Disputes Thread

[GeoModder]

OMG, ...

I don't think anyone of my team contested how Watership Down (the first city PAL took) was accomplished. But there's still the other town.

Fact: there's 3 movements required after 525 BC to let your army conquer Valley Hutch, meaning in 450 BC your army could do that job the soonest. You did it in 475 BC, so you did move the stack northeast of Heliopolis again after Caerbannog finished its turn. Your claim it was your workers that roaded two plots northeast of Heliopolis in 500 BC is a lie. The screenshot shows clearly that, first, there's already a road there and second, that plot is Caerbannog territory so your melee units simply cannot move 2 plots/turn along a road in enemy territory. And you used mostly melee units to conquer Valley Hutch.

Fact: not content with speeding things up by a turn, you discovered the downtime made you late for playing 500 BC. And first thing you do is a double move just because you feel you have every right 'to catch up'.

Still so certain about your 'version' of the events?

[GeoModder]

The question was asked by Krill. To Rabbits and PaL Are you prepared to agree that he is the admin and that his decision is final on this and any future questionable episodes.

TheViking is a member of the Rabbits of Caerbannog team, and he gave a . That sounds pretty clear to me, Herc.

[sunrise089]

Geo - I apologize in advance because it's so hard to understand this issue without seeing the game, but by "meaning in 450 BC your army could do that job the soonest" you mean that they had a stack with movement they couldn't move because they had already ended their turn, right? I ask because "there's 3 movements required after 525 BC to let your army conquer Valley Hutch, meaning in 450 BC your army could do that job the soonest. You did it in 475 BC" makes it sound as if they did the impossible, and move 3 spaces in 2 turns, which isn't possible double-move or no double-move.

[GeoModder]

Okay.

525 BC: at the onset of the turn the army you see on my screenshot was in Heliopolis (I had a chariot with the explore promotion confirming that, I even have a screenshot of that).
PAL plays, and finishes its turn. When I play the turn, I see that army where you see it on the screenshot, with a new road under it. So all the melee units in that stack have used half their movement IF they moved after the road was finished.
So Caerbannog finishes its turn. Then PAL logs in again, and moves the stack northeast again in Caerbannog territory.
500 BC: PAL plays late. They now move the stack a second plot in Caerbannog territory to the east following the road (where you see our flag on the screenshot). That move brings the stack next to Valley Hutch.
475 BC: PAL plays first. They attack Valley Hutch, losing 3 units in the encounter. They then take out the defenders and raze the city.

If PAL hadn't moved their stack again in 525 BC (using the second half of their movement alotment along roads), they couldn't have done that.

Does that clarify things?

[sunrise089]

Yes. Is moving units after "End Turn" prohibited? Otherwise it seems like you still have a case for the 500BC-474BC double-move (I'm assuming the requisite number of hours hadn't passed.

[crescentfresh]

Fact: there's 3 movements required after 525 BC to let your army conquer Valley Hutch, meaning in 450 BC your army could do that job the soonest.

looks to me like it would take only 2 turns.

500 BC road east of the stack, move 6, 9

475 Hit city

I wasn't there, but it certainly does not require 3 turns.

crescentfresh1 on skype

[tonyciv4]

Okay GEO this is bordering embrassing ,double check your posts (then tripple check them) ... No one can be this slow, it's not possible.

Please do yourself a favour .... Load turn 94 then 95 Use Cresents post for hints. IT ONLY REQUIRES 2 TURNS WITH THOSE WORKERS!

Yes we agree to Krill's verdict being binding - Please Send him the above save and the one after this ... When he has finished laughing his ass off he will see why we are so fustrated with this crap. The only rule that was broken was the double move rule, on turn 96!!!!

I can't believe no one on the entire Rabbit team understand, roading with with workers and moving on that road same turn ... Such a basic concept.

Playing after we ended turn would not have allowed us to get to the second city any faster anyway.

If you guys really really still don't get something so simple please send me the turn 94 save and I'll give you a move by move demo of what we did turn 95 ... How does that sound? My Email address is tonyciv4@yahoo(DOT)com

[tonyciv4]

Opps posted same message 2 times

[Zoid]

Seriously, how can we continue to play this game with that kind of behaviour from tony? Shouting abuse and behaving like a spoiled tw@t. I'm sorry it's come to this, the game is dead and tony killed it IMO.

[Swiss Pauli]

This is becoming quite tiresome, but we need to try to resolve it one way or the other, else the game will surely die.

Does anyone have screenshots of the Valley Hutch theatre on T95 (BC500)?

If PAL's version is correct then there must be a road on the tile 1E of PAL's stack in the T94 (BC525) pics, and there should also be two workers (and possibly one or more guard unit) on this tile as they would have no movement left after builing the road on T95 (BC500).

If Rabbits are correct, then the road in question may not exist at all. Another possibility is that the workers are not on this new road, meaning that PAL must have moved these workers on T94 after ending their turn.

Alternatively, if Rabbits have a pic from T95 showing PAL's stack one tile NE of their location on the T94 pic then these units would have had to move there after the end of the turn on T94 because this route would only allow an attack on T97 (BC450), not T96 (BC475).

If there's no screenshots then it seems that someone will have to look at the autosaves for T95 & 96 as it doesn't look like either party will concede the point.

[tonyciv4]

Seriously, how can we continue to play this game with that kind of behaviour from tony? Shouting abuse and behaving like a spoiled tw@t. I'm sorry it's come to this, the game is dead and tony killed it IMO.

We’ll you guys killed the game for me many weeks ago, therefore I’m so far beyond caring and will only be involved with this game for another 2-4 turns.

How do you tell an argumentative person they don’t know basic game concepts without being rude? When someone says things like “you needed 3 turns to attack from that point” (post after post, for 3 pages) my tolerance wears thin. I will put this issue to rest with screenshots, using world builder this afternoon, when I get back from work.

Of course the game is dead for you guys, it has been for a long time, which may be the reason for these fraudulent claims. You guys no longer have any bearing on the game and you know it, so are therefore using these nasty tricks. You have played with PAL in the past, we always play with good sportsmanship, never broken a treaty and when things don’t go our way, like getting attacked on turn 10, we take it on the chin no complaining. So when I see such appealing display of sportsmanship it winds me up. You guys have been trying to gain an advantage at every opportunity (hence the ‘load turn 94 and you play first’, even when no rules were broken until turn 96).

So when I was frustrated and appealed by how Rabbit have acted, they added insult to injury by arguing a fraudulent case for 2 weeks … hence I’m beyond caring now!

[tonyciv4]

Swiss, the issue is not if there is a road east of PALs stack, this is a given surely they can't argue this as the save from turn 95-96 will show it.

They do not understand the concept of roading with 2 workers and moving units on it the same turn ... Hence the whole issue is about if its possible to attack in 2 turns, with 2 workers it obviously is ... Now can you understand why I'm so fustrated?

If Rabbit is correct, I will apologise publically and gift them some stuff in game (workers, techs, even cities), as self punishment. If I’m correct will we all get a public apology for wasting everyone’s time?

[Swiss Pauli]

@tony - the problem I have is that you've been acting outraged from the start of this dispute, and have only recently (yesterday, in fact) started to explain how you moved your units legally to attack Valley Hutch in BC475. If you had explained earlier instead of ranting it would have saved us all a lot of time. I look forward to seeing your full explanation, and then finally resolving this dispute so we can move on with the game.

[Hercules]

The Templars agree to Krill as admin.

[Swiss Pauli]

I've emailed Imperio about Krill's offer, as I know their main players have been away and I'm not sure the others have been following this thread.