New diplo game: big discussion needed

[St Jon]

I go back to the way it works with Ming's definition.

If, on the Turn prior to declaration of War you move before the intended victim then you can attack immediately upon the start of the next Turn and so avoid any Double-Move advantage. What you did on the previous Turn makes no difference just that you must give your opponent the chance to see a great big stack sitting next to them and have a chance to react. If you're smart they never will because you will have stayed just the one tile away. If you move after them on the previous Turn then it must be a Double-Move if you attack at the beginning of the next Turn..

Guess I'm arguing both sides here!

[The Capo]

I understand your position Cyber, I just don't agree with it. What if your opponent misses a turn or something? I mean timing is what its all about, in our war it was NEVER the intention that I move last on the turn prior and then first on the next turn. That's just how it happened (that was when I could play), there was never a discussion about when to attack. In fact I believe if you can look back at the time clock I was online for around THREE HOURS before declaring war on you. I guess since the cat is out of the bag I can say what happened; I spoke with Maya, Khmer and Japan (not necessarily in that order) about the plans. I don't remember exactly when I logged in, but there was no intended motive behind attacking you when I did. No actual advantage was gained by me at all, the units I had were exactly where they were for at least two turns prior to declaring war on you, so don't try and paint some picture that I am simply disagreeing with your opinion because of what happened.

I think it is a pointless rule. I don't think much is accomplished by making the turn prior part of a double move, in fact little is actually gained by this. You can't move units into another's territory and on the next turn declare war on them with them in the same position. Moving units within your own territory should be perfectly fine during any period of peace time. My main issue here is that with so many players it is going to be difficult to try and keep a regular turn order and on top of that add rules for turns during wartime. Since the onset of a war is so important (for a fact our war against you was timed in a specific way, so I had to declare war on you THAT turn) to inhibit it by forcing people to wait (which may give away their attempt at a surprise attack) is just a useless waste of time (just like anonymous play is).

I have always held the attitude that we make as little rules as possible and avoid making rules whenever we can or whenever they are superfluous (and this attitude goes back as far as HOTW2). To me this adds more than is necessary. Sorry for this next comment, but the fact that you basically accused me of altering my views based on a dispute with you (that I was clearly in the right on by the way, and which resulted in my exit from the game), I have to say this...

I also want to add that since it was you who ADDED that rule to the original wording of the double-move rule if ANYONE here is modifying their argument based on what happened it is YOU.

[The Capo]

I go back to the way it works with Ming's definition.

If, on the Turn prior to declaration of War you move before the intended victim then you can attack immediately upon the start of the next Turn and so avoid any Double-Move advantage. What you did on the previous Turn makes no difference just that you must give your opponent the chance to see a great big stack sitting next to them and have a chance to react. If you're smart they never will because you will have stayed just the one tile away. If you move after them on the previous Turn then it must be a Double-Move if you attack at the beginning of the next Turn..

Guess I'm arguing both sides here!

You are really arguing Cyber's position here I think. My main argument is that it is an unnecessary rule and should not be part of it.

I mean how are we supposed to do this? What if I moved last the turn prior and nine hours elapse before my intended victim moves? Can I now move? Do I still have to wait? Do I announce my intent to declare war? What if I am weaker and need the element of surprise? Is there really much benefit gained by a double-move in this sense anyway?

[St Jon]

You are really arguing Cyber's position here I think. My main argument is that it is an unnecessary rule and should not be part of it.

I mean how are we supposed to do this? What if I moved last the turn prior and nine hours elapse before my intended victim moves? Can I now move? Do I still have to wait? Do I announce my intent to declare war? What if I am weaker and need the element of surprise? Is there really much benefit gained by a double-move in this sense anyway?

I am arguing that surprise is everything in War. We would not be having this debate at all if we all had Tanks in 4000BC.

What if I have the Troops already there ready to attack? I have made no aggressive move so why should I have to wait until the victim moves next turn? I agree with you!

You just must have fairness and accept that Civ is a turn based game not an RTL one. If I were playing you IP/TCP I could not play out the scenario I described as my units would not go Green until it was my turn to move. You may miss it when things get frantic but turn order exists even there. In PBEM you could not do it because, again, turn order dictates it. PitBoss should not distort the way the way the game was designed to be played.

[Robert]

The Capo: I do believe that you didn't had the intention to make a double move or get an unfair advantage!
There was an advantage though.
Why would we allow such an advantage? The double move rule is there to disable unfair advantages. Why should we allow that advantage then?

[mzprox]

I mean how are we supposed to do this? What if I moved last the turn prior and nine hours elapse before my intended victim moves? Can I now move? Do I still have to wait? Do I announce my intent to declare war? What if I am weaker and need the element of surprise?

Whatever rules we have against double moves the same should apply to the turn before the war.

you move and wait for your opponent to move or the required time elapsed then you can move again (btw I think the timer should be much longer than 6 hours)

You don't have to announce your intent, you can still suprise your enemy.

Is there really much benefit gained by a double-move in this sense anyway?

_Yes_

Not always, but possible unfair advantage which is not "strategy", but an exploit of the game mechanism.
We agreed that in case of war we try our best to simulate a true turn based game under pitboss terms-we all agree on this as that's why we have these double move rules. It's not hard to apply it 1 turn before the war and for me it makes sense. The examples which were mentioned before are good: with double move you can evade your enemies' defense-and not because of "suprise".
It's especially bad in naval offensive. In turn based mode, if you are scouting your coast you could see an approaching army so could do preparations. (moving some troops in the dangered cities. Ofc i couldnt be sure that attack is imminent, but seeing lots of transports at my border would be a good sign for that) Actually i would even attack you with my fleet because moving lots of galleons close to my border is an act of war for me ). It's still a suprise to see an invasion fleet one turn before landing, but if i had made effort to secue my coast it shouldnt be totally nullified.
But in the way you're suggesting it's possible
Turn1: i see no danger (and it's possible that the invading troops havent even loaded into ships yet)
Turn2: i see many of my coastal cities got razed... no thanks..
I'm not saying this would be the case everytime, but we should rule out the possiblity to avoid future problems.

[bamf226]

Up until now, I've always favored Cybershy's position on the double move before the war. After reading both sides here, I've jumped to the other side. As a responsible leader, you should be watching your borders. If you notice a movement of troops along your borders, even if they are considered friendly units, you should be prepared to defend if necessary. Do you think the US would not go into red alert mode if Canada started stacking troops near the border? Generally speaking, a leader should notice troop movement and be prepared for the worst case scenario. Even if it doesn't happen, it's better that you aren't caught with your pants down in case it did happen. The advantage gained by the attacker from moving first on a turn is freely given by the defender not paying attention and is easily neutralized just by looking around.

[Robert]

bamf, this is not about watching your borders or being unprepared.
The double move rule (applied to the turn before) doesn't give players more time to respond to an attack. It only makes sure that attackers won't get an mechanical advantage that goes against the game rules.

I'll state it different, if the turn before won't be included then I see no other possibility then always play my turn last, to avoid to face a double move against me. Why would I make any move first if it might give any possible enemies a possible unfair advantage?

[Robert]

I've always favored Cybershy's position on the double move before the war.

And just for the record, this is not 'my' position. It's a position hold by almost every tbg player anywhere. Snoopy advised us before the start of this game to include it. He's an expert.

[mzprox]

As a responsible leader, you should be watching your borders. If you notice a movement of troops along your borders, even if they are considered friendly units, you should be prepared to defend if necessary.

"If you notice a movement of troops along your borders": this is exactly what can be avoided by double move... 1st you move your troops to the border then without giving me a chance to react you move in next turn-in some cases even combat could be in that turn already-and no matter how responsible, aware etc i was.. i had no chance to react.

[bamf226]

bamf, this is not about watching your borders or being unprepared.
The double move rule (applied to the turn before) doesn't give players more time to respond to an attack. It only makes sure that attackers won't get an mechanical advantage that goes against the game rules.

I'll state it different, if the turn before won't be included then I see no other possibility then always play my turn last, to avoid to face a double move against me. Why would I make any move first if it might give any possible enemies a possible unfair advantage?

Sorry, I don't see an unfair advantage any more. If you are prepared to be a defender, the surprise attack is not a surprise and the advantage is nullified.

[bamf226]

"If you notice a movement of troops along your borders": this is exactly what can be avoided by double move... 1st you move your troops to the border then without giving me a chance to react you move in next turn-in some cases even combat could be in that turn already-and no matter how responsible, aware etc i was.. i had no chance to react.

You are going to see that before it happens. The fog of war doesn't end on your cultural borders.

[bamf226]

I've always favored Cybershy's position on the double move before the war.

And just for the record, this is not 'my' position. It's a position hold by almost every tbg player anywhere. Snoopy advised us before the start of this game to include it. He's an expert.

If you don't hold this position, why are you arguing for it?

[mzprox]

You are going to see that before it happens. The fog of war doesn't end on your cultural borders.

You could see my troops napping in the middle of my land when you log off and when you log in next time those very troops had already captured some of your cities in an other continent . Wouldnt you call it unfair?
Maybe you think it's realistic to defend every city with an army, but it's not: not in civ and not in the real world. It's all about scouting your borders and mobilize your army when necessary-but that is what can be nullified by double move

Suprise attacks still suprise attacks. No need to announce it, to warn your opponent whatever. The only thing is that it should become a turn based game for the attacker one turn before the actual war.

[The Capo]

@ St. Jon; there is no set turn order other than in cases where there is a state of war. So I don't consider this an exploit, there is nothing to prevent a player from playing before me while there is no war in effect. That is my point. Further, if we were to consider the turn prior to war a double-move we are adding an extra and unnecessary issue to the game. You can talk about tanks too, but again that doesn't effect this scenario. You can't move these tanks into enemy territory and position them, then declare war. Because they pop out of the enemy borders anyway. And I think Bamf's point has further merit in that by allowing this we enhance the strategy behind war and defense. Now nations, especially powerful ones like Greece in the former debate, would have to ensure they have defenses everywhere rather than tech and GP whoring.

But as I said before, this is up to the group as a whole. I believe in democracy so if I am outvoted I am outvoted and I'll live with it. What I don't appreciate is the fact that, yet again, Cyber is attempting to simply make statements as if they are true (i.e. "Capo, you are the only one who holds this position...") and then reacts as if it is insanity when someone else disagrees with him.

@ MzProx; I think you are missing Bamf's point that this would not be an issue if you had your cities properly defended.

I am not arguing that there is not an advantage gained by a surprise attack. Of course there is. I am simply arguing that the advantage is not very big, that it can easily be off-set by proper defenses (and espionage), and that the addition of this rule is only going to create more complications. You may ask how this is the case; well we have already made situations (the nine hour rule, or 50% rule) where a double-move is legal to keep the game running smoothly and to make sure another civ doesn't use the turn timer to effect war. We would certainly have to do the same for a pre-war-declaration-double-move, and honestly I think the trouble put into that for such little gain is a waste of time and is only going to lead to more complications.