New diplo game: big discussion needed

[The Capo]

Incase anyone missed it I did vote yes unless I'm purposely being excluded from the list.

Sorry that was entirely unintentional. The vote so far is four in favor and four against.

[Robert]

Please remove my vote from this poll, like I already requested.

[mzprox]

I can say that I personally don't think its necessary to have an extra rule for this (again), I don't think the potential for exploit is worth the trouble of the problems and reloads that will arise from it (again), and as St. Jon has expained its something that isn't going to have the same effect in different poitns in the game (again a pointless rule).

The first two points i respect, i just disagree, but the third is not right: the rule has nothing to do with units and ages: the "unfair" move can be done with warriors and modern armors aswell. Just because sometimes it doesnt matter it doesnt make it a pointless rule for the cases when it would matter.

A: The turn and move when "A" player declares war
these are right:
// A<->B //A<->B //A<->B /..../ B->A// B->A // B->A //
or:
// A<->B //A<->B //A<->B /..../A->B//A->B // A->B //

this is bad:

// A<->B //A<->B //A<->B /.... / B->A// A->B // A->B //

Not harder to avoid than any other double move. If "A" moved after his future victim in the turn then he shouldnt start the next or at least he should wait for the minimum time to elapse. And then everyone would be happy

[Robert]

Why is Situation 1 ok and Situation 2 not ok?

SITUATION 1



SITUATION 2

[OzzyKP]

That's the exact same picture...

[classical_hero]

The Rules of War should only apply when Civs are actually at war. Therefore the rule should take effect from the moment war is declared. If this happens halfway through a turn, then the attacking player has half a turn left to play.

The only consideration that should be made regarding the turn before, is if the attacker is the last person to end their turn. If Civ A ends their turn, and then is attacked by Civ B who then also ends their turn, but Civ C has yet to end a turn, then the War started when Civ B played. Thus any build-up and surprise attack is valid. If Civ B caused the turn to flip, then they should log out without moving and observe the Wartime rules.

That is my opinion, and is the interpretation that I am going to recommend be included in the WPC House Rules (You're welcome to use the WPC rules here )

That makes a lot of sense

[Robert]

That's the exact same picture...

No, it's not. In one picture war is declared during turn 1, in another picture war is declared in turn 2.

But yes: it's exactly the same situation!
Same unfair advantage for the natives. same double move. same turn order that's being broken. same situation where sumerian don't have a chance te respond to move 1 of the natives.

It's completely the same situation, that's why the same rules should apply.

[Robert]

What MMC says is exactly what we are trying to say. I think his formulation is a bit complicated though.

It all comes down to: "Double moves are not allowed during war, nor can the declaration of war be a part of a double move"

We should not treath the same situation differently, that's unfair and it's going to cause another hell lot of troubles.

[St Jon]

No, it's not. In one picture war is declared during turn 1, in another picture war is declared in turn 2.

But yes: it's exactly the same situation!
Same unfair advantage for the natives. same double move. same turn order that's being broken. same situation where sumerian don't have a chance te respond to move 1 of the natives.

It's completely the same situation, that's why the same rules should apply.

You keep doing this scenarion with Galleys and Macemen. You cannot ignore how Transports and Tanks change things! You then don't just have to worry about the Turn before war but an infinite number of Turns back. You can never enforce it. 20 Turns before Natives began their plot to hit Sumeria, and started moving Troops into position, but 15 Turns ago Turn sequence changed. Can Sumeria call foul over that?

You cannot ignore that by a proactive responce you will still turn the Sumerians into the wrongdoers. If you have a Double-Move before war time Rule then Natives do nothing wrong in their move if they moved before Sumeria the Turn before war. If Sumeria move first on the next Turn then they have to be the Rule breakers if they do the only logical thing and attack those Galleys!

There is another BIG point and that is a Game played over 3 continents. I know where all the people in BtP are and when they, usually, play their Turns. Because of geography I move against Sumeria at the end of my Turn and go to bed safe in the knowledge that when I wake up the next day they will be fast asleep and 6hrs will have elapsed. I can then LEGITIMATELY - under any set of Rules - move again and take Uruk! Natives will have broken no Rule and the worst that anyone can cry is that I have not played within the 'Spirit of the Game'. You can never implement a Rule on what is, or is not, within the 'Spirit of the Game' as it will always mean different things to different people.

[The Capo]

I just want to say that I am thuroughly happy that this debate is occuring now and in this setting, rather than during a game where tempers are bound to run high. Unfortunately there still seems to be anger over past disagreements. Disagreement is a GOOD THING. The fact that we all don't agree is not BAD, it is good that we are trying to solve these issues in a situation that is non-related to a current game. We can disagree about all sorts of issues, and in fact I am pretty sure that if we went down a litany of items we would find that we all disagree with one another in some way. So again, disagreement should not equal dislike. We must accept that we have differing views on a subject.

Having said that, I am upset that CS has decided he doesn't want to vote in this poll. I am going to keep his vote in favor of counting the turn prior to war in the record because I know that is what he thinks and I know that we need to get a good consensus for future games. What is disheartening is the fact that this is starting to become a personal matter yet again. Which is something I thought we would be able to avoid by doing it like this. I will honestly and readily admit that I have entertained, with a few other Diplogamers here at Apolyton, the potential idea of starting another Diplo-group on another website. After seeing how important this website is to people in the wake of DanQ's leave I think this would not be wise at this juncture. Not because I consider the move bad (ideally we'd just be expanding the group, not necessarily LEAVING Apolyton) but because I see now with the state of things here how it would be perceived. Unfortunately it seems like there is an impasse that may need more than a simple new uniform set of rules to fix.

What I really want to suggest, and now that I KNOW Cyber has the authority to do this, is that we ELIMINATE the Diplogame CivGroup from Apolyton as it stands to do and RECREATE IT. Basically I think we should purge the roster and have whatever members of Apolyton sign up for it that want to. That way we can get an accurate list of current players (I'm pretty sure you'll still see names like drake and GNGSpam or even guys like SunTzu on that list if you looked), from that point on we should start a thread and call it the "Diplogame Convention." This has to be done WITHOUT the personal issues that resulted from BtP, if this can not be done I don't think this group will survive considering how personal some of these discussions have become. I am legitimately trying to solve this matter, but it sucks when you have a certain outlook on a topic and you get nothing but a constant barrage of the EXACT SAME POINTS over and over again. I understand your position, I just disagree with it. That's all there is to it.

So I ask that Cyber either delete and restart the civGroup, or clean it up, or whatever he has to do so we can get people who either (a) still want in to stay in, or (b) who don't to leave it. This way we can get a good list of Diplogamers and from there we can FINALLY have a big meeting to determine where we are going with this genre. I won't leave Apolyton, but I am asking Apolyton not to let me go either.

[The Capo]

There is another BIG point and that is a Game played over 3 continents. I know where all the people in BtP are and when they, usually, play their Turns. Because of geography I move against Sumeria at the end of my Turn and go to bed safe in the knowledge that when I wake up the next day they will be fast asleep and 6hrs will have elapsed. I can then LEGITIMATELY - under any set of Rules - move again and take Uruk! Natives will have broken no Rule and the worst that anyone can cry is that I have not played within the 'Spirit of the Game'. You can never implement a Rule on what is, or is not, within the 'Spirit of the Game' as it will always mean different things to different people.

To expound upon this point I have been in games, even when we were limited to SEVEN CIVS, where we had at least five continents represented (Europe, North America, South America, Asia and Australia). Imagine that happening again, ultimately don't we want Diplogames to get back to that point? The main argument against the turn before idea is that it is unweildy and hard to properly manage. And as Jon stated, it leaves room open for interpretation which can be damning to any game (as we've seen from BtP).

Now, I have to make a response to a couple of points that have been made by Cyber and mzprox;

Cyber: Capo is only taking this position because of what happened in our argument in BtP.

The problem with this point CS is that the double-move was never necessary for me to make. It just happened that way because I had to play at that time. You had no idea I would declare war on you, no units were MOVED at all, let alone to your border. I didn't move any units the turn prior. So the argument that I prevented you from noticing a troop build-up is not only incorrect, but irrelevant.

mzprox: why do you guys take this position? do one of you plan on using this exploit?

I can obviously only speak for myself; I do not, at this point in time, foresee myself attempting to use this exploit. The main reason is because of potential political ramifications. Since I see it as a legitimate, yet underhanded, tactic I expect the same response I would get by doing something similar... let's say getting troops gifted to me by an ally and then using them against him , when I did that very thing I expected (1) never to be trusted again by anyone, and (2) to be considered a villain for doing so. Both things happened as many players mentioned they would never trust Korea again. And THIS is my point. We should attempt, where possible, to keep the rules as lax as possible and allow the players and diplomacy to dictate how the game progresses. You are arguing a sense of fairness, however you fail to see our argument that it is an unweidly and unspecific rule, and we have seen how unweildy and unspecific rules can ruin a game... and potentially friendships...

[St Jon]

To expound upon this point I have been in games, even when we were limited to SEVEN CIVS, where we had at least five continents represented (Europe, North America, South America, Asia and Australia). Imagine that happening again, ultimately don't we want Diplogames to get back to that point? The main argument against the turn before idea is that it is unweildy and hard to properly manage. And as Jon stated, it leaves room open for interpretation which can be damning to any game (as we've seen from BtP)..

I totally agree. If we have situations where Rules have to be made up 'on the run' you will get discord and lasting ill will, within that game, and you will lose players. Who wants to take part in a geme where the wars take place more frequently on the 'Arguement and Debate, Thread than on the 'Story' Thread?

The lessons of BtP need to be learnt and acted on rather than just ignored as unique situations with stroppy people refusing to accept that we are all playing 'within the spirit of the game'! It is a lovely idea that we will share a single idea of what is right or wrong but that is not how life works.

I can obviously only speak for myself; I do not, at this point in time, foresee myself attempting to use this exploit. The main reason is because of potential political ramifications. Since I see it as a legitimate, yet underhanded, tactic I expect the same response I would get by doing something similar... let's say getting troops gifted to me by an ally and then using them against him , when I did that very thing I expected (1) never to be trusted again by anyone, and (2) to be considered a villain for doing so. Both things happened as many players mentioned they would never trust Korea again. And THIS is my point. We should attempt, where possible, to keep the rules as lax as possible and allow the players and diplomacy to dictate how the game progresses. You are arguing a sense of fairness, however you fail to see our argument that it is an unweidly and unspecific rule, and we have seen how unweildy and unspecific rules can ruin a game... and potentially friendships.

This is again true. I see a move as just a clever tactical manouvre and you see it as cheating. You come back to the 'spirit of the game' ideal which just cannot ever work.

So I ask that Cyber either delete and restart the civGroup, or clean it up, or whatever he has to do so we can get people who either (a) still want in to stay in, or (b) who don't to leave it. This way we can get a good list of Diplogamers and from there we can FINALLY have a big meeting to determine where we are going with this genre. I won't leave Apolyton, but I am asking Apolyton not to let me go either.

A sound idea. Demo-Games have their own sub-forum and SMAC MP has a Sticky for a list of all active players with their preferences so why not Diplo? Get things set straight BEFORE you have arguements so that people know what they're getting into.

[mzprox]

mzprox: why do you guys take this position? do one of you plan on using this exploit?

I can obviously only speak for myself; I do not, at this point in time, foresee myself attempting to use this exploit. The main reason is because of potential political ramifications. Since I see it as a legitimate, yet underhanded, tactic I expect the same response I would get by doing something similar...

You say that we should let it remain a legitimate tactic. The problem with this is that in certain circumstances it can be too powerfull and it would make people exploit the clock to gain advantage (i.e. making a legitimate double move). Actually I'm about to change my claim what i did a few post ago. In case we let this in i would use it... just for educational purposes to show how can it be exploited .

I strongly disagree tho about the difficulties of using this rule, because it's nothing more but using the same double move rule we will have, except the turn order would not be determined by the war's first turn's order but by the previous one.
so this would not be allowed:
//A<->B //A<->B /.... / B->A// A->B // A->B // (A doing obvious war moves, but not at war yet. A declaring war and moving again without giving B a chance to react on A.

[mzprox]

1, You cannot ignore how Transports and Tanks change things! You then don't just have to worry about the Turn before war but an infinite number of Turns back.

2, You cannot ignore that by a proactive responce you will still turn the Sumerians into the wrongdoers.

3, If you have a Double-Move before war time Rule then Natives do nothing wrong in their move if they moved before Sumeria the Turn before war. If Sumeria move first on the next Turn then they have to be the Rule breakers if they do the only logical thing and attack those Galleys!

4, There is another BIG point and that is a Game played over 3 continents....

1, they don't change anything- transports can move 7 tiles but you can scout that far to spot an invasion and be able to react. The no double move rule is not dependant on units or ages.. it just about the turn sequence
Also: double move doesnt matter unless at least one of those moves happen in wartime-thats why we dont have to go back to -2, -3...-20 turns before war, but only 1.

2, Doing pre-emtive strike on an aproaching fleet doesnt make someone wrongdoer, but attacking is not the only option one can have when see a suspcious army.

3, Why should they be "rulebreakers"?
Here are all the possible scenario, write down in which the sumers are "forced" break the rule:
a, scenario:
turn1
-sumeria - see no danger
-natives - moves his fleet to attacking position

turn2
-sumeria -hmm.. i might be in danger, doing diplomacy, mobilization, maybe even attacking the suspicious fleet
-natives - they can attack according to the rules because summeria had moved.

b, scenario
turn1
-natives - moves his fleet to attacking position
-sumeria -react somehow

turn2
-natives - again they can attack according to the rule

c, scenario
turn 1
-sumeria - see no danger
-Natives - moving into attack position

turn2
-natives - attacking without waiting for sumeria- this is what we want to rule out
-sumeria - where is my city?

d, scenario

Turn 1
natives - moving into attack position
sumeria -doing pre-emtive strikes

turn2
sumeria - continue doing preemtive strikes - clear double move.... not permited

No more possible scenario..

4, these arguments are about the same problems we face with the normal "no double move" rule. As i said before including one more turn wont make upholding it more difficult.

[MMC]

That's the exact same picture...

Agreed. That post links to situtation1.jpg twice. Not only that, situation2.jpg is pixel-for-pixel exactly the same.