[The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

[Mergor]

Please don't post your turn pbob, I wish an admin ruling on this.

I heavily, HEAVILY protest this move of yours. I consider trapping your ship a smart move. Not against the rule, not using any exploit, and it happened due to your defeat. Just because you are salty about losing, it isn't justification enough to try to mitigate your losses by litteraly breaking a rule. No defeats are allowed, and this shouldn't be an exception.

I may had my fair share of drama in this HS, but I really hope you guys do agree with me on this one. You can't just break a rule, and you can't just break a rule without admin approval, assuming that your reasons will be accepted anyway.

[Jadli]

A smart move indeed... but a very devious one....

Im not salty, its simply a fact that for Pelletine to pay 5k every turn (which is like 1/4 of Pelletine economy) till the end of the HS for a useless army is utterly dumb and unfair. If the army wasnt on the sea, I could just disband it and there would be nothing to talk about. But because its on a ship (that has only 10 sailors), the game stupidly doesnt let me disband the army, which is kind of bug, and hence this is kind of an exploit from your side. Why not play clean?

Plus, the exploit rules kind of say its illegal to surround troops...

[paladinbob123]

A smart move indeed... but a very devious one....

Im not salty, its simply a fact that for Pelletine to pay 5k every turn (which is like 1/4 of Pelletine economy) till the end of the HS for a useless army is utterly dumb and unfair. If the army wasnt on the sea, I could just disband it and there would be nothing to talk about. But because its on a ship (that has only 10 sailors), the game stupidly doesnt let me disband the army, which is kind of bug, and hence this is kind of an exploit from your side. Why not play clean?

Plus, the rules kind of say its illegal to surround troops...

the rule is "

- You are not allowed to post a defeat" ....

in times like this i often ask myself the question of what would any admin do, if i posted a defeat or any other player did so...and the answer would be the admin would ask us to re-doe the turn without the defeat result because its in the rules...

ok , a lawyer might argue, that you didnt actually "post a defeat" by not actually putting the result on the forum , thus not posting it, but that would be a work-around against the spirit of the law..and the admins should abide by the law like any other player [even thou they are perhaps subbing a faction] or even its a player just providing a helping hand to a hotseat?

i think the spirit of the law here, must stand , unless of course, consensus of the other players dont really mind...in which case, i would ask the rules be amended, to something that allows posting defeats, with certain conditions?

[Mergor]

Sucks to be you Jad, negotiate with me diplomatically for either a release or a sink. It won't be there till the end of the game, as it is a war measure. It is also true that you can get it out of there, if you push me back on the sea. It's on the open sea, any outside fleet can break my "blockade." So get to work, this is a situation you can resolve, and one where I used an advantage I had. No rule breaks here, except for you.

The surrond rule is there so you can't cheese to scatter armies, and you know that. But even if we took that litterally, there are a few tiles you could technically go to, so

[Potatoto]

I would personaly qualify not being able to disband unites on the ships as a bug. The rule of not being allowed to post defeats was purely made to prevent exploiting naval battles in one way. This rule shouldn't be exploited the way Mergor did to Jadli.

[Jadli]

@pal

The rule is indeed written in a way that it doesnt allow any exceptions

However, the rule was added into hotseats basically by me/GS because of Ventos years ago (if I remember correctly ...), because he/some players were able to use defeats to archieve a victory they would otherwise never get, as an attacker always gets an advantage in AR... i.e., by sending your ships one by one (and losing each time) you were able to inflict large casaultaties on a larger enemy fleet compared to when sending your whole fleet at once, eventually even defeating them... in principle, it should also work with the ground units.

It is also kinda includes other various rules that used to be used before, such as not saylling out and losing when besieged (as it would take away sacking option from the besieger, and you would also make him lose more men by reloading)

So basically the spirit under which the rule was added is that "you are not allowed to purposely lose a battle in your turn in order to get an advantage". The purpose of the rule definitely wasnt banning losing battles just for the sake of banning them, but to eliminate all the various cases when players were able to use it to their advantage. Which is definitely not this case. Maybe the rule should be rewritten in such a way...

@Mergor

Oh please, its deep in your territory, you would obviously kill it before letting me rescue it (its my most elite army ever)... if any of my ships got even remotely nearby enough to threaten it, you would sink it immediately, you would definitely not let me save it (but as Im on defensive after this major defeat and its deep in your territory, its basically impossible for me to get there). And considering the turn of events, no diplomacy can save that army/ship

Well, that it can move to a tile doesnt mean it can retreat or that it is not surrounded, as the tile is in your ZoC (Zone of Control)...

Again, I applaud your skill , not sure if I would have even though of doing this myself . But that doesnt mean Im gonna stand for it ... I already lost 10 or 15k for the useless upkeep (before I lost my patience ), so you can be happy with the result.

[Mergor]

Let's look at it from this way: (although I still not consider anything I did a bug or an exploit)
Whatever the case is, changing the rules in the middle of a game, destroying an advantage someone gained for themselves and screwing up their entire strategy (I played and not rushed Pelletine capital with this money drain in mind) because someone is salty about losing, would be such a biased move that I am not even sure what to say.

I am willing to talk about banning this in the future (as in, if the majority wants that, even though I wouldn't agree, I would still accept it) but there should be no question about not letting Jadli do this.

Why bring this up now anyway? You saw me doing this last turn too, yet you kept silent. This very much seems like not being able to accept defeat.

I am still waiting on Berry.

[General Dragon.]

I am on the same page as Paladinbob. Objectively seeing you decided to go on without waiting for admin approval on something, that clearly needs Berryknights attention and decision on the matter. This puts you into the black spot, that right now you are a clear rule breaker, while mergor hasn't done anything such yet, that clearly indicates he is in the wrong instead. You could have made this more easier for yourself, if you would have asked for Berry before, you decided to move the turn forward.

is utterly dumb and unfair.

You could say Mergor is doing another "meta-gaming" move, but his move is a very smart and tactical one.
The only "dumb move" I can see, is you taking the risk, by putting all of your armies on ships and paying the price for said risk. I don't see, how mergor defeating you, legitimately is dumb and unfair. This is like saying, when you get checkmated in chess, because you didn't see, that you will be checkmated in one move is dumb and unfair.

the game stupidly doesnt let me disband the army, which is kind of bug

Given what you told me about recruitment pools in the past I believe, this is a mechanic, a feature the CA devs intended this way, because disbanding troops on your lands can refill your recruitment pools, so when you don't need troops, you can disband them not pay upkeep and focus on peace, but when you need troops, you have your recruitment pools filled up, to easily mass recruit your units back. Also "realisticly" where do you disband troops on a ship? You push the men out of the ship, as they are "retired"? I am pretty sure, they would just take over the ship and rebel.
You also told me, if I remember correctly, you could do the same with mercenary recruitment pool also, when you disband, if you set it up. My point is, I believe it isn't a bug, you can't disband on ship, but a deliberate game mechanic from the devs.

Plus, the exploit rules kind of say its illegal to surround troops...

That rule says it's illegal to surround troops to destroy said armies in 1 turn/battle. However no rules says, you can't surround armies or agents, so they can't move and that is what mergor doing exactly. He just surrounded your defeated ship with an army inside and just keeps them there.

So basically the spirit under which the rule was added is that "you are not allowed to purposely lose a battle in your turn in order to get an advantage". The purpose of the rule definitely wasnt banning losing battles just for the sake of banning them, but to eliminate all the various cases when players were able to use it to their advantage. Which is definitely not this case. Maybe the rule should be rewritten in such a way...

Well I am sorry to say Jadli, but what you just said in this and what you did is just contradicting yourself. You say, it was made, so you can't get any advantage out of defeats, yet that is the same what you did in your turn. By attacking and getting your ship destroyed with the army inside, resulting in a defeat, that you post, as a result in your turn is clearly to get the advantage of not paying for said army, that got captured, so that you don't need to pay their upkeep anymore. This results in you getting an advantage of 5k income, using a defeat, which is forbidden as of now.

I would personaly qualify not being able to disband unites on the ships as a bug. The rule of not being allowed to post defeats was purely made to prevent exploiting naval battles in one way. This rule shouldn't be exploited the way Mergor did to Jadli.

Just as I said above, I don't think this one is a bug, but more of an intended mechanic. As for the no posting defeats, that rule wasn't made for naval battles, actually, it was made, when ventos was using his technic, of sending 1 units one, by one to attack a bigger army and with every well rolled defeat (reloading to get good result), he would decrease the number of units in the target bigger army, while his 1 units, while losing troops, will always get back to safety, as they retreat way further back from the defeat.
Of course it also stands for doing the same naval shenanigans, but the rule itself was borned for Ventos land army tactic.

Right now I don't see, how Mergor is exploiting anything, because I only see a smart, tactical move on his part and no rules says so far, he can't do what he does right now.
If you think, what he does is "dumb unfair" and exploiting, then let me tell you, how "camping" in ships on the dunmer seas, for years without making shore leaves is dumb and unfair.

[Jadli]

@Mergor @Dragon
Oh, I asked Berry to look into this some time ago, but he didnt decide what to do. As you can see, I announced that I did this the moment I did it, instead of keeping silence until Mergor would find out on his turn (which would be pretty ), as Im ready to replay in case this is not allowed (did it as the last thing in pelletine turn so I can easily undo it, plus not that many things to do in the subbed turns...). The reason I did it this way is to force Berry to finally look into it (and also, would be nice to finally deal with Covenant and Pact stuff, though that can wait a bit more), instead of letting this go on endlessly, while losing money.

You could say Mergor is doing another "meta-gaming" move, but his move is a very smart and tactical one.
The only "dumb move" I can see, is you taking the risk, by putting all of your armies on ships and paying the price for said risk. I don't see, how mergor defeating you, legitimately is dumb and unfair. This is like saying, when you get checkmated in chess, because you didn't see, that you will be checkmated in one move is dumb and unfair.

Oh, Im definitely not saying that him defeating me (in that major battle, still, not the entire war is decided though) was dumb and unfair, that was another master move by him (and mght be the greatest defeat I ever suffered). He was able to defeat me due to his plan with using a coastal sea tile in Woodheart, to be able to reach my navy, while I wasnt able to reach his (hence in my testing it looked safe). Hence the crushing naval defeat.

What I refered to as "dumb and unfair" was obviously the fact that I have to pay 5k per turn as Pelletine till the end of the HS (or to be precise, till the Pelletines die I suppose, but thats gonna take very long, even in case they truly do)

Given what you told me about recruitment pools in the past I believe, this is a mechanic, a feature the CA devs intended this way, because disbanding troops on your lands can refill your recruitment pools, so when you don't need troops, you can disband them not pay upkeep and focus on peace, but when you need troops, you have your recruitment pools filled up, to easily mass recruit your units back. Also "realisticly" where do you disband troops on a ship? You push the men out of the ship, as they are "retired"? I am pretty sure, they would just take over the ship and rebel.
You also told me, if I remember correctly, you could do the same with mercenary recruitment pool also, when you disband, if you set it up. My point is, I believe it isn't a bug, you can't disband on ship, but a deliberate game mechanic from the devs.

Well yea, but you can still disband ships at sea, so at least that should kill the embarked army... It might have been deliberate, hard to say (lot of bugs and weird features in M2TW). Refilling of recruitment pools of merc ships (as done in TAG by jimmy) works kind of only by the coast of the relevant regions I believe, not on open sea... the whole sea is one region, so there is no way for the game to determine to which pool/region should the ships disband to, but the game still lets you disband units (=ships) without the ships being added to a local recruitment pool. So its not entirely a rule

Well I am sorry to say Jadli, but what you just said in this and what you did is just contradicting yourself. You say, it was made, so you can't get any advantage out of defeats, yet that is the same what you did in your turn. By attacking and getting your ship destroyed with the army inside, resulting in a defeat, that you post, as a result in your turn is clearly to get the advantage of not paying for said army, that got captured, so that you don't need to pay their upkeep anymore. This results in you getting an advantage of 5k income, using a defeat, which is forbidden as of now.

Well, obviously, I meant a military advantage, that directly damages an enemy in the turn and so on. This is nothing like that.

Right now I don't see, how Mergor is exploiting anything, because I only see a smart, tactical move on his part and no rules says so far, he can't do what he does right now.
If you think, what he does is "dumb unfair" and exploiting, then let me tell you, how "camping" in ships on the dunmer seas, for years without making shore leaves is dumb and unfair.

Well he is obviously "exploiting" the fact that I cant disband units on a ship to his advantage... As I said, its indeed a very tactical move, but it definitely is very close to the forbidden exploits line, so the question is, on what side of the line it is ...

What dunmer ships?

[General Dragon.]

Well yea, but you can still disband ships at sea, so at least that should kill the embarked army... It might have been deliberate, hard to say. Refilling of recruitment pools of merc ships (as done in TAG by jimmy) works kind of only by the coast of the relevant regions I believe, not on open sea... the whole sea is one region, so there is no way for the game to determine to which pool/region should the ships disband to, but the game still lets you disband units (=ships) without the ships being added to a local recruitment pool). So its not entirely a rule

I didn't say it is a rule, I only mentioned what I believe on it, that the reason is probably a deliberate dev decision, of why you can't disband units on ships.

Well, obviously, I meant a military advantage, that directly damages an enemy and so on. This is nothing like that.

Getting back 5k worth of income suddenly, which you will use to recruit military units is a military advantage in my book.

Well he is obviously exploiting the fact that I cant disband units on a ship to his advantage... As I said, its indeed a very tactical move, but it definitely is very close to the forbidden exploits line, so the question is, on what side of the line it is ...

I still don't see how this is close to exploits line. By the same reasoning, how is blockading ports isn't forbidden, but besieging settlements to deny income is a forbidden thing. You do almost the same in both ways and this looks more closer to exploiting, that what mergor does. (this is of course only relating in terms of income damage. I know what else you can deny, by besieging the settlement.)


The dunmer ships is a "jab" in my blackmarsh war, as the only reason we can't push forward, because in the inner dunmer seas above Narsis, the Dunmer houses are camping on their ships to hold their tactical advantage.

[Jadli]

Getting back 5k worth of income suddenly, which you will use to recruit military units is a military advantage in my book.

siiighs...

from that point of view everything is advantage or disadvantage. What I meant is pretty literally the examples I wrote, such as using your units/ships to directly damage enemy units/ships within the turn (plus the old rule about taking away sacking abaility) within the turn.

I still don't see how this is close to exploits line. By the same reasoning, how is blockading ports isn't forbidden, but besieging settlements to deny income is a forbidden thing. You do almost the same in both ways and this looks more closer to exploiting, that what mergor does.

Because you can lift blockades of the ports (by defeating the navy), and nevertheless, the enemy least lose a ship/unit... while I cant do absolutely anything about the situation, and its going to go on forever...

When your army is besieged, or ships are blockaded, you can at least disband them to save money... I cant do anything like that in this case, due to being at sea (which we dont know for 100% whether its meant to be a bug or intentional)

The dunmer ships is a "jab" in my blackmarsh war, as the only reason we can't push forward, because in the inner dunmer seas above Narsis, the Dunmer houses are camping on their ships to hold their tactical advantage.

Ah... you mean that the dunmers have ships in an area where you dont have ships (which happens quite naturally in almost every HS)... why even bringing that up?

[Isenbard]

In my opinion this move should have been banned on the spot without waiting this long. It is allowed by the rules, that's true. However what it does is it kills all the joy from the hotseat for the sake of an advantage. I myself play hotseats for fun, not sure if it is the same for all of us, but how can we honestly expect this move to have any place in our game? The rules aren't perfect and they are always changing slightly when these situations happen.

You can all also drop your real life reasons for certain things to make sense. Nothing in this game makes sense in real life and it's a terribly poor argument to bring to the table. What matters are the game mechanics and how to shape the rules accordingly.

What I find unfair is how you complain that Jadli gets a 5k advantage by suiciding his ship. What he gets is a shot to play the faction again. Denying 5k income in the first place is the problem. It's simply gaining back what was taken.

I disagree that Jadli made this move without first making it public, though the turns can be replayed so no damage was done anyway. I also again disagree that Jadli even allowed this to continue a single turn. Surrounding the ship was clever but a very heartless action.

Edit: corrections

[Mergor]

Some last remarks from me, as I think a decision is close.

First of all, let's not forget the starting positions please: Jadli saw something as unfair and broke a rule to "correct" it. So saying that my action was heartless, a direct attack on me, while I am the one who would suffer real disadvantage if Jadli could get away with his rulebreak is not a very nice. Don't shift the blame on me, thank you.

Second of all, there is an inherent difference in mindset here. I am a supporter of the idea that you shouldn't just make up rules and implement them in the middle of the game as long as it isn't the most obvious, and most broken exploit which clearly messes with game balance as a whole. This is a very specific move where there is a clear disagreement about it being an exploit or not. I still firmly believe that this is not an exploit in any way. Am I against banning it in the future though? Not entirely, because we have plenty of rules that we made up to try to make things fair. Such as a ban on assasinating family members, or disbanding all but one units when trading settlements. But as a principle, one should not ban a move like this mid game and influence a player war in someone's favor. I made the mistake of thinking that I could fix all the issues mid-game before, and those of you who played in my online battle HS knows that the only result I've achieved by doing that is alienating the players and creating a dissatisfying HS experience.

As an added note to this point, I must say, Jadli is a hypocrite in this matter. Those Who were involved in the TAG semifinals know, that there was an instance when Jadli refused to ban a move on the same principle, a move which won a team a game, even though the other team protested vigorously that that move was so unfair and exploity that it shouldn't be allowed. The team was so dissatisfied by Jadli's unwillingness, that they left the game even though they could have advanced into the finals. Now suddenly, when he suffers from the same (perceived) issue, he wants to change the rules immedietaly and goes as far as to force the admins hand to make a decision. Does this sound like integrity and non-bias for you?

Third of all, I can find some merit in Isenbards argument. As while I would have still protested if my move was banned the turn I did it, I would have more easily accepted a decision against me because I could have replayed. Now that solution is out of the question, as Jadli waited until he was salty enough to bring up this issue several turns later. If you ban my move right now, you heavily, heavily influence the game in his favor. As said already, I took a slowed approach after I defeated their ships, because my opinion was that he simply won't be able to muster enough forces to defend his homeland against my superior armies if that trapped army's upkeep is taking a heavy toll on his economy. If you were to let Jadli get away with the rulebreak, it would mean that you are basically destroying my strategy and giving him opportunity to turn the war in his favor. Would that be deserved after two crushing defeats from me?

Own your mistakes Jadli. The mistake to lose all your invasion forces, and the mistake to wait weeks before revealing your issues.

I do hope that Berry will see reason in my arguments.

[Jadli]

Some last remarks from me, as I think a decision is close.

First of all, let's not forget the starting positions please: Jadli saw something as unfair and broke a rule to "correct" it.

sighs... I just did my both turns and did the thing in the end of it, so I can easily change it if needed and we can move on quickly. Pretty sure its the better variant then not doing my turns at all until the decision was known, and then we would have been delayed even more, as I would still have to do those turns...

As an added note to this point, I must say, Jadli is a hypocrite in this matter. Those Who were involved in the TAG semifinals know, that there was an instance when Jadli refused to ban a move on the same principle, a move which won a team a game, even though the other team protested vigorously that that move was so unfair and exploity that it shouldn't be allowed. The team was so dissatisfied by Jadli's unwillingness, that they left the game even though they could have advanced into the finals. Now suddenly, when he suffers from the same (perceived) issue, he wants to change the rules immedietaly and goes as far as to force the admins hand to make a decision. Does this sound like integrity and non-bias for you?

Dont bring other hotseats into this please. TAG was an official tournament, therefore any rule changes could mean a lot and could complicate determination of a winner, whereas in hotseats like this that take years its definitely more free....
Additionally, the TAG scenario was provided before hand for testing, and it was made very clear that there will be no changes to it once it starts. And the move you are talking about is something pretty different from this.


Also, Im not screaming here that Im gonna drop if things dont go my way or whatever... Im more like slightly amused and curious of this situation.. but obviously as the move is not entirely clear and might decide the war, I dont have other choice than to explore whether this move is legal in he eyes of an admin...

Third of all, I can find some merit in Isenbards argument. As while I would have still protested if my move was banned the turn I did it, I would have more easily accepted a decision against me because I could have replayed. Now that solution is out of the question, as Jadli waited until he was salty enough to bring up this issue several turns later. If you ban my move right now, you heavily, heavily influence the game in his favor. As said already, I took a slowed approach after I defeated their ships, because my opinion was that he simply won't be able to muster enough forces to defend his homeland against my superior armies if that trapped army's upkeep is taking a heavy toll on his economy. If you were to let Jadli get away with the rulebreak, it would mean that you are basically destroying my strategy and giving him opportunity to turn the war in his favor. Would that be deserved after two crushing defeats from me?

Oh, so you based your entire strategy on this move, great

[BerryKnight]

After reading all of the bickering back and forth about this situation, I've come to a conclusion.
You have formally broken the rules of no defeats by forcing this whole situation to simply make me come to a decision.
It isn't specifically stated in the rules at this very time, so this can fly. (Mergor's rather well thought out move)
Also I feel I should mention that the logistics of soldiers being forced off their ships at sea is illogical and not a bug.
Who in their right mind would willingly jump ship to allow their king and country to earn more gold from their deaths? No one.
Further more I'm not going to move them to shore and let you disband them just avoid this either, because that would unfair when you fell into a trap.
If everyone wants to vote on adding in a rule against this for the future, than feel free to start a vote.
Otherwise pay the price for your own risk taking and cease this farce.
Before I forget. I don't care about some stupid sea tile. You now know how it happened, yet you didn't check enough to see that was a possibility for him to use against you.
That is your oversight. You could have done a bit more testing and then presto, discovering your own demise before it happens.
Yeah, the mod might be broken from POV in this perspective, but then again, it is a mod and mods aren't perfect.

So with that all being said, please revert this defeat and play on.
Thank you and have a wonderful day.

[Potatoto]

"Also I feel I should mention that the logistics of soldiers being forced off their ships at sea is illogical and not a bug.
Who in their right mind would willingly jump ship to allow their king and country to earn more gold from their deaths? No one."

Tho being forced to contantly send money for upkeep from Pelleting through VH's blocade to Pelletine's ship crew is also highly illogical. Crew wouldn't jump to the sea, but they wouldn't be payed untill they would reach someone who could physically give them money.

[Isenbard]

QUOTE=BerryKnight
"Otherwise pay the price for your own risk taking and cease this farce.
Before I forget. I don't care about some stupid sea tile. You now know how it happened, yet you didn't check enough to see that was a possibility for him to use against you.
That is your oversight. You could have done a bit more testing and then presto, discovering your own demise before it happens."

The problem here isn't the loss of the naval battle, falling in to a trap or " a stupid sea tile", but the deliberate abuse of the rules talored for the game mechanics after said battle.

Again comparing real life to this game is pointless as Potatoto already showed, since it can be countered with another useless take on real life and then it goes on and on.

I'll be definitely voting against this coercion of income in the future.

[Jadli]

Ok then...

Though

After reading all of the bickering back and forth about this situation, I've come to a conclusion.
You have formally broken the rules of no defeats by forcing this whole situation to simply make me come to a decision.
It isn't specifically stated in the rules at this very time, so this can fly. (Mergor's rather well thought out move)
Also I feel I should mention that the logistics of soldiers being forced off their ships at sea is illogical and not a bug.
Who in their right mind would willingly jump ship to allow their king and country to earn more gold from their deaths? No one.
Further more I'm not going to move them to shore and let you disband them just avoid this either, because that would unfair when you fell into a trap.

Jumping into the sea is obviously nonsense, but they cant survive without supplies, can they?

The only other way of blockading troops in this game like this is by besieging the troops., and the game doesnt let that go indefinitely, they run out of food/supplies and the game kills them. It makes no sense from games perspective for this army to live indefinitely while blockaded.
It takes 3 turns for a fort to fall if I remember correctly, which is quite similar to the ships I guess and the 3 turns has passed now, so its time for this army to die. So explain to me how can this army live on forever considering how the siege mechanics works in med 2? Bevause this basically is a siege

Sea tile: nobody ever questioned that, why is it being bought up? That he used that doesnt mean he is entitled to use this exploit in any way...

[Mergor]

Please do replay Jadli, so we can move forward

[paladinbob123]

personally i find this discussion , should be over, the admin has spoken, and the hotseat should continue ...

everybody is allowed their own gripes , and points of issue or favoritism, but i think its best to keep them to ourselfs unless the people of the hotseat wish a vote on change of the rules? but the rule is the rule, and the admin has upheld it, so lets all move on?