New diplo game: big discussion needed

[mzprox]

I'm really suprised that this argument is going this long...

The rule which i think the most fair is simple:

I don't take double turn against someone if I'm at war with him or i'm just about to start the war...

And it was shown by many examples how this double move could be exploited, rendering a good defense pointless and not by strategy-unless we consider using the timer against someone a fair strategy...

The rule above has nothing to do with "invasion" and doesnt need any extra phrase to any specialcircumstances.. it's as simple as it is.

((In StJon's example, when the defenders would take a double turn to attack the invadrers, that move is as unfair as the attacker's double move would have been. The invaders could say: when we moved our transports those destroyers had no chance to reach them-they could only do because of double move.
And note: double move is not a problem-untill you actually declare war- In that example the defenders cannot start the war if that turn is a double move. They are allowed to do other things ofc, for example fortifing their cities if they expect an attack.))

I don't think it could be more simplier and more fair:
"I don't take double turn against someone if I'm at war with him or i'm just about to start the war..."

(and don't come again with the time-zones and RL issues things... because those problems are the exactly same we already have for the normal wartime "no double move" rules)

[Rasputin]

is the debate over double moves going to kill Pitboss games..?

[St Jon]

is the debate over double moves going to kill Pitboss games..?

I don't think so. We may have differring opinions but I reckon this is about the most civilised debate you could ask for.

[mzprox]

is the debate over double moves going to kill Pitboss games..?

Well.. seeing these long disputes sometimes i really think we should throw away every rule we have.. What would happen: worst case one player could have a double move but no more untill the other makes a double move too.

And if we allow the double move at the start of the war-probably the most abuseable situation-then we should allow it for the rest of the war aswell...

((But still.. my vote on pitboss and not on pbem))

[Robert]

St Jon:

War is all about surprise!

This has nothing to do with taking a suprise away!

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?

I'm sorry, I don't understand you.
What example (B) are you refering to? Several have been posted.

Just one question to make something clear: are you against double move rules in general, or only against ones that include a turn before (partly)?

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.

Why not? I don't see an advantage if it's about european players only either.

The idea of waiting as long as you can AFTER the minimum limit to move again is nonsense!

Why? If it's 19.00u and I don't want to go to sleep untill 01:00, then I can wait 5 more hours to give my opponents a chance. If I have to leave I just play my turn.
It's a bit about fair play.
And yes, people who are not into fair play can just play, even if they could wait. If that's what they want, then that's up to them.

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?

????
I think you didn't understand my compromis suggestion!
That one says that you can use them to attack, even if that means it's a double move.
The compromis rule only prohibits invasions as part of a double move.
So yes: you have those destroyers and you can use them.

Double-Move before War is so wooly that you will create more problems than you solve.

There are no problems, apart from the one you raised, which is solved by making the double move rule only apply to invasions.

Not to mention that not including it raises way more problems!
All the problems we raised were way more serious then that one you raised.

return to a Turn Based Game

I think that you really make things way more complicated then they are.
The rule I suggested is very easy and simple.

or only play PitBoss Games within your own Continent

I don't see how that fixes anything.

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

That's something we all agree on

@The Priest:
Well, I'm ok with a start-of-war-pause.
When Maya/Korea double backstabbed me I had many issues.
Most issues had to grow on me. (the in-game issues) and I was willing to accept those after a couple of hours.

Having said that, we must redifine what diplogaming is about.
Spain is at least partly right about the Metal-attack (though, Spain didn't produce any stories itself either past few weeks!).
And I still don't believe that attacking a nation with it's own soldiers is anything realistic. We should have some rules there. Rules of believability. But maybe that's something for later, let's get this settled first.

Well, we can't really get it settled now. I still believe that we must wait with making rules till we have the players for the next game clear.

[St Jon]

St Jon:

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?

????
I think you didn't understand my compromis suggestion!
That one says that you can use them to attack, even if that means it's a double move.
The compromis rule only prohibits invasions as part of a double move.
So yes: you have those destroyers and you can use them.

I did say that I liked your compromise and also understand it. Enforcing it would be a nightmare as if I am your 'possible' enemy we might still have Open Borders. I could move my Transports 1 Tile in and on my next Turn move them 1 out, declare War and hit your City. Whatever issues Mali has with Babylon does not mean that either will sever all ties. Babylon may fear an attack from Mali but still want the Gold from Trade in the meantime.

If Mali knows that Babylon has the legitimate use of a Double Move in defence then it alters the Game completely. Can Mali then Declare War and sink those Destroyers, without a City attack, as part of a legitimate Double Move?

If the answer is no then you actually increase the Babylonian defence enormously because they need fewer Destroyers to cover a long coastline but deny Mali any surprise attack.

Spain is at least partly right about the Metal-attack (though, Spain didn't produce any stories itself either past few weeks!).
And I still don't believe that attacking a nation with it's own soldiers is anything realistic. We should have some rules there. Rules of believability. But maybe that's something for later, let's get this settled first.

Neither Spain or Metal, IG, had posted for a very long time so it is rather like HRE attacking Vikings without any plot. As you say, it is a different arguement, but one that needs to be looked at as well if Story Thread is to be worth points. Khmer/Portugal are not like Greece/Korea in pretty, artistic and long posts but both post enough to make a valid story behind their actions. How you could make a Rule for that I just don't know.

[Black Knight 427]

If you want my two cents I really don't see why we are even debating any rules right now. I get that Capo wants uniform rules for all games but not all games are or will be the same. just like we are all different so should the games we play. I say lets put aside this debate for awhile and try to set up a new game so that those who will be playing are the ones who make all the decitions not ppl who may or may not be involved.

[The Capo]

The reason I think we should have uniform rules for all Diplogames is so its easier to have subs join and know what to expect, and honestly if we have uniform rules we negate the potential for misunderstanding. You are also sort of combining the terms "uniform" and "extensive." I am AGAINST extensive rules, or excessive rules even, which is why I think making the turn prior to war part of an illegal double-move is a bad idea that is going to create more trouble than its worth.

How many times did a double-move-war-declaration cause any problems (in-game) and actually change a war? It didn't happen in our war Cyber, not at all. In fact no advantage was gained by the fact that my declaration of war occured as part of a double-move, the exact same outcome would have occured had it not been a double move. Now, I am not saying this is going to be the case EVERY SINGLE TIME, but, the problems that will arise with enforcing it and all of the extra rules and addendums necessary to make it flow properly is just too much to ask of people who are trying to play a game for fun. It's overbearing and useless, there is no point to it other than to save a potentially small advantage from occuring. And as Jon pointed out that advantage cuts both ways, when you limit that turn you also GIVE an advantage to another player, and not only that you create a strange situation where one would not have existed. Its impossible to enforce this properly without making a mountain out of mole-hill. So I say we just have the double-move rule pertain to wartime where we have an established turn order for combatants (i.e. the turn order that occured on the turn war was declared) and move on from there.

[Robert]

I could move my Transports 1 Tile in and on my next Turn move them 1 out, declare War and hit your City.

If that's a double move, then that's not allowed.
I don't see the advantage of moving in and out, btw.

Open borders has nothing to do with this, btw. when war is declared all borders are closed and all units bumped out of each other's territory.

If Mali knows that Babylon has the legitimate use of a Double Move in defence then it alters the Game completely. Can Mali then Declare War and sink those Destroyers, without a City attack, as part of a legitimate Double Move?

If the answer is no then you actually increase the Babylonian defence enormously because they need fewer Destroyers to cover a long coastline but deny Mali any surprise attack.

Only if Babylon would (peace) double move every turn. And if Babylon double moves every turn then Mali also has a double move every turn which it can use to it's advantage. Thus: no, it's not an extra advantage for Babylon.

[mzprox]

Its impossible to enforce this properly without making a mountain out of mole-hill.

What? Why? I've explained it many times that it's not more complicated than our current rule still seems most of you are just ignoring it. The rule is easy to follow and "enforce"...
"You shouldnt take double turn against someone if you are at war with him or you are just about to start the war...ever...no matter of the cicumstances..."

What is so complicted in this????

And as Jon pointed out that advantage cuts both ways, when you limit that turn you also GIVE an advantage to another player, and not only that you create a strange situation where one would not have existed.

The advantage would be if we allowed the defender to make double move during the declaration of the war- but we don't allow, because that would be the violation of the rule aswell... (That's why i don't support any "compromise" which would make the rule less explicit..)

I still challenge you to show me one situation, where either:

-The rule is hard to follow or
-The rule is hard to enforce or
-The rule is unfair

we have shown that if we don't have the rule how that could be exploited and you think it still worths it because of the complications it would cause...i just don't see any of those complications... for me it's plain simple.

[The Capo]

I still challenge you to show me one situation, where either:

-The rule is hard to follow or
-The rule is hard to enforce or
-The rule is unfair

First of all let's go down your list. Nobody said the rule is hard to follow, it just won't make sense the way you've written it when you consider the potential problems that can arise (and Jon has already gone over them so I won't repeat it over and over again, you can look for yourself) the rule is hard to enforce because people are going to say they had to attack certain units at certain times. If you happen to sign on and realize that the other player hasn't moved yet, but they've got a huge army headed for you you are GOING to attack them. I don't care what you say, that's what I'd do and you know you'd do the same thing. Should they have to sign out and wait around their house for six or nine hours (or whatever) just to do something they should have done anyway? Let's face it guys, this IS NOT a turn based game anymore, its a simultaneous turn game. I don't understand why this is such a big deal to you.

And Jon has ALSO already explained, time and time again, how the rule can be unfair. If you want to debate this further go ahead, I don't want to which is why I called for a vote, you guys are the ones "cancelling" the vote (or in Cyber's case pulling out of it). There is no need to discuss this any further because (1) we have already heard all of the arguments for and against, and (2) clearly OUR minds are not going to change. So let's just vote on it and get it over with! This argument is getting us nowhere. Why can't you guys just accept a damn vote and go with it? I can.

Anyway, not to change the subject on this AWESOME DEBATE but I may have found a new victory condition that would be pretty good for Diplogames in my opinion. Check it out HERE.

[Black Knight 427]

"You shouldnt take double turn against someone if you are at war with him or you are just about to start the war...ever...no matter of the cicumstances..."

It is a simple rule but the wording needs to be refined so not have any loop holes. The way you have it now makes it more like a guidline and not a rule that needs to be followed.

[mzprox]

1, If you happen to sign on and realize that the other player hasn't moved yet, but they've got a huge army headed for you you are GOING to attack them. I don't care what you say, that's what I'd do and you know you'd do the same thing.

2, Let's face it guys, this IS NOT a turn based game anymore, its a simultaneous turn game. I don't understand why this is such a big deal to you.

3, And Jon has ALSO already explained, time and time again, how the rule can be unfair.

1, No.. why would i break the rules? sure by taking a double turn would give me advantage, but it would be unfair..

2, Then why do we have the no double move rule at all if we allow a double move in the begining of the war-(actually I think that is the most exploitable time)

3, what is your definition of "unfair"? I'm really interested. For me the most fair game would be what Ras is suggesting: playing the game as the original was intended: as a turn based one. However we all agreed that for better dynamics we allow double moves during peace-now how could disallowing a double move be unfair?? taking turns one by one is never unfair...
Show me one exmple really... I have explained how StJon's example should work out, some just seems to ignore that.

4, (extra) and yeah I'll accept the result of the vote too. You may say i like arguing, but my real reasons are these:
1, i'd hate if someone would use this against me
2, I'd hate to use this against any of you-but if we allow it then i might build into my strategy.. so whenever i'd start a war i would watch the timer and civstats to gain this advantage..

[Black Knight 427]

I would like to switch my vote for against and the mystery victory sounds great but I wanted to know one thing. What is a Legondary city and how do you get one?

[MMC]

A legendary city is a city with maxed out culture. These mega cities can often claim more land via culture than some small city-spamming nations.