This may seem a little odd, but I'd like your opinions.
I am playing a defensive campaign as the Spanish. I set my rules that I would not expand beyond the Iberian peninsula until 200 BC, with Palma being a special case. As long as Palma was controlled by Carthage, I would leave it be ('cause I like to see Carthage do well; they almost never do). Unfortunately, the Julii took Palma really early. Then, once the Julii built docks (making Palma a serious threat to my security, it being less than a turn boat trip from my coasts), I liberated Palma, which was around 245 BC. That's it, though. My rule was that would be the last settlement I capture until 200 BC.
I got a little bored, though; and I was rapidly losing trading partners. So I allied with Numidia, and sent a strong army down to help them fight off the Scipii. (The Brutii and Scipii are taking over the world. The Scipii have most of North Africa and Southern Greece. The Brutii have the rest of Greece and are working their way through the Dacians, now. Egypt and Armenia have split control of the Middle East, with Egypt controlling the coast and Armenia controlling the inland area. Pontus controls Asia Minor. Scythia is just sitting in their corner.)
Anyway, here is, finally, my ethical question. Given my no expansion rule, would it be out-of-bounds to capture Scipii cities in North Africa, retrain my troops and gift the cities to the Numidians? How about if I don't retrain? Should I just beat the Scipii back and help the Numidians in a siege if I see them initiate one? Would taking Numidia as a protectorate violate the no expansion rule? How aggressive can I be, from your perspective, without breaking my rule?
I am playing a defensive campaign as the Spanish. I set my rules that I would not expand beyond the Iberian peninsula until 200 BC, with Palma being a special case. As long as Palma was controlled by Carthage, I would leave it be ('cause I like to see Carthage do well; they almost never do). Unfortunately, the Julii took Palma really early. Then, once the Julii built docks (making Palma a serious threat to my security, it being less than a turn boat trip from my coasts), I liberated Palma, which was around 245 BC. That's it, though. My rule was that would be the last settlement I capture until 200 BC.
I got a little bored, though; and I was rapidly losing trading partners. So I allied with Numidia, and sent a strong army down to help them fight off the Scipii. (The Brutii and Scipii are taking over the world. The Scipii have most of North Africa and Southern Greece. The Brutii have the rest of Greece and are working their way through the Dacians, now. Egypt and Armenia have split control of the Middle East, with Egypt controlling the coast and Armenia controlling the inland area. Pontus controls Asia Minor. Scythia is just sitting in their corner.)
Anyway, here is, finally, my ethical question. Given my no expansion rule, would it be out-of-bounds to capture Scipii cities in North Africa, retrain my troops and gift the cities to the Numidians? How about if I don't retrain? Should I just beat the Scipii back and help the Numidians in a siege if I see them initiate one? Would taking Numidia as a protectorate violate the no expansion rule? How aggressive can I be, from your perspective, without breaking my rule?