War of The Truth

[DribNairb]

FYI - Jamie just messaged me to say he hasn't finished his turn yet, so if possible we should all try to give both him and Fosse a chance to login again before we take our turns.

[DribNairb]

A rather strange situation occurred last turn, although I hadn't realised just how odd it was until Jamie sent me a message this turn:

Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the game mechanics can explain this situation (simplified as best I can):

g	r	r	d	g
V	r	r	d	r
r	w	r	r	F
r	r	p	S	h

g=grass, r=road, w=water (lake), p=plain, h=hill
V = City of Vienna (owned by Maltman)
F = City of Florence (owned by Fosse)
S = Stack of units (owned by DribNairb/IanDC)

Florence was a fairly new city, and Vienna has been around for ages and has (at least) a 3 square cultural radius.

Last turn, IanDC logged in and razed Florence. I think everyone expected that Vienna's borders would therefore be covering most of the squares in the above diagram.

However, I realised right at the last moment that I could move a knight from position S and attack Vienna (which was defended by a single archer). I can't remember the exact move I made, but I think it was N, NW, W, followed by attacking Vienna.

The question is - how come I was able to make this move? (My knight doesn't have any commando promotions). Surely more than one of the squares east of Vienna should have been owned by Maltman?

[da_Vinci]

A rather strange situation occurred last turn, although I hadn't realised just how odd it was until Jamie sent me a message this turn:

Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the game mechanics can explain this situation (simplified as best I can):

g	r	r	d	g
V	r	r	d	r
r	w	r	r	F
r	r	p	S	h

g=grass, r=road, w=water (lake), p=plain, h=hill
V = City of Vienna (owned by Maltman)
F = City of Florence (owned by Fosse)
S = Stack of units (owned by DribNairb/IanDC)

Florence was a fairly new city, and Vienna has been around for ages and has (at least) a 3 square cultural radius.

Last turn, IanDC logged in and razed Florence. I think everyone expected that Vienna's borders would therefore be covering most of the squares in the above diagram.

However, I realised right at the last moment that I could move a knight from position S and attack Vienna (which was defended by a single archer). I can't remember the exact move I made, but I think it was N, NW, W, followed by attacking Vienna.

The question is - how come I was able to make this move? (My knight doesn't have any commando promotions). Surely more than one of the squares east of Vienna should have been owned by Maltman?

Hmm ... I have noticed in single player games that when a city is taken out, in the same turn some of the tiles near the city are often not shown to be in anyone's cultural border ... but by next turn (or maybe the turn after) the borders return to normal.

But looking more closely at your diagram, are you saying that all culture control of tiles from Vienna (or was it Prague?  ) disappeared?  Or is it that the knight moved 4 tiles in enemy territory?

I am guessing the latter, the route you remember is not direct, suggesting you did not expect to have 4 moves.

Which raises some interesting issues ... should Carolus get a reload based on a game glitch (or an exploit)?  Or does he still have a "for any cause" reload he can call upon (or is that some other game I am thinking of ... maybe over on TG ...)

Addendum: It is here: 5. Reload Option

5.1 - Each civ will be permitted a maximum of ONE reload.  This reload request must be requested publicly via the ChaosCiv.com forums within 12 hours of the turn in question.  The reload will use the most recent autosave for that civ (autosaves occur at the start of each player's turn). End addendum

Maybe we could save the current position, then reload to before your knight move for the game jury to examine the scenario? Then either resume from before the curiosity, or from the current position, depending on the findings?

dV

[DribNairb]

Oops - you're right, it was Prague, not Vienna. I'm getting the city names mixed up.

I remember there was definitely at least one square east of Prague which was owned by Maltman, but I can't remember exactly which other squares were neutral. In hindsight I realise now how odd it was, but at the time I thought nothing of it.

A look at the save would be interesting, if only to understand exactly what happened. If it's a bug in the game then I agree it should probably be reloaded, but I'm beginning to think it's more of a quirk of the game mechanics rather than an actual bug.

[Fosse]

I had actually theorized that you must have used Espionage to put Prague into disorder.  THough Carolus couldn't find that event, I'm not sure what it would look like as I've never had that mission committed against me.

Since I see that's not the case, it sounds like this was the result of the strange border behavior we're talking about.  It doesn't sound like an out and out bug, but it's also probably not exactly intended either.  Just a function of when different systems update, at the top or bottom of turns.

In any case, we were absolutely baffled by the knight moving so far!  Nobody thought there was any dirty play (cheating, I mean.  In game, rioting a city isn't on the up and up, but this is totally an OOC coversation anyhow!) going on, just very surprising giving that we were over analyzing every tile in the region. 



In any case, my understanding of the reload rule is that it'd be fine, if Carolus still has one left and wants to go that route.... but then there'd have to be a gentleman's agreement to not specifically raze Prague, which might be a bit much without creating an extremely specific rule about moving in unfriendly territory in post-raze situations.... I don't htink we need to go down that road. 

[da_Vinci]

@ Drib: Mixing up city names ... that is what happens when you get to be too big ... 

In any case, my understanding of the reload rule is that it'd be fine, if Carolus still has one left and wants to go that route.... but then there'd have to be a gentleman's agreement to not specifically raze Prague, which might be a bit much without creating an extremely specific rule about moving in unfriendly territory in post-raze situations.... I don't htink we need to go down that road. 

Or, the reload could be to the turn before, and with the new understanding of the game mechanics of this city razing issue, Carolus puts a defender or two in Prague ... then no unusual rules are required.

If others don't mind going back that far ...

dV

[Carolus Maltman]

@ Drib: Mixing up city names ... that is what happens when you get to be too big ... 

In any case, my understanding of the reload rule is that it'd be fine, if Carolus still has one left and wants to go that route.... but then there'd have to be a gentleman's agreement to not specifically raze Prague, which might be a bit much without creating an extremely specific rule about moving in unfriendly territory in post-raze situations.... I don't htink we need to go down that road. 

Or, the reload could be to the turn before, and with the new understanding of the game mechanics of this city razing issue, Carolus puts a defender or two in Prague ... then no unusual rules are required.

If others don't mind going back that far ...

dV

Right, this is a rule nobody understood, that isn't mentioned anywhere anyone could reasonably know about. We'd done all the normal calculations, had our troops ready, could have put any number of units in Prague and then log in to see something that seemed impossible.

And for the record, bold is where the culture reached pre-Florence.

g   r   r   d   g
P   r   r   d   r
r   w   r   r   F
r   r   p   S   h

[DribNairb]

I'm happy enough to go with the majority rule - I think it's fairly obvious that all of us on our continent are going to be a little biased about the outcome of this  so perhaps somebody neutral could take a closer look and suggest something? I don't know if there has been any precedent?

I seem to remember Capsavian and Elkad both have explorers in the area. Sorry to dump this on you Frank, but what do you think about setting up a quick test server and logging in to see the situation first hand? Maybe you can shed some light on exactly what happened at each stage? The 'issue' presumably began on IanDC's turn (the one before 1370AD, not sure of the year) when he razed Florence.

[Carolus Maltman]

I would be fine with a reload to before Drib's 1365 turn where I could then move my troops, understanding this as a possibility.

[DribNairb]

I think the real question is whether this is unintended behaviour of the game (ie. a bug) or whether it is simply unexpected behaviour.

If it's a bug there should be a reload, but it also means that should this situation arise in any other war (or if it's already happened) there needs to be some kind of rule stating what can and can't be done.

If it's just unexpected (ie. someone can explain why it happened) then I would say this is part of the game and we shouldn't reload (but then, I would say that wouldn't I?  ).

I don't think players can use their reload just because something didn't turn out the way they wanted. After all, when you managed to take out a significant portion of our stack it was because we hadn't realised you had enough workers to build roads on two squares. This happened because we couldn't see precisely how many units you had on the square because there were so many they disappeared off the top of the screen! However, I don't think anyone would say we could reload the game because of that.

[Carolus Maltman]

I think the real question is whether this is unintended behaviour of the game (ie. a bug) or whether it is simply unexpected behaviour.

If it's a bug there should be a reload, but it also means that should this situation arise in any other war (or if it's already happened) there needs to be some kind of rule stating what can and can't be done.

If it's just unexpected (ie. someone can explain why it happened) then I would say this is part of the game and we shouldn't reload (but then, I would say that wouldn't I?  ).

I don't think players can use their reload just because something didn't turn out the way they wanted. After all, when you managed to take out a significant portion of our stack it was because we hadn't realised you had enough workers to build roads on two squares. This happened because we couldn't see precisely how many units you had on the square because there were so many they disappeared off the top of the screen! However, I don't think anyone would say we could reload the game because of that.

Understood, but we were also in the same situation with your stacks, having to guess whether or not you had workers to do the same.

This is a case where the game dynamics go in the exact opposite direction of what we think is possible. That when a city is razed, it creates a no-culture bomb effect for one turn, creating a window where you can move through previously cultured tiles that we had expected were completely safe based on our understanding of the rules. The fact that everyone else involved was shocked as well shows that this is not a previously understood phenomenon.

And people have asked for their one reload based on making a wrong move with a unit or two in the past.

[DribNairb]

Sorry - looking at my post again it may have come across all wrong.

What I was meaning was that there are certain game limitations that we all have to live with (eg. not being able to see how many units your opponent has or the fact that culture squares don't always do what you expect).

There are also some game limitations which we are aware of (eg. with gifting cities) which we have specific rules written to prevent exploiting them.

What I'm not sure about is whether this situation falls into the first or second category. Just because it didn't do what we expected doesn't mean it should be disallowed. I lost plenty of units in my first war because I didn't fully understand the mechanics of how units attacked/defended (thanks to Oyzar for explaining it to me BTW).

I remember we had an odd situation in C&C1 whereby I accepted a Vassal state which caused enemy units to be moved in an unexpected way. The biggest problem initially was that many people thought it was a bug until I explained what was going on. Once it was realised that it was correct, but that everyone thought it should be prevented from happening, someone (I think it was DanDRidge) came up with a simple rule which covered the situation and we employed it from that point on.

Conversely, I was on the receiving end of a very well crafted move by Capsavian and others to free Rennald from his Vassal state. I remember feeling quite aggrieved that they had exploited what, at the time, I considered a bug in the game mechanics. However, through RP they came up with a perfect explanation as to what happened and, in hindsight, I believe it was absolutely correct to allow it to happen.

I admit in this case I'm just as confused as you, but I'm hoping someone can explain why it happened in the first place and then we can collectively decide if we consider it a bug/misunderstanding and whether there can be a rule and an explanation to say what should happen in this situation. As far RP is concerned, the current situation is that The One has shown his awesome power in striking down those who speak out against The Truth. Immortal beings are obviously excluded from our man-made 'rules'.

However, feel free to suggest an additional rule to avoid the situation and if everyone agrees I'd be happy to abide by it.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

I've just now gotten back into the office and am reading this (admittedly confusing!) situation. 

From what I have gathered, the moral of the story is:  a reload has been requested to 1365AD, preferably Drib's autosave for that turn (if it's even available yet--I'll have to check!)?

Please let me know if that is correct.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

I don't think players can use their reload just because something didn't turn out the way they wanted.

Something similar happened to me actually, just a few turns ago--I was on the receiving end of an oversight which Elkad smartly exploited, after requesting a reload.  At first blush, I'd feel this goes against the spirit of the Reload Request rule, however we don't have anything specifically denying that option in the rules.  Reloads have been requested in cases of accidentally misusing a Great Person, accidentally deleting a military unit, and now (at least twice if this request is to be counted!) in correcting a tactical error.

It's probably not the way we intended Reloads to be used, however that's also partly why we have limited the number of reloads to one per player, per game.

So I would suggest that Maltman's reload request has merit, assuming he has not used his request already in this game (I don't think he has?).  The reload would need to be for Maltman's latest autosave, however:

5.1 - Each civ will be permitted a maximum of ONE reload.  This reload request must be requested publicly via the ChaosCiv.com forums within 12 hours of the turn in question.  The reload will use the most recent autosave for that civ (autosaves occur at the start of each player's turn).

Do the concerned parties agree?

[DribNairb]

Can't argue with that - I had assumed the reload was meant for accidental mistakes rather than for getting a second chance at a tactical situation, but that's not what it actually says in the rules.

However, I'd still like to know why the culture borders did what they did - if anyone knows why please speak up! 

[Capsavian Hopewell]

OK, here's what I propose:  I will reload to Hoplosternum's latest autosave (1365 AD) which should satisfy the reload request (Drib's autosave was overwritten, as the pitboss software only saves the LATEST autosave per player plus multiple turn sequence autosaves).

I will wait for Maltman's response to confirm that this is acceptable in fulfilling his reload request before I proceed.

Regarding the spirit of reloads, I too feel reloads should not be meant for tactical use (misuse?), so that might be something we should look into amending to the Rule 5.1 for the future if the majority agrees.  In this instance though, the rules are pretty clear.


And regarding the anti-culture bomb issue here...I've seen it in action numerous times, particularly in single-player games.  Whether it *should* be there or not, I guess we can debate...but it doesn't appear to be a bug I think.  Just a game mechanic quirk of sorts.  In my opinion.

[Munro]

I've seen this a lot in SP games, and I've never considered it a bug - it's just too widespread.  I.e. it's reasonable to assume that game designers must have known about this behaviour and therefore probably intended (or at least accepted) it as part of the game mechanics.

That said, I don't understand the specific mechanics myself.  Possibly in this case the behaviour was triggered by the likely fact (?) that Jamie had previously owned the city, so as far as the game's cultural mechanics were concerned, it still belonged to him.  Some temporary disruption to his cultural borders in the immediately surrounding area might therefore not be completely unreasonable.  It might be interesting to research if anyone has time.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't consider this a bug unless there is specific evidence to the contrary.

As an aside, I do find the concept of using reloads to correct a tactical oversight or error very distasteful.  Misclicks are one thing (and I have no reason to doubt Elkad's claim that his reload falls into this latter category) but I would have felt very unhappy, for example, if da Vinci had requested a reload after his catastrophically unsuccessful attempt to wipe out my stack at the battle of Livestockade (due to a misunderstanding about collateral damage) - just because it didn't turn out the way he expected.  Or what if you just had an unlucky streak with the RNG?  Where do we draw the line?  Right now we don't have one and for me, this kind of reload use doesn't sit well with the general spirit of the game.

By the way - I'm not objecting to the reload here (and given the rather obscure circumstances I can understand how frustrating this must be for Jamie) but if anyone else feels the same maybe it would be worth refining the rule slightly for future use (or agreeing gentlemanly conduct) to limit it to misclicks or other exceptional circumstances not relating to tactical do-overs?

Anyone else had similar thoughts?

Edit: cross-post with Capsavian; sounds like some update to the rule would be appropriate.

[Fosse]

I think that it's very much worth looking at the reload rule for C&C III.  I'm unaware of how it was originally dreamt up and what it was intended to accomplish when it was agreed upon.  It is a very trusting rule, and I think it's a credit to this community that it doesn't seem to be abused or a source of real ire.

I think that the cultural border behavior is a bug, the more I think about it.  The capture and razing of Florence, which Maltman did not control, to contract.  That makes no sense.  If I raze Player A's city, why should Player B's capital lose out its cultural influence?

I imagine that the issue turns up so rarely, and in such highly specific circumstances (after all, this is the first time I've seen it) that we need not bother with crafting a finely worded rule to deal with all of these situations in the future.  Rules are never a problem, but I think that the fewer you can get away with the better.  (the latest game I started has a page of rules, of course.  )

[Carolus Maltman]

OK, here's what I propose:  I will reload to Hoplosternum's latest autosave (1365 AD) which should satisfy the reload request (Drib's autosave was overwritten, as the pitboss software only saves the LATEST autosave per player plus multiple turn sequence autosaves).

I will wait for Maltman's response to confirm that this is acceptable in fulfilling his reload request before I proceed.

Regarding the spirit of reloads, I too feel reloads should not be meant for tactical use (misuse?), so that might be something we should look into amending to the Rule 5.1 for the future if the majority agrees.  In this instance though, the rules are pretty clear.


And regarding the anti-culture bomb issue here...I've seen it in action numerous times, particularly in single-player games.  Whether it *should* be there or not, I guess we can debate...but it doesn't appear to be a bug I think.  Just a game mechanic quirk of sorts.  In my opinion.

I understand all the pros and cons here, and if this weren't a bizarre quirk that caused me to lose my last city, while I have a ton of troops that I could (and would) have positioned there if I had known this quirk existed, then I would have just accepted it and said play on... but since I haven't complained about anything yet, and it caused my last city to go with a whimper just because of this bizarre quirk....

I'd like the reload to Hoplo's turn, and then we'll see how things play out, which will likely result in a battle sooner rather than later.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Fair enough!  Thanks for the prompt response, Jamie.  I'm reloading the game now.  Should be back online in about five minutes, with Holpo's autosave for 1365AD

[da_Vinci]

I think in this case a relaod which would allow Prague not to be taken by a single knight fits the spirit of the game, since it seems that both Carolus and Drib were equally surprised that the opportunity presented itself.  That, in my opinion, makes it less of an error by one side, and more of an unexpected game mechanic event.

Whereas Munro was (apparently) not surprised by the poor results of my siege attack on his forces ... which makes that result one due to his superior game understanding (or maybe just his superior simming skills and available time for it!  ), and thus not worthy of a reload.

I have seen the tiles near a city that is taken or razed become unowned for a turn or two in my SP games, but I don't recall that happening to the degree that tiles adjacent to a neighboring city, previously in the cultural border of that city, become unowned.  My sense had been that the tiles which would change ownership upon the fall of a city might be unowned for a turn or two, but not ones that would remain with the same owner.  I will have to rethink that assumption, apparently.

dV

[Capsavian Hopewell]

It's a bizarre situation in any case, I agree.  Regardless, the reload has been made and hopefully we can figure out a way to prevent this from being a source of contention in the future.

[Carolus Maltman]

Thanks everyone for the understanding - I've taken my turn and we'll see what happens from here.

And here's the bare map for our analysis.

The entire fat cross of Florence has 0% culture for anyone this turn - in the cultural chaos. Which allowed for the Knight blitz from where Drib's stack was.

[Fosse]

I think Carolus may need to log back in to finish his turn.  There was a part we were consulting on. 

If the rest of you could hold off for a little while until he lets us know?  (he might not need to, I'm not 100% sure).  Thanks! 

[Carolus Maltman]

I think Carolus may need to log back in to finish his turn.  There was a part we were consulting on. 

If the rest of you could hold off for a little while until he lets us know?  (he might not need to, I'm not 100% sure).  Thanks! 

Sorry I took so long to do that little extra bit - I was at a wedding all afternoon and evening. You're all good to go.

[IanDC]

I think the chain of events all makes sense to the program (if not to us), I could be wrong but I thought that Florence had expanded before I raised it making the order of events -

Turn end/start - Florence culture expands (due to Greek creative trait)
Vassal culture of HRE automatically yields to BFC of Greek overlord
Hence 2nd ring tiles around Florence become Greek including a couple in Prague's BFC
Florence is raised
All Greek tiles temporarily revert to neutral, including those that are within Prague's BFC
Way is opened for the glorious Knights of the Founders to spread the word. 

Definitely better to have the reload & play to the spirit rather than the mechanics though.

[DribNairb]

Of course, I forgot vassal states immediately give up their right to a square if it's in the fat cross of a master. That explains the whole thing then!