's also the possibility of him outracing our settler over the next 5t, but since we don't know where/if he has any more settlers running about, or in production, we cannot say anything about whether he gained an advantage there.

Whether we wish to attack said city is irrelevant, since the threat of attacking the city is what will be important. Same for sniping the worker. It allows him to found his city a bit earlier without as much immediate protection, which improves the farm 1t sooner, which gets the barracks whipped 1t sooner, and so on...

But as I've said, I'm fine either way, because I cannot at all make my point to Savant without giving anything away. (Bacchus has already noted where I effectively did that.)

EDIT: I should also note that I didn't initially notice that Savant unexpectedly playing T78 first means that we cannot raze Fountain Head or capture its worker on T79. That only dawned on me later. Originally I had just noted that it complicates our observation of Harmondale.