New Beginings-DIPLO

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by CyberShy
A good rule would of course be that a referee decides when all who are involved in a war end their turn alltogether. Thus all warmongers wait till a not-involved player (or if all are involved the game-leader) says 'now' and then all press enter.

Yea, that's what I pushed for earlier.

[TELawrence]

I'm not available for the other game as it's out of my time period, but I'm still interested in this one. I've read and understood the concept of these games.

I really feel we should have simultaneous turns, to keep the pace going. Games flow so much better, especially if everyone can get together for a session. My question about exploiting double-turns is that as everyone on these forums seems to know each other, and as the whole ethos is not playing to win, why do we need elaborate systems to prevent double-turns happening? I've witnessed plenty of games where 'rules of honour' are kept (say, not declaring war when a player asked to be replaced by the AI for a couple of days). Why can't we all just agree to not take two turns together without allowing the opponent a chance to respond?

[LzPrst]

I tend to agree. the double-move is considered an exploit. and we are all honorable men (no, not ironic this time). also there is a 6-second delay when moving a unit and hitting enter until you can move it again, in order to prevent this exploit. it should take away most of the problem if we all act nicely.

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by TELawrence
I'm not available for the other game as it's out of my time period, but I'm still interested in this one. I've read and understood the concept of these games.

I really feel we should have simultaneous turns, to keep the pace going. Games flow so much better, especially if everyone can get together for a session. My question about exploiting double-turns is that as everyone on these forums seems to know each other, and as the whole ethos is not playing to win, why do we need elaborate systems to prevent double-turns happening? I've witnessed plenty of games where 'rules of honour' are kept (say, not declaring war when a player asked to be replaced by the AI for a couple of days). Why can't we all just agree to not take two turns together without allowing the opponent a chance to respond?

We will all be playing at same time, this allows diplomatic communications. The argument is over whether we do turn based movement or Simultaneous movement.

I vote no for simul move as i do beleive it impacts WAR but can also impact who gets to build a city first, claim a Vilalgers hut etc. At least with TURN BASED you know whether you will achieve sometihng in your turn and not be having t owatch every border for who is moving first and see if htey heading to same locale as you are.

[vilemerchant]

Simul turns should be ON to keep the pace going while there's no wars happening. All is needed is a gentlemans agreement for warring parties to take turns to move their units.

[Rasputin]

as isaid it not just war times that are impacted by SIMUL moves.

[vilemerchant]

Originally posted by Rasputin
as isaid it not just war times that are impacted by SIMUL moves.

I probably won't be playing this game anyway, but is it really worth the game being 5 times slower just to avoid the rare occasion where two people go for the same hut or have settlers wanting to build a city in the same spot?

[Rasputin]

YES !

[LzPrst]

well if you play at marathon you will be spending not 20 weeks like HOTW5 did, but 5 times that, possibly more depending on number of players. do you really wanna play the same game for 2 years Ras?

and remember you can do a near-infinite amount of diplomacy during the week when you're not playing.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Rasputin
YES !

conservatives

[TELawrence]

I still vote for simultaneous turns in peacetime, but having reread the thread I'm being swayed to vote against it in combat or those chess-like situations where every square matters. But even then I've rarely found it affects my calculations that much - you just have to think two possible turns ahead is all.

We don't take double turns in critical situations.

If a situation occurs where two scouts come upon a goody hut, then all players simply refrain from ending their turn before messaging all players to act as witness or arbitrator to see that the first in line on the player roster gets it. The next turn, first-in-line reports back. Simple.

I've so rarely encountered situations where two parties build settlers and send them to the same place at the same time - but if it happens just do the same thing again.

But we simply enforce it with gentleman's agreement. Otherwise the whole thing drags out, and people's concentration starts slipping.

[LzPrst]

you're making a lot of ado about nothing here.

[Robert]

You cannot change from simul to turn based during the game.

[Rasputin]

well i guess the answer is I wont play. If everyone else believes SIMUL is the way too go.

[Robert]

Rasputin, why don't you just try it?
Or are you the farmer in the dutch saying: "If the farmer doesn't know it he won't eat it"

(in proper dutch that would be: "Wat de boer niet kent dat eet hij niet")