(December 5th, 2022, 13:56)RefSteel Wrote: There's no possible way this is grounds for a multi-turn reload, but you said you asked SD permission to double-move back, right? What would you do in that case that you couldn't equally do in the second half of the turn? (Unless you expect him to found ON the Wheat?)
It's not a multi-turn reload, just the start of this turn, but there might not be a save at the turn-roll.
I would found on the backup site, which is invalidated by him setting where he is.
(December 4th, 2022, 10:24)Tarkeel Wrote: Extra excruciating is the fact that SD double-moved into a situation he should know was a settler-race:
T61: Superdeath encounters my fortified warrior staking the claim, and ettler is whipped.
T62: Me first
T63: Me first
T64: Me first
T65: SD double-moves first
In my T65 screenshot you can see the trail of his warrior moving across the terrain in a scouting motion, while I was camping a hill for vision to see that the army my settler was moving out on was safe. If I had stayed there and not trailed his warrior, I wouldn't have seen his settler until after my settler was on the hill, so by allowing SD to settle first he's awarded for being willfully blind and I'm punished for being aware.
Edit: Throwing in the most relevant part of the pitboss etiquette:
(January 13th, 2015, 19:20)Old Harry Wrote: Since pitboss seven (which never happened) we've had one rule for most of the pitboss games here: Don't be a jerk.
First of all, thanks for the corrections/information; I responded after just a glance at the screenshots, and didn't see until afterward that both the T65 and T66 shots were in the middle of your turn, prior to completing your moves. I think I do understand the situation now. The other lurkers and I have come to a consensus to play on and let SD move before you next turn. I think we can and should make our double-move rules clearer (not more precise/lawyery, just making the intent clearer) but I'll do my best to explain what's going on in this case, spoilered for length; there shouldn't be any actual secrets contained here:
(December 4th, 2022, 10:24)Tarkeel Wrote: SD double-moved into a situation he should know was a settler-race:
I know that from your perspective he should know, but in fact he really couldn't. The presence of a fortified warrior does not mean a settler is incoming and especially not what the timing will be. Since neither of you realized you were in a race, it doesn't matter who moved when on T62-65; when SD move after you on T63, GinKillCavalry was yet to play, and SD logged out and didn't log in again until he was last to play T64; having done so, and seeing no sign of a Settler, he naturally also played first T65. (If you guys had diplo talking about your incoming Settler prior to T66, that would be a different story, but it seems like that wasn't the case.) He's not being a jerk; he's just moving the game along. If you'd both played earlier on T64, but had time on T65 sooner than you did, it would still have been a non-jerk move to play before you since he couldn't have known it mattered.
Quote:so by allowing SD to settle first he's awarded for being willfully blind and I'm punished for being aware.
Of course it can look that way from your end, but you're taking it for granted that SD knew (or even assumed) he was in a Settler race, knew (or suspected) that it was going to come down to turn order, played the double turn specifically to get the first half, and - when he moved his warrior toward his intended city site instead of keeping it forward - did so especially to enable his turn-order advantage to stand. Occam's razor isn't impressed, especially since if it were true, this is completely the wrong way to go about it! Until he moved his Settler on T66, you had no idea he had a Settler in the region. If he were intentionally trying shenanigans, he would know you could play last-and-first T65-6 the way he did T64-5 and turn the order right back around on him again. From in the game, it can easily look the other way, but from an unbiased perspective, it seems really, really clear that SD is not being a jerk (in this instance, in this way) - he's just playing his civ.
So it looks like what happened is:
1) SD is set up to plant a site you wanted to settle yourself. That's annoying, but part of the game.
2) The way the turn order lined up, on the turn when (and, irrelevantly, the turn before) one of you stumbled upon the other's Settler, SD had played first in the turn, denying you even the opportunity to plant a blocking city. (Note at this point, this amounts to RB's equivalent of a coin flip: More subject to being gamed - which doesn't seem to have happened here despite appearances from your end - but capable of immediate resolution without lurker/administrator input ... which unfortunately also hasn't happened here, suggesting together with PB64 among others that this rule either needs to be changed or made clearer to everybody.) That's annoying and should probably change for the future, but it's the way we handle Settler turn splits right now.
3) Because of the way the virtual dice went against you, perhaps in part because of the annoyance factor, it appeared as though SD had intentionally set the turn order up the way he wanted in advance. Hopefully the above makes it reasonably clear that this isn't what really happened. It really was just bad luck.
So you can play the rest of T66 with the knowledge that SD is going to move first on T67, however that affects your moves, but lurker consensus is that there's no case for a reload or allowing a double turn.
Lurker decision (in more detail for affected players):
Turn 66: No reload. superdeath has played first, Tarkeel will play second.
Turn 67: No double-move. superdeath will play first, Tarkeel will play second.
Turn 68: Maintain turn-split per normal protocol as long as necessary. You know how it works.
Disappointing, but not unexpected. Sorry to put you through this. This just reinforces my beliefe that the rules as written are deeply flawed and reward being a jerk and double-moving into a situation.
Unfortunately, this also likely means that I'll be playing the second half for the rest of the game, as I don't see peace on the horizon ever again.
As I've repeatedly told SD, him claiming Pinky invalidates the last good spot available to me; I have no other double-food cities available, and with Pinky blocking my north I only have three food-cities total: Sustainable, Kicker and Borderlands. I've repeated warned Superdeath that there would be consequences, and I had an escort available that he did not.
Now, he did get archery last turn so he could have whipped out an archer, and if he's been diligent with his roadwork it could even make it in time, but I doubt that. Most likely my spear/axe can clear his city. With any other player, that might be the end, but with Superdeath there is no such thing as a small war. I therefore have to trash my own game by researching IronWorking next instead of infrastructure, in order to have Praetorians secure peace.
Bleh. I shouldn't have moved anything once I noticed SD's settler; I was so sure he'd be reasonable that I moved my workers wrong, and now an attack is a turn delayed. By settling Sustainable NE I get a slightly worse city in exchange for a slightly faster attack; the workers can road under the axe T67, allowing an across-the-river attack on T69. I moved the warrior onto SD's settler, and he has a second warrior coming in, so the not spotting my settler was even more willfully negligent.
SD's powergraph jumped 6K last turn, and with my luck that's his first Keshik, so speed is of the essence here.
Caverna is more or less the streamlined 2013-version of the 2007-classic Agricola.
For some reason I'm in a ranting mood. Civac reminded me that a large portion of the frustration is likely due to the map, which really hasn't delivered what was ordered. Some selective quotes from the setup:
(September 11th, 2022, 19:57)Mjmd Wrote: Something landy to enable lots of diplo on borders / having lots of borders.
(September 11th, 2022, 22:46)Ginger() Wrote: Yeah, I think some kind of toroidal where everyone is bordering everyone but maybe with some funky geography interfering?
Also, I'd argue for like 13-14 tiles distance for breathing room but not boring room.
(September 11th, 2022, 23:53)Charriu Wrote: I think the most important thing is that the map is not too tight. Give diplomacy some room to develop. I personally would like to have a map without clearly defined player areas. So not like PB59 and I would say PB65 falls into that category albeit less than 59
(September 12th, 2022, 00:59)superdeath Wrote: I want big empires. 10-15cities EASILY before borders start really becoming an issue.
The executive summary then boiled down to:
(September 18th, 2022, 02:50)Tarkeel Wrote: I think the main constraints are no fixed areas, and some distance so that the diplomacy aspect has time to kick in.
Instead we got a map where some players had free borders, and others had to fight from the second city onwards (SD and Mjmd). Some players have fixed areas they're boxed into, for bad (me) and good (Charriu, possibly Ginger). Really, we shouldn't have a game-defining fight about where the 4th/5th city goes, as is the case between both SD and Me, and Mjmd and Ginger (whom I have even yet to meet!)
Turn 67 (1320 BC)
For a moment I was having a fleeting sense of optimism.
Caverna's new location means that I still might be able to secure the north.
Then I remembered that SD crippled his early game for Stonehenge, so that city will start easting my borders in 10 turns, which is more time than it will take me to get access to a culture-producing building because I'm force to go for Iron next. Have I mentioned lately how fed up I am with this game? (I did snag the Great Lighthouse on turn roll, and I can't even muster happiness for that.)
Turn 68 (1320 BC)
I log in to SD declaring official war (witout out-of-game notice), and asking for peace. No buddy, you double-moved into that war declaration some turns ago. He still only has the two warriors there, so we advance in.
The extra trade from Great Lighthouse brings IronWorking down to another 6 turns. I'm building another settler that can either be used to claim Iron if needed, resettle Pinky, or worst-case settle Kicker as my last usable city. The other cities are slow-building military, and saving whip-unhappy for a wave of Praets. It's not like I have anything better to do when I'm forced into defending my territory.
Turn 68 (1320 BC)
This morning I log in to this insulting offer:
I already know that you want me to attack Charriu instead of you. Why would I turn my back on someone who has cooperated with me the whole game, to fight for a foodless jungle, when I can have foreverwar against the person who has been spurning my gift since we met? And foreverwar it is, as SD managed to get his Keshik there in time, another benefit of stealing first in the turn order. I sent him this similarly insulting offer back.
As I've been saying for some time now, this is not the game I signed up to play. Lately I've been toying with the idea of withdrawing from the game and offering to make a five-player map instead. I have an interesting concept going, and should be able to get something done by christmas.
