Posts: 5,455
Threads: 18
Joined: Jul 2011
What relevance is this to me? I haven't scanned the entire map to see who got screwed out of resources. I noticed OH/Fin lacked a critical resource and were the only relevant civ who would need it for a space race. I don't see how this is related in any way to providing a critical GA when a player is at the cusp of achieving a CV and may have difficulty producing the necessary GA for a bomb. Is this like saying that the map should have given TBS an extra great artist because he needs it to win? Very different thing than a player trying to cover for bad resource allocation.
And what this has to do with someone else not having coal I don't get, nor how this is somehow something that is equivalent to me trying to be sporting by covering up a mapmaker's error. I don't have the context you may have as a lurker so speak plainly. I have enough to worry about managing my own empire. I am sure plenty of civs got hosed on this or that resource.
And assuming that someone got hosed out of a critical strategic resource and I never noticed it, so what? Lurkers have plenty of means of solving problems. Because someone didn't get coal and OH/Fin are getting aluminum by a gracious competitor who doesn't want a win based on mapmaker neglect and lurker apathy (you guys reviewed the map, right?) means that it is ok for yet another competitor to provide the very thing, the extremely valuable, hard to get thing, needed to achieve victory? No. Just no. This is horseshit. Play to win. Where is the line? Can he gift units to kingmake? Has he? There is a line in fair play and this crosses it. Not defending borders is one thing. That can be mutually beneficial. But this? It expedites losing. Yes, that may be desirable for an individual but it fucks the game. When you don't want to play anymore, sod off. Don't throw the game just to get it to end.
Or did you mean something else?
