BC...I was just pointing to the rule which simply states...no declaration of war..DM is allowed. AFTER war declared..DM allowed. IN THAT game..DM are not allowed except after half the timer is gone. So its a bit different.

AKOTS..I don't care what happened..I just pointed to the rule which we are all playing by since every game seems to have a different one.


Akots followed the rules....therefore no problem and curse your rotten luck.

I'm more arguing for the sake of arguing, its late and i can't sleep so nothing better to do.

Rob- the principle is still the same, if you can't log in for another 12 hours or you just have to wait for someone else to play- either way you have to wait :)

I'd just like to get this rule sorted really, is it considered a DM to move however many units up against a border, hit enter and then declare the following turn? I'd say it is.

That situation you describe is actually on the border line and is pretty close but still is clean IMO. Otherwise, potential defender has a double move then because you are basically handling it to him by moving to the border and declaring. So, either you do prohibit DM or do allow them and then you can do that.

As to what actually happened in our game is that I have been walking with the warrior in the neutral lands and did not cross any borders. Then, suddenly, my Indian warrior with a star actually finds himself next to the Russian settler-warrior (no star or other promotion) pair positioned again in neutral lands. Moreover, this whole area is visible from the Russian border so that Russians are able to see everything and still have moved their warrior-settler pair! Of course, Indian warrior attacked (chances were about 68%). Unfortunately, he has lost and the settler apparently survived.

So, I would say it very well falls into the Hattrick situation with some quote
That is why this whole discussion is quite strange.

You can make your turn in the RtW I game. ;)

Right. I saw your warrior standing 2 tiles away from my Settler, but I thought you would not use a DM accompanied with a declaration of war. I won't be as naive next time[coool].

According to these rules it's not a forbidden DM. It also means that it seems to possible to get a a city conquered from behind the fog of war (f.ex. with Chariots) without ever seeing the enemy who declares the war.

I think it's good to make this rule clear so that someone else won't be as naive as I was (especially when facing India)[whistle].

If akots would have declared war in his first turn, it would indeed be a forbidden DM IMO.
As he did not do a second move after the decleration, all is well IMO.

BTW, dandridge, AFAICS, you didn't follow the main (though unwritten) rule in MP: Never move a Settler into the open if not well defended... ;)

From the bits and pieces released to the public i don't see any rule infringements took place. It may not be the nicest thing to do but then neither is whipping your population to get a build out quickly. Nastiness comes with the territory.

As it is akots took a big risk and lost

The DM rule is precisely defined in the first post of this thread and soc's explanation is correct.

Indeed. But I wish dandridge had a leg to stand on, because I'd like to believe that when my settler is two tiles away from a warrior, it is safe.

Well, kind neighbour... now you know such a settler is not safe. :D