Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[The Priest]

Oh stop the histrionics. The rules are clear. They were even posted above but you seem not to have noticed them. They are there on the first page.

03. Wartime Double Moves
a. Civilizations that are at war have to observe the turn order. The turn order is set during the first turn of the war. If the invaded party played first in the turn before the war started, then the agressor must let him play first in the next turn as well before he can declare war on him.

b. Players are free to agree on a new turn order if all involved parties agree and this new turn order is published in the organization thread and all involved parties publish their agreement there as well.

c. The host will pause the game if the turn is about to advance in about 2 hours while any player involved did not play his turn.

d. During war all players must always play their turn. If it takes a player more then 24 hours the game administrator will look for a temp sub.

How about a simple - "sorry, didn't know it was my responsibility to notify the host if my enemy isn't playing his turns" rather than all the aggression?

[Arabia (DoE)]

Isn't this the second time Arabia has doubled moved?

If me waiting multiple turns for a player who isn't playing to move is a double move than guilty as charged.

your 2nd post seems to ignore the fact that we weren't aware of all that. you can't blame us for not knowing what happened overthere.

My second post was more of speaking out against a reoccurring problem then trying to defend my specific situation. It was mostly spawned by Ozzy suggesting that the Jerusalem situation be altered since we are rolling turns back anyway.

[Arabia (DoE)]

- Double Move
Civilization is a turn-based game, like ie. chess. Players play their turn in a certain order. First Player A, then Player B, etc.
Because of the nature of a multiplayer-pitboss game, all players are abe to login whenever they want. This means that the turn order will likely be broken during the game
When a certain player plays twice in a row without another player playing his turn in between, it's been called a double move.
In example: During Turn 80 Player A plays first, Player B logs in to the game 3 hours later and plays his turn. Then the game proceeds to turn 81, PLayer B logs in first and plays his turn. Now Player B has played 2 turns in a row without Player A playing in between. This is being called a "Double Move"

Is this how the rules address the double move?!?! Jesus Christ on a horse, are you telling me this STILL hasn't been addressed?!?!?

So, on a 24 hour timer for example civA declares war on CivB at 23:59 in the turn. CivB doesn't play their turn until 23:59 the next turn. So CivA now has a ONE SECOND WINDOW to play that turn???????????

I CANNOT BELIEVE WITH ALL THE PROBLEMS THE DOUBLE MOVE HAS CAUSED IN THE PAST THIS IS THE RULE WE HAVE. UNBELIEVABLE!

*goes into a convulsive seizure*

[The Priest]

Isn't this the second time Arabia has doubled moved?

[Robert]

Arabia: short respnse from me now: first post is a good explanation. it seems to be in line with what India said. your 2nd post seems to ignore the fact that we weren't aware of all that. you can't blame us for not knowing what happened overthere. and that's why we asked, so you could explain, which you did. it would have been better if you would have notified us about the situation, but I read your explanation as an honest attempt to give India a chance. assuming that what you said is true, I think that we can unpause the game. I am glad that the ottomans asked for a pause. better paused too much then too little. thanks for your explanation

I will wait 2h before I unpause the game to let people comment.

[Arabia (DoE)]

If you have no choice (the opponent is not playing) you have to contact the gm.

Can you please quote where this rule is written? I waited entire turns to avoid the "double move".

[mzprox]

The deabate/reload is not because of the output of the war. It's simply against the rules to make double moves during wartime. If you have no choice (the opponent is not playing) you have to contact the gm. If you had an agreement with the other civ it's still better to tell to avoid this kind of confusion.

[Arabia (DoE)]

Ok, now on to how this is being handled.

First off, I want to thank India for taking responsibility for their oversight, just as I did when Egypt settled my land while I was missing turns. I wouldn't even be opposed to releasing the city back to India if they can develop some clever diplomacy and have an interest in the game. I question the latter however as I believe they haven't posted anything since the game began. I'm not going to handicap myself for the benefit of someone who only has a passing interest in the game.

Aside from that, I find it VERY disturbing how there are even discussions OOC about how things SHOULD have went whenever someone losses a city. Consideration to rolling back turns to enact these OOC opinions and change history to whatever the majority thinks should have happened is ****ing ridiculous. Here is an idea, why don't we just have a vote on how the whole game should turn out, then we can all play accordingly and eliminate all this red tape. Give me a break.

Go ahead and roll it back 5-6 turns, I will still take the city because I sat there for 5-6 turns waiting for him to do something.

Trying to influence in-game outcomes with OOC banter for self interest is flat out wrong. This is something I have seen time and time again in these diplogames and someone should really get a handle on it. It undermines the integraty of the game. It causes any aggressor to not only have to consider the risk of losing a war, but also the risk that his strategy will be negated by OOC opinions, voting, etc...

Perhaps it is time to consider slowing the timer down indefinitely. With a small 8 hour window to work with there is no doubt this is going to happen again. It has already happened 3 times.

[Arabia (DoE)]

Whew, where to begin? Guess I will explain the FACTS of what happened. Aside from that, I have MAJOR issues with how this is being handled, which I will address in my next post.

Myself and India were both ingame. I requested that he settle no further west because he already settled a city west of his capital (Bombay) and another city west of that would place him next to my capital. His response ingame was basically what right do i have to that land.

Then, in the story thread I posted this communication, and the Arabs intention to send an army and show them what right so to speak.

I moved the army into his boarders, thus declaring war. Because of his meager forces (basically a warrior defending the city) I felt no need to request a timer adjustment for myself, at least not yet, plus I believe we were on a 14 hour timer anyway from the Ottoman/Egypt war. My understanding of extending the timer for war is that it is done upon request, not automatically, thus no obligation for either side to notify RP.

My intention was to only to intimidate, and perhaps pick up some story votes (posting intentions in the story thread, then following up on it ingame). However, I did notice India didn't seem to be playing as he made no effort to move his worker, beg for mercy, or make a deal. So instead of taking advantage of the situation, I waited, and waited, and waited for him to either post or at least play a turn. This is why my last story post on the matter was called the Siege of Bombay, and indicated that all Arabia was looking for was acknowledgment from India that Bombay would be their western border, but also that something had to give soon indicating that I wasn't going to wait forever. If there is a way see when war was declared verses when I actually took the city you will see a large grace period of at least 5-6 turns in which I waited for their response.

During this time, St. Jon was posting about his lack of interest in the game, etc... which made me believe he was India. My thoughts at that point were he isn't going to care anyway, and I already invested in this army and transported it, so I might as well see a return on my investment. I gave India AMPLE time to do something, not that I was obligated to.

I went above and beyond to give India a chance, and to be honest, some simple diplomacy would have saved their city.

[China (DoE)]

Yes to be fair we should wait for Arabia to tell his side.

[Robert]

Well, that is your fault indeed, and you're very nice for admitting that.
But it's Arabia's fault to continue the war while you weren't playing your turns. Well, it may be, Arabia has to explain and may come with a good explanation.

[India (DoE)]

No blame on Arabs as I did not know of war but that was because of missing turns and not reading stories. Things might have been different if I had known but it's my fault that I didn't know.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

@RP no Bombay is still there. See the story posts, my traders reported it had been captured by the Arabs.

[France (DoE)]

20 or 30 votes. I am easy either way.

Being new to the game, I leave it to Robert as to whether we go back a few turns.

As to Jerusalem.. maybe time for a crusade.

[China (DoE)]

I vote against a reload. The only way we can truly keep order is by sticking to the rules, which are very clearly stated and dictate that upon war, the parties must declare it to RP, who will then put a 24-hr clock. If after the first 24-hr one party hasn't played their turn, we should pause and wait for them.

Arabia, as an invader, did they inform anyone of their attack? I'm a little suspicious as to their actions, as being a neighbour of India as well it has been quite clear to me that they have not been playing their turns for the last little while. I would be surprised if Arabia did not notice this as well and immediately inform RP.

I apologize Arabia if this is not the case but I just can't imagine how you wouldn't realize that India was not playing their turns, in which case you should have notified RP to pause.