Following the judge's decision, here are my comments:

During the day, I sent the judge the ICQ logs and saves, from which he could draw his own conclusions (so there is no need to wait for me to send anything; I already did this a long time ago).

Regarding the game: Yes, on the 7th day of the game, I simply exited, stopping the game, extremely outraged by the deception of Aleх_R. His deception consists of the following: I intended to attack his castle on the 6th day of the game; the guard there consisted of a few griffins and a pack of troglodytes (there are saves confirming this), but Aleх_R started writing to me in-game, telling me not to dare attack his castle, as he thought we had agreed to attack only his heroes until the 6th day. I replied that I would never have agreed to waive a restart for attacking an opponent on the fifth day of the game if attacking heroes was allowed, but attacking the castle (and other things, like caches, for example) was not... What else am I supposed to do on an opponent's already stripped respawn, other than attacking everything possible? And if Alex pleaded to keep playing instead of taking a restart, then all attack restrictions in the game should be lifted thereafter; otherwise, for the player who came to the opponent's side, it is disadvantageous and foolish to continue playing without attacking. Via ICQ, I set the condition for continuing the game that I would immediately attack all his heroes starting from the 5th day of the first week—and Alex agreed to this (the judge has the ICQ logs for this). And now he starts talking this nonsense about non-aggression toward the castle until the 7th day (even though he saw me running toward his castle with my main hero during my turn, surely not just to stand nearby; perhaps he hoped I would wait for a new growth, he would buy it up, and I would only then attack with a first-week army????) Alex wrote to me in-game that he thought attacking heroes was allowed, but attacking the castle was not, and that's why he hadn't even split the units inside the dungeon into singles (a Stronghold was built there). In the end, I decided that since that was the case, I would give him a chance to split the units, as it wouldn't be noble to take advantage of his delusion and attack, so I didn't attack the castle but stood in front of it. Then, on his turn, instead of splitting the units into singles, Aleх_R jumps into his dungeon with his main hero and a full army and writes to me in-game: "Now you can attack"!!! :eek: I was shocked by such deception and audacity, and therefore I immediately just exited the game!!!! although I could have continued and would have won 1000 percent, as I had a huge advantage in army and skills (I had 29 maxmen, 1 angel, lots of pikemen, 2 vampires, and a tent with a ballista, skills 4 7 4 2, expert archery, leadership, and logistics, and a spellbook, whereas Gunnar at that moment had skills 4 2 3 2, no spellbook, only basic logistics, an army of lots of pikemen, a pack of ordinary harpies, 3 minotaurs, few medusas, 7 eyes, and a pack of troglodytes). If Gunnar had attacked me in an open field, he would have been killed without a chance; I wouldn't have attacked on the 7th day, but waited one more day to bring in the growth for the next day (since Gunnar cannot attack me with growth on his first game day, I would have stayed near the castle) and simply stood by his castle with full growth (I had horses with a Stronghold + vampires in my secondary, Alex had minotaurs with a castle, but after building the castle, Alex had no money to buy the army at the start of the game; a chain of heroes was set up to transfer the army on the first day, and there was plenty of money to buy the entire army for the first day of the second week). I would have given the angel to the "noob" to capture Aleх_R's secondary, beat them out of money there, run around his respawn with mages using Haste, and finish off those noobs. And that's it, Aleх_R would have only one castle left, income and resources only from it, unable to leave (I would immediately attack the empty castle), and if he attacked me, he would lose instantly; otherwise, in the second week, I would have built angels and by the third, I would have taken his castle almost without losses. But despite this, I did not want to continue playing with such a player after his deception and simply exited the game...

The judge assessed my actions when I refused to continue the game and exited as me surrendering, because due to the fact that I communicated with Alex about non-aggression toward his castle on the 6th day in-game, there is no evidence in the ICQ logs that Aleх_R had no right to change the number of troops in the castle, and especially to enter it with the main hero, pulling in troops from the secondary as well :( ( do not agree to anything in-game, only via ICQ)
(although, logically, I would not have agreed not to attack if I weren't sure that the number of troops would not change the next day and would remain the same as on the 6th day when I could have attacked—but this is also only indirect evidence of Alex's deception, not direct, as the judge considered). In the end, he considered the game finished with a 117 surrender, as Yakudza surrendered for personal reasons...

BUT THIS SURRENDER IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE RULES; IT TURNS OUT I SIMPLY REFUSED TO CONTINUE THE GAME AND IT DOES NOT MATTER WHY (JUST AS I REFUSED IN THE FIRST GAMES HERE WHEN FEEDING A HERO WITH AN ARMY TO MONSTERS IN THE FIRST AND SECOND WEEKS—I ALSO EXITED THE GAMES AND SIMPLY SURRENDERED, REFUSING TO CONTINUE THE GAME FURTHER; SIMILARLY HERE—THIS IS A NORMAL CAPITULATION, ONCE YOU EXITED AND REFUSED TO CONTINUE, NOT A VIOLATION OF THE RULES),

But after the game, I reviewed the saves and discovered a gross violation of the rules (I believe intentional, because even if he ran through by accident, he should have said so immediately (and I would have simply suggested he touch nothing there and run back, and we would have continued playing normally), but he remained silent until the end of the game, and still didn't break through the passage guard).

As a result, on all online game resources, upon the discovery of a rule violation by an opponent, the game result is annulled, and a technical defeat is automatically awarded to the rule-breaker.