30% Iron Civer Tournament

[Paddy]

2v2v2 sounds great

it is very easy to setup in the editor

[jshelr]

Ethical Question submitted for iron civver judgment.

Civ A and B form an alliance to battle for continental supremacy. The alliance includes a RoP agreement and a no-attack agreement that extends for 30 turns after victory in the alliance battles. That end point turns out to be turn 195.

A random number generator is used to determine right of first attack, which falls to civ A.

Civ B determines (correctly) that civ A has modestly superior production capability and will likely have the stronger army after turn 195. Civ A is also ahead in the race to MT.

Civ B uses the RoP to cover and fortify troops on Civ A’s iron deposit. No pillage occurs.

Civ A ends the RoP when it runs its full 20-turn course.

Civ A asks Civ B to leave it’s land or declare war.

Civ B asks for clarification and then goes silent. Civ A’s clarification was that Civ B has a choice between leaving or breaking the no attack agreement. (Civ A has the save and will still get to attack first.)

So, finally, the question: Can Civ A honorably attack Civ B and free the iron deposit?

[snoopy369]

Absolutely. Even the AI would agree with Civ A on this one. Civ B has committed an act of war by setting troops within Civ A's borders w/o a ROP agreement, particularly by setting them on top of an obviously vital resource. Civ B is clearly trying to maneuver into a position of advantage by doing so.

Heck, most alliance-ending agreements should automatically include a requirement to leave each others' territories ... i'd think ...

[snoopy369]

More specifically I'd say that it's 100% ok for Civ A to attack the iron deposit *and no more* ... it's maybe 80% ok to continue the attack from there (unless Civ B counterattacks in which case Civ A should continue of course).

[McMeadows]

After ending the RoP any unwanted presence in the others territory is an act of war and therefore violation of a non-attack agreement in my opinion.

[alexman]

Civ A has every right to treat the actions of Civ B as a violation of their agreement, and therefore be justified in attacking if B refuses to leave.

However, the Iron PBEM etiquette doesn't say anywhere that deals need to be honored, so Civ B is not breaking any rules - just their word.

[jshelr]

Alexman is right in my opinion. I just wanted to make sure the community believes Civ A (who could that be ) is not breaking his word.

The other thing is that civ B simply shut up, he did not refuse to leave.

[snoopy369]

eh, but not leaving after a request is a de facto refusal, just like ignoring a trade offer is a de facto refusal of the trade (albeit with generally less severe consequences ^^)

[Aqualung71]

Civ B has clearly conducted an act of war. Civ A should have no qualms in delcaring war, and continuing such war at its leisure.

[sabrewolf]

to me, ocupying an iron source is already an act of war. RoP doesn't mean "right to posess" or "right to pillage"...

but anyway... i'm looking forward to all AAR (i hope they are mandatory )

[McMeadows]

And what if, hypothetically speaking, an unit is occupying an iron source that is unclaimed and while sitting there another nation builds a city next to it, claiming the iron source as being in its territory?

[smellymummy]

who has broken their word so far?

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by McMeadows
And what if, hypothetically speaking, an unit is occupying an iron source that is unclaimed and while sitting there another nation builds a city next to it, claiming the iron source as being in its territory?

good question...

it's not an invasion, so i can't really say. probably depends on the situation. if that iron is right near the core territory of the settling civ, then the claim is doubtless (*cough* ptw *cough* ). but if it's far away, you probably can't blame anybody...

[McMeadows]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


good question...

it's not an invasion, so i can't really say. probably depends on the situation. if that iron is right near the core territory of the settling civ, then the claim is doubtless (*cough* ptw *cough* ). but if it's far away, you probably can't blame anybody...

I would think there should be a reward for the unit that was asked to leave, even if it was just a mere wandering warrior taking a rest.. (*cough* ptw *cough* )

More seriously, it does have strageic significance, as the settling civ is not able to use the resource, and as a result can't upgrade its units. The very upgraded ones that would have been able to kick that unit off the mountain.

haha, I'm still enjoying that one..

[jshelr]

Thanks for the help guys. The civ "breaking its word" in this instance is 99% of the time an honest broker. I think there was confusion about 1) whether the rop was still in effect and 2) what an act of war is.

Anyway, war has now started and I hope there will be no hard feelings about the unfortunate communications problems that led to the tragic conflict.

This happened in the c3c tourney. I'm not sure it merits much attention, but an account is here

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3201371#post3201371