Chairmen NobleHelium and Gaspar Demand Your Presence in the Collective

[Gaspar]

Short report here mostly because we talked about it all. I did not in fact decide to send any coded messages to our friends in Korea. Primarily because our man in [strike]Amsterdam[/strike] Tricycle Tie saw this:



Appreciate Speaker taking time out of his busy schedule to help out there. Anyway, clearly our good buddies Novice and SevenSpirits have thoughts on their mind other than making spoons or whatever that 7 for 7 trade was supposed to show. That's 8 Knights that can be staged to hit Watcher's Eye on the first turn the treaty expires. We microed to get 2 more LBs in there, which will leave the garrison there looking thusly (add the LB that gets chopped next turn in your mind.)



That should be enough hold providing there aren't a lot more Knights coming this way since the city is across a river and behind walls. Anyway, vision of those Knights prompted Noble to want to send this alternate AI diplo to Korea:

In other news, the recent discovery of Astronomy has resulted in a boom in the Collective Navy:



If only we had anything remotely threatening to staff them.

That's yer lot for this turn. Civil Service in, Paper and Printing Press next. Construction... never.



Any questions?

[NobleHelium]

I just thought this was hilarious.

[Ceiliazul]

Hilarious post, Gaspar!

On the other hand, there is NOTHING funny about MREs. Yuck. :neenernee

[Gaspar]

After our good friend mackoti held the previous turn for a day, we get this:



Its unfortunate we're so backward, because it might be time to get all Kuro on these guys. Or more succinctly:



Sadly, the game situation is more like this...

[Gaspar]

So quick question for the lurkers:

N7 wardec'd us and took the city of Magical Talents on T97. They then offered white peace, which we accepted on T98. (N7 is last in turn order, we are first.) It is currently T108, so we have been at peace for 10 full turns. Due to the issues with reconciling MP in a turn-based game, we are still bound by treaty on this turn. We do now, however have the ability to cancel the deal and declare war, but we can only do so by going to the "deals" page and clicking on it to cancel. This has come up a few times before and I believe there are differing opinions. Noble believes we are 100% justified in doing so. I am largely agnostic but would prefer to avoid ridiculous drama in the tech thread.

We basically have 1t window to attack and capture a city of N7s. They just revolted Nationhood and would be able to draft muskets which would probably be enough to stall our amphibious attack with crappy, outdated units. So it is relevant. They also declared on mackoti this turn though I'm not sure much was accomplished.

What say you lurkers? I guess two questions.

For the dedicated lurkers, would you risk the attack and the potential Knight horde we'll see incoming?

For ALL lurkers, do you find such actions to be kosher?

[NobleHelium]

Relevant case law (LOL) from 20.

I believe the consensus per 23 was that people earlier in turn order should not be cancelling peace treaties just because they can. Although I don't think peace treaties expire correctly by themselves - they don't seem to take into account who proposed the treaty and who accepted it, i.e. who got the first turn of being unable to attack.

mh proposed the treaty and I accepted it, and mh declared war first last time...I'm pretty sure which ever way you dice it I'm not in the wrong here.

Regarding my post here, I had noticed (but wasn't totally sure) that the game does not cancel the treaty at the right time if the accepting party is earlier in turn earlier. The conclusion in 23 was that the game always cancels the treaty at the correct time, but that's because that's what Seven said at the time and everyone took his word for it. Krill demonstrated otherwise in 20, and I noticed this in our earlier treaty with N7 (when we killed their scout for experience and they proposed peace a few turns later). Seven also posted in Krill's thread three posts after the quoted Krill post, so he must be aware of this and did not say anything.

So I think if we choose to attack it is 100% legitimate. I'm not sure if we want to attack though.

[fluffyflyingpig]

You've been at peace 10 turns. Go bash some heads!

Globally lurking, no clue if it makes sense strategically or not, but blood is good!

[Gaspar]

Frigging spaceman, bumping us off the front page when we need lurker answers.

[Ceiliazul]

You've been at peace 10 turns. Go bash some heads!

To clarify: N7 had the option of attacking on t97 before they offered peace. They got the last attack in the previous battle, I believe you are justified in getting the first attack in this battle. Like Fluffy said, this is not a judgement of whether you should, but I think you're within rights to do so.

[NobleHelium]

Last chance for lurker comments before we play the turn...