Iron Civer Tournament- Coliseum B

[McMeadows]

It was not a question of that kind. I think I'm entitled to know such statistics. Due to, what I consider a bug, I was not able to witness the battle in which I fought myself (hmmm I'm taking civ too personal..). In a SP I would have been able to watch the attack, which I would have followed closely, exactly to know how many units he used, how many were damaged and how they were damaged.

I saw your city was defended by a warrior, therefore no stronger units could have been in that city. Nonetheless you were able to strike me at least 10 times, if you wouldn't have had any casualties with units that were out of my sight. Therefore you must at least have 9 HM/ AC (cats could have been taken by warrior in city). I can't imagine you were able to take them all out in one go, so you must have a huge army, I allready figured that out.

[bongo]

The between-turn blindness is not a bug as such. It's a design decision. The developers decided it would take too much work to implement it in PBEM and therefore disbanded it entirely. (they probably focused on making a stronger AI instead )

Players cope with this in two ways. One is to just accept the blindness and play accordingly(I follow that path btw). The other is to compensate by making combat reports.


SP and PBEM *are* different. For one, I've never been tech embargoed in a SP-game before


I think your right to know what happened equals my right to keep it secret.

I saw your city was defended by a warrior, therefore no stronger units could have been in that city. Nonetheless you were able to strike me at least 10 times, if you wouldn't have had any casualties with units that were out of my sight. Therefore you must at least have 9 HM/ AC (cats could have been taken by warrior in city). I can't imagine you were able to take them all out in one go, so you must have a huge army, I allready figured that out.

9 is the number of successful attacks needed to take out a force like yours. The catapults was taken when the last defender died, no extra attack needed.

[McMeadows]

Originally posted by bongo
9 is the number of successful attacks needed to take out a force like yours. The catapults was taken when the last defender died, no extra attack needed.

You are right on that.

The other stuff isn't the information I've requested. I play this game in its spirit and I think it's in its spirit to know the outcome of a battle. It doesn't make me angry in any way that I lost that battle. I had to smile at my own suprise when I was trying to find my troops. Good job, . What does irritate me by now is your reluctancy. Battle reports on every battle is too much work to my opinion and in the field one is able to see the damage on either party by themselve. Therefore my request over this case, where nothing can be seen.

[bongo]

I am reluctant with good reason. I simply don't want you to know how much this victory cost me.


Do you really expect me to tell you the details?

[bongo]

Originally posted by bongo
Do you really expect me to tell you the details?

Hmm, sorry about that one. It ended up sounding much harser than intended



It all boils down do a simple question: Are combat reports part of this games rules?

If it is, I will of course abide and give you it to you.


The reason I'm asking is that I checked the first few pages of this thread and couldn't find an answer. Rommel2D asked about that and galley chaining in one of the first posts. While there was a consensus to allow galley-chaining, no decision was made about combat-reports.

Flandrien said yes(at least I think he did, his post was somewhat ambigous), but he was the only one voicing an opinion.

Here's from the rules btw:
4-2 If players agree to it in advance, the offensive player in a battle must send a combat report listing the resulting details to the defender
25% Aye and 75% quiet isn't exactly a clear answer...


If there's a final decision somewhere in this thread please inform me. I Haven't read the thread in its entirety.

[jshelr]

I agree with bongo on this. In most games I'm involved with, we send battle reports. The intent is to make the information the same as would be observed in a sp game against the AI. (The idea is that the pbem format is flawed in this respect.) But, bongo has much to lose by our retroactively insisting on battle reports. The question is whether there was an up-front requirement or if bongo wants to go the extra mile to be fair.

[Flandrien]

I did vote yes for battle reports, but as there was no agreement, they are not required.



950 bc sent

[bongo]

925 to McMeadows then.

jshelr , where are your boys going?

[Rommel2D]

In going back, I'd have said one yea and no nays or objections would mean that battle reports were expected. I understand someone's reluctance to go through the extra work of keeping track and reporting, but using this flaw in the game design as part of a battle strategy reeks of exploitation to me...

[McMeadows]

I dislike bureaucracy and for that reason I'm not keen on writing down all wins/losses. I have stated here several times now that in this case I feel I have a right to know, because I can't have a look myself, due to a flaw. I concur with Rommel2D.

[Rommel2D]

I should apologize for not being more insistant on getting clear replies on the optional elements or bringing it up with the replacement players. My 'exploit' statement isn't meant as any kind of official ruling, just an impartial observation. I hope we can work something amicable out of this... Should I seek some other opinions in the main thread?

[McMeadows]

Would probably be a good idea.

[Flandrien]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
In going back, I'd have said one yea and no nays or objections would mean that battle reports were expected.

In that case I would reconsider my vote and say no.
If only one player is interested in writing reports, it should not be made required.
Anyway, I think it is too late now to change it for this game.

[McMeadows]

It's not about writing reports all the time. It's about having the decency to report what has happened in a battle, when requested, in cases where a flaw in the game disables a "live" witnessing of the action.
The game is not designed to be played PBEM. It's a feature added and therefore such a flaw has occured.

[bongo]

If combat reports are required you will get it, if not, I'll keep quiet.

Asking(even forcing) someone to tell you his military secrets isn't exactly decent is it?


You can tell people get emotional when they are referring to 'how the game should be played'. Several of the rules here(city gifting to mention one) are made to restrict peoples choices, and in my eyes force them to behave more like AIs. To me, PBEM is to do all the things an AI would never do. Some rules needs to be observed of course, but the fewer the better.

The in-between-turn blindness may be a flaw in the game(more like a not implemented feature) but it is a flaw that affects everyone in the same manner. And like any other game mechanic, I will take advantage of it when I see fit.