New diplo game: big discussion needed

[Robert]

@The Capo: you call it an exploit, you do not see yourself ever using it (while you already once did!), but you don't want to make a rule out of it?
If you want that nobody does it, why not make a rule?

@St Jon: special for you another CyberShy TM Full Power CorelDrawShop example



Notice how without a double move of Asoka, Ceasar would have been able to attack those 5 transports, but now since Asoka is allowed to double move he can capture Rome.

Since this more or less is a pretty good depiction of my coastal defences you may understand that this exploit is no good. I'd better just destroy all my destroyers since there's no use for them anyway.

And once again: the fact that it is possible in some situations to capture a city without a double move doesn't mean that an exploit is allowed where it also possible to capture that same city in situations where it normally would not have happened.

Chess is a turn based game. It is unfair if black can move twice without white in between. You can's say: "Black is allowed to take out the white queen with a double move because in some situations he could also do it in a single move"

[Robert]

@MMC: yes, the picture is the same, the situation is the same, the only difference is that in one of those 2 pictures the war starts at turn 1, and in the other picture it starts at turn 2. Apart from that it's exactly the same situation. So why would we forbid it in one situation and forbid it in the other situation?

That's why I posted the same picture twice, to show that there is no difference and that we should have the same rule for both situations, because there is no difference.

[MMC]

In your screen-breaking example, Caesar would be the aggressor if he attacked the transport. Unless war had been declared many turns before, in which case the whole argument is moot.

What if the Transport had been sitting there peacefully for 20 turns? Asoka moves a load of other units... Ends his turn, causing it to flip... then moves the transport and takes Rome. Oh noes! Asoka has double moved. Yet the move would be perfectly valid.

If ending the turn after the first move in your example doesn't cause the turn to flip, then it doesn't count as part of the war, plain and simple. If someone tried to abuse that by conspiring with someone else to not end their turn, then they probably don't have the best interests of the game in mind anyway, and we probably don't want them in our community.

[Robert]

In your screen-breaking example, Caesar would be the aggressor if he attacked the transport. Unless war had been declared many turns before, in which case the whole argument is moot.

The point is that caesar has a chance to be the aggressor. It is his decision to either let the transports go or attack them. This double move takes this chance away. He could just have deleted his destroyers because they have no use anyway.

What if the Transport had been sitting there peacefully for 20 turns? Asoka moves a load of other units... Ends his turn, causing it to flip... then moves the transport and takes Rome. Oh noes! Asoka has double moved. Yet the move would be perfectly valid.

No, it would not be valid. With 'double move' we mean 'double turn'. (terminology)
(playing two turns without your opponent playing in between)
But even if it would be, then Ceasar would have had 20 turns to react to the transport.

If ending the turn after the first move in your example doesn't cause the turn to flip, then it doesn't count as part of the war, plain and simple.

It doesn't matter if it's a part of the war or not.
We're talking about unfair advantages by double moving.

The question if 'ending the turn makes the turn flip' has nothing to do with this.
Seriously, I fear that you do not understand our point, and I really don't know how I can explain it to you if even those images don't work.

Let's try to see it as an SP game. Wouldn't you be angry if the AI could move twice without you moving at all and taking one of your cities that way?

If someone tried to abuse that by conspiring with someone else to not end their turn, then they probably don't have the best interests of the game in mind anyway, and we probably don't want them in our community.

This is not about ending or not ending the turn.
It's about the turn order. The turn order in turn-based games should be observed to avoid unfair advantages. That's what the double move rule is about.
So someone should be either in favour of this rule or against the rule, but being in favour of the double move rule without including the turn before the war in the turn order simply makes no sence.

Of course we are now never going to find a solution since there are only a few people in this world who are capable to say: "Oh yes, you're right, I first didn't understand it but now I do."
That's because people in general are 100% stubborn, so now it's too late. Now we all have digged ourselves into opposite positions. And there we are. I have never in the history of diplogaming anybody seen saying: "Oh, sorry, I am wrong, I apologize and let's move forward."
That stinks a lot. We people suck. We just are not able to discuss things. We, humans, will always try to find reasons to keep defending our position. The truth is not important to us, our pride us. Shame on us.

So now I'm really really going to stop to try to find the truth since the truth is not important at all in these discussions. We have a schism in diplogaming, thanks to all of us. Some games will have this double move rule and some will not, depending on the players in the game. Too bad but that's life. It'll be impossible to convince each other anyway. We are too stubborn for that.

Or does anybody have an idea on how to solve this?

[The Capo]

I think you are missing the point here CS, I'll try and respond to the end of your post where you summarize what you think is wrong here.

So someone should be either in favour of this rule or against the rule, but being in favour of the double move rule without including the turn before the war in the turn order simply makes no sence.

It makes perfect sense. We ALLOW double-moves ALL THE TIME in these games. Nobody goes around telling people when they have to move, or after whom and in what order. So we decide, as a group, when NOT TO ALLOW double-moves. We agree that we should not allow double-moves during wartime. But we disagree on whether or not this should pertain to the turn prior to the declaration of war, that's all.

Of course we are now never going to find a solution since there are only a few people in this world who are capable to say: "Oh yes, you're right, I first didn't understand it but now I do."

This is PRECISELY why I said the community should just vote on it with the understanding that whatever the community decides will be the uniform rule, unless of course we decide to change it for whatever reason.

That's because people in general are 100% stubborn, so now it's too late. Now we all have digged ourselves into opposite positions. And there we are. I have never in the history of diplogaming anybody seen saying: "Oh, sorry, I am wrong, I apologize and let's move forward."

I won't look for specific quotes relating to this in the ten years (or so) that Diplogaming has been around, but I am relatively sure this has indeed occured more than once.

That stinks a lot. We people suck. We just are not able to discuss things. We, humans, will always try to find reasons to keep defending our position. The truth is not important to us, our pride us. Shame on us.

Jeez man, lighten up, we're talking about a videogame.

So now I'm really really going to stop to try to find the truth since the truth is not important at all in these discussions. We have a schism in diplogaming, thanks to all of us. Some games will have this double move rule and some will not, depending on the players in the game. Too bad but that's life. It'll be impossible to convince each other anyway. We are too stubborn for that.

Or does anybody have an idea on how to solve this?

I have an idea to solve it; we clean out the DiploGame CivGroup. Start over from scratch; i.e. start a new CivGroup page in it, sign up all of the CURRENT AND ACTIVE players and start up a discussion thread where we not only decide upon a uniform code of conduct and procedures for Diplogames but also PLAN A NEW GAME and potentially start writing up a new FAQ and reference guide. We can even finalize and decide upon possible mods to use in future games, map-making ideas/protocols. I mean I think the DiploGroup just needs to be re-energized. We can't keep up this tired "woe-is-me" *****fest that has plagued us for the past few months.

Unless we get this kick-started without this pretense of a "schism" we will never get the genre back to its former glory. So we are having growing pains with Pitboss, big deal! I'm saying just trimming the fat, cleaning up the crew, and getting everyone together to make decisions AS A COMMUNITY (rather than two bands of raving idiots). I mean this "since we don't agree we never will and should give up" is a pretty sad attitude.... especially coming from the guy who is supposed to keep Apolyton going.

[The Capo]

And for the record; I don't think there is anything wrong with having an opinion and sticking up for that opinion.

[MMC]

So we are having growing pains with Pitboss, big deal!

Not gonna disagree with anything you just said, but we've actually had few problems specifically with pitboss... most of the problems have been with other features of this game, the case in point being Simultaneous turns.

[Rasputin]

simul turns suck, lets play civ the way civ was meant to be.. straight turn based strategy game.

It will take longer to finish yes. but is the out and out fairest way of ensuring it does not need rules to monitor situatuons

[mzprox]

In your screen-breaking example, Caesar would be the aggressor if he attacked the transport.

So You wouldnt do anything if you saw an approaching army? Not even asking a question, not even try to fortify your dangered cities whatever.. If it doesnt matter to you then right, you can allow double moves against you. (so you wont see the danger.. you will see the consequenses immediately)
For me it's matter, i don't want the game mechanism abused against me.

[St Jon]

So You wouldnt do anything if you saw an approaching army? Not even asking a question, not even try to fortify your dangered cities whatever.. If it doesnt matter to you then right, you can allow double moves against you. (so you wont see the danger.. you will see the consequenses immediately)
For me it's matter, i don't want the game mechanism abused against me.

Of course I would! If you don't or can't there is no point in having the Destroyers there ib the first place! Just one example - Very Simple:

Turn 1
Sumeria Move (Moves Ship into range of City - not into territorial waters)
Natives Move (Natives don't see - out of line of sight.)

Turn 2
Sumeria Move (Attack City and take it)
Natives Move (Look at Map and cry foul!)

That is Black and White - No Double Move just bad luck/bad play and from your point of you legal.

But.....
Turn 1
Sumeria Move (Moves Ship into range of City - not into territorial waters)
Natives Move (Natives don't see - out of line of sight.)

Turn 2
Natives Move (Move Destroyer and see Transports and Attacks and sinks them)
Sumeria Move (Look at Map and see no Transports - cry foul!)

Who is the wrongdoer? Natives just have done only sensible thing and sunk those Transports but they have - technically - Double Moved outside of War Time! But as Cyber says 'I'd better just destroy all my destroyers since there's no use for them anyway.'.

Nobody has, in my view, done anything wrong as no intent by either side to Double Move just Bad Luck that the Turn has Flipped when Sumerians have got home from work earlier than than Natives!

Unless you have a Rule which says that at the end of their Turn Natives must say 'I going to attack you next Turn'. Try and enforce that Rule!

[mzprox]

But.....
Turn 1
Sumeria Move (Moves Ship into range of City - not into territorial waters)
Natives Move (Natives don't see - out of line of sight.)

Turn 2
Natives Move (Move Destroyer and see Transports and Attacks and sinks them)
Sumeria Move (Look at Map and see no Transports - cry foul!)

Who is the wrongdoer? Natives just have done only sensible thing and sunk those Transports but they have - technically - Double Moved outside of War Time!
...
Unless you have a Rule which says that at the end of their Turn Natives must say 'I going to attack you next Turn'. Try and enforce that Rule!

I understand your example, if the natives don't see and be able to attack those transport in turn 1 then according our proposed rule they can not attack them in turn 2 untill sumeria moved.. even if it would be too late for them. In that case they pay the price that they failed ot spot the approaching fleet in t1.

It's easy to follow this rule: when you are about to enter a war you check if your future opponent has moved after your last turn or the minimum time has elapsed to allow you to make a double turn (6 or 12 hours.. whatever, i think 6 hour is not enough but it's a topic of an other argument)

No one need to announce that he is about to declare war...

Argument like this: oh, but i have to take my turn and cannot wait my opponent because of RL reasons, are not valid because these are the same problems we face in our existing double move rules

what we are saying:
Not extending the "no double move" rule to the last turn prior war: can be exploited
Extending the rule to that turn: wouldnt cost too much effort. one extra turn where we have to watch the turn order because in war we watch it anyway...

[St Jon]

I understand your example, if the natives don't see and be able to attack those transport in turn 1 then according our proposed rule they can not attack them in turn 2 untill sumeria moved.. even if it would be too late for them. In that case they pay the price that they failed ot spot the approaching fleet in t1...

No one need to announce that he is about to declare war...

Argument like this: oh, but i have to take my turn and cannot wait my opponent because of RL reasons, are not valid because these are the same problems we face in our existing double move rules

what we are saying:
Not extending the "no double move" rule to the last turn prior war: can be exploited
Extending the rule to that turn: wouldnt cost too much effort. one extra turn where we have to watch the turn order because in war we watch it anyway...

And it's easy to follow this rule: when you are about to enter a war you check if your future opponent has moved after your last turn or the minimum time has elapsed to allow you to make a double turn (6 or 12 hours.. whatever, i think 6 hour is not enough but it's a topic of an other argument)

But if.....

Turn 1
Sumeria Move (Native Transports still far away and no threat)
Natives Move (Moves Ship into range of City - not into territorial waters)

Turn 2
Sumeria Move (Go out for drink after work and don't home till midnight)
Natives Move (How long are they supposed to wait? What if Sumeria get drunk and fall asleep immediately get home so not Move at all?)

Do Natives have to say, 'I abandon my attack because Natives haven't Moved'?
Do Sumeria have to Post, 'I am going out tonight and will be too drunk to play Turn'?
Do Sumeria say to friends, 'I might be attacked in computer game so I never go out for a drink until I have played my Turn'?

Civ is a GAME not something that rules our lives!

[The Priest]

If we actually look at possible wording, I think that the issue does look differently. It isn't about 'extending' a rule to the turn before war. Because when you try to actually write a rule, it has to focus on the second turn anyway.

There seem to be basically two reasons people want the double move allowable if the previous turn isn't at war. (1) we don't want added rules and (2) the double move surprise is a legitimate tactic. For those who think (2) well fair enough, I just disagree. Regarding (1) though, I think when you actually write the rule its easier and smoother (less room for argument) if the previous turn is included - it doesn't actually become an 'added rule' - its a natural and integral part of precise wording.

Thus:

Civ A's move is a banned double-move against Civ B when all four of the following are true:
1. At any time during Civ A's move he is at war with Civ B.
2. Civ A is moving before Civ B
3. 6 hours have not yet elapsed on the clock.
4. Civ A moved after Civ B in the previous turn.

[St Jon]

If we actually look at possible wording, I think that the issue does look differently. It isn't about 'extending' a rule to the turn before war. Because when you try to actually write a rule, it has to focus on the second turn anyway.

There seem to be basically two reasons people want the double move allowable if the previous turn isn't at war. (1) we don't want added rules and (2) the double move surprise is a legitimate tactic. For those who think (2) well fair enough, I just disagree. Regarding (1) though, I think when you actually write the rule its easier and smoother (less room for argument) if the previous turn is included - it doesn't actually become an 'added rule' - its a natural and integral part of precise wording.

Thus:

Civ A's move is a banned double-move against Civ B when all four of the following are true:
1. At any time during Civ A's move he is at war with Civ B.
2. Civ A is moving before Civ B
3. 6 hours have not yet elapsed on the clock.
4. Civ A moved after Civ B in the previous turn.

I assume 'any' rather than 'all'?

These are all unfair to one or other player apart from scenario 1 which we already have a consensus on.

I don't know. as Civ B, that I am going to be attacked so I am happy we have a 19hr clock and start my Turn 30mins before it flips. Any period of grace between Civ A's ability to move is nullified. I get home from work, go to the pub to relax and the last thing on my mind is a game of Civ! Do I have to leave work early every day 'Just in Case'?

Because we have a rolling rather than static clock people will always end up moving at different times in that cycle. I will move in the evening, UK time, normally as I am not going to set the alarm for an hour earlier during the week just so that I can get my Turn in before Player A!

As I have said before, if we had a static clock and agree with all people in the game when in that cycle would be most convenient we could have Turn Order. We would also have a lot of missed Turns!

[mzprox]

@St Jon:
Again: these are the same concerns we already have. "How long should you wait for your opponent to avoid double move?" Ideally you shouldnt move untill your opponent did, but as you said civ is not our life so we had to make a compromise-that is that "6 hour" rule- which can be exploited by an unfair player but it's also possible that the other player has no other choice..