New diplo game: big discussion needed

[The Priest]

It seems straight-foward to me, and was expressed in Ozzy's attempt at redefining the rules in Beyond the Pit.

The aim is to strike the balance between turn-based play and the flexibility needed to allow all the players to play in a 24 hour window given real life.

So when there is no war, we all just play when we want. When there is war its worth the effort of trying to get turn-based play.

It can only be 'trying to' because we can't actually have turn-based play without it being impossible given other commitments. Hence the 6 hour / 9 hour rule. We try to get turn based play but if it can't be done it can't be done.

Then the point about the turn before war. Seems clear to me that it should be included since it is clearly a deliberate breach of the turn-based approach to gain a benefit in war. Indeed, we hardly need to say 'it shoudl be included' we just need the rule to be written that 'a second turn cannot be taken before the opponent has had their turn to had the 6/9 hour oppotunity if during that second turn you are or become at war'. If peace is signed in the first turn, a double move with the second turn at peace doesn't give advantage. If war is decalared in the second turn, then there is advantage.

I don't by the 'surprise' argument. Of course you want to exploit surprise as an IG tactic but this isn't about IG tactics of surprise, its about exploiting game rules to get two moves. I really don't see how anyone can argue that that is fair or indeed is Civ.

[The Capo]

You could see my troops napping in the middle of my land when you log off and when you log in next time those very troops had already captured some of your cities in an other continent . Wouldnt you call it unfair?

Actually I'd call that impossible. Please use realistic hypotheticals.

[Robert]

Capo: that is possible with a naval attack.
One can have 6 triremes defending their coasts, if 1 galley moves Last and moves his galley next to his future enemies border and next turn declares war, moves his galleon into his enemies sea territory and invades a city from that trireme then he has capturd a city with one single stupid galley

(red = turn 1, green = turn 2)

[Robert]

If you don't hold this position, why are you arguing for it?

I tried to say that it's not my personal favourite rule. It's a well established rule, and I do defend it here, but I didn't make it up.

[Pitboss Japan]

Actually I'd call that impossible. Please use realistic hypotheticals.

It's not impossible.

1st turn: i move those troops into my coastal cities then load them into transports, then in the same turn i move those transports close to your borders

then without applying the no double move rule i move again:

2nd turn: i declare war, move in with my transports and then making an amphibious attack - or just land my forces.

It's not the advantage of the "suprise", but the advantage of the "double move".
Normally you would see my troops close to your borders. First you would get suprised, then mobilizing/drafting/using slavery whatever. Or maybe you fail to spot me, or you belive me that i have other destination and you are not the target-it's up to you what to do.

Anyway: we can just vote about it and lets play the way as the majority likes it.

(<-- mzprox sorry about using my other avatar )

[The Capo]

You said that you have units in the middle of your land and the next turn they have conquered multiple cities on another continet. This is basically impossible. Again though, in both of your scenarios are are describing GROSSLY undefended cities. And Cyber, there's no way you can, with a friggin galley full of units, take over a city unless it is poorly defended.

[The Capo]

Anyway: we can just vote about it and lets play the way as the majority likes it.

(<-- mzprox sorry about using my other avatar )

We can vote, but if we are here to discuss rules for future diplogames we can't just have a vote of the four people who are talking about it here. We would have to get the community to vote on it. Which is going to be difficult. I'd also suggest you new guys sign up for the diplogame civ group (is there a way we can put up a poll there?)

[bamf226]

Where is the diplo civ group?

[Dinner]

I might be willing to get in on some of this action though I haven't played Civ4 in a long time.

[The Capo]

Where is the diplo civ group?

Click on the "D" under my name.

[Robert]

The natives (brown) have 6 macemen ready to board on 3 galleys.
The Sumerians have a city defended with 2 longbowmen and 3 triremes defending the city on ea.

I'd say a solid defence for a port city.

Sumeria isn't aware of the 6 macemen and 3 galleys east of Cahokia.

Normal situation (game mechanics: turn based)

Turn 1:
- Natives move 6 macemen into 3 galleys
- Natives move 3 galleys 2 tiles west, next to the sumerian border

Turn 2:
- Sumeria notice the 3 galleys and can either:
a. move the western trireme two tiles to the east to (peacefully) blockade an native invasion
b. declare war on natives and attack 3 galleys with 2 triremes
- Natives can only move 1 galley and attack Uruk with 2 macemen, which will fail to take the city

Now in a situation where a player is allowed to move twice in a row if the first move is a 'peacetime' move.

Turn 1:
- Natives move 6 macemen into 3 galleys
- Natives move 3 galleys 2 tiles west, next to the sumerian border

Turn 2:
- Natives declare war
- Natives move 3 galleys 1 tile south-west and 1 tile north-west, the galley is now 1 tile south-east of Uruk
- Natives amphibious attack Uruk with 6 macemen. The Sumerian triremes are useless, the 2 longbowmen most probably will lose against these numbers.

So in this 2nd scenario the Natives move twice in a row without Sumeria moving in between. In this process Sumeria lose their city.
A clear advantage to the Natives by an exploit of game mechanics.

This is the most obvious example.
Other examples include:
- invader able to grab a strategical position (fort, forrest-hill)
- invader able to grab workers / great people
- invader able to grab a city with units that can walk 2 tiles/turn (horse archers, cavalry, tanks)

This is not because the defender isn't well prepared but because he doesn't have a chance. The invader can move twice in a row, which is unfair and against the spirit of turn-based gaming.
Why would we forbid double moves during war and not when war is declared? It's the same advantage, the same exploit.

[bamf226]

Being that close to the other civ, why would you not be able to see that stack of galleys sitting there the previous turn?

[Pitboss Greece]

Because it's outside the line of sight.
But this is not about if players have a good defence or not.
It's about players moving twice and get an advantage.

Do you want players to receive an advantage by moving twice, or do you not want to give players such an advantage. That's the question.

[Pitboss Greece]

Another scenario.
City A is defended by 15 longbowmen, 5 catapults and 5 crossbowmen. (well defended, right?)

Civ B piles 50 knights about 5 tiles from the border at a place where civ A can't see them.

Then at the end of turn 1 he moves all his knights to the border, let the turn move on and at the beginning of turn 2 he moves his 50 knights 1 tile into the territory of civ A and then attacks city A with his 50 knights.

This all happened without Player A being able to react at all.
Player B moved twice and Player A never had a chance to respond to the first move of Player!

Once again, this has nothing to do with poor defences or not.
It's just a basic principle of turn-based gaming. Every player has the right to be able to respond to the last moves of his enemies.

If you let players move twice without the enemy moving in between, you break the principle of turn based gaming.

[St Jon]

[img]Turn 1:
- Natives move 6 macemen into 3 galleys
- Natives move 3 galleys 2 tiles west, next to the sumerian border

Turn 2:
- Sumeria notice the 3 galleys and can either:
a. move the western trireme two tiles to the east to (peacefully) blockade an native invasion
b. declare war on natives and attack 3 galleys with 2 triremes
- Natives can only move 1 galley and attack Uruk with 2 macemen, which will fail to take the city

I understand your examples but what's this bit about the Sumerians attacking the Natives? Here you have a situation where the Natives have not declared War or attacked anyone. How does Sumeria know that those Galley's have a malign intent? What gives Sumeria the right to attack them without warning? In a Turn based Gane there is no argument, I see 3 Galleys heading my way and, if I've got the Navy to do it, I'll sink the little buggers.

The BIG problem comes in the Modern Era where those wouldn't be Galleys but Transports. They could be sitting in port loaded with 15 Marines and still reach their target in 1 Turn! No Double Move Rule is going to stop that and you cannot see Troops once loaded so, even with massive Espionage, the Sumerians are up the pole regardless.

BTW. Who is this PitBoss Greece guy who's posting on this Thread? I think you should investigate Mr Plomp. :