November 3rd, 2009, 15:19
Posts: 1,285
Threads: 2
Joined: Jun 2009
Dreylin Wrote:Well I have to confirm with Kalin our team vote[...]
I endorse what Dreylin said, so our team vote is as stated by him.
Kalin
November 3rd, 2009, 15:21
Posts: 1,027
Threads: 14
Joined: Sep 2009
My vote is (obviously)
1. Yes to the reload. Obviously attributing malice or bad faith isn't really necessary to state. Even if it was accidental or due to misunderstanding, it's still a valid reason to reload.
2. Yes.
Players shall make an attempt to maintain a civ-wide turn order in times of war or other competitive movement (settlers in neutral territory).
If you are unable to complete your turn in the allotted time, you should attempt to contact the other party to negotiate a fair resolution.
Upon pushing End-Turn, your turn is considered over and the 2nd player in the war order has the right to login and play.
Once the 2nd player has logged in, the first player shouldn't be logging back in (especially to move units or change build orders) until the new turn begins either.
If the turn flips while you are logged in (as the 2nd player), you are expected to take no actions before logging out and giving the opportunity to play to the first player. No movement, promotions, or even clicking unit orders like intercept or sentry, after the turn has flipped.
November 3rd, 2009, 15:26
Posts: 879
Threads: 3
Joined: Jul 2008
Well my votes would be.
1) yes I think it was technicaly legal but not within the spirit of the double move rule
2) Yes with the addition that since the window as short that every effort be made to allow the other person to take thier slot (ie not moving at 9hrs 1min) and that if the person with the first window has moved and ended turn the 2nd person is free to move (just to keep turns moving  )
November 3rd, 2009, 15:27
Posts: 1,027
Threads: 14
Joined: Sep 2009
sunrise089 Wrote:But in this case the second group of units didn't do any actions during the first turn, right?
No, the units on the boat moved into attack range during T125.
T125 I moved
T125, ds moved the unit (that would ultimately take the city)
T126, ds captured the city (1 minute into the turn)
I had no opportunity to counter the movement of the units on the boat.
I'm off to work. I may get a long lunch in about 3 hours, in which case I'll come home. I may not get a lunch at all (or a 5minute one), in which case I'll be home in 12-14hours.
November 3rd, 2009, 15:35
Posts: 614
Threads: 2
Joined: Oct 2005
Would it matter if DSP moved all his units on turn 125 and attacked on turn 126. Would you be able to hold the city then? It seems he made a calculation error in brining sufficient units.....
Elkad Wrote:No, the units on the boat moved into attack range during T125.
T125 I moved
T125, ds moved the unit (that would ultimately take the city)
T126, ds captured the city (1 minute into the turn)
I had no opportunity to counter the movement of the units on the boat.
Mwin
November 3rd, 2009, 18:26
Posts: 1,027
Threads: 14
Joined: Sep 2009
MWIN Wrote:Would it matter if DSP moved all his units on turn 125 and attacked on turn 126. Would you be able to hold the city then? It seems he made a calculation error in brining sufficient units.....
Without revealing the disposition of my other forces.... If nothing else, the longbow that survived would have earned a promotion. Which would both bump it to CG2 and heal it significantly. Even if I lost the city anyway, it might kill one more unit first, especially vs an amphibious assault.
I didn't even look around when I logged in, much less move any units, so I don't know what he brought. I saw the city was gone, checked the logs, realized I'd been doubled, posted here and logged out.
November 3rd, 2009, 18:46
Posts: 7,548
Threads: 63
Joined: Dec 2005
So are we pausing till we get a ruling on this?
As for the other war, it is my understanding that Imhotep moved first, then I moved my units and then shadyforce declared war and moved. Is that an agreeable turn order? shadyforce did mention to me that he was hoping to be able to move with Imhotep and suggested that possibly for subsequent moves Imhotep might move after me, but I have not heard any concrete proposals about that yet.
November 3rd, 2009, 19:18
Posts: 514
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2006
You said you started moving units but then you logged out and had not hit end turn when I declared and moved my units. There was no combat from anyone on this turn anyway so there is still time to work out the turn order.
November 3rd, 2009, 19:29
Posts: 7,548
Threads: 63
Joined: Dec 2005
shadyforce Wrote:You said you started moving units but then you logged out and had not hit end turn when I declared and moved my units. There was no combat from anyone on this turn anyway so there is still time to work out the turn order.
After I got the email from Imhotep, I moved all my units in the battlefront. I did not end turn because I still had a few builds to adjust and such, which I did just now.
November 3rd, 2009, 19:47
Posts: 813
Threads: 30
Joined: Oct 2012
Well I'll break the norm and vote no to both.
1) dsp didn't break the rules and it's fairly obvious it was not in bad faith. There's no reason he should be punished and Elk should get a second chance when the rules, by their wording, were not broken and he obviously was not trying to game the system.
2) The rules seem clear as they are to me, don't move a stack of units twice in a row without an acceptable time frame for the other to react to that stack (provided their in a conflict zone). A split of 9/9 seems good but that's a short amount of time and it could be very easy for somebody to be locked into taking the half (or 3rd when more people get in wars) of a turn making it very easy to miss without the flexibility to shift your move time.
The only thing I would like to see is get rid of any 'good faith' wording in rules because nobody will ever agree on that when a debate arises. The person who lost a city will always be upset and the person who took it will always be fine with it and nobody else can know their motives.
|
