Losing a city when you have a knight

[SIMICMACAN]

This is the first time that this situation happened in a game, can you please explain to me why that happened?

In Cities and Knights all the players (4 of us) had one city each and one activated knight each.
Just before the barbarian attack, one player promoted his settlement to another city (so at that moment he had 2 cities, which meant that barbarian attack worths 5) but he didn't promote his knight to 2, so our defence was still 4.

Barbarians attacked and all of us lost a city. Of course, since he had 2 cities he had to lose only one.
Why did we lose a city when he was the reason we lost? Isn't that a bit unfair?

In my opinion, the only fair option in this case would be for him to lose a city. And only him. Our defence:attack ratio was 1:1, and his was 1:2.

What is your opinion about this situation? Did you ever have the similar situation?

Of course, the logic goes with equal number of knights, but the fairness goes with the defence:attack ratio

[euklid314]

It is not a matter of logic or fairness but only a matter of what the rules say. And the rules are very clear on barbarian attacks.

If the rules allow destroying all the cities of your opponents by building a city then it was just a good move of your opponent.
There are many situations were one is deactivating an own knight on purpose before the Barbarian attack because a successful Barbarian attack hurts the other opponents more then oneself.

If you love the game of Catan despite some of the rules feeling unfair to you you can continue playing by accepting the rules.
If you do not like the rules of Catan then you can stop playing the game.

[CuriousGeorge19]

This is definitely a good tactic for getting ahead of your opponents. Its not a nice move but you're playing to win not to be nice... I have done this before and honestly it just makes people come after you the whole game even if you fall behind because its just a pretty rude move but it is a smart one. The rules are the rules and this player did this as a tactic to get themselves ahead and you all staying behind struggling to get a city back. I would say MOST people have better etiquette and will support their cities with the proper amount of Knights, this is usually a higher level kind of aggressive move. Just my thoughts

[NaggingDragon]

TBH, this is my least favourite gameplay - I really despise it lol. I like the first round to be lovely and all of us to take a card - then you can play as you want. As you say, if you do do this, then expect to be robbed throughout the game. And yes, I have been known to use up a knight to cause the other player to lose their city - but during the game once all have got going. That's my two pennies worth anyway.

[euklid314]

TBH, this is my least favourite gameplay - I really despise it lol. I like the first round to be lovely and all of us to take a card - then you can play as you want. As you say, if you do do this, then expect to be robbed throughout the game. And yes, I have been known to use up a knight to cause the other player to lose their city - but during the game once all have got going. That's my two pennies worth anyway.

I do not understand your game ethics. According to your feelings it is illegal to build a city before the first barbarian attack (unless one invests an extra wool, ore to level up your knight - I assume).

Everybody else can level up their knight and even get a VP for it (Defender of Catan). Why is the player that builds the extra city responsible for levelling up?

In the situation that OP described nothing morally bad has happened. One player built an extra city. They had one more city than their opponents. After the barbarian attack they still had one more city than their opponents (all players lost 1 city).

You are all talking as if they had a 2nd knight that they could activate but did not do so. This was not the case (at least OP does not mention it). And even then it would be an absolute fine move from a "moral standpoint".