the oobs 4th pitboss game (Warlords), 15 players

I am not happy if there is not a reload as this is a direct rule violation, and even though it doesn't affect me directly, it does affect me heavy indirectly...
 
Well it is a rule violatioin.. even if it is beneficial for all parties(which i doubt). There should be a rollback just to keep consistency...
 
`he is nick... He got gifted the city.. Obviously he wants to stay out of the war for now...
 
All the player autosaves from before the city gifting have been replaced by now, so I have to use one of the start of turn autosaves.

The server has now been reloaded. I've sent out an email, if you haven't received it please let me know so I can update my contacts. I think I'm getting a 'mail not delivered' message for one of you.
 
Uh is this to the same turn as i took the city from dandridge or the turn after? Since new random seed on reload is on, this can significantly alter the outcome if it is the turn where i took his city...
 
oyzar said:
Uh is this to the same turn as i took the city from dandridge or the turn after? Since new random seed on reload is on, this can significantly alter the outcome if it is the turn where i took his city...
Click to expand...
As well potentially (depending on where we are restarting) as significantly altering the results of my initial bombardment and assault, which led to the gifting decision. As they say, be careful what you wish for ... ;)

Which was one reason that I was willing to play on without resolving the gifting. Another was that the gifting did not significantly alter my achievement of the objectives of the assault (kill DanD's troops, deprive him of the city). And given the above, and assuming that a rollback is a big pain to everyone else, I was (and still am) happy to play on despite the gifting. I am happy to play on from the rollback reload as well.

Seems that if the rollback works more to the advantage of the person who committed the rules violation that playing on would (is that what you are saying, oyzar?), then there is no point to having a rollback, as that essentially rewards the rules violation. Since oyzar appears to have been the person insisting on the rollback initially, but now seems to have the biggest objection, if he now prefers not to roll back, do we undo the rollback? I know Nick prefers a rollback, but given that he is a party to the violation, even if inadvertantly, does he get a vote?

dV

addendum: looks like the game rolled back to a point after oyzar's conquest and my initial bombardment, so the issues in this case appear to be resolved. The points I made may have generic applicability to any similar situations in the future.

dV
 
To be honest the rule regarding the city gifting is rather silly and should be better formulated. I mean that (if I had known about the rule) I could have just declared war on Mongolia 1280 AD and then gift the city to him for peace. As far as I understand the result would have been exactly the same i.e. Mongolia would have got the city and Zulu units would have been thrown out? And that would have been according to the rules as I understand it.

Anyway I do agree that it's a good practice to forbid city gifting as a trick when it's done just in order to throw the enemy units out. For example if I had gifted the city to someone (on the other continent) just to get Zulu units thrown out (and maybe even got the city gifted back after the trick). In this current case however I gifted the city to Mongolia permanently for nothing, since I couldn't have kept the city myself and since Mongolia had been peaceful neighbour and because Mongolia was so close that it's culture influence had already reached the city of Chengdu. So it was quite natural part of the Mongolian territory.
 
Dandridge said:
To be honest the rule regarding the city gifting is rather silly and should be better formulated. I mean that (if I had known about the rule) I could have just declared war on Mongolia 1280 AD and then gift the city to him for peace. As far as I understand the result would have been exactly the same i.e. Mongolia would have got the city and Zulu units would have been thrown out? And that would have been according to the rules as I understand it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that would be an obvious attempt to circumvent the rules of the game, which would result in me kicking the person in question. I'm not about to write a rule to cover every possible contingency.
 
Can you hold the server down until the 26th as i will probably not be able to play until then?
 
I've just subbed for Oyzar. Sorry if I have double moved anyone. I couldn't find a Civ Stats page to see the turn order and time I had left. Is there one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kcd_swede
  • Sticky
[BTS] NEWS: BOTM 293 - Willem, Monarch - Starts July 15
Replies
4
Views
403
Smiregal
S
kcd_swede
[BTS] BOTM 292: Boudica, Immortal; Final Spoiler (game submitted or abandoned)
Replies
7
Views
412
Mitchum
M
kcd_swede
[BTS] BOTM 293: Willem, Monarch - Final spoiler (game submitted)
Replies
6
Views
248
Mitchum
M
F
Dedicated Server or Workaround?
Replies
0
Views
100
frankwascake
F
lymond
  • Sticky
GOTM SITE IS DOWN TEMPORARILY
Replies
0
Views
388
lymond
lymond
Back
Top Bottom