New diplo game: big discussion needed

[The Capo]

This isnt' a game, well not yet at least, but a discussion about rules to be used in diplogames. Again, and this is probably the third or fourth time I've said this; I don't think we need to include the turn prior to declaration of war as part of a double move, the other player is either going to know he is getting attacked or he won't, and as I've said before I understand all of your arguments but am not changing my mind on the subject. Having said that, if we vote on this and I am outvoted I will live with that even tough I disagree with it. That's all. I think all of the arguments have really been made, and we need a poll/vote among the diplogaming community to determine what to do from here on. That's the only way to solve this now.

We know the topic, no reason to make it any more complicated. If you have a D under your name go ahead and make your vote, if you don't have a D either get one or piss off.

Should we include the TURN PRIOR to declaration of war as part of an illegal double-move?

I say NO.

[Robert]

@MNGoldenEagle: That's really great! you're most welcome. It may take a lot of time before we start this game though.

@Capo: we'd better first figure out who's going to be in this game before we start voting on game-related issues and rules.

Further, I understand that you keep your position up, but these are the 2 choices:
a. include the turn before is fair for everyone
b. not include the turn may at least possibly be unfair to some players

What's your reason for still sticking to b?
Even if you disagree that it may be unfair, it doesn't harm you at all to still accept it to be included. You lose nothing if we do include the turn before. We at least think that we lose something. Maybe we're wrong (we're not, but maybe), but if we just include it everybody is happy.

[mzprox]

@Capo: we'd better first figure out who's going to be in this game before we start voting on game-related issues and rules.

Yep, a roster wouldnt be bad so we could vote about even more important matters (for example about mods, turn timer, map, gamespeed, who will host it whatever.. i don't think this question is gamebreaker to any side) just for the record i vote YES

I don't think we should wait _that_ long to start a new game. I guess in the beginning, in the first few months doesn't happen too much (Btw i wonder the possibility of playing the first 20-30 turns like a normal simultaneous multiplayer game in a given time when everyone avaible-just to speed it up a bit in the beginning.)

[Black Knight 427]

I know my opinion is not being asked for but I have to side with RP. I know this is just planning for the next game but how can you proporly plan if you don't know who will play? As for Capo's mod, though I am a big fan of it the mod I think getting it looked at by a pro programer would not be a bad idea. As for myself playing, I would like to play again but I understand if I'm not welcomed.

[St Jon]

We know the topic, no reason to make it any more complicated. If you have a D under your name go ahead and make your vote, if you don't have a D either get one or piss off.

Should we include the TURN PRIOR to declaration of war as part of an illegal double-move?

I say NO.

I'm glad I got a D under my name! :

I have to agree with Capo because Cyber's screen dumps prove the point - it is utterlly uninforceable in the modern Era. If you change those Galleys to Transports and the Triremes to Destroyers there is no chance at all of a 1 Turn attack being stopped. They are out of out of sight, even if they weren't they are too far away to raise suspicion, and can still just skip between the Destroyers and Uruk is dead. Again, if they were spotted and attacked by a patrolling Sub that would make the Sumerians the guilty party for moving and attacking on the same turn.

Land war is just as hard in the modern era as you have 3mpts plus railways. A roving Sumerian Spy spots a stack of Native Tanks well inside Native land. If the Sumerians make a pre-emptive strike to tear up Native railroad track they become guilty of double movement.

Chances are in neither example would the Sumerians act at all. The best you can do is stick to Turn Order, provable on CivStats/Game Log, and insist that in any event the Natives must have moved first the Turn prior to attack in order to move first the following Turn. Even that is not perfect as you keep getting back to turning the Sumerians into the guilty part - they cannot win either way!

I vote NO.

[Robert]

Your opinion does matter, Rising Sun, and you are imho welcome.
You made a mistake, you got 'punished' for that and you apologized. Case closed, imho. Let's move on.

A quick start (simultaniously play the first 30 turns) is an awesome idea but most probably never going to work with that many schedules. Not to mention all those connection problems we'll face (Again). (in the past diplogames were played that way, we had many failed sessions, 4 hours waiting for someone's connection problems to be fixed!)

For BtP we started with 8 hour turns for the firs 100 turns, I think. That helped a lot!

[Robert]

If you change those Galleys to Transports and the Triremes to Destroyers there is no chance at all of a 1 Turn attack being launched.

Of course it is, my current defence around Sparta would catch every invasion fleet before it arrives. Triremes are 1 or 2 tiles from the coast b/c galleys and triremes have 2 movement points per turn. Destroyers are 7 tiles from the coast because destroyers/transports have more movement points per turn. And destroyers have a larger sight area. So it's the same, except that the distances are larger. Now this transport comes, first he passes my destroyer and then next turn, without me giving a chance to move my destroyer, he can move to my coasts. That's unfair.

Not to mention that it wouldn't matter. It'll still be an unfair advantage in the early game. We can't say: "it doesn't matter that it's unfair in the early game because it's not unfair in the late game anymore". Not to mention that the late game has all kinds of other stuff to counter invasions: railroad movements, submarines, bombers.

But let me ask you the same question: why are you against this rule? Is it infair to anybody if we incorporate it? No. Is it unfair if we don't: some say yes.
Why not only incorporate it b/c some say it would be unfair? We lose nothing if we incorporate it, at most that the turn order is extended to one more turn, which is the civ motto anyway

[mzprox]

@St Jon

You are right that sometimes it wont make a difference: if i can transport my troops to the border then move in immediately in the same turn then it's allright no double move anyway. But when it's matter-when the defender would have the chance to react we shouldnt "take that chance away" by double moving.
Attacking a highly suspicious fleet wont make you the bad guy (accidents happen ) and ofc you don't brake any rule: they moved next to your border. you declare war and attack then it's their turn. (no double move happened). And attacking a suspicious fleet is not the only answer, you can do other preparations.

[The Capo]

To be clear, I am putting this rule forward to a vote for all future games. So we have a uniform code of Diplogames. Which is why I think we need the entire community to weigh in on it. That is why I asked that everyone sporting a D should vote on this subject.

I have already explained why I am against the rule, so I am not going to do that again. I don't think it is necessary and as St Jon described it it is hardly worth having a new rule over. My main point is to limit the rules to be as uninhibiting as possible, I have ALWAYS held this position when it has come to everything else (Anonymous play for example) so why should it be any different here? I simply disagree with you, and there is nothing wrong with that.

So to count up the votes so far.

NO: (2)
- The Capo
- St. Jon

YES: (2)
- Cybershy/Robert Plomp
- mzprox

I "assumed" the two yes votes since they didn't specifically say it.

I ask all other members of the community who come accross this to vote on the issue and at least give some comments as well, for clarity's sake you are voting on whether or not the turn prior to a declaration of war should be considered in the illegal double-move rule. If you vote YES you are saying that you think the turn prior should count as part of an illegal double-move, if you say NO you are saying that the double-move rule ONLY applies while the nations are at war.

[mzprox]

I've said yes in #183

[Robert]

Making rules for every future diplo game is never going to work.
Every game has it's own ruleset. I'm after the horrors of BtP not going to be in a game with flawed rules anymore. And not to include the turn before is as flawed as possible and going to cause a lot of troubles. Therefore I do not cast a vote in this poll.

The Capo, you never have really answered our concerns.
All you say is something like: "There are possible situations where no double move is needed to catch a city at once"

That's not the topic. By reasoning in such a way we can decide to play without a double move rule at all, the same arguments can be used for that.

The topic is that we need this rule for those situations where it would not be possible to get advantage, except by double moving when you declare war.
Neither did you ever explain what the harm is of including this turn.

This is my last post on this subject.

[St Jon]

[q]
Not to mention that it wouldn't matter. It'll still be an unfair advantage in the early game. We can't say: "it doesn't matter that it's unfair in the early game because it's not unfair in the late game anymore". Not to mention that the late game has all kinds of other stuff to counter invasions: railroad movements, submarines, bombers.

But let me ask you the same question: why are you against this rule? Is it infair to anybody if we incorporate it? No. Is it unfair if we don't: some say yes.
Why not only incorporate it b/c some say it would be unfair? We lose nothing if we incorporate it, at most that the turn order is extended to one more turn, which is the civ motto anyway

I think you are misunderstanding me here. If those Galleys were Transports they could hit Uruk in one move. You then have the problem, really big problem, of not just Double Move the Turn BEFORE attack but also the Turn BEFORE that. Those Transports could have anything in them, you cannot see inside a ship, so you keep coming back to turning the Sumerians into the wrong doers. If the Natives have already moved but moved second the Turn BEFORE that and a Sumerian Sub moves, spots them and attacks then it becomes a Double Move by Sumeria. You end up not just including the Turn prior to Native attack but also the Trun before that and the Turn before that....AD INF! You cannot win as in your scenario the only realistic way Sumeria has of stopping those Transports is by a pre-emptive strike. 15 Marines take a lot of stopping so what if it is just a feint? What if they are totally innocent? The only way to be sure is to go in and sink them. But if Sumeria moved LAST the previous Turn and only spotted them with its' Sub when moving FIRST the next Turn then they are guilty of a Double Move not the Natives.

I am not saying something wrong in the Classical Era becomes right in the Modern Era just that enforcing becomes impossible.

You have another solution to the problem. Limit the Game to 12 Players on a 24hr Clock. Each Player gets a 2hr window to play their Turn, use it or lose it, and we turn the whole thing back into a TBSG that just guarentees a 1 Turn per Day progression rather than the 3 or 4 a Week you get in PBEM. You just need to set the Time Zones correctly and be prepared for a lot of hassle when you need Subs.

[The Priest]

Don't vote on this now, and don't vote on the principle of 'include or not include' (as Capo has proposed).

This is one of the reasons for the problems in Beyond the Pitboss. Discussion about rules which are not included everyone who actually is going to play, and more importantly, discussion based on principles "include or not include" rather than on the basis of actual proposed wording of rules.

I know it sounds sensible to say - lets decide on the principle and then someone can put it into a rule - but that gets us exactly to the situation we were in, of some people saying 'A is what was intended in the pre-game discussion' while others saying "but the actually wording means B'. I can see it now. Some folks are involved in a discussion which votes 'include the turn before the war' and hten it is written into a rule. 6 months later player A does a move which actually isn't banned by the precise wording fo the rule, but the person who suffers B argues 'but what we agreed was include the turn before war'. A says, but i wasn't involved in those discussions and we just have to stick to the written rule. B says 'but that wasn't what was intended'!

So my advice - don't vote about principles, vote on actual words, and don't do it before you have the group of players.

(And who decides who gets a D?)

[Black Knight 427]

I vote YES.

[The Capo]

Don't vote on this now, and don't vote on the principle of 'include or not include' (as Capo has proposed).

This is one of the reasons for the problems in Beyond the Pitboss. Discussion about rules which are not included everyone who actually is going to play, and more importantly, discussion based on principles "include or not include" rather than on the basis of actual proposed wording of rules.

I know it sounds sensible to say - lets decide on the principle and then someone can put it into a rule - but that gets us exactly to the situation we were in, of some people saying 'A is what was intended in the pre-game discussion' while others saying "but the actually wording means B'. I can see it now. Some folks are involved in a discussion which votes 'include the turn before the war' and hten it is written into a rule. 6 months later player A does a move which actually isn't banned by the precise wording fo the rule, but the person who suffers B argues 'but what we agreed was include the turn before war'. A says, but i wasn't involved in those discussions and we just have to stick to the written rule. B says 'but that wasn't what was intended'!

So my advice - don't vote about principles, vote on actual words, and don't do it before you have the group of players.

(And who decides who gets a D?)

That is exactly what we are doing. If we don't vote on this now and get a uniformed Diplogame rule we WILL have the problems we had in BtP every game. The problem was that Cyber decided it was the spirit of the rule, not the wording of the rule, that mattered and took it upon himself to make his own decisions. What I am trying to do is CLARIFY what the rules are before we play so that everyone knows them ahead of time. That way there won't be problems.

What is starting to become apparent to me is the strange insistance upon doing exactly what we did in BtP and then acting like it is, somehow, different.

We have to have community rules to avoid exactly what your scenario entails. Because that is basically what happened between me and Cybershy I would know exactly how it went down and would could have prevented it. It isn't the fact that we are going to vote on the rules now that are going to cause future issues, but that if we DO NOT make a clear rule on the issue that we WILL have it occur again.

EDIT: And I don't recall once saying we are voting on the principle of a rule.