@Denyd: What movie is that? I love to use odd quotes from films whnever possible. 
On to business in an attempt to cool things off. The SABER incident (our label, please don't get into a rage over using it now) was not about winning at all cost. We found the situation very frustrating, postponing every attempt at warfare on land until marines was a bit annoying to say the least. Asking for a change in the current setup was a bit difficult so what we actually advocated was to drop this game, start a new game with at least one unit in each era capable of amphib landings. our suggestion Archer and LBman. Starting all over again would also give everyone a second chance at the GLH we have in this game. How that ever turned into the "wanting to win at any price" is really beyond me. It was very uncomfortable being at the recieving end of some of the lowest remarks thrown at us. And we did transform into a team of stubborn "rules lawyers" as a result, only willing to discuss game mechanics as the arbitator in any conflict of opinions, just as that was used against us in the heat of battle during the incident.
In this incident there was one thing and one thing only that triggered the chain of events and that was the 1/5 attacking as the 13th unit in a series of attacks. one of two attacks that would let him kill his adversary and survive. there has never been a complaint as to the statistics of the battle series, which unfortunately is used as an argument we are bad losers complaining about. I'm not sure where that came from?
I had a long discussion with Niklas yesteday eveing and feel much happier now. I just wish that 1/5 had not attacked when it did or we would not have had yet another bitter discussion about the BABEs being such bad players and sore losers. We'll continue to do as told, play according to the game mechanics of Civ3. I also told Niklas we do any battles in our turn in a predetermined sequence to avoid discussions about why we did them in that specific order. To paraphrase Niklas "We could tell you our reasoning, but then we'd have to silence you. " There are several sites for potential battles so this is to avoid any questions about sequence.
On to business in an attempt to cool things off. The SABER incident (our label, please don't get into a rage over using it now) was not about winning at all cost. We found the situation very frustrating, postponing every attempt at warfare on land until marines was a bit annoying to say the least. Asking for a change in the current setup was a bit difficult so what we actually advocated was to drop this game, start a new game with at least one unit in each era capable of amphib landings. our suggestion Archer and LBman. Starting all over again would also give everyone a second chance at the GLH we have in this game. How that ever turned into the "wanting to win at any price" is really beyond me. It was very uncomfortable being at the recieving end of some of the lowest remarks thrown at us. And we did transform into a team of stubborn "rules lawyers" as a result, only willing to discuss game mechanics as the arbitator in any conflict of opinions, just as that was used against us in the heat of battle during the incident.
In this incident there was one thing and one thing only that triggered the chain of events and that was the 1/5 attacking as the 13th unit in a series of attacks. one of two attacks that would let him kill his adversary and survive. there has never been a complaint as to the statistics of the battle series, which unfortunately is used as an argument we are bad losers complaining about. I'm not sure where that came from?
I had a long discussion with Niklas yesteday eveing and feel much happier now. I just wish that 1/5 had not attacked when it did or we would not have had yet another bitter discussion about the BABEs being such bad players and sore losers. We'll continue to do as told, play according to the game mechanics of Civ3.
I also told Niklas we do any battles in our turn in a predetermined sequence to avoid discussions about why we did them in that specific order. To paraphrase Niklas "We could tell you our reasoning, but then we'd have to silence you. " There are several sites for potential battles so this is to avoid any questions about sequence.
