[PB64] Lurking Randomly

[Psillycyber]

If neither will accept a coinflip, my King Solomon solution would be: neither gets the city spot. The Threemosabe city spot and the 1st ring around it receive radioactive fallout on the tiles via scenario editor. Then the game moves on. Edit: Maybe also delete each of their Threemosabe settlers and headcanon that the angry lurker gods nuked both of them, so that we don't just end up with another settler race in the tundra Or just establish a turnsplit going forward as well.

I feel like that would be fitting thematically, and fair in a way.

The way I see it, both made strategic blunders: Nauf should have not offered peace, and Amica should have requested a peacetime turnsplit on T187/188 when he settled Fever Dream, saw that Nauf still had an unused settler that would logically try to settle elsewhere, and knew that he, Amica, had another settler on the way to a contested spot.

[Mjmd]

Can you settle on radioactive fallout? I'm assuming not?

Lurker launched nukes seem like a good solution.

I agree btw Cornflakes, fully approve of dice rolls in these situations.

[Psillycyber]

Can you settle on radioactive fallout? I'm assuming not?

Lurker launched nukes seem like a good solution.

I agree btw Cornflakes, fully approve of dice rolls in these situations.

Alternatively, the tiles could be replaced by mountain peaks.  The lurker gods got angry and used Quake.  It's super effective!

Edit: alternatively, one could just add mountain peaks to only the city spot itself + the cultural tiles that Amica would have gained from settling the city. Amica would probably be pissed about losing the ivory that was already in the culture of Get To Heaven.

Edit edit: If cities can't be settled in fallout, then fallout would be better because it would do less to change potential attack paths. Or maybe, a bit of both: a mountain peak added to the Threemosabe spot itself, and fallout added to any cultural tiles that Amica would have gained from settling the city. I don't know...

Edit edit edit: Just anticipating how Nauf might react, I don't think he would be happy if Amica is able to settle any new cities in that zone because even a city surrounded by peaks and fallout will get trade route bonuses. So, the 3x2, or 6 tiles south of the Get to Heaven BFC would all need to be mountain peaked and/or given fallout. Whichever will prevent Amica from settling there.

Edit edit edit edit: And also maybe add a mountain peak just N of the city ruins site (the one spot already in Nauf's culture where Nauf could settle an additional city in the area). Neither side should be allowed to settle in this no-man's land.

The one innocent bystander who would get harmed by all of this would be Gavagai. His city would never be able to work the bananas. Sooo..........

The Final Solution to the PB64 Question: mountain peaks and/or fallout (whichever will prevent settlement) get added only to all tiles in the area where new city settlement is possible. So, that includes the Threemosabe spot, the spots 1W and 2W of it, and the spots 1E and 2E of it.

[El Grillo]

That would be unprecedented and probably cause the game to end on the spot.

[Mjmd]

I'm posting this here for obvious reasons of not wanting to set Amica off any further.

Amicalola
 I cannot understand why we are considering rewarding blatantly shitty behaviour (deliberate or not;

I've bolded and highlighted the relevant flaw. It isn't shitty behavior if it wasn't deliberate. Not only that we would then have to decide was Naufs first double move deliberate. Was Amica's double move after to settle Fevered Dreams deliberate and then the 2nd Nauf double move deliberate. There is added complexity if Nauf naturally double played the first time because he wasn't at war anymore. Then saw Amica double play and settle a city. Nauf thinks Amica deliberately double played and then he double plays on purpose. There is no way lurkers can or frankly should be expected go to do that. 

Does the rule reward double moves; absolutely. Do I hope it changes; absolutely. But even if it changes it will probably change to the solution of rolling a dice, which is where we've ended up....

[Mjmd]

We have two sides who utterly believe they are right and they got screwed over by the other side. I just want to lay down the timeline for Amica, because I can't see how lurkers are supposed to say for certain there was intent on Naufs side here.

Nauf played T186 to T187. T186 Nauf plays and then Gav rolks the turn. An hour from when Nauf last played he gets on again. To me it is very reasonable Nauf may still have been around and then played another turn. Should lurkers say "well he double played on purpose". Of course not. I've been sitting at my computer when turn rolled plenty of times and gotten the notification on my phone. 

T188 to 189 Gav rolls the turn again. Nauf double plays but this time he doesn't play for 7 hours after the turn rolls. Am I really supposed to say that was on purpose that he double played. That isn't even watching for the turn roll kind of logging in or caring when you get the notification. If you were trying to maliciously double play for advantage surely it would be way way less than 7 hours. 


I hate to even write this but to me it looks way more suspicious from Nauf looking at Amica's logins and I understand why he was upset. T187 Amica logs in mid turn and doesn't end. Then Amica logs in way later and ends the turn. Should lurkers have to say "obviously double played for advantage". Obviously not. Pin in PB65 just had a situation where he had to walk away and Cornflakes wisely asked before ending his turn for him. Amica then directly rolls T189 to T190. In a game with 6 people are lurkers supposed to say that was on purpose no. I'm getting awfully close to double playing PB66 right now, but I can't get to my civ computer.

[Kaiser]

We have two sides who utterly believe they are right and they got screwed over by the other side. I just want to lay down the timeline for Amica, because I can't see how lurkers are supposed to say for certain there was intent on Naufs side here.

I still disagree with the interpretation that Amica should have known that he was in a settling race, while Nauf could have not known and so was not obliged to keep the turn split. I might be the minority, but you are basically stating that Amica knew and there was reason for doubt if Nauf knew while Amicas actions and words show that he likely did not realize that it was this close and Naufs actions at least give him an undue advantage (assuming he did not know)

Double playing is not the issue, double playing and gaining an advantage and then further enforcing it via the lurkers is the issue. (even if it is unintentional)
Please note that Nauf does not know my argument and is not aware that him enforcing this decision is possibly damaging the enjoyment/willingness of some people playing Civ4 PitBoss on RB

The reason why this example is so drastic in my eyes is because it is so obvious where nauf gets the advantage. 
- if there would be an established turn order, it would be Amica -> Nauf due to the war until T185 and T186
- if the turn order was established, Nauf would not be able to settle Feverdream and only be able to settle Threemosabe if settling latest T189 (for example as Miguelito pointed out by not trying to settle feverdream)
- by double moving, Nauf is able to settle a city he would not have gotten otherwise
- by complaining about Amica reversing to the original turn order by double moving back, Nauf is asking the lurkers to take a decision (coin flip) on him gaining this advantage or not
- Amica is essentially being punished for not establishing a turn order after Nauf double played either T187 or T189 (again I argue him double playing back is essentially this, but it looks like I am alone with that interpretation. It needs to be clarified that the only way to do this correctly is by writing a PM and holding the turn until the other player has acknowledged)

In the end, at least I am convinced that in this scenario the only person screwed over is Amica and he is and should be at a minimum annoyed by this behaviour and the lurker decision to flip a coin. It is good that the game is rolling again, I hope Amica will keep his morale up despite this

[Miguelito]

Fwiw Kaiser I largely agree with you, but bowed to the perceived majority. I also didn't have the energy to fight this through in the way that you have, and then tried to just find a solution that would keep the game going. I just hope we achieved that.

Naufragar is very likely to win either way,

Amica and his world-leading empire in an extended golden age is going to be absolutely terrifying.

At least this keeps on giving

[Kaiser]

Thanks to my parental leave, I had some spare time during baby naps to spend on the forum. I also feel that his is a really big issue and borderline abusive of the existing rules which could potentially threaten future games and thus the great enjoyment I have in lurking these.

@thrawn
I really like the Old world approach, you can start a network game to get the early game done and then go to PBEM once it gets more time intesive

[Mjmd]

We have two sides who utterly believe they are right and they got screwed over by the other side. I just want to lay down the timeline for Amica, because I can't see how lurkers are supposed to say for certain there was intent on Naufs side here.

I still disagree with the interpretation that Amica should have known that he was in a settling race, while Nauf could have not known and so was not obliged to keep the turn split. I might be the minority, but you are basically stating that Amica knew and there was reason for doubt if Nauf knew while Amicas actions and words show that he likely did not realize that it was this close and Naufs actions at least give him an undue advantage (assuming he did not know)

Nauf played 7 hours after turn roll and 12 hours after he had last played. Even if lurkers were required to make intent kind of decisions (which we aren't and shouldn't), to my eye it just looks like he was playing his turn. He hadn't seen a settler and he hadn't received a PM for turn split.

Amica KNEW about Naufs settler and saw the workers. I think people are confusing how we want the rules to be with how they are. Sure there SHOULD be a rule that after a war the turn split can be extended. BUT THERE ISN'T!!!! We can't make a ruling on a non existent rule. I'm confused why anyone is even suggesting we do so. Speaking of which, I'm going to give it 3 days and then post in the etiquette thread about changing the rules.