[PB64] Lurking Randomly

[Gavagai]

Naufragar needs to understand that if he has a worse economy than a guy with no cottages while being Darius, he has only himself to blame.

[Mjmd]

He was relying on working coast to get a short term advantage. The problem is when that didn't work he had essentially mutilated his long game economy.

[Mjmd]

I wonder if SD got out of the peace treaty with Ginger........ I mentioned the only way Amica peace treaty made sense was if he could focus on Ginger.......

Edit: also   at frigate 97% loss to a galley.

[Mjmd]

Also, love how everyone thinks everyone else is lucky.

[Tarkeel]

Which part of the etiquette thread Tarkeel? Most people agree there SHOULD be a rule for post war splits, but as far as I can tell there isn't one. Again, 100% plan to change that.

So, I've been meaning to get back to this one for a while, but various stuff has kept me away. I've taken the time to read through the threads to get a proper grasp on the situation, and these three posts from Nauf's side are the most important I think.

Amica has already completed a settler. I don't know where it is, but my own settler can't get to the jungle pass for another 3 turns. It's very likely that Amica can resettle the jungle pass city before me. (This is the real reason I shouldn't have given peace.)

Well, darn.


Not sure how I beat Amica next time. It was already pretty silly that I was able to raze that pass in the first place. (Yeah, Amica lost 3 cities in the war, but they were unimportant and the moment he settles a city, it gets a free +9gpt from trade routes.)

No clue how I beat him. Still very surprised that the other players aren't freaking out about the situation.

Fuck no. Absolutely not.


You saw my settler. You saw him load up into a galley. You see my two workers on a tile outside my borders where the only thing they can do is road, and you double move me to plant this city? Fuck no.

I've made no other moves. No combat has taken place. We need to reload to the turn roll.

The first is Nauf on T186 correctly predicting that Amica had settlers and would resettle. From that point onwards Nauf knew he was in a settling race. The mistake was that he a) didn't inform Amica, and b) incorrectly assumed that only one of the cities would be resettled. I think this invalidates your argument here:

But basically, if at any point before nauf's t188/189 double move they had maintained turn order, then Amica gets the city. I really don't see how Amica is wrong here. If nauf knew that he was in a settling race, why did he double move?

Nauf DIDN'T know is the key here. In the first instance Amica didn't know when they double moved onto the hill. Amica only knew the double move turn. In this case Nauf didn't know he was a settler race and double moved. Amica SAW the two workers on the hill and knew about the settler. The two workers on that hill had to mean a settling race as there is no other reason for them to be there. IE Amica double moved while knowing it was probable a settler race was occurring. That is why Amica is in the wrong here.

Edit: I can't prove it, but I also suspect Serdoa camped the turn to double move into that situation and then just wanted to make arguments that he was right. But again, arguments for the etiquette thread. Under current rules Nauf is right. My solution is still lurker coin flip for turn order but as I've been told multiple times, current rules get followed so Nauf should get the reload.

Part of the issue is that people are loathe to declare a settling turn-split as that gives away information that you're settling. I complete agree that we as a colletive have not been good at handling peacetime settling splits, so I think we all should try to get better at declaring them.

(Note; I've still to read both the lurker and nauf's thread since sept 05, so there might be stuff I've missed, and I'm not returning to this post until I've caught up with the threads. Not looking to restart the discussion, just replying to Mjmd as promised)

[Mjmd]

Nauf SHOULD have done a split for the first city as he knew about the settler, you are right. However, after that did he know Amica had another settler? Amica also saw a settler. Again, Amica also could have asked for a turnsplit under the rules of this game, but didn't. Can Nauf then assume that if he was in a settler race Amica would have said something and therefore because Amica didn't, Nauf assumes he isn't in one?

[Krill]

All players should assume that the other player has a settler. If a player doesn't assume this then it leaves them open.

Essentially good play should be to always assume a turn split.

[Mjmd]

I mean there is a reason I started a sequential game lol. But not in sequential it gets fuzzy. I will agree with Tarkeel people don't like declaring them. Either because its giving away information or they just forget its a thing. Amica had multiple opportunities to declare a split and didn't which allowed Nauf to pyft, although as stated the first one he probably should of.

[Charriu]

I see no reason not to grant this reload. Anyone disagrees?

[Miguelito]

I also think it's ok