There were two inactives in Skirm 14 and there are still 12 castles on the map So I'm inclined to think they were captured but I had been following the game news fairly carefully and I don't recall seeing it posted who got them.
I'm not asking who got them but did anyone see that the captures were covered in the game news?

PS:
IMO this is still as big a problem as anything else. I certainly wouldn't knowingly attack a two castle opponent as if he were a one castle opponent.
Also not to make accusations but "multies" are still a problem and I think the only sure way to get a fair game with respect to inactives is for everthing on an inactive's territory to disappear.

TR

This is more of a suggestion, but I think the number of days that a player is inactive should be incremented and indicated and then if he goes inactive everything should be removed even if it has been captured as a penalty for claiming the spoils of an inactive player.

TR

Well right now I'm feeling like quitting this game folks.
Sorry but I attacked my opponent on or about turn 19 after giving him about a one turn warning and it is now turn 26.
My opponent has managed to build 2 barracks and 5 towers outside of his castle at a cost in stone of about 6000 and he has produced as of 2 turns ago about 210 ballista in those two barracks plus he managed a strong force of basic troops. I attacked when I only saw the 2 barracks and the 2 towers because I assumed that if he only had the one territory, that he had expended his stone and I had ballista coming;

but now my opponent has managed to build 3 more towers, forced me into retreat and has a tower overlooking my goldmine. Sorry but I think he got one of the inactive territories very early and I don't even feel like continuing this game.
At least if I had known I may have played differently but I don't understand how I could have missed the game news on these inactive castles.
I may quit this game because I'm too busy in real life to play an intensively defensive game.

TR