The Infamous: Bloody Fight for Supremacy

[Tonno]

I think your rule don't say you can't attack defeated army.

[invicta]

I think your rule don't say you can't attack defeated army.

No, but my ship was not defeated..and I was not allowed to remove the army from the ship.
My ship was safely in the port, and it couldn't have been attacked otherwise.

[Tonno]

Oh, now that's a tricky situation.

[invicta]

Well it's your call Tonno. You're the admin.

But imo, you can attack ship when your enemy purposely put armies in it (which is why they're allowed to be attacked). To me happened the opposite.
I didn't put them on purpose, and I couldn't move the army .
I didn't put the army to get extra-protection or exploit any rule (the one that inhibit to attack fleets in port, which is why we let attack ships in ports hen they carry soldiers).
My army was defeated and I couldn't do anything about it.

[Mithridate]

Its not too late to change, if you decide that it should be done.

Still one hour remaining on my turn?
Either way, its a loophole in the rules if you wish to view it as such.

But look at it this way:
had he retreated ANY OTHER PLACE, i would have attacked him this turn and killed them off while probably gaining the fort of yours or Lisbon itself. So i do view it as an unfair advantage gained by having them immune to attack in the port.

[invicta]

But look at it this way:
had he retreated ANY OTHER PLACE, i would have attacked him this turn and killed them off while probably gaining the fort of yours or Lisbon itself. So i do view it as an unfair advantage gained by having them immune to attack in the port.

If they didn't retreat in the ships, they would have retreated either in my fort or Lisbon (Lisbon was empty enough last turn).
1-If they retreated in the fort, they would be safe this turn as your ballista couldn't reach it.
2-If they retreated in Lisbon, they would still be safe, as you said you couldn't take Lisbon (so with even more units in it they would be even safer)

So no, you couldn't have attacked them and they woudln;t have retreated anywhere else than in my fort or settlement since they were enough close to the fort and the settlement (but since the ship was even closer it retreated there)

[Mithridate]

On the contrary, this would make it so that you would have fewer units in Lisbon itself as they take up space and cant be moved. The odds was 1:1 so i dont get why i did not manage to AR a win out of it

Id put Lisbon under siege, attack any army outside then assault. Imho it would have been a sure win.
The fort was indeed out of my range, but its more than possible that he would have stopped outside either lisbon or the fort, making them sally out as reinforcements.

Theres too many variables imho to simply say "cannot attack the ship in port", and they are after all still alive.

Why not simply allow them to move, that should make things fair imho?
also, did not attack them last turn in order to give you a chance to move them away...

If i cant touch them, they will be able to attack my rear cities

[invicta]

On the contrary, this would make it so that you would have fewer units in Lisbon itself as they take up space and cant be moved. The odds was 1:1 so i dont get why i did not manage to AR a win out of it

You can be easily proved wrong.
You forget that i can merge and retrain my units. (even if they are defeated it's not against the rules merge them among themselves)
Everyone can see the 1st (the situation you found) and the 2nd (what it could have been).
Counting that the 2 uncomplete units of spear militia and crossbow could have been retrained in Lisbon, you can make the count yourself.

Id put Lisbon under siege, attack any army outside then assault. Imho it would have been a sure win.
The fort was indeed out of my range, but its more than possible that he would have stopped outside either lisbon or the fort, making them sally out as reinforcements.

I already proved above how you're wrong on it. If you couldn't take Lisbon with that number of men, you'd have even less chances with more men like I proved with the 2 ss attached to the post

Theres too many variables imho to simply say "cannot attack the ship in port", and they are after all still alive.
Why not simply allow them to move, that should make things fair imho?
also, did not attack them last turn in order to give you a chance to move them away...
If i cant touch them, they will be able to attack my rear cities

I already explained many times (and posted links ) the history of the rules about the ships and why those rules are there. If I have time I'll try to retrieve one of those posts.
But basically ships carrying soldiers can be attacked because players started to use it as a way to keep them protected (exploiting the rule that ships in ports can't be attacked). Obviously this was not my case, as I didn't put them in the first place.

[Mithridate]

You can be easily proved wrong.
You forget that i can merge and retrain my units. (even if they are defeated it's not against the rules merge them among themselves)
Everyone can see the 1st (the situation you found) and the 2nd (what it could have been).
Counting that the 2 uncomplete units of spear militia and crossbow could have been retrained, you can make the count yourself.

Your general would still have been there, reducing the strength of the defenders. what matters is that you would have been tied to Lisbon whereas you could otherwise send those units around my flank.

I already proved above how you're wrong on it.

you have proven nothing invicta. However, the army retreats to lisbon (i checked)
Please dont take the superior stance

I already explained many times (and posted links ) the history of the rules about the ships and why those rules are there. If I have time I'll try to retrieve one of those posts.

Would be interesting read, and i support this rule. But the rules are not here to bind, they are here to serve.

Also, hotseats with the rule "cannot attack defeated army" allows you to attack armies that retreats into forts. Why would a fleet be different?

Edit: merely want to mace clear, i will respect Tonnos ruling but want to make arguments for "my cause".

[invicta]

Your general would still have been there, reducing the strength of the defenders. what matters is that you would have been tied to Lisbon whereas you could otherwise send those units around my flank.

??
What exaclty are you talking about? I would have kept the defeated general instead of the faction heir.
It doesn't change anything though, as my leading general in Lisbon would have been the faction leader in any case (as he's the one with most stars among my generals)
And it would have led a bigger (and better) army.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make

you have proven nothing invicta. However, the army retreats to lisbon (i checked)
Please dont take the superior stance

??

Would be interesting read, and i support this rule. But the rules are not here to bind, they are here to serve.

??
I explained the reason. I don't see your point as I made enough clear which use has the rule (so which purpose they serve..)

Also, hotseats with the rule "cannot attack defeated army" allows you to attack armies that retreats into forts. Why would a fleet be different?

Ships can move and attack, they are a military unit with soldiers, whi a recruitment cost and an upkeep
Forts are a building.
I shouldn't even explain the difference.

[Tonno]

The easiest way would be if I loaded up the save (this and last turn) and checked some things, but can you all wait that long???

I think your getting to much far from the thing that happened here, what makes my job a bit heavy . That's why I wana load the saves and check some things, what I'll do for sure.

Right now I think the turn should be replyed as said in the PM to Mith before. Older players here know why this rule was made (and I was later explained why), so it's not Invictas foult for the troops placed in a port= it was not deliberately done .
As in AoCII my units in a ship where saved by good will of other player, or his smarts what ever. I'll decide the same here, and say that turn must be replayed.

Do I need to place some real explanation or this is good?

EDIT
@Mith thx for checking where untis reatreat, I was planing to check that now. So less job for me .
[/QUOTE]
Also, hotseats with the rule "cannot attack defeated army" allows you to attack armies that retreats into forts. Why would a fleet be different?[/QUOTE]

And we can consider that units that reatreats in a fort are reinforced (you understand why), while untis in a ship are not. So they are still same all defeated units.

[invicta]

Here's my explanation (there's also a better one in new dawn):
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...8#post10400518
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...2#post10400562

And this is what the 2 rules about the ships were (and why) born (you should read some pages to understand fully what happened):
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...00#post6761800

[Giumbix]

i have no idea what is happening here and what Mith is trying to prove

@Mith you're still scared invicta will beat the out of you and you want to change rules for your advantage

OBEY TEH RULES!!!



p.s. i'm semi-joking here
i think the rule is fine and Mith, just leave it...

[Mithridate]

im fine with waiting, and will prepare a replayed turn. Wont take long.

Will continue the "argument" afterwards if its ok, on PM ofc.
But as i said invicta, you are hard to argument with part since youre good at it and part becouse your are
VERY demeaning in the way you do it. Imho that is, i point to this

Edit:
screens otw, beat the king again but with less losses!
What gets to me about his ships in the armies, is that i really do not want them being able to attack my rear... i took precautions against that now.

Also, im not argumenting against the attacking ships in ports rule, on the contrary!
But the "paragraph" in it clearly states that i can attack ships in ports when they carry troops.

[invicta]

But as i said invicta, you are hard to argument with part since youre good at it and part becouse your are
VERY demeaning in the way you do it. Imho that is, i point to this

I want to point out that we are in a forum, and we communicate by writing (so no tone of voice, or neither we can see each other face). This make things very difficult (and I think anyone might have had already this problem before) as sometimes people can read things differently from how they were originally intended by the poster. If we could speak face to face, you wouldn't get that impression I think.
I'm also a very direct as a person: I don't like to go around things to seem more polite. This put me at disadvantage with people when I start to know them. They get an idea of me, but usually with the time passing most of people appreciate it.

Also I'm italian, and despite the fact that I live in Ireland since 7 years, still English is not my mother language (so even when I express my concepts correctly, they way I approach and build phrases is not the same you'd do).

I can't tell you what to think of me, but is certainly not my intention to demean people.
Think of me more like a German guy or from Eeastern Europe: they might seem rude to people fro western part, but they're really not. It's just a different culture (much more pragmatic in life as with the language)

[Desley]

It is your fault for having a ship near your army Invicta, he is in his right to attack the ship because it had soldier in it..
When I know an enemy is close to my army I always try to get ships and forts out of the way as much as possible.

[Desley]

I want to point out that we are in a forum, and we communicate by writing (so no tone of voice, or neither we can see each other face). This make things very difficult (and I think anyone might have had already this problem before) as sometimes people can read things differently from how they were originally intended by the poster. If we could speak face to face, you wouldn't get that impression I think.
I'm also a very direct as a person: I don't like to go around things to seem more polite. This put me at disadvantage with people when I start to know them. They get an idea of me, but usually with the time passing most of people appreciate it.

Also I'm italian, and despite the fact that I live in Ireland since 7 years, still English is not my mother language (so even when I express my concepts correctly, they way I approach and build phrases is not the same you'd do).

I can't tell you what to think of me, but is certainly not my intention to demean people.
Think of me more like a German guy or from Eeastern Europe: they might seem rude to people fro western part, but they're really not. It's just a different culture (much more pragmatic in life as with the language)

No they are actually quite rude.

[Jiub]

Well neither of you are right in my opinion.

This is the sort of situation that regardless of your decision Tonno, you will put one of the players at a disadvantage.
Mithridate should be allowed to attack those units, as there is no rule forbidding them from being attacked. On the other hand, it wasn't Invicta's fault they got on those ships, so if you favor Mithridate, Invicta will have his fleet defeated, even thou he didn't do anything to get them to be defeated.

So it's a double edged blade, on one side you forbid a player from attacking something he should be able to attack, on the other you let a player's fleet be attacked while it shouldn't.

My advice, play the turn in detail and see which player you hinder most by making a decision. For example, if Mithridate could've conquered Lisbon. If he could and you favored Invicta, then you put Mithridate at a huge disadvantage, on the other hand if he can't use this for anything, then you won't hinder him much if you don't allow him to attack the navy.


Basically, they are both right, you just got to choose the side that looses the least in this, because in a 50%/50% situation, you want it to go with the lesser evil.


Ow and, straighten the rules Tonno. From now one you have to clarify how such situations will go.

[Tonno]

I think you got it wrong Desley, as I folowed the game, Muhamad was defeated turn before this happened, so he could not move him this turn. So he can't effect him much. But I didn't folow so much, so I am not sure.

EDIT
Jiub is pretty right.
But I am sticking with the decision. 80 men left for Invicta in that ships 2 cogs. He is good, but he is no god to do miricels wit that.
I can't say much, I am afraid that I could say unwanted infos.

I am sticking to the decision.

[Mithridate]

Im pretty used to rude, and imho you have the right to go on a you spree should anyone wish to.
But this forum have terms saying that you have to stay polite, a line i believe you overstep from time to time.
My impression of you however, is good.

Im swedish, were usually to the point and pretty used to brute arguments and im used to the "germanic" way of thinking, acting and talking.

Edit: sending another PM to pesto.
I could have placed forces in the way of the ship, preventing them from retreating that way unless im mistaken.

Also, will i be allowed to attack the fleet/army next turn then if they are still in the port?

@ Desley, lol you are right yet wrong^^ overall though... i have to agree. Very nice yet rude people