The Dance of Civilizations [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread Pt1]

[Byzantium (DoC)]

No, sorry India. You can certainly declare war on me if you want. And if at some point in the future I ever declare war on you, I will try to fit in with the turn order of you and your existing enemies. But I can't agree that you can make a 'wartime double move' on me (i.e. the sort of double move banned by the rules, which include the turn before war). I have broken no rules, because we are not at war; I deserve to have the same protection that you and everyone else has against a wartime double move.

[Persia (DoC)]

Then just let India login first next turn (without him being allowed to declare war).
After that the turn order is fixed.

[India (DoC)]

No, sorry India. You can certainly declare war on me if you want. And if at some point in the future I ever declare war on you, I will try to fit in with the turn order of you and your existing enemies. But I can't agree that you can make a 'wartime double move' on me (i.e. the sort of double move banned by the rules, which include the turn before war). I have broken no rules, because we are not at war; I deserve to have the same protection that you and everyone else has against a wartime double move.

So basicaly because of your double move I cannot declare war in next turn to keep that turn order which we had for several turn before. The only way I could declare war is to make it -Byz-Ind-rest of my enemies- which is not good. So I guess I won't/can't declare war next turn. If next turn Byz moves before me -and I cannot ask them to not to because we are not at war- then the same situation remains.. I still can not declare war the way I wish.
(I want to stresss that this may look like a serious complain, but it isn't.. it's just a pity we couldnt keep the turn order for this reason.. the other reason to give the other player rection time is about fairness/strategy depending on how we look at it)

[Robert]

Just login first next turn, and the turn order is back as it was.

[Byzantium (DoC)]

India - I do see your point about turn order, that a completely unintended consequence of my using the fact that we are at peace to complete a particular move of my ships, means that you can't have both (a) the turn order you would like and (b) to declare war on me on one particular turn. I am kind of sorry for that, in that it wasn't my intention to create a particular turn order issue, but as is clear I am unrepenent at using a particular legitimate tactic to benefit my shipping. 'Double moves' in teh general sense you are using the word, as opposed to the sense in our rules of a wartime double move, happen all the time, and sometimes do bring advantages such as getting to a city site first, hiding troop movements from spying eyes etc., but of course tend to be followed by the other civ then having a 'double move' as you have just had against me.

Furthermore, while I have no desire to hide the fact that on this occasion I did move at the end of one turn and the beginning of the next for a partiuclar purpose, in fact I would probably have done so anyway. If you check the record you will see that often if a turn turns over in the late evening for me, I will often play my turn, the turn turns over, and then I play again. I'm not at war so I do often use the convenience of doing that.

[Russia (DoC)]

Russia says: well this all depends if an attack is coming. If a double move is used for the express purpose of gaining an advantage in a war to be declared, then it should due to the spirit of the law be disallowed.

I don't know the details or how this would possibly affect turn order.

[India (DoC)]

Fortunately I didnt want to declare war anyway.
But I'm thinking: it should be absolutely legal to ask for fixed turn order with someone, in cases like this. Same as I would declare war in character/story but wouldnt actualy declare war ingame-probably I would do it later, but I want fixed turn order before that.
While I was not war with Byzantium technically, it was a very war-like situation, timing is important in planning.
These kind of declarations won't always led to war, but when war occurs it is much easier to avoid the situation when you cannot declare it because it would be a double move.

Let's see a hypotetical situation:
I'd like to declare war on Byzantium next turn

Current turn order
-India
-Byz

I want to keep that way, I want that the next turn look like this:
-India; Declares war
-Byz; whut?

But I'm not always (just almost) front of my computer, since there was not war before, Byzantium can move before me in the next turn, take an extra move which maybe I wouldnt want them to do.
To avoid this I make a war declaration after they made their turn (I can not log in the first turn because I'd lose the right to move first in the next) so I only declare war in the story/org thread and ask that the turns should be fixed from now on.
ok if you understand all these (remember, only hypotetical ) what do you think?

[Byzantium (DoC)]

Interesting.

I can see merit in what you say if the declaration in the story/org thread is binding. I.e. you then have to declare in-game the next turn. But I can't see many wanting to take advantage of this because you would be declaring without knowing that I had just doen in my move, whcih would be pretty risky.

I don't think it can work if the declaration isn't binding, nor do I think you can ask for a fixed turn order with someone when there isn't war, because this could multiply up the number of turn orders operating which very soon slows down the whole game. For example, I am pretty suspicious of Korea, so should I fix turn order with it. But then you are suspicious of them too (i presume?) and so you want to fix turn order with them. But then you are also suspicious of me, so want to fix with me. Already just between the three of us we have then got a fixed order of three people, none of whom are at war. These suspicions could go on for years. I may be wrong, and perhaps it is possible, but it sounds complicated to me. The way I see it is that we have to make a compromise between (1) fixed turn order for everyone which would take ages and (2) complete free-for-all. The compromise being free for all in peace, fixed in war, which at least is clear.

Without wanting to be rude, much of the apparent complication here is caused by your desire to have a certain turn order. In your descriptoin above "i want to keep it that way". I don't think we can guarentee that for people. You can try to fix a certain turn order. You can declare war when you want. But it can't be guarenteed that you can have both. Though perhaps I'm wrong.

[India (DoC)]

Yeah, asking ofr fixed turns probably could be abusable.. "I ask for fixed turn order with everyone just in case.." but if we could use it in the right way it could make the game a bit more fair.. well, probably doesn't worth the trouble...

The other thing, a war declaration in the story/org thread which is binding should work and would have its uses. Now for example I could wait till Byz moves, declare war on him in the story/org thread so I can start in the next turn without worrying that He can log in earlier, bring more troops whatever. It's a very situational thing.. I should have some reason why i didn't declare war on him in the previous turn, and why is it important to start in the next.

[India (DoC)]

Bah game seems to be down.. and I have to leave soon, I1m checking if it's the game or just civstats, I wont actualy wait for the game to load

[Robert]

Sorry guys, I was working on some electricity here and then I turned off the wrong group. (wel, it was lthe right group, but I never expected the servers (on another floor!) to bea part of this group)

anyway, starting up again.
Arabia / Britannia will have to replay again. I"m sorry.

Game's up.

[Ottoman Empire (DoC)]

Well, better wait a bit now then be sorry tomorrow.
But I'm not really happy that the Ottoman player did not give us a heads up after he was not able to make it yesterday at the time he said.

Sorry guys, haven't been able to check in as often as I'd like.

RP, I want to clarify a couple things though:

1) I never asked for these pauses and don't expect them. I feel bad for the other players that had to wait for me. Sometimes real life dictates that I can't play a turn and so be it. I believe I even clearly stated in the first Russia/Ottoman war that the pauses aren't necessary.

2) The day in question I went to log in and play my turn at Noon. Game was unexpectedly paused so I couldn't play my turn. I then messaged to say I would be able to take my turn at 5. I logged back in at 5 and the game was still paused. I had to go out somewhere for the night and sorry I was not going to wait around. I don't have mobile access to the game!

I really appreciate all the hard work you put into running & organizing the game but please realize the game sometimes takes a back seat to real life!

In future please don't pause on my behalf as it's often happened that I log in at the last minute to play my turn when I'm supposed to, only to find it paused which creates situations like the above.

[Robert]

Ottoman: the game was defenitely up a the time you said that you were going to be around. Perhaps you wrote down the wrong time?

Anyway: next time leave a note that says: "don't wait for me"
I always wait for a player during wartime to avoid big problems. If you don't leave a specific note then I will wait.

So please be specific.
Thanks for your nice attitude!

[India (DoC)]

I will write a stroy post later, but briefly:
First I have finished my turn despite it doesnt show, so go on my enemies

I have declared war on Inca and then Byzantium.

Inca logged in during my turn and in the end we made peace. (the thing that Inca was present during our war was unexpected by me, but it didn't make any difference)

[Inca (DoC)]

India tells true story as only difference is I make cease fire immediate and accept city back. No difference as no way to stop battleships and infantry and no choice but cease fire for city.