New diplo game: big discussion needed

[Robert]

EDIT: perhaps it's best to first read my suggestion for a compromis 2 posts below


original message:

St Jon: if someone fails to have a good defence then no double or single move will defend them. But in my examples above people do have a good defence but they can't defend themselves against a double move.

Your question is: how long should they wait, well, that's the same as within the normal war-turns: 6 - 9 hours (we have to decide on that).
Right now we already do have a double move rule. (on which The Capo and Ozzy, to name two, agree. the debate is not about forbidding all double moves, b/c everybod agrees that wartime double moves should be forbidden. This debate is about if a double move that is partly in and partly before the war starts, should be forbidden)

@The Capo

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

If you have reasons to stick up for it, then that's really good. But if an opinion is inconsistent, then you can still stick up to it, but in my opinion that's not good, especially if multiple people have to make an agreement.

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.

Yes, we make double moves all the time and we agreed that that should be possible because otherwise the game would be unplayable.

We all agreed as well that we should have one rule to prevent the worst advantages.
That rule has a philosophy behind it. Every good rule has a good philosphy and the rule should be consistent with that philosophy and live up to that philosophy.

Our philosophy is:
- Nobody should get an advantage in a war because of a double move
- We should keep the game playable and players should not be blocked from playing their turn

Because of this philosophy we have these rules:
- no double moving during wartime
- but after 6-9 hours everyone is free to move again

Now there is this double move that happens partly before wartime and partly during wartime. It gives a clear advantage to one party and it gives that advantage during wartime.
Now you have the literalistic approach, becuase part of the double move is before wartime it should not be allowed.
That's against the philosophy. Our philosophy is: no advantage during war because of a double move.
The fact that this double move is not entirely within wartime is not important, what is important is that it gives an advantage to a player during wartime.

Let me give some examples:
Philosophy: In The Netherlands we don't want people to be killed
Rule: It's not allowed to buy or sell guns
Conclusion: One is allowed in The Netherlands to kill someone with a gun he bought in the USA

2nd example:
Philosophy: We want to prevent car accidents in traffic because they hurt lifes and kill people
Rule: Cars should light their lights when the sun sets
Reality: Cars that started to drive 1 hour before the sun sets don't have to turn on their lights after the sun sets because they started their journey before the sun setted when the rule didn't apply yet.

Those realities are totally against these philosophies.
Now you may say: those examples are stupid weird nonsense.
And yes, they are. No sane person would accept those 'realities'. Cars that started to drive during daylight obviously have to turn on their light when the sun sets, and obviously it is not possible to kill someone with a gun from the USA if dutch guns are forbidden.

And I do believe that this opinion to allow a partly wartime double move but forbid a complete wartime double move is as unreal and exactly the same as above mentioned stupid examples.
You are free to have your opinion, I am free to have the opinion that your opinion is inconsistent with your philosophy

Like The Priest says: I could accept it if someone has the opinion that we should allow double moves all the time! I would disagree, but accept it. But this opinion that the rule should only apply to full-wartime-double moves and not to partly-wartime-double moves while the result of those two types of double moves is exactly the same is totally unreal to me.

Once again I failed to stop talking about this subject. I'm sorry.

[Robert]

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

The fact that we can't even give in or change opinions if it's about a stpuid videogame explains why we have all those wars and stuff.
We can't even change minds on something stupid, of course we're not going to be able to change it when it's about something important.

[Robert]

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.'.

That's a very very interesting scenario you just describe.
My initial answer would be:
- natives logout, wait for sumerians to move and end turn, then login again and make their move.

Another option would be: An invasion can never be a part of a double move.
Thus: if a civ declares war and invades it's opponents territory, then that is not allowed if it is a double move.

Perhaps the second option is best. It also gives space to a civ to declare war in a double move, as long as it doesn't actually invade.
It would also allow civs to attack units outside territorial borders as a part of a double move.

Perhaps that's a good compromis, acceptable for all:
- No double moves during wartime
- An invasion can never be a part of a double move
- declaring war and attacking units outside the territory of your opponent is allowed as a part of a double move

It's the best compromis I can think off.

[The Priest]

I assume 'any' rather than 'all'?

No.

With respect, you need to actually read the words, not jump off on some argument.

This whole thread has become meaningless because people are not actually proposing and arguing about the actual wording of potenial rules. Your points about the impact of real life and time zones are true of any double move rule, and so aren't relevant in choosing between different versions of the double move rule.

We are only going to get somewhere if different people propose actual rules, and we can then argue the strengths and weakness between them. Of course any partiuclar wording has weaknesses, but the point has to be which of these particular worded rules is best, not 'can we find a weakness'.

So lets have some alterative actual rules and we can then argue the respective strengths and weaknesses. I've proposed a set of wording - lets have some others and then we can choose between them.

(And Robert, while I like compromise personally I don't think that your compromise will work. I think it will be too complex to actually write into a simple, clear and readily understood rule.)

[Robert]

@The Priest

Rule:
It is not allowed to play a double move* during wartime, nor is it allowed to invade someone's territory as part of a double move.

After 9 hours have passed since the start of the turn, a player may play a double move under the above mentioned conditions, only if he has no chance to wait any longer to play his turn because of his schedule.

*Double Move = When a player plays two turns without his opponents playing in between. Ie. when Player A plays after Player B during turn 153 and Player A moves before Player B during turn 154. Effectively this means that Player A played two turns in row without playing B having a chance to respond to Player A's first movements.

Red = actual rule (quite simple)
Blue = what happens after 9 hours
green = explanation what a double move is

Blue and green won't change, no matter what we decide (the intention, not the wording/formulating)
So this is only about the red part.

[Robert]

This suggestion by The Priest is very ok with me as well:

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.

[mzprox]

I agree with 'The Priest's points also the wording is fine.

But I wrote my version anyway


You are not allowed to make a double move against someone (Ie. playing two consecutive turns while the other plays none) if
-You are at war with that person during any of those turns
and
-The minimum waiting time hasn't passed yet ((and even then it would be preferable to wait untill you can)
NOTE: this is the same compromise we have in our current 'no double move rule' so nothing new


It's short and easy to follow (civstat shows the turn order)

[The Capo]

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.'.

That's a very very interesting scenario you just describe.
My initial answer would be:
- natives logout, wait for sumerians to move and end turn, then login again and make their move.

This can't happen though, because as soon as the Natives log out Sumeria just gets to move in and attack. So why would the Natives do that? Besides that aren't we trying to say ONE MOVE/LOG-IN PER TURN? That's what I thought the new rule was and the best way to ensure there is no double-moving. Because if we allow multiple log-ins per turn what we are doing is leaving the door wide open for someone to take advantage. I honestly think this is why it is best to just keep the rule "no double moves while at war" and leave the turn prior out of it.

[Robert]

The Capo: you ignore my compromis suggestion.
And the not login twice per turn rule only counts during war. I see no problems there.

[The Priest]

@RP The only thing I might need more definition in your rule is what is meant by 'during wartime' - we are back to the old issue - phrased like this it is ambiguous as to whether both moves need to be during wartime to count as 'during wartime'. Similarly by 'not invading as part of a double move', does this mean in neither turn any units can enter the other nations territory?

While we are at it on definitions, we will also need to be clear whether tsomething like upgrading troops counts as a 'move'. I.e. If A moved, tehn B, A sees the invasion forces coming and logs in and upgrades some troops but moved nothing, does that mean A 'moved' after B. (This might still be happening at peace, so we wouldn't be in a world of being strict about one-log in only.) Not sure what I think on this one.

[The Priest]

Also, given what has just happened in BtP of Spain being invaded and not realising because of rl issue, I want to bring back my suggestion that when a war is declared there is a pause.

I know it seems to spoil the excitement, surprise etc., but basically every time in BtP when there is a surprise attack, the attacked person feels aggrieved OOC.

I know we can say 'we don't want rules to protect people from being unobservant' but this game is running for a whole year or more. We all miss odd turns, but if those turns happen to be when you were attacked, no wonder you are unhappy. I also think it would give more room for and importance to diplomacy - now diplomacy always happens after the event.

[The Capo]

Also, given what has just happened in BtP of Spain being invaded and not realising because of rl issue, I want to bring back my suggestion that when a war is declared there is a pause.

I know it seems to spoil the excitement, surprise etc., but basically every time in BtP when there is a surprise attack, the attacked person feels aggrieved OOC.

I know we can say 'we don't want rules to protect people from being unobservant' but this game is running for a whole year or more. We all miss odd turns, but if those turns happen to be when you were attacked, no wonder you are unhappy. I also think it would give more room for and importance to diplomacy - now diplomacy always happens after the event.

I agree, but we shouldn't pause everytime someone joins war. If a war begins and one of the parties to that war declares war on another person, or another person declares war on a party that is already at war there should be no pause. Only when hostilities emerge. I'm pretty sure the likely targets would already know they are probably going to be attacked, or should at least suspect it after the initial salvo.

I was going to reply to your compromise, which I think may be a good start but in the same way I am opposed to including the turn prior to war I think the good intentioned compromise you have made will lead to more loopholes and problems:

An invasion can never be a part of a double move

This one will be hard to enforce because you will have differing views on what constitutes an invasion. I know as we sit here it doesn't seem that way, we can both define an invasion, but believe me; when the game gets going this WILL certainly come up.

declaring war and attacking units outside the territory of your opponent is allowed as a part of a double move

Now the part that confuses me here is this; you say you are allowed to make a double move to attack enemy units OUTSIDE of their territory. Does this include territory of another nation? Am I allowed to move units INTO enemy territory as part of a double move so long as I don't attack? What if I start the turn by declaring war and attacking their units outside of their territory, can I let them move and then afterwards attack units within their territory and if this is the case who is thought to have gone first and last in that situation?

I really think the BEST thing to do is leave the rule as it stands. DURING wartime (i.e. when war has been declared) it is illegal to make a double-move. Why can't we just leave it at that?

[Robert]

Rome:

My rule suggestion:

It is not allowed to play a double move* during wartime, nor is it allowed to invade someone's territory as part of a double move.

After 9 hours have passed since the start of the turn, a player may play a double move under the above mentioned conditions, only if he has no chance to wait any longer to play his turn because of his schedule.

*Double Move = When a player plays two turns without his opponents playing in between. Ie. when Player A plays after Player B during turn 153 and Player A moves before Player B during turn 154. Effectively this means that Player A played two turns in row without playing B having a chance to respond to Player A's first movements.

Rome's comment:

@RP The only thing I might need more definition in your rule is what is meant by 'during wartime' - we are back to the old issue - phrased like this it is ambiguous as to whether both moves need to be during wartime to count as 'during wartime'. Similarly by 'not invading as part of a double move', does this mean in neither turn any units can enter the other nations territory?

- during wartime it is (like now): both moves during wartime
- invasion: the combination of declaring war and moving units into your enemies territory.
- conclusion: one can declare war and attack a frigate in open sea as part of a double move. One can not declare war and move units into someone's territory as part of a double move.

This both disables the unfair advantages from the examples I gave and it disables the problems St Jon showed.

Similarly by 'not invading as part of a double move', does this mean in neither turn any units can enter the other nations territory?

During turn 1 it still can, during 2 not, because moving units from outside the enemies territory into the enemies territory counts as an invasion.
Units without firepower (workers, great people, spies) obviously cannot invade, they can only move into enemy territory.

While we are at it on definitions, we will also need to be clear whether tsomething like upgrading troops counts as a 'move'.

We'd better talk about "double turns" then "double moves"
You just can't login twice in a row without you enemy in between.

I.e. If A moved, tehn B, A sees the invasion forces coming and logs in and upgrades some troops but moved nothing, does that mean A 'moved' after B. (This might still be happening at peace, so we wouldn't be in a world of being strict about one-log in only.) Not sure what I think on this one

That is allowed if there's peace but not during any state of war. But how can A know that B moved an invasion force if B moved after A?
But as soon as there's war then players should not login more then once. If they do though then I'd say that the last player to be logged in 'moved' last. We simply can't be sure, so that's the penalty of moving in again.

I know it seems to spoil the excitement, surprise etc., but basically every time in BtP when there is a surprise attack, the attacked person feels aggrieved OOC.

Maybe that's a good idea indeed.
(and players can 'optout', like: don't pause for me, I'm ok)
But with very good rules there may not be a need for it. All not ok's were caused by rule confusion.


@The Capo:

An invasion can never be a part of a double move

This one will be hard to enforce because you will have differing views on what constitutes an invasion. I know as we sit here it doesn't seem that way, we can both define an invasion, but believe me; when the game gets going this WILL certainly come up.

If we make a clear defenition of an invasion (like I gave to Rome above) then that can't cause any confusions.

Now the part that confuses me here is this; you say you are allowed to make a double move to attack enemy units OUTSIDE of their territory. Does this include territory of another nation? Am I allowed to move units INTO enemy territory as part of a double move so long as I don't attack?

I think that's pretty cear.
Other people's territory is ok.
Moving units into someone's territory is not, since that's an invasion. With or without battling, crossing a border after a declaration of war is an invasion.

What if I start the turn by declaring war and attacking their units outside of their territory, can I let them move and then afterwards attack units within their territory and if this is the case who is thought to have gone first and last in that situation?

You can't have a double move and an invasion in one turn.
Thus: no.
And I'd say that that turn sets the turn order.

Thus:
Turn 1: A, B
Turn 2: B (declares war, does not invade), A
Turn 3: B (invades), A
Turn 4: B, A

I really think the BEST thing to do is leave the rule as it stands. DURING wartime (i.e. when war has been declared) it is illegal to make a double-move. Why can't we just leave it at that?

Because it gives huge advantages to the invading party that are against the game mechanics of turn based gaming.

This rule is seriously not difficult.
Don't declare war AND move units in your enemies territoy as part of a double move.
Don't double move during wartime.

[St Jon]

This is all so muddy and murky that it will cause more arguements than ever cure. War is all about surprise! If you are clever and work a good plan you can defeat a more powerful enemy or, at least, force them to the negotiating table.

The fact is, I like your compromise even though I don't believe it will work, that I can log on with no idea that it is a Double-Move. I didn't know I was going to be attacked and, since I was not at War already, therefore didn't bother to check Turn-Order. As Player B I am now stuffed as I can either attack to forestall the invasion, those ships may be innocent, or log out and wait for, 'how long'? What if I knew that those ships were coming but needed to make a Double-Move to attack them? What if I logged on just before the Turn flipped and stayed in to complete my next move as well due to R/L commitments?

If we had a purely European game then I believe there would be fewer problems between the players, R/L or not, in enforcing a Double-Move BEFORE War Rule but it just does not work over the diameter of the World or with 18 Players. The idea of waiting as long as you can AFTER the minimum limit to move again is nonsense!

You either have a Rule that fits all situations or you abandon it completely. You must be able to move your Destroyers to stop me invading you, why have them else, but in a Diplo-Game you should already know that I am likely to invade you. You should have adequate defence or, if not, suffer the consequences! So those Destroyers are there for a purpose and if you cannot use them then why build them at all?

Double-Move before War is so wooly that you will create more problems than you solve. Best is to, abandon it entirely, return to a Turn Based Game or only play PitBoss Games within your own Continent: even the last would not be perfect.

Whatsoever, we must all know where we stand BEFORE a Game commences!

[The Priest]

@RP I think I am persuaded by what you say about double moves.

On the pause at war suggestion, I think Capo is right that this isn't about every time someone joins an existing war, although it might be hard to word that, so we might need to say it is always the case but assume as RP says that people will say its ok in many cases.

RP you are right of course that many of the BtP start of war arguments were focused on rule enfringement arguments, so you might think that with clear rules it won't be a problem, but fundamentally I think that cause and effect go the other way -its the shock and time it takes to adjust your whole attitude/approach to the game, which causes people to see rule breaks when they weren't there, or to sail very close to the wind / break rules because they feel shafted by the other folks IG and this spills over into attitude to the rules. It doesn't take long to move from "what the !!!!!" to "I'm going to show them", but if a slight pause allows peole to make that transition it may save a lot of arugments and give room for diplomacy.