DaveShack said:
Suppose we capture a German city, and then they capture Civatonia. Under the law as currently written, I guess I'd then have to demand that we raze Civatonia upon recapturing it, since strictly by the letter of the law we would have already captured a city held by Germany. The law does not have an exception for this potential disaster, if it is interpreted strictly.
If I were ruling on a case like that, I would rule that we can indeed take the city back, as it was not originally from a foreign civilization (we were the original founders) and was within the five-city limit of cities built by Fanatikos. I can see, however, how that one could be ruled either way. As a result, I'd support a minor amendment, probably a CoL amendment, clarifying our ability to recapture our own cities if they fall under foreign control.
Suppose we capture a city and then it flips away. Under the law as written we have to raze it upon recapturing it. Or we capture one and then another better one flips to us - we have to keep the 1st one.
First point - We would not have to raze upon its recapture. Article C limits us to one city from each foreign civilization. It does not say that we can't recapture a city if it is captured or flips. The limitation it expresses is that we cannot have control over two or more cities created by the same opponent, not that we can't capture a single city multiple times.
Second point - The idea behind a 5BC is that we would indeed not be able to capture a second city if we like it better than a first. So you're absolutely right there, but that was the intent of the variant we passed as well as the wording of the law.
Or we get into a war with two opponents who are also at war with each other. Say France and Germany for example. If France captures a German city and we have already captured a French one but not a German one, then we're out of luck?
I guess you could say that we could capture a French-controlled German city, as that city would be from (if we define "from" as founded by) Germany. Alternately, you could rule that only a direct capture would count, so we wouldn't be able to take that city. That's a gray area in this article, and I'd like to see a judicial review on it after this one's over, assuming that it's still relevant of course.
I don't fancy losing in the 1400's AD after we find that we don't control any coal because we have no way to get it off the other continent due to all our captures being used up and no way to then keep a coastal city. We won't be able to trade for it because after centuries of war it's doubtful anyone is willing to give us any.
There are ways to remedy that. First, of course, trade could be utilized. Granted, we'd probably have to pay an arm and a leg for it, but we'd probably be able to find some opponent that we hadn't cut off trade to directly and would be willing to trade with us (we may have to get them to declare war against somebody first so that they would forget our broken trade deals with that nation). Also, it'd be rather odd for there not to be a single source of coal on our continent that we could acquire through military force and set up a colony on. Even if all coal were on the other continent, it would be unlikely that we'd use up all captures for nations on that continent without acquiring a single city on it that we could use to ship the coal to us (using colonies and military force as necessary). If all that were impossible, then I guess we'd have to live with our bad planning and survive without railroads.
These are all hypothetical problems, of course. You can be reasonable and take a liberal interpretation of the law, knowing we won't actually raze and repeat or take 2 from one opponent unless we need to. Or you can be unreasonable and invent a totally new way for us all to commit suicide if any of these nightmare scenarios come up. Is losing really that fun?
If the constitution says something like "At the end of Term 2, the capital must be abandoned", I as a justice cannot in good conscience rule that the capital does not actually have to be abandoned because it would be detrimental to game play. I can get angry that some idiot put that in there, and I can suggest an amendment to remove that before the end of Term 2, but I cannot rule against a rule's wording and intent. This could be viewed as a similar situation. Though I am not personally opposed to the current restriction, I'd rule exactly the same way if I were. Article C states:
Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.
It is quite clear that this article wants us to get only one city from each individual foreign civilization, and that it means exactly what it says.
.
