I think Byzantine may have made some tactical miscalculations in their war planning (although this was somewhat related to their confusion about which turn the chariots were able to attack in).
- Even if they couldn't find out from the other team or from civstats the turn the chariots attacked in, I think it should be in the in-game event-log which year war was declared? And since athlete/kalin were keen to negotiate a turn-order/logistics-arrangement, it should have been possible to find out this information from them.
- They decided to put one turn into an archer rather than whipping a warrior from scratch. Since the chariots could attack immediately the next turn, then putting one turn into an archer wasn't much use. The way the battles worked in the end, then the city was taken by the last chariot. So one extra unit (even just a warrior) that turn would have saved the city for one turn. Four warriors vs. four chariots would have had reasonable chances for one warrior to survive, and save the city for a turn.
- Some of their calculations of battle probabilities seemed to be wrong to me. They did a calculation of the chances of the city surviving in a battle of 4 chariots attacking 4 warriors. The input to the calculation is that a chariot attacking a warrior has 70% chance of succeeding. So the chance of the entire attack succeeding is (0.7)^4=25%. But their calculation was that the chance of the city holding was (0.7)^4=25%, whereas actually, the chance of their city holding was (1-(0.7)^4)=75%. I wonder if this miscalculation may have affected their choice to put a turn into an archer rather than whip a warrior from scratch. If they had whipped a warrior from scratch, then they would have had 75% chance of holding the city for one turn (not sure what would have happened after that though).
- It seems that the MP generals were away IRL, and that the military defence was left to the less expert players. In the end, RL does take priority, as it should, but, (with no suggestions of blame intended) it seems like the timing of the attack wrt RL things was a bad stroke of luck for them.
I hope that the players can keep their differences in-game. After the initial emotional reactions, then I have every hope that they will do.
It seems that Athlete/Kalin's tactical subterfuges may risk a diplomatic penalty from some of the other players. Following the logic in their thread, then I do actually think that they acted with honor (their subterfuges were in reaction to fairly equally egrarious subterfuges - I think that rego/Sunrise/darrelljs aggressive city placement was a very badly judged move, not really in accordance in practical terms with their professed diplomacy). It remains to be seen whether Athlete/Kalin will successfully manage (or even prioritize) arguing their case with the other players.
- Even if they couldn't find out from the other team or from civstats the turn the chariots attacked in, I think it should be in the in-game event-log which year war was declared? And since athlete/kalin were keen to negotiate a turn-order/logistics-arrangement, it should have been possible to find out this information from them.
- They decided to put one turn into an archer rather than whipping a warrior from scratch. Since the chariots could attack immediately the next turn, then putting one turn into an archer wasn't much use. The way the battles worked in the end, then the city was taken by the last chariot. So one extra unit (even just a warrior) that turn would have saved the city for one turn. Four warriors vs. four chariots would have had reasonable chances for one warrior to survive, and save the city for a turn.
- Some of their calculations of battle probabilities seemed to be wrong to me. They did a calculation of the chances of the city surviving in a battle of 4 chariots attacking 4 warriors. The input to the calculation is that a chariot attacking a warrior has 70% chance of succeeding. So the chance of the entire attack succeeding is (0.7)^4=25%. But their calculation was that the chance of the city holding was (0.7)^4=25%, whereas actually, the chance of their city holding was (1-(0.7)^4)=75%. I wonder if this miscalculation may have affected their choice to put a turn into an archer rather than whip a warrior from scratch. If they had whipped a warrior from scratch, then they would have had 75% chance of holding the city for one turn (not sure what would have happened after that though).
- It seems that the MP generals were away IRL, and that the military defence was left to the less expert players. In the end, RL does take priority, as it should, but, (with no suggestions of blame intended) it seems like the timing of the attack wrt RL things was a bad stroke of luck for them.
I hope that the players can keep their differences in-game. After the initial emotional reactions, then I have every hope that they will do.
It seems that Athlete/Kalin's tactical subterfuges may risk a diplomatic penalty from some of the other players. Following the logic in their thread, then I do actually think that they acted with honor (their subterfuges were in reaction to fairly equally egrarious subterfuges - I think that rego/Sunrise/darrelljs aggressive city placement was a very badly judged move, not really in accordance in practical terms with their professed diplomacy). It remains to be seen whether Athlete/Kalin will successfully manage (or even prioritize) arguing their case with the other players.
) 
as things stand, if jowy/dantski gang up on them, they will need to come up with something creative/deceptive to catch spullla off guard with something they can't handle (as opposed to an ineffective trickle of units)
