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
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
