We came to a situation during our previous game that actually wasn't described anywhere.

It's kinda confusing, so take your time to read this carefully


What happens when several players successfully attack different cities during a single turn. In what order is conflict resolved?

let's say for example

John (AST4) attacks 1 city of Frank (AST3)
Frank(AST3) attacks 2 cities of Gary (AST2)
Gary (AST2) attack 1 city of Maria (AST1)

1 first you finish token-token conflict but say none of the player's have enough tokens in stock to come up with 6 tokens (twice) it matters in what order conflict is resolved when a city was attacked in a 5-poplimit area and you have to leave tokens in an area afterwards.

In what order is the conflict resolved.

For example Gary has 6 tokens in stock and his cities are in a 5-area and a 2-area. Both cities are attacked by 7 tokens
Maria has 0 tokens in stock.

If city 1 is resolved first this results in 2 of gary's tokens and 3 of Franks token in area 1 and than we move to area two and now Gary has only 4 tokens left to resolve conflict. this means 7:4 leaving 4 of Franks tokens in area 2

If we do that the other way round this means Area 2 results in 7:6 leaving 2 of Franks tokens in area 2 and then for area 1 results in 7:6 leaving 3 of Franks and 2 of Garys.

Now Frank cannot use architeceture to build a city in Area 2 when using option 1 this still would be possible.

Who decides?

The rulebook says AST order should break ties....

Gary(2) is higher in order than Frank(3)

So Gary decides. to make Frank be unabled to use architecture.



But if you choose for the attacker to decide for resolving conflict making the defender only a passive regardless victim, Gary has no choice.

1-Gary first attacks Maria leaving him with 7 tokens in that area.

2-Then Frank attack Gary twice, choosing the order of conflict. (so he CAN use architecture aterwards)

3- Then John attacks Frank


This does matter.



So In what order to resolve conflict:

OPTION 1
You look at the attackers only and then use their AST order to decide what conflict to resolve first.

OPTION 2
You look at the AST order of the nations involved to decide what conflict to resolve first



Problem 2:



Let's say Gary has no cards in hand. Frank has no cards in hand. Maria has 1 card in hand.


if we choose for option 1:

Gary (2) decided what conflict to resolve first, so he chooses for his cities to be attacked first. Now Frank(3) may draw two cards but he has got none.
then Gary(2) draws a card of Maria (1)
Then John(4) may draw but Frank(3) has no cards.

if we choose for option 2:

Maria (1) is the first person involved letting Gary (2) draw 1 card
Gary (2) is the second person involved letting Frank (3) draw 2 cards (only 1 in hand)
Frank is the fourth person involved letting John draw 1 card.






Now what?

Wow, that is pretty wacky. I'm running off the top of my head.

1. AST breaks ties.
2. The defender is allowed to ask that other battles occur first to provide him tokens to defend the city.

When I resolve battles, the battles occur in AST order of the highest AST... So in classic AdvCiv and my system, all of Africa's battles would be resolved first (as attacker and defender), etc. Pillaging happens immediately after each battle and so that order is also determined by how I do things.

Part of why I do things in that order is just ease of resolution, but most of my playing is PBEM now-a-days, so consider that when you look at my answer.

In your first example, the way I resolve battles completely orders the fight as Maria/Gary, Frank/Gary, John/Frank. If Frank had attacked Maria instead and there was a decision to be made I would let the defender make the decision referencing the fact that the defender can ask that token battles happen first to give them room to support.

Having said all that, I've only seen tokens come up short in a battle, maybe 8 times in the nearly fifteen years I've been playing. I congratulate you on having it happen to you

YES, when I read it again, I get confused again.

But the key difference is that you prefer the defender to make choice, where we prefer the offender to have rights.

Your solution makes sense, and it makes things logical

But to me it has to be written down somewhere in the rules just to make things clear

Maybe an additional appendix with rule explanations for avid players having the need to get the full score.

That is a place where Civ is pretty inconsistent. In the calamities, sometimes it is the victim that breaks ties, sometimes it is someone else. I would choose the defender just because of the rule about the defender getting the benefit of the doubt with token/city battle ordering.

But I'm also talking PBEM where a quick conversation can't happen and I need a definitive answer that gets applied the same way each time.

If I were playing face to face and were the attacker, I would give the choice to the defender. If I were the defender, I would give the choice to the attacker. If for some reason people couldn't decide, some form of randomization would be fine with me also.

Most of the time, people wouldn't see a possible benefit and seek for a solution that's quickest or that gives the least trouble.

Some players like to seek trouble, and try to get benefit out of every situation.

Oh, I understand completely why you want to get this tightened down and that is why I gave my justification for the way that I would rule if it came up.

The intent of the game is, of course, to replace a city with six tokens in conflict. When six tokens are not available, you're basically dealing with an exception - a technicality that simply exists for practical purposes. I even find the rule itself rather dubious and frankly, a bit lame. We all know how conflict is resolved, and there's really no need to physically replace the city and count down the tokens one by one.
So if such a rule must exist, it would be reasonable in my opinion, to order the fights in such a way that the number of available tokens for the defender is as close to six as possible.

Likewise, it's the intent to get a card when you attack a city. If your opponent has no cards but will obtain one later, then the cards should be drawn in an order that allows you to get that card anyway. In complex situations, it may not be necessary to draw the cards in the same order as the conflicts. In the example given, it seems reasonable to me that first Gary gets Maria's card, then Frank gets Gary's card, and finally, John gets Frank's card.

You can always go back to the Civilization version off the rule that gives the attacker your city free and clear if you can't replace it with all the required tokens

I like this rule, but it brings up another exception. The problem is when all is said and done, there might be units left over. This is an extreme example, but something similar could happen.
Say your city, on a population 5 square, is attacked by a player with engineering (6 troops), and you have Metalworking (so they lose first). the results are 3 for you and 2 for them. If you don't have 3 tokens in stock, what do you do?
I'd say they just die, leaving the 2 tokens for your opponent.

Some players prefer a passive and compromised form (A), other prefer a from that hits any opponent most (B).

This topic already gives several options.

As long as there's no def answer to it, I tend to write down my own house rule.

Not to choose for my own preference, but just to get things clear before the game and to not get discussion during the game.

Though I could agree with Paul, as long as you apply this every conflict, it still gives different results, and you still get discussion when player B gets involved. Most of the times it is a quick result without much time lost or discussion, but not all the time.

Also the original Civ's option gives discussion when more than one attack occurs like described.

Therefore I tend to choose for McBeth's option, just because it takes away discussion.

I don't think Jonno will take anything like this in the basic rules, but I'd prefer that.

Looking at the below:

18.32 If the required number of tokens attack a city, the defender replaces the city with six tokens and the resulting conflict between the attacking and defending tokens is resolved. If the defending player has fewer than six tokens in stock he replaces the attacked city with what tokens he has and combat is resolved normally. Players are entitled to resolve any other conflicts involving their tokens before resolving attacks on their cities, so that the maximum number of tokens may replace their cities.

I put in bold the sentence of importance.

I'd go with Mcbeth's interpretation - as the rules already give some deference to the defender. It is so rare though I'm not sure I really care one way or the other...

I agree with Flo this should be put into the appendix or something... It would just confuse readers f we include within the main body of rules.

I hope you understood the whole scenario. In fact it is very rare. But one line indeed could give the solution.

the bold line you gave, is the basic rules.

what in fact should be added is:

"If more than one city is attacked during a single turn, each single city attack and pillage is resolved in defender AST order. Only if a defender cannot replace a city with enoug tokens, the defender is allowed to ask that other battles occur first to provide him tokens to defend the city. "

I approve using the line as stated above.

As result of our last game we found out that one single line should be added.
Though any tie is broken by AST order, this makes it a lot more clear to read:





The new text would become:

18.3.2 If the required number of tokens attack a city, the defender replaces the city with six tokens and the resulting conflict between the attacking and defending tokens is resolved. If the defending player has fewer than six tokens in stock he replaces the attacked city with what tokens he has and combat is resolved normally. Players are entitled to resolve any other conflicts involving their tokens before resolving attacks on their cities, so that the maximum number of tokens may replace their cities. If more than one city is attacked during a single turn, each single city attack is resolved in defender AST order. In case a single defender is attacked by more than one player, these attacks are resolved in attacker AST order. Only if a defender cannot replace a city with enough tokens, the defender is allowed to choose and place a city attack last in row of city attack order to provide him tokens to defend the city.

What happens when all city attacks are done with the exception of two attacks left, where two players are attacking a city of each other, and both defenders have not enough tokens in stock? (Yes, each attacker is the defender of the other attack.)