Posts: 128
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2009
Krill, how do you feel about Speakers suggestion in the IT thread?
Btw, I think that the word hate is a way too strong word to use in situations like this! I hope it will never get that far even when people invest a lot of time and effort into the games I understand passion and anger (and venting when frustrated) and I'd expect that from people here as I think everyone who writes reports in this forum are highly passionate about Civ
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
- Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi, 1869-1948.
Posts: 23,493
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that Spullla moved the main stacks up at the end of the turn, after reviewing that it isn't posted anywhere, I think that agreement would be acceptable all round. Just need confirmation that the mainstacks were moved before the 2 hour mark.
Sorry kinda busy, RBPB3 and PBEM2 and this all seemed to hit shit street at the exact same time. I have absolutely no idea why this always happens, in unrelated games, but it makes for some seriously busy patches.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
Going by what was reported in Spullla's thread, they made all of their moves (moving up the main stacks and capturing two cities) shortly after the war declaration, with around 4 hours remaining on the timer. The only moves they made after that was to unload those 4 units close to the end of the turn.
(If they had moved everything near the end of the turn, then surely they would have waited until then to declare war as well).
Posts: 4,769
Threads: 25
Joined: Sep 2006
To be fair; unless someone contacts him, A4L is justfied in giving up. He really can't do anything to win the game. So he might as well help out as much as possible. Doing this makes him more likely to get more allies in new games.
Posts: 4,769
Threads: 25
Joined: Sep 2006
Here's a random thought. Dantski's goal is not to win--but to get his civ to the end of the game. This expalins a lot of his actions. Do think just gettting your civ to the end of the game should be a goal at all? Or you think your civ is just a tool for you to use?
I think Dantski is very justfied in just trying to get his civ to the end of the game--winning would be very hard! The best solution however is to just get better so you are not put into situations like this in the first place...
EDIT
Twinkletoes89 Wrote:I doubt it. They are just making as much of a threat as they can to sway the ruling.
but if they want to resign over this, then let them. Its their loss.
I guess this turned out to be true.
Posts: 128
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2009
I think their threat of resigning was simply venting their frustrations... Understandable reaction I'd say and they're not the only ones to have done so (e.g. Slaze )
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
- Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi, 1869-1948.
Posts: 6,471
Threads: 63
Joined: Sep 2006
Krill Wrote:Compared to the week long pause from RBPB3?
I do appreciate you supporting Byzantium about the "forcing us not to slave" issue pre-Krill-as-game-admin, but I don't think the quoted text is called for. I'll say it another 100 times even if it convinces no one - just because someone doesn't like rules doesn't mean they're bad. I was afk for about 16 hours today and came home to 2 pages of IT thread fighting, 2 pages of S+S thread fighting, and 5 pages of lurker thread fighting. While I support Krill's ruling no matter what it is, since after all the teams voted for him, I think the controversy in this game is just as bad as in RBP3.
Posts: 23,493
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
sunrise089 Wrote:I do appreciate you supporting Byzantium about the "forcing us not to slave" issue pre-Krill-as-game-admin, but I don't think the quoted text is called for. I'll say it another 100 times even if it convinces no one - just because someone doesn't like rules doesn't mean they're bad. I was afk for about 16 hours today and came home to 2 pages of IT thread fighting, 2 pages of S+S thread fighting, and 5 pages of lurker thread fighting. While I support Krill's ruling no matter what it is, since after all the teams voted for him, I think the controversy in this game is just as bad as in RBP3.
The difference is that there is an admin here and not in PB3, so this game got sorted a lot quicker. Otherwise yeah, not a lot of difference, other than this game didn't rely on interpretation of the rules - this exact situation was described and answered in them. That level of detail is critical.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
Posts: 4,138
Threads: 54
Joined: Dec 2009
Quick question: Is Sullla's suggestion of upgrading Dantski's muskets and gifting them back within the rules?
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 30
Joined: Apr 2009
I don't see why not; units can be gifted freely as long as they're not being used for Heroic Epic purposes. If Dantski wants to pay the full freight for upgrading the muskets, walk them into Sullla's territory, gift them, have them upgrade & sit there for a turn, and then come back, he's welcome to it: He'd be paying a pretty steep price for the rifles.
The city gifting was abusable because it let each of several team members use their traits for half-cost buildings, not to mention the power of passing certain wonders around (MoM being the most absurdly abusable of all of them).
|