Ehrm. Well I would have dowed 20 turns ago with my jaguars. I might request a restart with clearer rules here.
My units were rather obviously setup with that assumption.
My units were rather obviously setup with that assumption.
|
Civ 6 PBEM: Green-ish game - measuring interest
|
|
So, it was never made clear whether or not war declarations were allowed, or if only city conquests were forbidden.
My belief is Archduke declared on a city-state Krill had suzerainty over, and Krill declared war on Archduke in order to defend it. Beyond that I don't know what the argument is.
I Think I'm Gwangju Like It Here
A blog about my adventures in Korea, and whatever else I feel like writing about.
Sorry, back at work and have been dealing with everything since then, only just got to this thread.
I don't think at any point we ever said no war between players: but if the point was to mess around with Apocalypse mode then there is little point playing a three playing game with warrior rushes. We'd have been better playing something like a Ren era start. That said, this is not a straightforward situation hence I asked for lurker input. We were very lax in setting out our expectations, so I am unsurprised if we have different understandings of what is acceptable or not. FWIW I have no issues with putting this game to one side. In relation to the war dec, the envoys in the CS were always even, or within one of neutralizing suzerainity. We never discussed anything about this, so it's meaningless except for context. I do not know what is reasonable to suggest at this point, unless we want to talk about intentions? For example if CS were always fair game regardless of anything else that specific CS would have been hit with two horseman (second was one turn from completion in queue) and two archers 20 turns ago.
Yeah, we need clearer rules. I am happy for a restart. I ate Singnapore right upon turn 20 or something.
|
