Development of a Rules List

[Jon Shafer]

Given the discussions going on in the ISDG1 and 2 about rules and exploits, I think we may want to develop a list for this game especially as there has been no attempt to do so since the very beginning of the game.

I will post the MZO DG rules list here and the different teams may review and discuss it. Amendments can be made, new rules added, other deleted, etc. depending on what the teams desire.

We will have either one large poll or a round of polling for each disputed issue in order to come to a final and complete list of what is and is not allowed in the game. :)

Here is the banned exploit list from the game:

====================================================
The following is a list of some known exploits. Note that these are not all the exploits, so if an exploit doesn't appear here, it is still illegal. The administator may edit this list as exploits are discovered/fixed.
1. Alliance tricks

Basically the idea of most points in this section revolves around two teams flipping back and forth between peace and war to abuse certain game mechanics.

1.1 Getting double-duty out of artillery and Workers

Two (or more) teams can get double (triple...) use of bombardment units and Workers by using the units on their respective turns, then letting their "enemy" capture and use them in turn. When facing an alliance of two civs with 20 Catapults among them, it's quite disconcerting to have to face 40 rounds of bombardment.

The simple solution is to require alliances and peace treaties to be respected through in-game diplomacy.

1.2 Sharing a Luxury or Strategic resource

Two teams can get the use of a single resource by repeated gifting and then cancelling of the trade. One Iron should only supply one civ at a time.

Repeated cancellation of trade is okay for supplying bursts of a resource for a civ upgrade, as long as it is not also being used for making a dual supply out of one resource.

1.3 Generating Leaders and Golden Ages by sacrificing cheap units

A team can build a bunch of Warriors and let another team slaughter them with Elites, in hopes of generating a Great Leader. This is actually quite costly, but the results can be dramatic (fast Forbidden Palace or Palace) if the teams get lucky.

The same applies to the generation of golden ages through the use of war with allies.

The solution to this one is the same as in 1.1.

1.4 Declaring war for happiness

Two teams can declare war on each other for purposes of generating a little Happiness, which can lead to increased production through WLTKD.

1.5 Exchanging map/minimap information before Navigation.

In Conquests, map trading is pushed back to Astronomy. If two teams can exchange maps out-of-game, the Seafaring trait becomes a lot less attractive.


2. Metagame tricks

2.1 Reloading to alter unwanted random results

It is possible to alter the results of combat (even with preserve random seed turned on) by reloading the save and playing out the turn slightly differently (i.e. by attacking in a different order, or basically by playing around with things that trigger the RNG). This can result in finding highly one-sided battles, and the appearance of an inordinate number of Elites and Great Leaders.

The simple solution is to require each team to open the save only once. This means that only one sequence of moves/orders is allowed to be viewed per save.

2.2 Manipulating a savegame file

Crafty players use the PBEM savegames to obtain information, or worse.

Again, let's play Civ3. If we allow tools like MapStat, then the door is wide open for any other file-manipulation program, which is a can of worms.

2.3 Loading a save while zoomed out

A team's turn-player can configure his or her game to be zoomed out, then load a PBEM savegame, which can reveal certain facts about the previous team's location.

Solution: all teams must agree to zoom in before loading the savegame and/or zoom in before saving the game.

2.4 Renaming units/cities to confuse/mislead opponents

Cities can be renamed to names of techs ('Monotheism') or sums of Gold ('210 Gold') or anything else that can be traded in the diplomacy screen. This allows a team to screw over another in a very weird way.

Worker and Settler names can be interchanged to hide their identities in stacks (since their stats are the same). Units with identical stats can be renamed for the same effect (Enkidu Warriors and Spearmen, Ancient Cavalry and Gallic Swordsmen).

Units/cities, therefore, may not be renamed for the specific purpose of fooling opponents.


3. Game Mechanics tricks

3.1 Fortifying a ship without any movement points left to obtain extra vision radius

A ship that fortifies sees an extra 1 tile in all directions at the beginning of the next turn. This can be accomplished by waking up the passengers of a ship (if there are any), and giving the Fortify All order.

3.2 Hitting F1 to change production

It is possible to use F1 to go into city views and change production before a city has been reached in the pre-turn production queue. This can result in tech-enabled units and Wonders being completed the very turn the tech is researched, or production to be changed in response to an enemy's actions (like Walls if a stack moves toward a specific city and not another).

Let all cities finish their growth/production phases, and only enter the city views when the first unit is highlighted and ready to move. This does away with tricks like avoiding riots, using tiles twice per turn, and other such nonsense.

3.3 Using GoTo to get extra movement

The last civ in the turn order can issue a GoTo command to a unit, and have that unit move twice before the next turn begins. This is very strong in war-time, and benefits one team only.

3.4 Chaining naval transports to quickly move land units across water

It is possible to wake a land unit at sea, and transfer it from one transport to another. Given enough ships, a chain can be created to instantaneously move units across bodies of water (by ending in port).

3.5 Teleporting units by abandoning or gifting cities

A team can instantaneously transport units from any city back to their capital by simply disbanding it or gifting it to another team. This results in very weird strategy.

3.6 Accepting a Peace Treaty from a civ then immediately declaring war

A team at war with another can accept the latter's Peace Treaty, then declare war afterward in order to eliminate War Weariness from that civ. This results in a huge advantage if the peace-seeking team is not aware of the trick.

=====================================================

[bongo]

Looks very sensible, allow me to make a few comments :)

2.4 Renaming units to confuse opponents. This trick is kind of funny as it only forces you to pay more attention :)

3.3 AFAIK, all players can use the goto-command to use movement points in advance, very useful when racing to a target. (or was this removed in c3c?)

3.4 :hmmm: , you gain speed but lose capacity. You can only transport one shipload per chain. An alternative use of this exploit is to move units over dangerous waters. You lose some ships but the cargo is never at risk.


How about sharing wonders through city gifting?

[Arrian]

Wonders through city gifting has to be out, if sharing a single resource is.

So you consider going into F1 (rule 3.2) an exploit, eh Trip? So be it if everyone agrees, but I'm therefore surprised you never said anything to us about it.

edit: ah, those are the MZO rules (it's good when I read your post, huh?). So, what is your opinion on that one, Trip? I'm fine with it either way, except for reusing tiles, which AFAIK, GS never did.

-Arrian

[Hot_Enamel]

I am going to say, that chaining naval transports (Rule 3.4) is AOK, and not an exploit.

It's in the MZO list, but was considered not to be an exploit for the C3C ISDG and was removed.

If it is available to all teams, then it gives an advantage to no-one.

:cute:

[Arrian]

My personal preference on that one is to disallow it, but I don't feel all that strongly about it either way.

-Arrian

[asleepathewheel]

I agree with the rules except for:

no galley chaining
no misleading name changes on the world map (distinguised from trade menu)

I think those are just strategic maneuvers by players and should be allowed.

also the breaking into f1 like Arrian mentioned.

and probably something else as well, if I had time to notice.

[DeepO]

First of all, I think it's strange to start on this list now, after 200 turns, and over a year of play. I don't think this game saw a lot of exploits (none deliberately AFAIK), and all teams have been reasonable when discussing this. OTOH, our team has been criticized for exploitive behaviour before, so if we can avoid that, I'd welcome this discussion.

I'm comfortable with most points, but not these:

Originally posted by Trip
2.4 Renaming units/cities to confuse/mislead opponents

Worker and Settler names can be interchanged to hide their identities in stacks (since their stats are the same). Units with identical stats can be renamed for the same effect (Enkidu Warriors and Spearmen, Ancient Cavalry and Gallic Swordsmen).

Units/cities, therefore, may not be renamed for the specific purpose of fooling opponents.

Bah, we did it before, and it didn't fool anyone (battle settler called "worker". I don't think we'd try that again, however since the beginning there has been some discussion on our forum to change names of units to hide our strength, or to falsly let others believe we were strong when we were not that strong. I don't think it's necessary to leave that out: if anyone wants to keep on editing dozens of names each turn just to fool the opponent in thinking there is one more spear on that mountain, let them. GS seems to be the only team who doesn't have a lot of named units, but the moment teams fear that the names are giving away their intent, all named units would disappear... I don't care if anyone renames their units, even if it fools the enemy a little.


3.2 Hitting F1 to change production

It is possible to use F1 to go into city views and change production before a city has been reached in the pre-turn production queue. This can result in tech-enabled units and Wonders being completed the very turn the tech is researched, or production to be changed in response to an enemy's actions (like Walls if a stack moves toward a specific city and not another).

Let all cities finish their growth/production phases, and only enter the city views when the first unit is highlighted and ready to move. This does away with tricks like avoiding riots, using tiles twice per turn, and other such nonsense.
I strongly disagree here. No more precisely timed prebuilds? Oh, come on! This rule is much too restrictive. Changing production does not alter anything in the game, not when it is done when completing a tech (and going to F1), nor when one city builds something, the player 'hacks' into the city view, and uses the arrows to change the build queue for a later on city. That is not an exploit! If it is being used to complete walls in a city under attack, I have no problem whatsoever with this. Modern units the moment they are discovered? Fine by me!

But, there is possibility for cheating here, and that has to be forbidden. It is possible, by 'hacking' into the city view, to change worker allocations and therefore share shields between cities, doubling their effectiveness. That can't be allowed. So, amend this rule to: "build queues can be changed, rushing is allowed, but no worker force changes can be made" and I'm happy. That will even keep the avoiding-unhappiness tactics out, which I'm not feeling strongly for (could be in or not, I don't care)


3.4 Chaining naval transports to quickly move land units across water

It is possible to wake a land unit at sea, and transfer it from one transport to another. Given enough ships, a chain can be created to instantaneously move units across bodies of water (by ending in port).
Chaining is not free, it requires you to build and upkeep more boats. It has several disadvantages that offset the gain you get from it. There are several ways of avoiding an enemy chaining. True, it gives 'infinite' movement over sea (provided the boats are in the right position), but the same exists over land (RR), and by air (airports, rebase). I see no reason whatsoever to keep it out, if teams are willing to cope with the the extra tedium and costs involved, it is their good right to use it.


3.5 Teleporting units by abandoning or gifting cities

A team can instantaneously transport units from any city back to their capital by simply disbanding it or gifting it to another team. This results in very weird strategy.
I'll probably be alone on this one, but I think the strategy involved interesting, not weird. the only real problem I see in this is that it is possible to move units with 0 movement remaining, for instance attacking someone, moving them into safety of a city with the last movement, and gifting the city to an ally hence keeping the enemy from attacking injured units. If this rule was amended to say that all units teleported need to have full movement, I wouldn't object.

'weird' strategy is one of the only things that makes this game interesting, otherwise you could just as well play against the AI.

DeepO

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by DeepO
First of all, I think it's strange to start on this list now, after 200 turns, and over a year of play. I don't think this game saw a lot of exploits (none deliberately AFAIK), and all teams have been reasonable when discussing this. OTOH, our team has been criticized for exploitive behaviour before, so if we can avoid that, I'd welcome this discussion.
There have been some questionable acts in the, past, and since there's plenty of game left to play, there may be more in the future.

While I have no problems giving a thumbs up or down to certain actions to teams, I would rather the teams decide amongst themselves what is or is not allowed.

I've posted the MZO list as a base for discussion (so keep in mind I did not come up with these ;)). Additionally, if people would like other issues discussed, this is the place to do it.

On the particularly controversial or divided issues I will run polls instead of having a large vote on the document as a whole (which will come later).

[DeepO]

Trip, don't get me wrong, I prefer that you ask for input on these things instead of doing it purely on your own judgement. You have evolved a bit from eye to judge, and I welcome some kind of framework in which a judge can rule. So no complaints there.

However, stuff like prohibiting going to F1 when a tech is dicovered, mere turns after we used that tactic to get the ToE before anyone could interfere is not something I enjoy reading about. Every good player uses this in SP, and judging it to be an exploit now, so soon after we used it is not pleasant to say the least. What was first an accomplishment (precise planning of a wonder), now becomes something foul...

I understand you use the MZ list as a starting point, but the PTWDG has not been a place where a lot of new exploits were tried out (or AFAIK not deliberately), and imposing too many rules now simply creates some sort of hindsight-bad-taste-in-the-mouth where none is needed.

This game has been relatively friendly, even with wars being fought, and I hope nobody is going to start exploiting stuff now. Personally, I don't feel there's a need for many rules, but of course I'll obey any rules imposed. (and otherwise my team will force me when playing :))

DeepO

[Hot_Enamel]

Just to let Trip off the hook a little…


I had a recent unpleasant ending to a PBEM that had been playing for 15 months.

I used a ship chain to transport marines. Which resulted in me "winning" the game the very next turn.
My opponents were of the belief, that ship chaining was an exploit, resulting in a dissatisfying end to a rather exciting long game.

I posted the move in the GoW forum.
Trip responded that he too thought it was an exploit, and hoped the tactic would never be used in this game.
I suggested to him that he post the MZO rule set in the main forum, so that it and other rules can be discussed openly by all teams.

I think the timing of GS’s use of the F1 function had nothing to do with it…..(Which is an exploit IMO)

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
I think the timing of GS’s use of the F1 function had nothing to do with it…..(Which is an exploit IMO)
Could very well be, but this is the kind of things you should expect. Everybody knows about F1, and it never even occured to me that other people would see it as an exploit. Maybe I don't visit MZO enough ;)

I'm not saying it wouldn't be good to have rules, and in case of the F1 it doesn't matter even: If we knew we were not allowed to use it, and if we knew nobody used it either, it was a simple matter of planning to complete ToE one turn later. It wouldn't have made any difference in this case, we wouldn't have lost a single shield or gold, if only we knew it well beforehand.

However, there is some gain to be made, sometimes, in being more on the edge with prebuilding 'new' stuff (universities completing the turn education is discovered, wonders taking effect right on the mark, etc.), and frankly I can only say that teams who don't do it are missing out on some of the potential of their game. Calling it an exploit because some teams rahter play the game intuitively instead of by the calculator?

Similarly, using chaining has advantages and disadvantages, and everyone is aware of these (or should be, there are no bad players in this game). It is not an exploit because some people forgot to check for all posibilities. Besides, it has to be a very specific case in which chaining will give you the winning edge, one that you couldn't also have had a few turns later, with adequate planning... it gives you small advantages, but this is no game-breaking stuff. And others can do it just as well, there is no advantage for one team over the other.

DeepO

[vmxa1]

I like them all, except chaining. I am on the fence on that one and have no concerns either way.

To me the rules can be anything so long as all agree.

[Hot_Enamel]

I also have used the F1 trick in a PBEM.

Here is how my PBEM ended….
I wanted to hide the production of some marines, so I used the F1 trick to produce them on the turn I needed them.
And then on the same turn, I used a transport chain, to invade a coastal city.
And then on the same turn, MA entered the city, and took over a few undefended core cities. (including a city with a harbor)
And then on the same turn, a settler (also on the transport chain) created a city to capture an aluminium resource.
This was what I needed to build my last space ship part (I was getting creamed by a MA/MI invasion, which took my resource).
I changed my prebuild over, and I won by SS on the next turn.


However…
Given what I know now, I think the F1 trick is an exploit.
Although it was not my intention, it hid their build against an enemy who could have used a spy to sabotage their production.
Or used the knowledge of marine building to beef up security on coastal cities.


So…it is my opinion, that not giving your opponents the opportunity to see your prebuild switch over for one turn, disadvantages them.
ie had it been on a coast city, they may of rushed a marine invasion to destroy it.
They could use spies to sabotage it.
They could switch their build over to something else to avoid losing more shields on their own prebuild.

Building wonders, infrastructure or units on the turn you finish the tech just does not feel right.
I don’t think civ game mechanics was designed to allow it…other than this loophole which we all know about.
I’d prefer it be classified as an exploit.

[MrWhereItsAt]

I think the F1 use is no cheat, and certainly no worse to hiding your pre-build for a GW with a Palace or FP build. Those don't appear in the Wonders screen, so you are hiding that fact from all your opponents. If that is OK then surely F1 use is no more or less trickery.

[DeepO]

H_E, that sounds like a extremely well planned and cunning way out of a bad situation :b:

Exploit? Not at all. Why, because the others didn't see marines coming? When you're ready for a SS victory, so some 50 turns after you first could have discovered amph. warf.? I have no compassion whatsoever with those you beat, and if I would have been your opponent in that game I would have congratulated you.

If you use this story as a way to explain why either chaining, or F1 building is an exploit, you have exactly the same arguments for telling to people that the use of RRs is an exploit (as these were also part of your tactic), or that starting to build a SS component using a resource you are sure to have lost when the component completes is an exploit. (as I take it you only kept the alu city for that one turn). You did nothing illegal, not even fishy in that game, IMO. You just used the well-known game mechanics well.

DeepO

[Jon Shafer]

Okay, given the controversy, the two issues I plan on polling so far (on a team-by-team basis) are the ship-chaining and the use of F1.

We have yet to hear from a few teams on some of these issues, so discuss! :doitnow!:

[DeepO]

Just to be clear: these are my opinions, I do not represent GS.

DeepO

[vondrack]

Originally posted by DeepO
H_E, that sounds like a extremely well planned and cunning way out of a bad situation :b:

Exploit? Not at all. Why, because the others didn't see marines coming? When you're ready for a SS victory, so some 50 turns after you first could have discovered amph. warf.? I have no compassion whatsoever with those you beat, and if I would have been your opponent in that game I would have congratulated you.

If you use this story as a way to explain why either chaining, or F1 building is an exploit, you have exactly the same arguments for telling to people that the use of RRs is an exploit (as these were also part of your tactic), or that starting to build a SS component using a resource you are sure to have lost when the component completes is an exploit. (as I take it you only kept the alu city for that one turn). You did nothing illegal, not even fishy in that game, IMO. You just used the well-known game mechanics well.

DeepO
Ummm... as it was me on the receiving end of this extremely well planned and cunning way out of a bad situation, I guess I might add a few words here...

First of all... I hold no grudges against H_E - we have had quite a debate after the game and I hope we have remained good friends despite the rather bitter end of an exciting game (which was pretty much ruined by the map generator even before it came to the end H_E talked about).

The problem was not I did not know about ship chaining and thus did not see the invasion coming. I knew about it and believed it to be disallowed (H_E can attest that my tactics matched that). You can hardly say you have no idea why... the opinions on ship chaining differ, from being OK (C3C ISDG) to being banned (MZO C3C DG).

I can live with either way... after mulling it over for few days, I came to the conclusion that even if designers did not plan to have it work that way (which we do not know), it enhances the game and to an extent levels the ground for the attacker and defender. There are certainly much worse "exploits" possible... however, as I automatically considered it disallowed, I consciously did not plan for the possibility and lost the game.

So, I more than welcome this effort of H_E and Trip - let's talk about what is allowed and what is not. I hope we all understand that we are not trying to cast shadows on what happened in the past. Everything that was not expressly forbidden was allowed. No need to feel bad about the ToE build or anything. We may very well end up simply allowing almost everything... however, the important thing will be that we all will know that this or that is allowed and may be used without feeling bad about it.

See... like this F1 thingy... Trip can attest that few turns ago, Lego happened to have a wee little problem with a luxury supply. A game quirk made us lose one luxury supply even though we had it on turn X (last turn of the previous deal) and on turn X+1 (first turn of the next deal). I knew about the way how to fix the problem, but it involved, in a way, the F1 trick... I felt it was grey area at best, so I did not use it and consequently, Lego had some of its builds messed up. It was only afterwards that I posted about it in our forum and asked Trip about whether it was ok to use it or not (he said it was ok). Now I hear GS is using the trick with no hesitation... had I known, I would have used it, too.

So, I believe we simply need to publicly state what IS allowed and what IS NOT. Let's talk about pros and cons and let's accept the will of the majority... allowed or not, no big deal either way - we are all players good enough to play by just about any kind of rules of house rules set. Let's just make sure we all play by the same rules. Trust me, having a game ruined by something you thought was not allowed feels very bitter (and you have NOBODY to blame, not even yourself... ;)). It would feel even more bitter in this game we have all spent so much time with.

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by DeepO
H_E, that sounds like a extremely well planned and cunning way out of a bad situation :b:

DeepO

The move was certainly not well planned out.
Cunning maybe…. but I think my good friend Vondrack came close to calling me a different name starting with cun* as soon as he realised what I did.

:)

The tactic just happened to just fall into place, because I was using transports as a naval early warning picket line along vondracks coast. The transports just happened to be in the right place at the time when I needed them.

I thought the plan up on turn 1, and tweaked a couple of transport positions.

Lost my aluminium on turn 2 to vondracks rampaging army (the very turn I needed it for the last SS part). I built marines on turn 2 with F1, invaded on turn 2 with a transport chain, took his resource on turn 2, and switched my prebuild to the last SS part on turn 2.

On turn 3, the SS was complete.
I was very lucky to pull the whole thing off. Vondrack had me completely outclassed on the battlefield.

The bad feeling was simply because we had different views on transport chaining being an exploit. As Vondrack said, he could have easily defended his coastal cities better, had he known that I could use a transport chain.
Similarly, I would have not of even considered the move had I not thought the manoeuvre was completely valid.

In order to avoid something similar happening in this game **again** , Trip posted a suggested rule list.

So my vote would be yes to transport chains.
And although I understand the arguments for the use of the F1 trick, my gut tells me that I would prefer it banned…(or limited to fixing bugs under the supervision of Trip)
And the rule regarding the warping of units should be reworded to say that if the intention of gifting a city is to warp units, then it is against the rules. Ie city gifting happens sometimes, and a side effect is that units get warped. Side effect is OK.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
The bad feeling was simply because we had different views on transport chaining being an exploit. As Vondrack said, he could have easily defended his coastal cities better, had he known that I could use a transport chain.
Similarly, I would have not of even considered the move had I not thought the manoeuvre was completely valid.
To be fair, I should note here that had I known ship chaining was allowed, I would have had to deploy more of my troops defensively throughout the war and likely to build more navy on the expense of the sorely needed MA/MI, consequently having a bit less to throw at H_E in my desperate attempt to break his neck in time (which almost happened, though :)). Perhaps I'd have been unable to reach his aluminium as fast as I reached it and he would have won anyway...

But ultimately, it's not about who won that game in the end. Considering the game as a whole, H_E did more or less deserve to win it, for numerous achievements. This was about the frustration I felt after opening the last save - I immediately knew what happened, since I knew the only way to pull a seaborne invasion was a ship chain. But at that moment, it was too late to discuss any rules. It was obvious H_E used a manoeuver he considered valid - asking him to replay without it would only bring in more frustration (this time on his side), so I didn't even try... it just felt very wrong and sad...

When it comes to voting on ship chaining, I am probably not going to want it banned now - I'll either abstain, simply accepting what others will want or even vote in favour of it, as I - after much thinking about it - came to like the twist it adds to the game.

As for F1... that's a different story. If it's going to be allowed, then we need to precisely list what is allowed and what is not. Clearly, double-use of tiles is a no-no, while changing production may be acceptable to the majority.

I would personally ban reassigning labourers in the city screen, be it tile->tile or labourer->specialist (though I would like to hear then, if taking a labourer off a tile and putting him immediately back there is ok or not... ;).

I only have a feeling about one other MZO list point: worker/arty double duty. Clearly, a double-duty is a no-no, but requiring alliances and peace treaties to be respected ingame goes beyond just preventing double duties. It makes even capturing (and using on the next turn) arty impossible, makes cutting resource trades impossible etc. Perhaps just rewording or dropping the "ingame alliance/peace" requirement would make it fine with me. Just state it's not allowed to use captured arty/workers on the turn they are captured if they have already been utilized on that very turn by another team (this would have to include "early completed" PBEM terrain improvements).

[Arrian]

I'm fine with F1 being legal, and I'm fine with it begin illegal. I never saw anything wrong with it (except the sharing tiles thing, which honestly never occurred to me), but if others think it's an exploit, so be it.

:b: to all playing by the same rules.

-Arrian

[bongo]

The sharing tiles thing sounds bad, the other uses of 'F1' sounds acceptable.

[Theseus]

In general, I lean towards DeepO's philosophy, i.e., we have to distinguish between exploits and expertise.

Trip, what resolution mechanism(s) do you intend?

[Arrian]

So...

Um...

What's up, Doc?

-Arrian

[Jon Shafer]

Polling commences soon (as soon as I can get the polls up ;)).

[Jon Shafer]

If there are any other "controversial issues" which the teams would prefer to have individual polls on please let me know. Otherwise, I will be lumping all of the rest of the rules into a single document to be given a thumbs up or down as a whole by each team.

Additionally, something that needs to be addressed is punishments for rule infractions. I can obviously watch for any breaking of the rules and quickly leverage punishment of some sort if the teams would like. While I don't think that explicit breaking of the rules is something that the group we have here will engage in, I believe it's appropriate for the sake of thoroughness (what's the point in having rules if there's no bite to them?).

I personally would suggest the skipping of turns as a punishment for breaking the rules, with a certain amount based upon the severity of the infraction. For example, if a team teleports 1-10 units they lose one turn, 11-20 they lose 2, etc. We don't have to get that detailed, but I'm just using an example.

One final thing for the teams to consider: a battle log. This has been something that has been very popular for the C3C ISDG, and I feel that it would also be a good system to impliment in this game as well. I think it's just as unfair for teams to be unable to know what happened to their units in this game as it would be in any other.

Please discuss. :)

[bongo]

Originally posted by Trip
One final thing for the teams to consider: a battle log. This has been something that has been very popular for the C3C ISDG, and I feel that it would also be a good system to impliment in this game as well. I think it's just as unfair for teams to be unable to know what happened to their units in this game as it would be in any other.

Battle log? What's that?
(I am not taking part in the c3c isdg)

[DeepO]

the punishment for breaking rules? What about having to replay the turn, and be the ass of the public forum for a month because you made a mistake? Nobody is going to willingly break any rules everybody agrees upon...

Oh and battle log: please explain, not everyone is in the c3c isdg.

DeepO

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by bongo
Battle log? What's that?
(I am not taking part in the c3c isdg)
Basically you give details of any combat between you and another team to that team. Since you're unable to see what has happened to your units on another team's turn, you have no idea as to what happened. For example, at the end of the most recent war the RP team lost Pamplona and all of the units in it in a grand final battle. But all RP saw was a bunch of units in their capital one turn and the next it was gone along with their army.

The ettiquette for the log would be something like:

"4/4 Ansar attacks 4/4 Pike, does 2 damage and retreats."

Basically giving the same information about each combat that takes place to the opposing team as they should have access to if it were like an SP game.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by DeepO
the punishment for breaking rules? What about having to replay the turn, and be the ass of the public forum for a month because you made a mistake? Nobody is going to willingly break any rules everybody agrees upon...
It says nowhere anything about having replay the turn, which is the problem...

If someone does willingly break the rules, then what? You kind of twisted the situation into a knot there. :) Basically saying "someone will NEVER break the rules, but if they do we'll 'force' them to do something that isn't even outlined in the rules." ;)

[DeepO]

Trip, I don'tknow about public battle logs. Obviously, these shold be accessible in forum, so that you (or the judge) can check them in case of something fishy going on. However giving it to the other party as well? We should discuss this before implementing such a big change to the game. GS has been in 2 wars so far, and while it is sometimes frustrating to not know what happened, it can also from time to time be part of your strategy.

And as to twisted situations in knots: it was not my intention. I'm too naief perhaps, in that I'm willing to believe nobody will break the rules willingly. In case people proof me wrong, we can always use this forum as our UN court... if all the other teams agree something was against the rules, we can then decide on sanctions. I see no reason to do so now, but perhaps that's just me;)

DeepO

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by DeepO
Trip, I don'tknow about public battle logs. Obviously, these shold be accessible in forum, so that you (or the judge) can check them in case of something fishy going on. However giving it to the other party as well? We should discuss this before implementing such a big change to the game. GS has been in 2 wars so far, and while it is sometimes frustrating to not know what happened, it can also from time to time be part of your strategy.
As I said in the PTW ISDG forum, why should teams not be able to have access to that information?

The only reason a replay feature wasn't included in PTW was due to time and budget constraints. It wasn't a priority. But if there had been all the time and money in the world to get everything done that the team wanted to, then there would be a replay feature, and you would be able to see exactly what happened, just like in SP.

Just because something is the status quo is not a reason to not question whether it's right or not...

Maybe we should make a rule banning the building of RRs and see what new "strategies" emerge from that? What, not a good idea? Why not? ;)

And as to twisted situations in knots: it was not my intention. I'm too naief perhaps, in that I'm willing to believe nobody will break the rules willingly. In case people proof me wrong, we can always use this forum as our UN court... if all the other teams agree something was against the rules, we can then decide on sanctions. I see no reason to do so now, but perhaps that's just me;)
Like I said, thoroughness.

Maybe I'm too much of a cynic, but I like to have all of the bases covered so that the possibility of that sort of situation doesn't even have to be questioned.

[DeepO]

I'm not saying I'm objecting public battle logs, it's just that this is a big change to a game that has been going for nearly one and a half year. I've got to think on this to decide my position in this, and I'm sure others need that too... this is not an obvious 'yes' vote from everyone involved.

Oh, and a game without RRs... sure... but not after we railed most of our territory :p

Re: punishment: there is such a thing as trying too much to anticipate all situations. I'm more of the type that doesn't waste too much thought on something that only has a slim chance of happening ;)

DeepO

[vmxa1]

Punishment may be hard to determine. Your example, say they send so many units they eliminated the other civ, think a one turn loss is a problem?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by DeepO
I'm not saying I'm objecting public battle logs, it's just that this is a big change to a game that has been going for nearly one and a half year. I've got to think on this to decide my position in this, and I'm sure others need that too... this is not an obvious 'yes' vote from everyone involved.
I feel this would be a major improvement, which is why I suggested it. I find the lack of information in PBEM games to be more of a case of "how can I screw my opponent out of information that he should know" than a "strategy."

Yes I understand that it changes a lot (and that is hard for some people to swallow after nothing changing on a game-wide basis rule-wise for quite some time), but I do think that this would make the game better and more fair for all teams involved.

[lmtoops]

I like the idea of having a battle log. Of course it a pain in rear, having to document all your battles and publishing. I know in all my PBEM games, it's bothersome not to know what happened to your huge stack of troops. The battle log does not give out any secret information.

I suppose this would need to be another team poll.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by lmtoops
I like the idea of having a battle log. Of course it a pain in rear, having to document all your battles and publishing. I know in all my PBEM games, it's bothersome not to know what happened to your huge stack of troops. The battle log does not give out any secret information.
Most teams (i.e. all so far engaged in combat) have already posted logs within their own forums for their own teams so that everyone can see how the battles went. I don't think it would be much more work to have them edited a bit to be sent off to the affected team as well. :)

I suppose this would need to be another team poll.
Yes, that is wise. I will open up a new poll on that along with rule infraction punishments.

[bongo]

I think a battle log is a good idea for new games, it's a good and sensible way of adding a feature that was never implemented due to lack of time and money.

I would be very reluctant to add it to a running game though, especially one that has been going on for so long. The lack of information on what other teams are doing on their turn can be annoying but it is equal to all teams and has been made part of everyones strategy.

[Panzer32]

no way, I would never become a turnplayer again if we needed battle logs. Its part of PBEM, deal with it.

[asleepathewheel]

at times this game feels like a job already, battle logs would be just one more thing to have to deal with, and I don't think I would want to do it.

[Cort Haus]

The long-term answer is software implementation (Civ 4).

The game save could include a 'transaction log' like a database uses to reapply changes exactly as orginally made. The log is used to 'replay' the other civs turns when a PBEM is loaded up.

[Beta]

My personal opinions:

Battle logs - Ok - but a pain. More programming would have been nice.

Galley chains - :q: (Then again - it does help combat the defensive advantage of railways.)

F1 - hmmm. No opinion, other than the double-tile use is clearly out.

Now - some others:

RR movement as it currently stands - give me a break. Make it a set number of tiles - OR - require units to use a turn to disembark and not be able to attack on the same turn they use RR's.

Pre-builds: farcical. "We were part way through building the pyramids, but we decided to change it to the Hanging Gardens???" Explain that one. Or - "we were almost finished the university - but we needed a battleship instead." Yes - that makes good sense. :q: IMHO, you should be able to salvage maybe 10% at the most of a pre-build's shields. I think it would be more challenging to have to do the planning from start to finish on a build. This would require some thought on game mechanics regarding wonders - especially when you have 550 shields sunk into something and someone else completes it. Then again - maybe that should be the risk you take.

And - regarding the ship chain - clearly - a more realistic portrayal of ship movement is required that would obviate the need for such an exploit.

[vondrack]

Umm, Beta - you certainly are a purist, aren't you? ;) :lol:

But seriously - I know infinite RR movement and other things you mention could work better, that's for sure, but we are talking rules for THIS VERY GAME here. I do not see how we could address the issues you mention...

[Beta]

Originally posted by vondrack
Umm, Beta - you certainly are a purist, aren't you? ;) :lol:

But seriously - I know infinite RR movement and other things you mention could work better, that's for sure, but we are talking rules for THIS VERY GAME here. I do not see how we could address the issues you mention...

I should have been clearer. I fully agree that we cannot implement my 'purer' ideas for this game. They are just issues that I have with the game mechanics. They are NOT serious suggestions for changes here.

As to being a purist - I was a pretty serious board war-gamer at one point, back in the late 70's and early 80's - which were the haydays of wargaming - hence the origins of my 'purity'. :)

[ZargonX]

My thoughts on battle logs (for anyone who cares :p)

I think they are a good idea in most situations, however I feel there is one instance where they should notbe used. If there are no survivors in a stack after an attack, nor immediately adjacent to the attacking units, I do not think a battle log should be sent. No survivors = no one to say what happened. Think of it as the advantage of a swift, overwhelming attack: the element of suprise is still in the attacker's favor.

[Panzer32]

aha, but you still see the attacks in regular civ3. If we stoop to use battle logs then we should at least do them properly as in the real civ.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Beta
And - regarding the ship chain - clearly - a more realistic portrayal of ship movement is required that would obviate the need for such an exploit.

Fully agreed.

Speaking of 70s and 80s wargames, btw... I was raised on that stuff, since my father has an incredibly extensive collection. :b:

[Arrian]

Do we have a copy of our agreed-upon rules list (taking the team voting into account)?

-Arrian

[Jon Shafer]

So far there's only been the three rules voted upon. I'll see if I can get a consolidated document put together sometime soon.

[Arrian]

:b: