It seems that there are still some ambiguities about the rule in question, especially what exactly it means and which actions are covered and maybe even more importantly why those have to be covered.
In order to get everyone to the same understanding and hopefully be able to find a solution to this issue let me first start with what it means and which actions are covered:
This rule means basically that players move sequentially in war. This is reflected by the turn split rule if two parties are at war which each other (12 hours for both). If now a third party joins one side in the war it also has to move sequentially with the other. To prevent having to split up the turn in up to as many parts as players are in the game (here: 3 turns with each 8 hours) parties on the same side are put into the same 12 hours part. Though still the rule about sequentially turns applies.
This rule covers all ingame actions which can be done by the player and do effect war.
For example: moving in a contested city, drafting or whipping defenders, gifting gold which is used for upgrades of troops which are actively participating in a war, gifting of cities in a contested zone, ...
Now lets move to why this rule is in place. First, if we want to have teams move sequentially, why do we not split up the turn among all involved parties:
- To make warfare flow and keep it going. Otherwise as explained above turns would have to be split for 3 parties in 8 hours each, for 4 into 6 hours each, and so on. That would not keep the flow due to differing time-zones and restrictions when everyone is able to play. Basically we would need many pauses or an 48+hours turn timer.
And why do we not allow to interleave attacks:
- To make sure that neither the attackers nor the defenders do have an advantage solely because of the out-of-game fact that two players work together and are in the same timezone. By banning the interleaving of attacks, it allows anybody to work together and not get screwed over by forcing them to be present at an unreasonable time.
Hopefully it is now clear what this rule covers and why it is in place. If not or if you are unsure about something I wrote, please ask. Though please refrain from starting a discussion about the rule itself. No matter if you like the rule or not, it was (and still is) in place and every team knowed it and could play along it lines and expect anyone else in the game to do the same.
----------------------
Now, Speaker, Sullla, I also hope you can now see why breaking this rule really did affect substantially this part of the war.
First: HRE lost a stack which it would not have lost if the rule would have been followend.
Second: You were informed by a lurker only a short time after you posted that you have broken this rule. You decided to play on and I am really sure that was with no ill intent of you two but because you thought that all what was effected by the rule was one redlined defender and you wanted to keep the game going. Nevertheless this sets a bad example. If a rule is broken it should not be played on, ignoring it, but at least the others should be informed about what happened and it should be clarified with them how to proceed.
This did not happen here and thus led to this mess which we try to clean up now. As nobody wants to reload this has to result in some punishment for the rule breaking. Surely I can understand that you are not happy with it but try to put yourself in HRE's shoes. I hope you understand then that this is not about personal feelings but about being fair to anybody involved.
In order to get everyone to the same understanding and hopefully be able to find a solution to this issue let me first start with what it means and which actions are covered:
This rule means basically that players move sequentially in war. This is reflected by the turn split rule if two parties are at war which each other (12 hours for both). If now a third party joins one side in the war it also has to move sequentially with the other. To prevent having to split up the turn in up to as many parts as players are in the game (here: 3 turns with each 8 hours) parties on the same side are put into the same 12 hours part. Though still the rule about sequentially turns applies.
This rule covers all ingame actions which can be done by the player and do effect war.
For example: moving in a contested city, drafting or whipping defenders, gifting gold which is used for upgrades of troops which are actively participating in a war, gifting of cities in a contested zone, ...
Now lets move to why this rule is in place. First, if we want to have teams move sequentially, why do we not split up the turn among all involved parties:
- To make warfare flow and keep it going. Otherwise as explained above turns would have to be split for 3 parties in 8 hours each, for 4 into 6 hours each, and so on. That would not keep the flow due to differing time-zones and restrictions when everyone is able to play. Basically we would need many pauses or an 48+hours turn timer.
And why do we not allow to interleave attacks:
- To make sure that neither the attackers nor the defenders do have an advantage solely because of the out-of-game fact that two players work together and are in the same timezone. By banning the interleaving of attacks, it allows anybody to work together and not get screwed over by forcing them to be present at an unreasonable time.
Hopefully it is now clear what this rule covers and why it is in place. If not or if you are unsure about something I wrote, please ask. Though please refrain from starting a discussion about the rule itself. No matter if you like the rule or not, it was (and still is) in place and every team knowed it and could play along it lines and expect anyone else in the game to do the same.
----------------------
Now, Speaker, Sullla, I also hope you can now see why breaking this rule really did affect substantially this part of the war.
First: HRE lost a stack which it would not have lost if the rule would have been followend.
Second: You were informed by a lurker only a short time after you posted that you have broken this rule. You decided to play on and I am really sure that was with no ill intent of you two but because you thought that all what was effected by the rule was one redlined defender and you wanted to keep the game going. Nevertheless this sets a bad example. If a rule is broken it should not be played on, ignoring it, but at least the others should be informed about what happened and it should be clarified with them how to proceed.
This did not happen here and thus led to this mess which we try to clean up now. As nobody wants to reload this has to result in some punishment for the rule breaking. Surely I can understand that you are not happy with it but try to put yourself in HRE's shoes. I hope you understand then that this is not about personal feelings but about being fair to anybody involved.