A different competition. As you say, they play to a different set of rules.
Hence the question.
Are you saying that it is NOT covered by the explicit rule about not replaying a decision or event?
Yes. Check the part about loading/reloading a saved game.
What decision are you going to ask us to add explicitly next?
I don't know if I will even have any more or have any interest in these sorts of games at a competitive level.
A different game, with different rules.
Flawed logic. Saving and quitting the game, and then reloading that save and continuing does not change any decision or event that occurred.
Actually it well could in a certain way, although I don't know if it could in this way with a Civ game. There exist random factors in the game, which could or do happen according to a random number generator. The random number generator could base itself paritally off the chronometer on the computer. Consequently, making the same move at 9:30 on Tuesday could have a different effect than a move at 11:30 on Thursday. Although, again, I don't know if any civ works this way. Also, saving and quitting the game does change decisions and consequently events that occur, because one's concentration, memory, attention, etc. works differently if one plays over a set of intervals rather than all at once. Lastly, quitting the game consists of an event in the game. Quitting and reloading the save thus produces a different set of events than continuing to play. But again, quitting and saving doesn't give you *extra* information like retiring does.
So fire me! I didn't include the word "safely". And being able to reach other places by suicide run is entirely different from being able to get there with troops en masse. You have additional information.
Perhaps usually, but not necessarily. Let's say you have a seafaring civilization (no Great Lighthouse) and the following pattern between two islands: coast square, sea square, two ocean squares, a sea square, and then a coast square. If one moves one's galley/dromon off the coast into the sea square no suicide mission takes place. If one moves into the first ocean square, again, no suicide mission takes place. As soon as one moves into the second ocean, one has a suicide run going on. But, as long as one reaches the other island's sea square and DOES not sink, one can transport masses of troops to the other island. How so? One uses two galleys/dromon. The first galley/dromon moves two square from the coast, so it ends up in the first ocean square. It then waits. Meanwhile, the other galley/dromon moves from the new island coast two squares into the ocean next to the other galley/dromon. It then waits. The dromon/galley nearest the original island then transports its troops to the other dromon/galley. Both ships still have two moves left, so both move back to the coasts and don't capsize/drown. Of course, other variations on the same idea can happen, even with non-seafaring tribes.. such as one ocean square between the islands, where the galley from the first/older island always moves to the ocean square, while the galley from the new island always moves only out to sea. Of course, with the Great Lighthouse one could use sea squares like the coast and effectively transport masses of troops over a distance of five ocean squares with a seafaring civlization (the older island galley/dromon moves over three ocean squares, while the newer one moves over two ocean squares and always returns to sea). Dots of sea squares that appear in the middle of an ocean can also make variations on this. So, in principle, even on a star map with lands vastly separted by wide stretches of water and many ocean squares, given the Great Lightouse and dots of sea squares in that big ocean, one might successfully move masses of troops using multiple hand-offs using multiple dromons/galleys. The last example seems silly for sure, but I've used the hand-off method with a few units before to some effect. *SPOILER ALERT*... Actually, I think I first figured it out myself (many others I suspect do this on some maps) on the "land of plenty" map.
Why are you distinguishing "local" information vs. substantial world informaiton?
Local information helps some... or perhaps me, to focus on in-game goals. Also, I wouldn't consider minor tribes aka barbarians as substantial in the world picture. But, they definitely do matter locally in some games... especially for players not use to dealing with them.
Absolutely. Which is why I am trying to ensure that players understand the underlying principle behind the rules, and don't feel they should be allowed to get away with things just because the written rules don't explicitly forbid them.