New diplo game: big discussion needed

[Pinchak]

Sorry, but I just had to make that post.

Lets examine that post...

My take on the next big diplo game is that the actual players selected is more important than the rules.

I agree, players should be carefully selected. BTP has only about 5 regular story posters out of 15. Now I understand that when you are running a smaller civ with not as much influence story posting can seem pointless. I can however count the number of story posts from some players on one hand. I STRONGLY disagree with the second half of this statement.

Rules should be absolutely minimalist using the game pause in a crisis.

Have you been following BTP? At all??? This approach has been the root of all the major arguments in the game... not myself as you imply.

But it was the Maya who started out with a very negative attitude about vets and in particular me - deity. He accussed me of being Korea and then everyone got in on the deity bashing band wagon.

You better go back and read how that all played out before you start accusing me of some personal vendetta against you. The first time your name even came into the conversation was when YOU posted that you were Korea. Ozzy fueled the "deity bashing" from there.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?t=177657&page=20

Now that we have that cleared up...

My animosity for the "Vets" actually stems from Ozzy. Before the game began he wagered that a diplogame "vet" would win BTP. Then he went as far as to arrange for all the "vets" to not pick financial civs. I thought about all this for awhile, and used my past diplogame experiences to come to a realization which subsequently became the basis for my "Vets-Pros-Noobs Guide to Diplogaming".

The realization was that "vets" consistently win by manipulating the rules as needed. Now I will say in retrospect that not all the "vets" do this (I didn't really make any distinctions when I wrote the guide).

People thought i was some sort of paranoid freak at the time for saying the things I was saying. To eliminate this phenomenon I pushed for a definitive ruleset, which I was denied.

Post #550 --> http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...177657&page=19

The accusations in my infamous guide came to light in BTP. I was totally justified in what I wrote, although it was certainly not directed at you in particular Deity.

Most of the poor attitude in BTP and most of the crisis revolve around you.

Indeed. Let me tell you something about me Deity. Sneaky people friggen hate me in real life. Manipulative people hate me in real life. I have X-ray vision when it comes to bullchit, and I'm never afraid to call someone out on it.

1. The First Double Move Incident Very Early in the Game: I was cleared of any wrong doing. The original Korean player didn't want to play it out in a diplomatic way. Several players were confused about the rules governing double moves, how early in a game war can be declared, and if a civilization can be wiped out.

2. The Korean/Greek War Fiasco (aka The Battle of Knossos): This was for the most part between Capo and Cyber, although I did throw in a bit more then 2 cents. Ming, Rah, and Rabbit were called in as independent judges. They sided with Capo and myself in almost all respects, including the convoluted manor in which Ozzy presented the question to them.

3. The Maya/Greek/Rome Incident: I don't even know where to begin with this one. Apparently we had a "fake" rule posted? I will say this, there was no "six hour rule" posted during this time. I followed the rule as written, and ONCE AGAIN Cyber just did what he wanted.

So yes, I have been at the center (or near the center) of much controversy in BTP. But saying I was the cause of it is misleading. Perhaps some of it could have been avoided had I turned the other cheek, but IMO that is exactly what certain people count on.

BUT to go around constantly and instantaneously accusing people of being cheats and shooting your mouth off

You know, I give people the benefit of the doubt the first, and even second time, but when I PREDICT that this sort of thing will happen before the game even got going, then was ridiculed for saying those things, THEN to watch it happen... yeah, i get heated.

I'm sorry to say this Pinchak but in selecting players for the next diplo I personally can't see you in it

Ha! You need people like me to bring some integrity back into this great format. That may sound like a joke, but diplogames are known (and feared) by outsiders for the drama that constantly erupts. Given the laissez faire approach to the rules that govern the game this is no surprise.

[Robert]

ONCE AGAIN Cyber just did what he wanted

Can you back that up?

[deity]

he he I just read through that old thread and am totally convinced Pinchak is the biggest pain the ass in the world!!

Having said that there is a part of me that really likes him! I wish we could work it all out. I'm certain that text dialogs has produced significant misunderstandings on all sides.

Is there a diplomat out there who can bridge the divide?

If we could work things out we have a wealth of talent for a great game; but if we have suspicious arguments on every incident which causes a bad feeling it's all over... we will divide into two camps and then whither on the vine.

Game over for diplo

[deity]

But on the other hand perhaps finishing HOTW11 and HOTW12 might be a good way keep the players busy...

With HOTW12 we just need [you] FRANCE and Toni to play their turn! AND MMC to host it again... please!

With HOTW11 it just needs Cyber in SP

But I am annoyed that these two games stalled so near the end. Surely we can get them done?

And I hope BTP does get finished...

[Pinchak]

Can you back that up?

If I can will you do what the rule calls for? Because I'm not spending one more minute pointing out the obvious only to have it ignored like it was when we asked a panel of 3 independent and respected judges.

[St Jon]

Is there really any need to conduct this on a Thread regarding the start of a whole NEW GAME?

BtP has a perfectly good Argument and Dispute Thread where this battle can be continued, if need be, and is actually more suitable than the BtP Organisation Thread as well.

[The Capo]

Is there really any need to conduct this on a Thread regarding the start of a whole NEW GAME?

BtP has a perfectly good Argument and Dispute Thread where this battle can be continued, if need be, and is actually more suitable than the BtP Organisation Thread as well.

While that is all true, I think we can directly link what happened/is happening in BtP to this thread here. We also want to avoid the problems of BtP so we need to make sure we make arrangements to prevent them in advance, which will sometimes mean discussing what happened in that game.

But you are right. We need to get a good roster together and from there we can decide on what is appropriate as far as rules and protocols go.

[St Jon]

On a slightly different note I am not really sure it is fair just to blanket exclude Pinchak from taking part in this game. It's really like black-balling him from any future participation in any future Diplo-Game. He can be a pain in the arse but his contributions have also been great. Some of his suggestions, in BtP, for dealing with problems IG were very positive and constructive. His idea for dealing with the situation following the expulsion of Rising Sun was simple, clear and fair. Far better than any other put forward.

Just because he is a stubborn and argumentative SOB does not mean he has nothing to offer a new game. You could exclude Capo for standing his ground and getting stroppy and abusive when he felt he had been wronged. You could exclude me for standing my ground and refusing to accept anything but a re-load when I felt things weren't right. You could exclude Cyber for stubborness for refusing to acknowledge that a problem might exist at all and it was just paranoia to even suggest it. If you do not have an independent CMN there are times when you have to be stubborn or nobody will listen to you and actually address the problem at hand. We are all capable of making mistakes and errors of judgement but that is merely human not a criminal offence.

The ill-will between Pinchak and Cyber is something for them to sort out as adults between themselves and not something that should spill over across the Forum or influence a new game.

Merely an opinion.

[mzprox]

black and white rules are needed.

So, on a constructive approach..: the biggest issue these days how to define/avoid double moves and how to fix the game if it happens.

It seems most people wants a very detailed rule instead of a guidance + some reference to the "spirit" or " common sense".
What about starting a discussion to make a good rule what everyone can accept. Those who want can make their own version, then we can discuss them and then finalize.

these are the current rules:

Spoiler:

- 6 hours time between moving during (pre) war-time
Civilizations that are at war or want to declare war have to wait 6 hours after the turn started if they were the last of their opponent(s) to play their turn during the last turn. When all opponents have moved before those 6 hours have passed the player can play as well.

Thus, a civ at war or intending to declare war in the current turn can play their turn when:
- His opponent(s) played their last turn after he has played his last turn
- 6 hours have passed since the new turn started
- all his opponents have moved during this turn

The spirit of this rule is more important then the letter of the rule.
Key is: if a player in a (pre) war situation gets advantage because of non-turn-based gaming (where turn-based means: all players move in the same order every turn) then this will fall under the "No double move during (pre) war time" rule.

At the other side: if no damage has been done despite a double-move has been played then we will just continue playing without any corrections.
Damage is done when the player against whom a double move has been played is being disadvantaged in a (pre) war situation.

My biggest problem with this is the six hour rule, it is not good-most of us don't do double moves regardless of how many hours elapsed, but i dont like that the rule allows it.
Also i think wording like this: "if no damage has been done despite a double-move has been played then " is always a good ground to forum dispute..

My take on the rules (Beta version ):

Spoiler:

Any rules below can be overruled by an agreement of all involved players. (You can agree on changing turn order, allowing someone to do something which He couldn't according the rules, but as i said it needs the approval of all involved players)

All of these rules apply only to war time

Main rule:
Double moves are not allowed. ((i.e. taking two consecutive turns while your opponent does none. It's not necessarily a full turn, even logging in counts as a move.))

-The turn order must be kept the same as it was in the round when the war was declared to avoid double moves.

-You can not make a double move if you are just going to declare war, so the "no double move" rule starts one turn before the war for the attacker. ((You can move your army/fleet next to your future opponent's border in the last round of peace-this counts as part of the war moves, you should give your future opponent a chance to react on it))

-You are not allowed to take more than one gaming session during the same turn.

-The warring sides are not allowed to take their turns simultaneously. To avoid holding up the other the maximum gaming session lenght is one hour.

-In case the rules got broken -Proving the fact of the double move is easy with civstats- the game must be paused asap and reloaded till the point before the double move occured.

Covering the difficult situations:

-optional rule-If it's possible when there more than one players in one or both sides they all should take their turn either before or after the other side (players on the same side can move simultaneously).

-If there are many players, many sides involved in the war keeping the rules above could become very complicated. (time zones, IRL issues etc..) There is no good solution for tis, maybe increasing the turn timer during this period could help.

-it would be the best if the warring sides could agree on what time are they making their moves-for example player A in the first half, player B in the second half of the turn.- a 24h timer preferable for this (and in general)

-What should i do if my opponent hadn't moved yet and the time is almost up/or i just can't wait any longer (in my normal playing session)?

I don't know a good answer to this. To make things smooth communication between the players is necessary. I suggest a 24h (23h?) lenght timer to make things simplier.I would say: if the elapsed time after your opponents last turn is 26+ hours (or timer lenght+2) and he did not contacted you (via pm) then you are allowed to move. You can also move if the timer is about to end (in the last hour).
If you know you won't be able to move you should get a sub/try to make a cease fire for that round (this is a diplogame after all not a championship).

((Btw I'm the new Japan sub, FYI ))

[Rasputin]

if we going to have rules we dont want rules that can be changed to suit individual players at certain times during the game. this will lead to contoversy and fart more disagreementts.

whatever rules get agreed on are for all palyers at all times.

including non war times. lets not allow any grey area in the rules we do make.

if it needs grey then dont make a rule.

I still think a turn based system is needed. Unfortunalty this wont be agreed on as people think the speed of the game is more important than the fairness of it.

So hopefulyl someone else can come up with a rule that does not allow for two players to paly diffentretly than others. this makes a mess once a third party gets involved in a war.

[St Jon]

if we going to have rules we dont want rules that can be changed to suit individual players at certain times during the game. this will lead to contoversy and fart more disagreementts.

Absolutely right. One caveat is that we are never going to make a rule for every possible situation that could possibly happen. If precedents are set in a game then rules need to be added to deal with them to prevent a re-occurance. This is quite different from changing rules to suit an individual, it is just being flexible.

whatever rules get agreed on are for all palyers at all times.

including non war times. lets not allow any grey area in the rules we do make.

if it needs grey then dont make a rule.

War is different and must impact on game flow. Luck of time-zone may mean you can get your ideal city placement before me but so can luck of turn order.

I still think a turn based system is needed. Unfortunalty this wont be agreed on as people think the speed of the game is more important than the fairness of it.

I cannot see the point in it, certainly not in the 1st 50 turns as the map will be seriously under-sized if we start blocking eachother off from any available land within that period.

You do have a valid point but I cannot see how you can do it on a game spreading 3 continents. You either have to cut the clock into blocks per civ and have lots of missed turns or allow an infinite time period and end up with a game stalled until the host has to boot a player to AI. You then have the real problem of what to do when someone drops out: e.g. you are in Australia and move 5th in the game and drop out does the game then have to wait for another Australian to sub as a european would have to face playing every turn after midnight?

So hopefulyl someone else can come up with a rule that does not allow for two players to paly diffentretly than others. this makes a mess once a third party gets involved in a war.

You are right and it will take a very clever man to figure it out.

A+B+C attack D, E then attacks B whichs causes war with A as well due to vassal status. Two different wars but both involving A+B - I shudder to think how the 6hr rule would stand up to that and agreeing a fair movement order for such a situation, acceptable to all parties, would be near impossible as it would very likely give someone a free double-move!

[Pinchak]

On a slightly different note I am not really sure it is fair just to blanket exclude Pinchak from taking part in this game.

I'm not sweating it. Deity doesn't decide who plays and who doesn't.

If I'm ever a pain in the a$$ it's because SOMEONE has to be!

[St Jon]

I'm not sweating it. Deity doesn't decide who plays and who doesn't.

If I'm ever a pain in the a$$ it's because SOMEONE has to be!

Pinchak, If you are going to quote from a post of mine at least read all of it! What I actually also said was.

there are times when you have to be stubborn or nobody will listen to you and actually address the problem at hand

I may not support all your actions but I do sympathise with an element of the rationale behind a number of them.

[mzprox]

I still think a turn based system is needed. Unfortunalty this wont be agreed on as people think the speed of the game is more important than the fairness of it.

So hopefulyl someone else can come up with a rule that does not allow for two players to paly diffentretly than others. this makes a mess once a third party gets involved in a war.

What about an intermediate solution then?
Basically the game goes as a pitboss game, but when war is going on it becomes turn based for every involved player.

So this would mean:
-Those who are not in war can move whenever they want (there would be an easy rule about joining ongoing wars to avoid a possible exploit here)
-Those who are involved must keep the turn order even if it would slow down the game.-(I'd even agree on pausing the game and let it progress only when everyone moved and in the correct order.-(this would be optional as we dont wait for players in our current game as well)

This would be still much faster than a true turn based approach, because
1, wars are not happening every time
2, it's only turn based for the involved players who can possibly agree on the time they are make their moves so no actual delay is necessarry.

[The Capo]

I don't think there is a need to make a turn order for the entire game. That isn't necessary, only countries at war should have to follow their own turn order.

Having said that, I think that the concept of the turn before war being part of a doube move is unnecessary and unfair. You should be able to move any units you want whenever you want on the turn prior to the declaration of war. The rules should only come into play when war is declared. Once war is declared the turn order of that turn (that naturally occured) should be the turn order followed for the duration of hostilities.

So...

Turn 1
-India moves
-China moves

Turn 2
-China moves and declares war on India
-India moves

Turn 3
-China moves first
-India waits until China moves before they move

Not only should this NOT be considered a double move, but this should be the normal pattern. After China declares war the war-time period begins (not the turn prior, even if China moved units into position this is perfectly fine), and the rule kicks in. It doesn't kick in prior to a declaration of war. Now say it got more complicated

Turn 4
-China moves
-India moves
-Mongolia moves

Turn 5
-China moves
-Mongolia moves and declares war on India
-India moves

Now in this scenario Mongolia moves before India has moved and declares war on them. This is perfectly fine as Mongolia was not at war during the prior turn. Even if it went like this...

Turn 4
-China moves
-India moves
-Mongolia moves

Turn 5
-Mongolia moves and declares war on India
-China moves
-India moves

That would be perfectly fine. But whatever the turn order was during that turn should be followed. And this applies to countries who are at war with one another, not allied countries. So let us assume that Mongolia and China are allied in the last scenario. The turn order becomes "Mongolia and China" and then India. So India has to wait until both of those countries has moved before moving itself. Say in the same scenario France declares war on China and Mongolia the following turn, but does so before they move. If this is the case then the turn order becomes France then "Mongolia and China" and then India since India has to wait for both Mongolia and China to move. It is not necessary that India waits for France, but France must move before Mongolia and China are allowed to move, and India can not move until they move, so in this sense India is forced to wait for France because China and Mongolia have to. If France declared war after Mongolia moved but before China and India moved the turn order would be Mongolia, then France, then China, then India.

Now, this might seem very confusing, but it isn't that confusing. The worst part about it is that it can become unweildy to deal with. Imagine if we add three or four more countries to this war it can become almost impossible to control. Which is why the six hour rule was put into place (although it should be extended maybe to nine hours). Not all double moves give advantages, but a player who is worried that one might will be sure to play their turn at the appropriate time to make sure they don't allow a (after the six hours it becomes legal) double-move. This is mainly in place to give players enough room to play their turns (in case their time zone isn't compatible with waiting until all of the other players move), while giving the other players ample time to make their moves. I think this is the best method to follow. If an illegal double move occurs we pause the game, see what the offended player wants to do and reload if that is their request.

To me its pretty straightforward and there is no reason this can't work.