Tweet
new mill game controversy
I'd like to post here my arguments for reloading next time at the beginning of 1340, when war is declared, and regarding the taking of undefended cities during the 1-turn interim between war declaration and the right to attack as illegal. But first I'd like to apologize to Capo for my harsh language immediately following this incident. Since this was Capo's first night, and I knew he had been involved in knock-down, drag-out controversies before, I immediately inferred that Capo was blatantly cheating and he knew it, and that he was just trying to play spoiler. I believe now that I was wrong. By the way, Capo, I'd like to take you off my Ignore List on ICQ - I just didn't see your explanation for why those offensive messages came. Was it in King Chat? I just missed it, I guess.
So here are the arguments:
1) Imagine that this had happened to one of you. Out of the blue, someone takes over your empty city (doesn't really matter whether war had just been declared the same turn or not). Wouldn't you consider this a violation of the rule that you have to declare war a turn before attacking? It doesn't really matter whether it was a settler or a tank: it was still an invasion, a conquest, a seizing of territory. All part of the normal, everyday understanding of "attack." Settlers must have some military capabilities - after all, caravans, freights, diplomats, and spies can't take over cities by moving in.
2) The fact that the rules specifically say that you may do espionage without waiting a turn implies that espionage is the only military action that one may take before 1 turn has passed. Plundering is likewise out. If people paradropped into empty cities the same turn as declaring war (and by the rules, before you could move), would that not be considered a sneak attack? Even if the paratrooper unit had a "0" attack rating? It seems pretty clear that when the rules say you have to declare war a turn before attacking, the sense is not "declare war before using any unit with an attack rating on an opposing unit," but, "declare war a turn before beginning any aggressive military action," the ordinary, everyday meaning of "attack."
3) The reason the city was empty was that it had contained a transport, but I disbanded it to buy a rifleman. So here's the irony: Capo's declaration of war induced me to disband a unit, which allowed him to march a settler in. Somehow I think that defeats the entire purpose of the rule saying that you must declare war a turn in advance.
4) The fact that I disbanded the unit indicates that I sincerely believed it was obviously against the rules to march a unit into an empty city before the turn required had passed. If I thought it was OK to take cities like that, I would simply have waited to disband the transport until Capo had said, "OK, my turn's all done; you can move." Why risk it beforehand?
5) The claim, aired by Markus, that I bent the rules earlier to favor myself in a war against him, turns out to be a complete myth. I examined the saved games. The allegation is that I waited until Markus had finished moving his units, then moved mine up to his city, then attacked the next turn because turn order favored me. Thus, he never got a chance at a preemptive strike. This is actually what happened:
840 AD: Austrians and Russians declare war on Turks; Austrians move units into Austrian city of Serbia. War is declared in the middle of the turn, so turn order is in force, but Markus has already moved. It doesn't matter because my units are just in one of my cities.
860 AD: Turn order is already in force. I use my first turn to move my crusaders into range of Turkish city Izmir. Markus uses his second turn but doesn't attack, even though he has the full opportunity to.
880 AD: Austrians destroy Izmir at the beginning of the turn.
Anyone who wants to see these saved games is welcome to. I think this vitiates the charge that I'm being inconsistent.
6) In the interests of compromise and reconciliation, I'm willing to offer the following concession. The turn after the "dead turn" that you get when you load up a game in simul, Capo will be allowed to attack. Normally, I should get the opportunity of a turn before attacking to move my units up to the front, launch preemptive strikes, etc. I'm willing to forgo this advantage in order to promote the friendliness and unity of the game.
7) I'm not asking for some special benefit or compensation. All I want is to play that turn over again, starting with Capo's declaration of war. Thus, the object is simply to erase the controversial incident, not to balance it out or make things "even." Let's play the game on fair rules known to everyone. I'm sorry that Capo wasn't completely clear on the rules. Of course, I've always played diplo games this way, and at the beginning of the session I articulated the rules of no city bribe, 1 turn declaration before attack, & turn order during attack. Of course, I didn't have the space to elaborate on all these; I assumed they were pretty clear. To answer a couple of Capo's questions: yes, you should declare war toward the beginning of your turn, as soon as possible. Here's the idea behind moving to turn order with attacker first. If you play with simul war, there are notorious problems, including defenders able to pick off attackers, the least lagged player having a big advantage, and incentives for everyone to wait till everyone else has finished moving so they have a clear field. So we move to turn order. We do attacker first because defender first, combined with the 1-turn declaration rule, would favor the defender too much. Attacker declares war, defender moves and rush buys, attacker moves but cannot attack. Next turn, defender can move and fortify the rush bought units, and only then can the attacker finally attack. That's too much of a defender's advantage. The 1-turn rule creates some defender's advantage in order to take mindless conquest out of the game and to make it more strategic. But too much defender's advantage can make all war impracticable.
Please post your reactions here.
------------------
Curumbor Elendil http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Curumbor Elendil (edited April 12, 2001).]</font>
So here are the arguments:
1) Imagine that this had happened to one of you. Out of the blue, someone takes over your empty city (doesn't really matter whether war had just been declared the same turn or not). Wouldn't you consider this a violation of the rule that you have to declare war a turn before attacking? It doesn't really matter whether it was a settler or a tank: it was still an invasion, a conquest, a seizing of territory. All part of the normal, everyday understanding of "attack." Settlers must have some military capabilities - after all, caravans, freights, diplomats, and spies can't take over cities by moving in.
2) The fact that the rules specifically say that you may do espionage without waiting a turn implies that espionage is the only military action that one may take before 1 turn has passed. Plundering is likewise out. If people paradropped into empty cities the same turn as declaring war (and by the rules, before you could move), would that not be considered a sneak attack? Even if the paratrooper unit had a "0" attack rating? It seems pretty clear that when the rules say you have to declare war a turn before attacking, the sense is not "declare war before using any unit with an attack rating on an opposing unit," but, "declare war a turn before beginning any aggressive military action," the ordinary, everyday meaning of "attack."
3) The reason the city was empty was that it had contained a transport, but I disbanded it to buy a rifleman. So here's the irony: Capo's declaration of war induced me to disband a unit, which allowed him to march a settler in. Somehow I think that defeats the entire purpose of the rule saying that you must declare war a turn in advance.
4) The fact that I disbanded the unit indicates that I sincerely believed it was obviously against the rules to march a unit into an empty city before the turn required had passed. If I thought it was OK to take cities like that, I would simply have waited to disband the transport until Capo had said, "OK, my turn's all done; you can move." Why risk it beforehand?
5) The claim, aired by Markus, that I bent the rules earlier to favor myself in a war against him, turns out to be a complete myth. I examined the saved games. The allegation is that I waited until Markus had finished moving his units, then moved mine up to his city, then attacked the next turn because turn order favored me. Thus, he never got a chance at a preemptive strike. This is actually what happened:
840 AD: Austrians and Russians declare war on Turks; Austrians move units into Austrian city of Serbia. War is declared in the middle of the turn, so turn order is in force, but Markus has already moved. It doesn't matter because my units are just in one of my cities.
860 AD: Turn order is already in force. I use my first turn to move my crusaders into range of Turkish city Izmir. Markus uses his second turn but doesn't attack, even though he has the full opportunity to.
880 AD: Austrians destroy Izmir at the beginning of the turn.
Anyone who wants to see these saved games is welcome to. I think this vitiates the charge that I'm being inconsistent.
6) In the interests of compromise and reconciliation, I'm willing to offer the following concession. The turn after the "dead turn" that you get when you load up a game in simul, Capo will be allowed to attack. Normally, I should get the opportunity of a turn before attacking to move my units up to the front, launch preemptive strikes, etc. I'm willing to forgo this advantage in order to promote the friendliness and unity of the game.
7) I'm not asking for some special benefit or compensation. All I want is to play that turn over again, starting with Capo's declaration of war. Thus, the object is simply to erase the controversial incident, not to balance it out or make things "even." Let's play the game on fair rules known to everyone. I'm sorry that Capo wasn't completely clear on the rules. Of course, I've always played diplo games this way, and at the beginning of the session I articulated the rules of no city bribe, 1 turn declaration before attack, & turn order during attack. Of course, I didn't have the space to elaborate on all these; I assumed they were pretty clear. To answer a couple of Capo's questions: yes, you should declare war toward the beginning of your turn, as soon as possible. Here's the idea behind moving to turn order with attacker first. If you play with simul war, there are notorious problems, including defenders able to pick off attackers, the least lagged player having a big advantage, and incentives for everyone to wait till everyone else has finished moving so they have a clear field. So we move to turn order. We do attacker first because defender first, combined with the 1-turn declaration rule, would favor the defender too much. Attacker declares war, defender moves and rush buys, attacker moves but cannot attack. Next turn, defender can move and fortify the rush bought units, and only then can the attacker finally attack. That's too much of a defender's advantage. The 1-turn rule creates some defender's advantage in order to take mindless conquest out of the game and to make it more strategic. But too much defender's advantage can make all war impracticable.
Please post your reactions here.
------------------
Curumbor Elendil http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Curumbor Elendil (edited April 12, 2001).]</font>
Comment