Seems to me like Spullla's main motivation for doing the GM double-move may have been the sweet irony of using a trade mission to Athlete to upgrade troops for conquering him. After all, they do carry a grudge against him at this point (at least in-game). As such, I think their move was more aimed at screwing him over in particular than it was at gaining an advantage over the other players in general.
I wonder if Gao with its Temple of Artemis could have been a good destination as well? Or is it too close to their capital? Anyone know the mechanics here? I wasn't convinced that Sullla had all the details right -- he only mentioned city size and distance as relevant factors.
In terms of playing "dishonourably" or "in bad faith" I certainly don't think Spullla are the worst offenders. Either way, I think the bottom line is that everybody has respected the rules, but they are always subject to interpretation and you cannot expect everybody to agree on their "intent" or "spirit" or what they say "between the lines". Also, there aren't many true allies in this game, and the players will take any advantage they can get. Everybody is looking out for #1 and playing to win (however unrealistic it might be), which IMHO is a good thing.
TBH I am much more shocked by the way certain civs have treated their "allies" and "honored" their deals than I am by the overall attitude to the rules. Besides, there is usually a large gray area between "exploiting the rules" and just being clever, thinking of tactics that others haven't considered.
I wonder if Gao with its Temple of Artemis could have been a good destination as well? Or is it too close to their capital? Anyone know the mechanics here? I wasn't convinced that Sullla had all the details right -- he only mentioned city size and distance as relevant factors.
In terms of playing "dishonourably" or "in bad faith" I certainly don't think Spullla are the worst offenders. Either way, I think the bottom line is that everybody has respected the rules, but they are always subject to interpretation and you cannot expect everybody to agree on their "intent" or "spirit" or what they say "between the lines". Also, there aren't many true allies in this game, and the players will take any advantage they can get. Everybody is looking out for #1 and playing to win (however unrealistic it might be), which IMHO is a good thing.
TBH I am much more shocked by the way certain civs have treated their "allies" and "honored" their deals than I am by the overall attitude to the rules. Besides, there is usually a large gray area between "exploiting the rules" and just being clever, thinking of tactics that others haven't considered.