[ NO PLAYERS ] French Vanilla is the best Vanilla Icecream

[Old Harry]

If noble expects the others to keep a strict 4-way split I don't think it matters which side Amicalola is on. And he gets to decide since he's declaring war...

[Cornflakes]

I have started and deleted about 5 posts over the last couple days. I think my thoughts can be condensed to: I play Civ for fun, I enjoy the journey (planning and strategy) more than the destination (finishing as the winner). I do not find stress fun, and therefore would rather take disadvantage in game in order for a smoother play. I have stated in several past games that I prefer playing first in turn order despite the known whip disadvantage in game. I like the being able to log in as soon as the turn rolls without having to wait on another player. I do not agree that a player should intentionally wait until the last minute in order to take 2nd half (unless of course they are required to wait because it would be a double move ... but in that case I do not think the should intentionally hold the previous turn in order to claim 2nd half). I don’t have a problem with someone waiting until late in the timer if that fits their normal play window, or even with someone waiting for a couple hours.

The etiquette thread even addresses this in #1.

1. Play your turn as soon as you can. A fast turn pace is a happy turn pace.

One more thought: Simultaneous mode is a very different play mode than sequential. Rules are put in place to limit the most egregious exploits, but ultimately if you want to guarantee a sequential turn order, the ability to whip and complete units each turn before your rival moves, and full flexibility to reconnect resources and complete units with resources before they get pillaged ... then play sequential. By choosing simultaneous we intentionally trade some of the above for a faster turn pace. But ultimately this only works if players are willing to accept these trade-offs.

[Cornflakes]

The specific question at hand is how can any player take the second half, without revealing this to the other side, while also not playing clock games, if the other side is late to the turn?

Or just play your turn in the first half and move on with the game.

[The Black Sword]

Yeah in Amica's spot I'm pretty sure I would have just played at my usual time.

In my mind, the major use case for the 'attacker chooses turn split' guideline is the following:

Both players are playing when is convenient, usually Player 1 is playing first, Player 2 is playing 2nd. Player 2 intends to attack player 1 on turn 100. As usual he plays 2nd on T99 and logs out. When his usual timeslot comes up Player 1 hasn't played yet. If P2 plays as usual then he can't attack until next turn, which is a pretty big disadvantage. So in this situation, the attacker can break the usual 'play ASAP' rule and wait for P1.

If the scenario is the other way around, this is not an issue. P1 intends to attack on T100 and he usually players before P2. This occurs on T99, P1 plays before P2. If his usual turn comes around on T100 and P2 has not played, he should just play and attack. If P2 has played an unusually fast turn, then P1 takes the 2nd turn spot.

[Charriu]

I have started and deleted about 5 posts over the last couple days. I think my thoughts can be condensed to: I play Civ for fun, I enjoy the journey (planning and strategy) more than the destination (finishing as the winner).

That's also what I want from a game here and I agree with all you posted. I too would have played before Noble.

My question in Noble's thread was pure curiosity about how Serdoa would handle the situation in my question.

[Charriu]

I also think that the root of the current turn split issues is a divide in the player community between players like cornflakes and players with opposite views.

[superdeath]

I think I'm going to offer peace. There are three ways Noble can look at it, broadly speaking:

1) "This peace gives me the chance to attack Gira more freely, and time to abuse my GNP lead even more! I'll take it."

2) "This war hurts Amica a lot more than it hurts me, so I'm going to stay in it."

3) "Fuck Amica, I'm annoyed about before, sick of this tense border, and I'm stronger than him. I'm going to stay at war." (I actually think this might be the most likely)

So I don't think there's a high chance of peace, but I think it's worth it for us to try. I am thinking about offering peace next turn instead of this turn, to give me 1 more turn to work on my eco stuff before he can attack again.

I think this is the moment that Noble officially wins this pitboss. Giving your strong neighbor 10 free turns to get more land? Its unlikely (imo) that anyone is going to attack anyone other than Noble at this point because that INSTANTLY gives him the win. Dogpile or concede is how i see this playing out. Thoughts?

[Charriu]

So Amicalola asks for a concession. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we would need to find out if the following players are willing to concede:

- civac
- Mjmd
- Gira

[superdeath]

Gira/Civac i believe have said they concede... Mjmd only hold out?

[superdeath]

Seems Mjmd really wants to avoid any kind of "yeah, ill concede" kinda talks.. Hmm, im not seeing any possible way for Noble to NOT win this. Do lurkers have the right to call it? Can anyone fault the logic?