Championship questions

Man you really take the Caaaake ....... Last match it was so much fun to lead all your little followers to victory as you sat back and pulled the strings........ Well this match you are the delicious desert that we all want a piece of ....... so shut your PIE HOLE and take it like a man. This game is a game of war and diplomacy and just like in real life when people see an evil dictator they join together to eliminate him. I think that is the true sign of a champion a nation that can win both the mental and physical battle. So hats off to you for winning the first two rounds but the world is on to your evil ways and its time to pay for past actions. So just like in life you get what is coming to you.

Not really a good idea to create a legal loophole to autorise rulebreak.

I won't buy it as a mod : someone who makes an active move knowing he will break a rule by doing so, is in my mind guilty by intention.

"You can't wage war against a player, but, if a player has an armored unit on an AI province, you can send an infantry to claim the province, even with the knowledge that it will forcefully declare a war, it will considered as an legal illegal war, and you are authorised to kill any ennemy units in the vicinity."

To be honest, though, i think that there shouldn't be any difference between AI/Player peace, because of those petty problems. Poland-Germany problem about slovakia should have been solved by a Polish-German war, and we would have absolutely no commentary to it.

Because you guys can't read, here is it again:
I've been asking Dr. L to disallow mass alliances since the very first day of the CoNmunity Championship, my current situation has little to do that I am asking again. The only reason I am taking it to the forums is because Discord doesn't work rn.

1. I Pmed everyone because I saw the huge TLL alliance in a very strong strategic position. Canada, France, Italy, Spain, Algeria, Congo, South Africa. It was very obvious that you would act like one big coalition (having a NAP and share the common enemy: the rest of the world), you couldve easily stomped everyone else 1 by 1. To counter that, there was another mass alliance needed

2. Where did I let other people do my dirty work?^^

3. I'm not crying, critizising the rules while citing the current situation.


If that's how the Chammpionship is supposed to work: Being popular amongst others, making as many friends as possible, getting as many friends as possible to join the Championshipmap with you, making as many allies as possible, while skill is less important, I'm out. I'm not in the Championship to get mass alliances going on, thats not even how you play public games, there you occasionally sign NAPs with other coalitions, and thats it.

Tournament Drama : the proof the competitive world is back.

Opulon, allow me to disagree a bit.
We all know what units can conquer and which cant. Right?
So whats the point of sending units which cant occupy, though "claiming" the territory.
You can see it the other way round as well.
Sending without units able to conquer is just useless tactical stuff.
You want to conquer, send units able to do so and make sure they are first. Otherwise, keep away.
Why the hell do we have to see it the other way round, does it make any sense?
Is it a "reservation service"???
Thats like claiming a Ferrari at the local dealer without having the money...

Perhaps you send units to free the province first? Motorized infantry are not good for offensive combat anyway.

Also you yourself split your armored unit from the main troop, to be faster in the center.

My infantry was right the armored unit as were yours, and I even had more troops than you, so I did not try buy a Ferrari without having the money.

sure i did, reacting to my opponents movements is what i usually do
Though, always aware of the fact that my conquering troops will be first, otherwise i would have stopped (as i did in Levice, where my troops were originally headed to. and that movement i stopped immediately as i saw you conquered).
And i expected same from you in Bratislava!
And thats exactly the point.

As far as I remember, you split up first. I reacted to your actions, though memory is getting fuzzy and this matter will get solved anyway now on the battlefield.

I have enough blood soup for both of you.

First: If we both wouldnt have splitted, i would have been first anyway, since i conquered...
Second: right.
lets just forget about it!

Honestly, this discusssion is not a "blame-game" to me.
Its about clarifying it for further competitions!

What we need is the discussion ending in a statement how its done in the future.

Sadly, the chief so far did not say a word in this regard so far.

His answer to question is the main reason why I started the discussion.

Both your point of view can be defended and are okay under a certain scope.

However, of course, as one defends the side who makes him win because everyone tends to bend reality if it can make it its ally, i'll study it through the view of a mod who would have to arbitrate AGAIN this kind of situation.

Leprechaun will have the last word on it, and it will establish a jurisprudence.


Ok... From now on, i will be like the "super boring guy", because i will study it under a very personal scope : "And if taking a bad decision about this case could lead me before a judge, and what if i'd face jail ?" . I take this extreme example because it's the underlying motive of many arbitration rules. Before the establishment of the law, you had a similar approach : "What if the Gods are watching ?".

The rules i have under the hand are simple, absolute, and rigid.

• After start we have a 2 day peace period for players.
  
• We have no peace period for AI.
  

"And the lord said : Don't try to kill humans, but don't hesitate for tasty animals"

Those two rules mean, basically, that AIs can be attacked without restrictions, and that no war must happen between players. The two rules are not directly contradictory, but nothing is stated about "What if two humans are attacking the same AI ?"

In terms of rules, so, the universe does not care of contextual subtleties. AI can be attacked, but no war must happen between the players. If players are battling for an AI, and end in a state of war, there is a rulebreak. Any argument trying to explain that it is a "legal rulebreak" is vain and void : the rule states an absolute. "No war between players."

Claiming that if there is already an unit that can't conquer, it's legit to send an unit that can conquer, doesn't work well with the rule. A workaround to this could be found : The first that can "conquer" the province claims it, but if there is an ennemy unit that can't conquer on place, he must give to the other player a RoW in order to not provock a rulebreak.

Alas, this doesn't work in terms of law. The rule states clearly :

- It's not allowed to give right of way (RoW) outside a coalition/alliance

Giving a RoW to avoid a rulebreak about players peace period means a rulebreak about RoWs.

I don't see a technical solution that would not end in a rulebreak, legally speaking. Before a judge, so, the only consideration that will be heared is "Who is guilty of provocking the rulebreak ?".

Passive rulebreaking, aka "If a player was not rulebreaking, but parameters changed without his intervention, putting him into a rulebreaking position" can be heard as a mistake.

this can be heard because of some interesting loopholes : due to the rule of no RoWs outside alliances, and the rule of no war between humans, if a player conquers quickly an AI province where 50 players units where moving, those 50 units are bound, by rules, to not move, because they would provock a rulebreak.

The Judge would hear that through the "spirit of the law" : The rule isn't a tactical asset.

Now, to study more precisely this case :

Poland was on Bratislava, passive, with an amored vehicle. it was fighting the local national guard, hence, wasn't in position to move. Poland wasn't in a position to provock a rulebreak, except if parameters changed. Screenshots already demonstrated that he was too close to the city to "back off" when the German army entered the province.

The judge doesn't know (and doesn't care) what leaded to this situation, what kind of trick with forced march was used, what were reaction between armies... He cares about the rule and who provocks a rulebreak. In the instance, Poland couldn't provock a rule break. There is no rule about "claiming" anything, or conquering anything. Hence, such things can't be considered : they don't exist through the law.

German side, the reaction is an active move to take an province already in combat. The Judge will hear that the losses demonstrate the Polish army was already fighting when the German army came to land the killing blow.
And from there, it will consider one thing : It's Germany that made the parameters change, and the judge will hear that it's Germany that knowingly acted in a way that would probably end in a rulebreak, to try to get the province before Poland.

A Rulebreak of opportunity, said in another way, as Germany's intent wasn't, obviously, to attack Poland.

From there, obviously, the judge would ask "why ?" this decision was taken by Germany.

Here, there are two branching :

1°) "The situation was messy, and i was nearly sure to be on position before him. The map is clunky when it comes to cramped military situations, and i misunderstood positions."

Active rulebreak that can be forgiven due situational stress and operational mistake. Outcome ? Return to state of peace between Poland and Germany : Bratislava returned to Germany.

2°) "He had an armored unit on position. Only units that can conquer count to claim territories, it's logical. I was in my right and so sent the unit".

The judge will answer "No law states that. You willingly provocked a rulebreak because you considered that your logic was above the laws of this tournament."

Active Rulebreak, premeditated, and aggravated by laws willingfully ignored. Outcome ? Removal of the Round.

Those are the only conclusions where, giving the facts we have, and the rules we have, i would not fear to face corruption accusations and end into jail.

_______________________________

Now, please don't consider this as my absolute opinion. I think that if armored units can claim territories by positioning on them, it can be exploited out of the fear of provocking a rulebreak. And as the judge would hear "the rule isn't a tactical asset.

It seems logical to me that the first to "conquer" the province can claim it, but it doesn't work with the rule.

In my final opinion, i think that the rule is flawed, and will lead to repeated situations like this one, where differences of perception will lead to awful misunderstood rulebreaks.

I advocate, for other rounds, that the rule is changed into something unified. Either 2 days of peace BOTH for AI/Players, either no peace, BOTH for AI/Players.

opulon are you lawyer because if not your definetly smart enough to be one

In general this is my point.

Also I suspect, that Germany tried to lock my main forces on the province, because they were to far in to safely retun. Using therefore the rules as tactical element to lock me down.

On this topic, we enter an area where opinions are Kings and bias Emperors.

The rules also state in their honor additional rules that interactions between player must be respectful and that everyone must be treated in the same way we'd like to be treated. I understand this as "let's not speculate about malevolent intents behind a player's action."

The rulebreak happened in a very close time frame (~20 minutes). Many things can go through the mind in twenty minutes of action. Chrimisu having aknowledged that he made a mistake when reviewing the screenshots, i think we can pass on it ---> it's human, and it happens.

I wouldn't want someone to quote me saying "This is an outrage, such people should be hanged" in one or two years, when i'll be, unavoidably, in a similar position. It's very important on the long terme that you two don't conclude from this incident that "the other part is cheating/lying/evil", because it's not the case.

Please elaborate, in this case about France who is getting teamed by UK, France, Italy and Algeria. So he failed his diplomacy and thus lost the game because he couldn't get enough allies / join a mass alliance in a map where coalitions are already disallowed? What kind of non sense is that? He can be the most skilled player, yet it wont change the outcome of a 4vs1 war, especially in such an early game rush.
This is the perfect example why finding and joining a mass alliance is more important than skill on the battlefield to win. Not even player hosted tournaments in Supremacy have such a problem with mass alliances, nor the Players League in CoW from what I've heard.

They do. Supremacy or CoW players are not more "respectable" on this aspect

The only thing i would aknowledge is that on CoW/Supremacy, out of experience, some players don't try to win '"at all costs" when they know they will take a reputation backfire that will destroy them far beyond a single game for a single tournament.

But most of the competitions i followed, you usally had a group of players that was okay with pretty much everything you say, in order to win once or two. After that, obviously, they get rekt early systematically, and just stopped participating.

I encourage people to be careful with what they do in diplomacy, in this kind of tournament : it's of equal importance to play well, and to not jeopardise your relationship with the people you will undoubtly encounter again at the next round.

It's so easy to create a situation where humans will consider as a total victory the simple fact to deny you a victory.

Girefing is always a strong force, even more if you already made people kind of 'hate' you.

Also in crowded maps it is also likely that several players will jump at you at once just by accident.

That is why overpopulated regions like Europe always yield low survivability chances if you don't pack up early.

well, this is the reason why you are our leader...
I find it exhausting.
Most single maps i played, i played even without a coalition. Too much stress

The other topic i will not touch anymore. For the same reasons.
Let me just add that i still do not fully agree to the point of view elaborated so well in this thread.
Though as i said. Exhausting.

Don't know, but for me the championship should be more about individual skill and competition and less about ganging up with others. One of the reason why we wanted to have coalitions not allowed.

That is also why I try to not my alliance connection get in the way on such a map.

You can't learn much playing only in packs, though some probably need it.

chrimisu wrote:

dirtdavies wrote:

This game is a game of war and diplomacy

well, this is the reason why you are our leader...I find it exhausting.
Most single maps i played, i played even without a coalition. Too much stress

The other topic i will not touch anymore. For the same reasons.
Let me just add that i still do not fully agree to the point of view elaborated so well in this thread.
Though as i said. Exhausting.

I would be very glad to hear your extensive legal opinion on this, as it's the root core of the reasoning. If you find it "exhausting", please remember i do not even play in this tournament, and that i still tried to defend the respectability of two players that aren't of my "flock" :p