New diplo game: big discussion needed

[Robert]

Capo, factually every double move is unfair in a game that relies on a turn-based mechanism.
But because of pragmatic reasons (nobody wants to play a game that lasts 9 years) we play simultaniously. We have a double move rule though to deal with the most problematic exploits of a double move.
In fact we have said: for peace-reasons double moving is allowed (but still gives an unfair advantage to the 'double mover' in some cases!) but not for war-purposes.

Therefore it's only natural to let the first war move not be a double move.
If the war-declaration can be a double move then there's a huge number of advantages possible that go against the core of turn-based playing.

Example A:
Player A has a navy defending it's coastlines
Player B is approaching the coast of player A with an invasion fleet

turn 1:
Player A moves, there are no ships approaching his coastlines, he can feel secure.
Player B moves his ships close to the coastline

turn 2:
Player B declares war and is able to unload his soldiers
Player A is too late, his entire naval defence is useless. Would Player A have been able to move turn-based then he would've had a change to attack the invasion fleet before it unloaded.

Example B:
Player A has a city near the border with player B, there's 1 tile between the border and the city. The city has a 3 archer defence
Player B has an invasion force of 6 swordmen located 4 tiles from the border, invisible for Player A

turn 1:
Player A moves, he knows nothing of the invasion force
Player B moves, he moves his army next to the border, it's now visible to Player A, but Player A has already played it's turn

turn 2;
Player B moves, declares war and crosses the border, with his army placing his army next to A's city
Player A moves and sees that Player B declared war and invaded his territory in the past two turns

In both examples A and B player B has an advantage by moving twice in a row that goes against the spirit of turn-based playing. In a normal situation Player A would see the army of B appear next to the border, he can then decide to start moving units or slave extra archers. Effectively Player A loses 1 turn in this war because of an exploit of game mechanics.

If double moving is not allowed during war time, then the turn of war declaration can't be a double move as well.

What is your reason for not including this turn? Did you play pitboss before? Players who are familiar with the pitboss format suggest this. It was snoopy369 himself who advised us to include it. I don't see any reason for excluding it.

Having said that, I think that the concept of the turn before war being part of a doube move is unnecessary and unfair.

Why is it unfair? What's the disadvantage for a player? (apart from not being able to exploit game mechanisms)

[St Jon]

Cyber, I appreciate what you're saying but I refer back to Ming's definition, which I think is pretty cast iron, on the only time the move BEFORE war is relevant.

It appears that your double move rule is just that. It is meant to NOT allow for a player to have two consecutive turns during time of declaring war and actual war.

IE... You can't move at the end of the turn, declare war, and then move before your opponent. Or, declare war, move after your opponent, then move again before your opponent in the next turn.

It doesn't seem to say that you can't move before your opponent in a turn (KEY, since if you move after, it becomes a double move)... then start the next turn, declare war, move before your opponent... but then you have to wait for your opponent to move.

I think that is what I'm reading... In our MP games, we have a similar rule. If you declare war, you can move, but the turn can't advance until the attacking player has a chance to move... avoiding the double move attack.

This avoids your scenarios as well avoiding the Rules being used to safeguard poor or inattentive players.

Vis. I am Player A and move my Knights to Player B's border the Turn BEFORE war but before Player B has moved that Turn. Player B fails to notice a stack suddenly appearing, regards it as no threat or simply has no defensive force to counter it. I am now free to declare war and move BEFORE Player B next Turn as I have accrued no advantage from a Double-Move. It seems pretty straight-forward to me.

[mzprox]

@The Capo : we agree on the major points i think, except about the no double move during the declaration of war. My concerns are the same what Cyber explained above.

Edit:

Vis. I am Player A and move my Knights to Player B's border the Turn BEFORE war but before Player B has moved that Turn. Player B fails to notice a stack suddenly appearing, regards it as no threat or simply has no defensive force to counter it. I am now free to move BEFORE Player B next Turn as I have accrued no advantage from a Double-Move. It seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Yes, that's perfectly fine and fair move. We are not talking about safeguarding "inattentive players".

Our concern is this:

Turn 1
-India moves
-China moves

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

Not only should this NOT be considered a double move, but this should be the normal pattern.

Cyber's first example is a good one to show how could this be exploited.
It's not a gamebreaker for me, but i still would like to see among the rules.

[St Jon]

But that is exactly what Ming's definition does avoid. You must not be able to declare War, Move and then Move AGAIN first the following Turn. You must give the defender a chance to react but not castrate the attacking Player! If a Player sees their chance to attack an unwary oppenent that is something to be encouraged. Always protect your borders and if you don't be prepared to face the consequences.

[Robert]

FF: Ming's response is his interpretation of the rules we use in BtP. It's not an opinion on double moving in general.
We're debating the rules for the next game here, not the current rules of BtP.

And yes, I agree with Ming that players shouldn't double move after they declared war, but players should also not double move the the declaration of war turn. (thus: A moves, B moves, B moves and declares war, a moves)

That's btw also what our current ruleset of BtP says. (not what the ruleset said during the korea/sparta incident!)

[St Jon]

FF: Ming's response is his interpretation of the rules we use in BtP. It's not an opinion on double moving in general.
We're debating the rules for the next game here, not the current rules of BtP.

And yes, I agree with Ming that players shouldn't double move after they declared war, but players should also not double move the the declaration of war turn. (thus: A moves, B moves, B moves and declares war, a moves)

That's btw also what our current ruleset of BtP says. (not what the ruleset said during the korea/sparta incident!)

I don't really see why we are arguing this point when we are actually in agreement. The Rule set in BtP is irrelevent to a new game but the principle remains the same. Ming's interpretation does cover Double-Moves in general by stating the obvious that you cannot move AFTER your opponent in one Turn to gain a tactical advantage and then FIRST in the next Turn declaring War and thereby denying the attacked Player any chance to respond to a build up of forces close by. It is only then that the move BEFORE war becomes relevent.

[Robert]

I agree with you except that last line. The turn before the declaration of war should always be relevant, otherwise there will be lengthy discussions about the question if it was or was not relevant everytime.

[St Jon]

Cyber, I still think you are missing the point that it is only Turn Order that really counts in the Turn before War. If I, as the attacker, move first on that Turn it does not matter at all what I do as my opponent of the NEXT Turn will have had a chance to see and take actions accordingly. It is only if I move AFTER my opponent on the Turn preceding War that any argument can be raised for I must then wait for my opponent to move prior to any attack. It is very easy to deal with any arguments by looking at CivStats and if the Turn order has been followed no Double-Move can be alleged and no Pause/Re-Load even considered. Double-Move prevention is to stop abuse of PitBoss mechanics on a Turn based Game rather than a RTL one not to protect the unwary.

[The Capo]

I personally think the turn prior to declaration of war should have no bearing on the double-move rule at all. You should have your territory guarded properly, if not it is your fault you are out of position.

I think the double-move rule should start when war is declared. Once war is declared the rule, restrictions and guidelines (or whatever you want to call them) come into play. So once a war is declared the players have to follow the turn order of that turn. I don't think the turn prior should be considered.

[classical_hero]

There is an easy to to stop DM's from happening full stop and we could play a sequential pitboss game, should it come down to that. Well one problem I have with BTP is that there are too many players, so we need to limit the map to large and 12 players. I think we should have the map maker and host not part of the game, so they can be part of a judgement team should disputes come up and they are the guides for the game and their ruling stands, no matter what it is. For DMs it is simple that you should be very strict in enforcing that rule so that once war is declared you have to folow the turn ordeer and if the player that goes first is late, then only after half the timer has gone you can play,

[Robert]

@FF: That's what I say.

@Capo: Why? Why are you against including this turn? In the worst case it's only unneeded, but it doesn't harm anybody in any way to include it.

@CH: seq. turn order would mean that the game lasts apr. 6 times as long!

[The Capo]

I am against including it in the turn simply because this no longer continues to be a turn-based game in the way that Civ II was. The only reason we are considering a double-move wrong is that we are not always online at the same time. I am often in turns, or was since I was booted from the game, where someone else is present in the game while I am playing my turn. In a regular MP game (i.e. non-pitboss) there is normally no planned turn order during a war. The fastest click gets the advantage. I don't see how a double-move prior to war can be game-shattering, if anything it makes wars more interesting and makes for true surprise attacks.

But why am I against including it? Especially if, as you say, no harm is really done by waiting. Well I am against it because it removes an element of strategy from the game. Basically you are saying that if I moved last during turn B, I am forced to move last during turn C as long as I intend on declaring war on turn C. What if the other guy doesn't move at all? Or doesn't move until the end of the turn? Since there was no war before does the six hour rule still apply? What if I wanted to be the first to move as part of my war strategy? What if I can't play until a time that always seems to happen after my opponent? What then?

To me its ridiculous that the aggressing party has to wait for the country they intend on attacking to conform to their strategy. That is nonsense. You may say it doesn't effect much, and perhaps it doesn't, but you are basically trying to make a rule that protects the unprepared while inhibiting (even if in a small way) the aggressing party. In real life the aggressor usually has the advantage (otherwise they probably wouldn't have declared war) UNLESS time of is of the essence, and by including the turn prior to war as part of the double-move you are removing time-necessary strategy from the game. The reason I declared war as Korea against Greece, and the way it happened, was based entirely on considerations of time and advantage. To remove that from the game is to hamper civs in wars where their only advantage may be the time and place that they attack.

I could always use the same argument towards you; it doesn't make a big deal so why not let it happen! You can't put your men in an enemy's territory prior to declaring war, if you do they come back. So the advantages are slim. And if players have to slyly conform their strategy around when another civ may or may not move that only wastes time ("damn, now I have to wait for them to move so I can, although I could move now and get the game going quicker") also if someone is suspicious that another civ may attack them they can use this to their advantage by changing when they (or their allies) intend on moving, again slowing down the game. This also removes the element of surprise from the game which has always been an historical advantage in warfare. In my mind including the turn prior to declaring war as part of a double-move rule removes so many layers of strategy, and makes the game more difficult to manage.

What if there was a third party ally involved in all of this? What if the other civ has a defensive pact? Do you have to wait for all of its allies to have moved? Or try to move before all of them? And if it isn't that big a deal, either way, what's the point of complicating things further?

[Robert]

Capo: If you want to move first during the turn of the attack, then also move first during the turn before the attack. For the rest all your concerns are no different then for regular war-turns that can't be double.
And your 'why' question: it is unfair, it gives an unfair advantage to the double mover that is against the turn-based base of this game. It has nothing to do with strategy or something.

If you want to be the first to move, start moving first the turn before the war instead of moving first during the war. It's not really much of a difference.

And no, this doesn't protect the unprepared.
A civ can still be unprepared and an attack can still be a surprise. It only removes the unfair element of double moving.

[Robert]

since I was booted from the game

You were not booted from the game. If you insist that you were: link to the post where you were booted or display the pm that booted you.
It was your own decision to be no longer in BtP. I even expressed clearly that I hoped that you would stay in the game.

CyberShy: Capo/Pinchak: I honestly hope that you guys are willing to come with us.

link

and:

CyberShy: 2. I hope that Pinchak/The Capo are willing to return.

link

Thus: you were never booted or excluded from this game. It was your own decision to stop playing. And I do still regret that. It was not for nothing that I even was willing to give you the Gobi if you wanted to return, a couple of turns later.

[The Capo]

I am not going to dig around looking for the post just to rehash this argument Cyber. You wrote in a post "I booted Capo from the game" or something along those lines. Regardless of whether or not you had the capability, which I knew you didn't, the fact that you said this was my last straw. Once I read that I just had enough of this nonsense.

My point is NOT that there is no advantage, on the contrary I am admitting there is an advantage to this strategy. But per the rules of the game, and according to the opinions of the independent judges, myself, and a few others here we should NOT include the turn prior when considering a double-move during war time. I know what it is, I know why you want the rule, I am just saying we shouldn't have it. That's all.