New diplo game: big discussion needed

[St Jon]

Just join the Group. Click on the D under anyones name and subscribe to Diplo-Games.

[St Jon]

I agree with Capo. We need a hard and fast Rule set not just for the next Diplo-Game but the one after that.

[The Priest]

No Capo you have misunderstood me.

What I am saying is that we have to be deciding over the actual wording of a rule - while you phrased this just in terms of 'include the turn or not' - which is a principle not an actual rule. You want to avoid people later talking about 'spirit of rules' - so do i - but we do that by having precise discussions now, not general ones.

Your earlier post on the procedure for what happens if someone thinks there was a DM was great because it was clear and precisely worded. This will go wrong later unless the discussion now is held around precise words.

[The Priest]

And I must admit the fact that we can't have this discussion without people raking over past offenses that people think were committed against them, makes me pretty pesimistic about the success of future games.

Capo got it right when he said the problem in Beyond was that it got personal - but looks to me like you guys who have been playing with each other for years just can't help yourselves. Newcomers don't make it personal because we haven't the foggiest who any of you are, and don't care. So the real question is not over this rule or that one, but whether those who have played in many games before are really going to play this game for its own sake, or are they going to be replaying old battles and settling old scores.

[The Capo]

No Capo you have misunderstood me.

What I am saying is that we have to be deciding over the actual wording of a rule - while you phrased this just in terms of 'include the turn or not' - which is a principle not an actual rule. You want to avoid people later talking about 'spirit of rules' - so do i - but we do that by having precise discussions now, not general ones.

Your earlier post on the procedure for what happens if someone thinks there was a DM was great because it was clear and precisely worded. This will go wrong later unless the discussion now is held around precise words.

Well yeah that's because we have a proposal for the wording of the rule. We are now discussing whether or not, in principle, it should apply to the turn prior. Since we have a proposal for the wording of a rule there is no need to argue wording here, because again, we already have it. But this isn't really principle of a rule either, its still wording. We just need to know if we want the rule to extend to the turn prior or not. That's all.

Now with the estimated 20 to 25 Diplogamers as part of the diplogaming community we have five votes. We certainly can not make a rule for all games based on such a low turnout. So I implore anyone else to try and vote on this if they can. Thanks.

[MMC]

The Rules of War should only apply when Civs are actually at war. Therefore the rule should take effect from the moment war is declared. If this happens halfway through a turn, then the attacking player has half a turn left to play.

The only consideration that should be made regarding the turn before, is if the attacker is the last person to end their turn. If Civ A ends their turn, and then is attacked by Civ B who then also ends their turn, but Civ C has yet to end a turn, then the War started when Civ B played. Thus any build-up and surprise attack is valid. If Civ B caused the turn to flip, then they should log out without moving and observe the Wartime rules.

That is my opinion, and is the interpretation that I am going to recommend be included in the WPC House Rules (You're welcome to use the WPC rules here )

[The Capo]

The Rules of War should only apply when Civs are actually at war. Therefore the rule should take effect from the moment war is declared. If this happens halfway through a turn, then the attacking player has half a turn left to play.

The only consideration that should be made regarding the turn before, is if the attacker is the last person to end their turn. If Civ A ends their turn, and then is attacked by Civ B who then also ends their turn, but Civ C has yet to end a turn, then the War started when Civ B played. Thus any build-up and surprise attack is valid. If Civ B caused the turn to flip, then they should log out without moving and observe the Wartime rules.

That is my opinion, and is the interpretation that I am going to recommend be included in the WPC House Rules (You're welcome to use the WPC rules here )

Okay, so basically I am going to extrapolate that he says NO. Since he says the rule doesn't take effect until after war is declared. So its three to three.

[OzzyKP]

I ask all other members of the community who come accross this to vote on the issue and at least give some comments as well, for clarity's sake you are voting on whether or not the turn prior to a declaration of war should be considered in the illegal double-move rule. If you vote YES you are saying that you think the turn prior should count as part of an illegal double-move, if you say NO you are saying that the double-move rule ONLY applies while the nations are at war.

NO: (2)
- The Capo
- St. Jon
- OzzyKP

YES: (2)
- Cybershy/Robert Plomp
- mzprox

[The Capo]

NO: (4)
- The Capo
- St. Jon
- OzzyKP
- MMC

YES: (3)
- Cybershy/Robert Plomp
- mzprox
- The Priest

Just corrected/updated what Ozzy wrote.

[mzprox]

The only consideration that should be made regarding the turn before, is if the attacker is the last person to end their turn. If Civ A ends their turn, and then is attacked by Civ B who then also ends their turn, but Civ C has yet to end a turn, then the War started when Civ B played. Thus any build-up and surprise attack is valid. If Civ B caused the turn to flip, then they should log out without moving and observe the Wartime rules.

I don't really get this.. now do you want any extra rule regarding the turn before the war or not. Is this "should log out without moving" means that he shouldnt make a double move?

[OzzyKP]

If you want to make this vote an official question for the community you should start a new thread. I almost missed it since I"m not following this thread closely.

[mzprox]

I have a question to those who said No to this rule:

-Do you want to use this double move as a tactical advantage in the upcoming game? -or have an other reason for saying no (you can clarify-too much effort for little gain.. whatever)

My main problem is that i see how this situation could be exploited and i think it's very unfair. No matter how we decide here i won't use it to gain tactical advantage against anyone, but i'd be sad if someone used it against me even if we allowed it.-I wouldnt complain ofc., but it would be noted

[St Jon]

There is a point here that in that Diplo is not special or different in this matter. The situation is exactly the same in a 'Kill or be Killed' game. You cannot have a rule set which can be made to work with Galleys and Swordsmen but simply cannot work with Tanks and Transports. You cannot have a situation where the potential victim has got to work from 'gut instinct' and be guilty of a Double-Move, because that's the only chance they have of stopping being destroyed, as that actually favours the 'potential' aggressor. You bar the defender from taking offensive action because they cannot get enough troops to defend the threatened City or that they dare not move those troops for fear that it is a fient and the attack is not coming from the sea anyway. By including the move before you hurt both attacker and, potential, victim!

Once war actually breaks out you can have a very easy and clear set of Rules. The Player who launched the attack must NOT move again before the defender has either moved or a set time limit has expired. That is easy and very easy to enforce.

[Black Knight 427]

Incase anyone missed it I did vote yes unless I'm purposely being excluded from the list.

[The Capo]

Nobody is trying to intentionally exploit anything. What I don't get is why there is nothing but accusations from the people who want the turn before to be considered as part of a double-move?

I can say that I personally don't think its necessary to have an extra rule for this (again), I don't think the potential for exploit is worth the trouble of the problems and reloads that will arise from it (again), and as St. Jon has expained its something that isn't going to have the same effect in different poitns in the game (again a pointless rule). We should have as LITTLE RULES AS POSSIBLE. That's the best thing to do. This way rules are streamlined and are not arbitrary or capricious. I don't understand what the purpose of adding pointless rules are.

Now, you can say, "but you are the one who wants rules Capo!" which is true. But that doesn't mean all rules are good just because I think we should have rules. I want quality over quantity, and this is not a quality rule.