[SPOILERS] Scooticator and Pindooter give a sporting try

[Krill]

I agree with Pin FWIW

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

I also agree because in that case he would likewise be able to move from a war footing back to economy.

[SevenSpirits]

All I have are more questions.

* Would accepting the deal have been allowed? After all, you already played before. Maybe you shouldn't accept the deal until it's your turn again.
* Would accepting the deal and then switching builds based on that have been allowed?
* Is it OK for Bacchus to log in this turn and accept your deal?
* If so, could you THEN log in again and switch builds?
* What if you had offered to trade all your metals away to someone when you played your turn, and they accepted after Bacchus played - would it be OK to put new builds in your cities that can no longer build metal units?
* If Bacchus had offered a cease fire and you accepted it, under what circumstances could you declare war on him again later in the same turn?

[NobleHelium]

Answer to all of those: simultaneous games are dumb.

[pindicator]

Hmmmm... I'll follow Brick's pic and try to answer Seven's questions:

* Would accepting the deal have been allowed? After all, you already played before. Maybe you shouldn't accept the deal until it's your turn again.

We didn't know we were even at war until we logged in again. No cities changed hands, so we couldn't have known from civ stats. I don't think accepting the deal would be a bad thing for either party.

That said, we didn't initially accept the deal because we didn't know what the situation was. We declined the deal, discussed what had happened, and then re-offered. (In fact, scooter was in the game and I thought he was talking about the turn like it was t170, not realizing we were still on t169. It wasn't until I saw a screenshot that I realized we hadn't rolled the turn yet, )

* Would accepting the deal and then switching builds based on that have been allowed?

I think so. Once the war is over the split is ended.

* Is it OK for Bacchus to log in this turn and accept your deal?

Again, I think this is fair.

* If so, could you THEN log in again and switch builds?

Here is where I think we would be in the right to change builds.

* What if you had offered to trade all your metals away to someone when you played your turn, and they accepted after Bacchus played - would it be OK to put new builds in your cities that can no longer build metal units?

I don't think it would be okay to change builds here.

* If Bacchus had offered a cease fire and you accepted it, under what circumstances could you declare war on him again later in the same turn?

I'm trying to think of a strategic or practical instance where one would do this. What's the difference between declining the cease fire and accepting then breaking in the same turn? Does it cause units to teleport?

[NobleHelium]

Signing the cease fire teleports units, yes.

[pindicator]

Then I would say once war is re-declared the war split is reinstated, and if you have already played a half of a war split that turn you can't play a second.

If you've moved your armies and offered a cease fire, know that you shouldn't make that offer and expect it to be taken -- in other words, if you leave your armies in a position to be destroyed it's the risk you're taking.

[scooter]

Heh, I took Seven's questions as implying that turn splits are always a mess. Anyway, I look at turn splits to be more about not double moving (which we're clearly not doing here) than being about a perfect split, which is why I didn't see any harm in it. However, I won't complain about just switching the builds back for this turn so there's no doubt at all.

[SevenSpirits]

Well, my pitboss experience consists of PB7, so I certainly don't claim to have the answers. And they are semi-serious questions, in that I am playing in PB16 and don't want to do anything undesired there.

In your answers, Pindicator, I don't understand why it's OK to do some things (diplo) when it's not your part of the split, but not other things (like changing builds or tiles worked).

[Cyneheard]

Heh, I took Seven's questions as implying that turn splits are always a mess. Anyway, I look at turn splits to be more about not double moving (which we're clearly not doing here) than being about a perfect split, which is why I didn't see any harm in it. However, I won't complain about just switching the builds back for this turn so there's no doubt at all.

I am in this camp, too - I don't see how changing builds out-of-split is a big deal, especially given the lack of formal declarations of turn splits and what not.