Battle Royale

[BigFree]

Paddy, calling all PTS's!

[Paddy]

sorry for the delays lads

game on and onto Dauphin

[Dauphin]

Now that was a very strange thing to do.

Turn to Soltz.

[Soltz]

To BigFree

[BigFree]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
sorry for the delays lads

game on and onto Dauphin

Back to you again!

[Paddy]

to Dauphin

[Dauphin]

Turns played and with Soltz.

[Soltz]

To BigFree

[Paddy]

to Dauphin

[Dauphin]

On.

[Soltz]

To BigFree

[BigFree]

PTS

[Paddy]

to Dauphin

[Dauphin]

I am contemplating resigning from this game for the following in-game reason:

I can not escape the conclusion, based on actions taken in the last ~10 turns, that there have been illegal reloads when an attack was not succesful. For this reason I do not wish to continue playing as I can not play with such a suspicion in my mind. I did not wish to level such allegations as I could be wrong and such claims, if proved wrong, are damaging to an honest reputation, but I feel the need to air them. To that end I welcome a response that will explain the action cited below. I will wholeheartedly apologise should good reasons be forthcoming.

Events:

1) An opportunity for a warrior to attack Pasargadae, defended by one warrior was passed by twice. The odds of winning were 4% on each occasion. The third turn (when a second warrior now also defended Pasargadae) an attack came and was succesful at 4% odds.

2) An opportunity was then passed to take out my city, now defended by one warrior, with odds of 30%.

3) A couple of turns later my city again was defended by 2 units, and any attacks (30% odds of success) by a single warrior were ignored for a couple of turns.

4) Attacks commence and Pasagardae is taken with about 40% chance of overall victory.

The distilled point is that an attack was made at 4% odds with nothing to gain but a warrior kill, but the same action is not commited in either of the two previous turns at the same odds and for greater reward (a captured city), or at later points with greater chance of success and in some cases greater reward. When the attack does come the city is taken.

I submit that the attack at 4% odds was only made because the result was known, and that if such an attack were not succesful the turn would have been reloaded, as I think probably did happen in other turns.

I do not base this on the unlikelyhood of results (RNG is a pain, but I'm used to it in my games*), rather I base it on the obscure rationale of attacking for less reward at greater risk.

*The final taking of Pasagardae is thus circumstantial. Waiting for 40% chance is more logical than the previous opportunity at 30% or 4%, but incongruent with prior examples just turns before of willing to take out just a warrior with 4% odds.

[Paddy]

I am sad to hear you resigning

my thoughts are if you could play one more turn and retire your civ then

what say the other players?