~Hail To The King~ A StainlessSteel 6.4 HS - POLAND OPEN!

[SirCumfrance]

Hungary
https://www.mediafire.com/?kkvbtl6z75evjll

[kolu2210]

No pics for the forts? Was it rebel/AI?

[Adanedhel]

Teutonic Order forts with two units each. I outnumbered them 10:1 more or less.

[DeanBurrito]

I don't doubt your army in the ship could have taken the forts but post the pics please.

I'll be sure to put the banners in any other ones as you requested. By my turn if possible to avoid delays

[Adanedhel]

The other army was split in two and took both forts with spies. The pics are really unnecessary and I think I deleted them, but if you really want to see them, I'll make some screens in post them tomorrow. The results may differ a bit, though.

[Macrath]

In order to avoid any delays please upload all screens for player battles, even if the odds are overwhelming. Thnx

[DeanBurrito]

My curiosity is because I had a 6 star spie in the one fort...so I was fairly certain it was safe unless you had catapults. I assumed you would take the other out, used it to kill the catapult so you couldn't take the other in one turn.

[SirCumfrance]

I thought all pvp agent activity had to be posted,
With percentage restrictions on each agent i assumed pics were mandatory.
But im new, i could be wrong.

[Macrath]

Yes all pvp activity needs to be posted with screens.

Also I would like to remind everyone to read the rules through carefully.

[kolu2210]

Was the spie opening gates with 50% chance rule removed? I thought opening gates not being allowed with a certain number of men was in addition to this?

[kolu2210]

Re-read when that was proposed. We voted to "implement" that rule not to "change" the old rule. I was thereby under the impression that both were in force simultaneously... though Macrath had pointed to it being updated on the OP where it was only the one. I never re-looked having reviewed the rules at the start.

[SirCumfrance]

I agree, I had thought that spys needed a 50% to enter buildings.
If they are limited in strength based on unit capacities in forts or settlements, it makes sense for them to be restricted based on their levels too.

[DeanBurrito]

I am in the same boat as the above, I had thought the original gate opening rule was still in play along with the new 700+ men condition on that rule. If thats not the case I am incredibly screwed...the only reason I moved my catapult up to the fort was because I thought it could not be taken without siege weapons and I wanted to threaten the Eastern Polish fort. If it wasn't for this misunderstanding about the rules changed mid game I never would have.

[Adanedhel]

We all agreed to change that rule to the 700+ men rule. If you didn't read the updated rules, which Macrath signalled that were changed, then I'm afraid that's your fault. Since the old rule is not in play, I don't see the purpose of presenting screens of successful spy actions (though I will if it's the admin's decision).

I was thereby under the impression that both (rules) were in force simultaneously...

This would not make sense. Why would we want both rules? It would make the game pretty dull, IMO, since the attacking capabilities of a player would be severely diminished. We would have to rely on siege weapons only...Where's the fun in that?

My curiosity is because I had a 6 star spie in the one fort...so I was fairly certain it was safe unless you had catapults.

I put my own spies in that fort before your turn, since I knew you would want to use it.

the only reason I moved my catapult up to the fort was because I thought it could not be taken without siege weapons and I wanted to threaten the Eastern Polish fort. If it wasn't for this misunderstanding about the rules changed mid game I never would have.

Again, that's why you need to carefully read the rules, especially after changes had been made. Besides, my catapult was in range of that fort anyway. So it doesn't make any difference.

Battles:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0...Fc3MWduaUk0Z0k
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0...ElCOXNaelVweHM

[kolu2210]

I agree with you that I, and the others who didn't realize the full context of the change, should have re-read the rules as I have already noted. But considering I was not alone in this mistake I don't think it was an unreasonable assumption. At no point did you or Macrath allude to altering or eliminating the standing rule in any way. Neither did the others who voted on the matter, their comments if anything pointed towards its continuance.

"Since one can recruit so many spies in the game, and we already have siege weapons in play, could I propose implementing a rule borrowed from Third Age hotseats:
A spy cannot open the gates of settlements/forts if it is garrisoned with +900 men (we can agree on a different number if you like).
I think this gives players a better chance of defending there settlements. Siege weapons can open gates at any time, of course."

This actually points directly to the protection of forts and settlements being tightened up which goes directly against your statement that you do not want "the attacking capabilities of a player to be severely diminished." The 50% rule was already accepted when the game started so it clearly fit with fair game-play. All it takes is a spie to stop the gates from being opened. It has been used here before successfully in many campaigns. Your proposal was to add further protection to stronger armies, which I and others accepted. It was proposed and accepted as a limit on the already standing rule to further diminish the attacking players ability to take forts or settlements in one turn that are properly garrisoned.

"We would have to rely on siege weapons only...Where's the fun in that?"

It would appear now that your proposed changed was colorable in the sense that you were at the same time looking to allow more free use of spies in forts and settlements, without full armies. It was never, however, addressed or even brought up when the change was proposed. In a sense it was slid along under with the upfront aspects of the change.

All in together it is clear there was reasonable misunderstanding regarding the mid-game rule change. Though ignorance is no excuse as Adanedhel and I have both stated, rules should be clear for all players. They also should be interpreted against the drafter when there is vagueness or uncertainty about key terms; in the present case the elimination of an existing rule. Normally I would still say it is unfortunate and move on but Dean is further frustrated as he claims this is likely his last turn before elimination with any chance of further survival disrupted by this discrepancy.

Regardless of the present situation though, which is not mine to decide, I would propose the old rule be brought in force simultaneously, or if not, we move forward with our original rule set.

[themegosh]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B00...ew?usp=sharing

Interesting situation. Clarification is definitely needed. I guess we've gotta believe that there was a spy there before the turn.

[Adanedhel]

I know that you misunderstood this whole situation, but if the 50% rule is no longer in the rule list, then why should you think it's in play?

I put forward the rule of 700 men garrison because the 50% rule was vague to me. I still don't know if we're talking about the chances of infiltration or the chances of opening gates? Someone please clarify.

I thought it was the latter, hence this sentence:

"Since one can recruit so many spies in the game, and we already have siege weapons in play, could I propose implementing a rule borrowed from Third Age hotseats:
A spy cannot open the gates of settlements/forts if it is garrisoned with +900 men (we can agree on a different number if you like).
I think this gives players a better chance of defending there settlements. Siege weapons can open gates at any time, of course."

supports the idea of eliminating the 50% rule since it would be too easy for the attacker to take settlements; all he would need is 2 good spies.With an adequate garrison (700), on the other hand, this could be avoided. If the rule concerns the former (infiltration of settlements), then I outright have to disagree with this being in play. I think it's absurd that even a 10 level spy cannot infiltrate a settlement with a single, 1 level spy inside. A single spy lowers the infiltration chances to around 20% and we can recruit tons of them. I could have a spy in every settlement just sitting there for the rest of the game and still have some running around... If we played with this rule, then the attacker has almost no chance of taking a settlement with spies having to rely on siege weapons only.

All of this is enough reason for me not to play by this rule. You either cannot use spies to open gates AT ALL (due to low infiltration chances), or it's simply too easy (chances of opening gates). Again, with the garrison rule, spies are taken out of the equation. However, having both rules would just be too easy for the defender making the game duller. This is how I see it.

[kolu2210]

The rule was for infiltration and in the case of low level spies that wold be where assasins come in or as you said siege equipment. Or the old fashioned sieging of the location. Regardless it was the rule set out upfront. I still do not see how you there was an allusion to eliminating the rule at all.

Without such a rule on lower then 700 people spots there is no defense to spies. With enough attempts it can always open the gates. I think we can all agree the advantage will always be for the attacker. Some defense for the defender isn't uncalled for.

[Macrath]

And this is the exact reason I hate mid-game rule changes.

I assumed it was quite clear that we would not be including both the 50% rule and the Garrison rule. To include both rules makes it pretty much impossible for spies to ever open a gate. The 50% rule alone makes opening gates very difficult since one low level spy is all that is required to block a top level spy.

To suggest implementing both rules is pretty much just agreeing to not allow spies to open gates at all.

The 50% rule was replaced with the Garrison rule. As the updated rules show. It is an unfortunate misunderstanding, however simply reading the updated rules clearly shows that the 50% rule is no longer in effect and hasn't been for over 20 days.

I will not force anyone to replay a turn simply because other players misunderstood the change and neglected to read the rules list. Adanedhel played according to the rules that have been in place since November 3rd.
If you all want to vote for yet another rule change feel free. If the majority wants a change then it will happen. Just don't come to me over 20 days after the change to argue the rules simply because you have not read the updated list.

I will try to inform players better about such changes in the future, I will hold your hand all the way to the Rules list in the OP, and even read it to you if thats what it takes

I will not spend any time debating a rule implemented over 20 days ago. The campaign will continue.
Vote if you want another change to the rules. Then READ the rules after the change has been made and voice any concerns you have then.

[SirCumfrance]

If thats the case I would prefer either both rules or REPLACE the fort rule with 50% flat requirement for spies to open a city/castle/fort. With pictures to show the odds.
I dislike agent stomping, and dont like the idea of a spy with a 5% chance to open and take my capital in one turn.

If spies are thought to be too op because having one in your settlement makes it too difficult to open the gates, kill it with an assassin or bring equipment.
Especially at this point in the game, people wont have one for every single settlement owned, and use it to scout areas. Thats laughable.

There are reasonable restrictions on all spies and ways that another player should be capable of countering those strategies.