Domination of Barbarians [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[France (DoB)]

I think there needs to be a further clarification on the clarification:

Rule 6.7 - "Tag teaming" as a response to Defenders Measured War (DMW) - It is perfectly within the rules for two teams to cooperate to keep a Defender constantly in a state of War by alternating Declarations of War to coincide with one "tag team" partner being forced into mandatory peace by DMW. As one partner accepts 10 turns peace, their partner can simultaneously Declare War.

In particular the term "simultaneously" above seems misleading as the new declaration of cannot be done until all other peace deals have been accepted in game or else the DMW will never have been completed since the definition of war is given as:

6.1.1.
"Continuous War" or a "Period of War" or "War" for a particular Civ is defined as beginning on the first turn that Civ is at War with anyone, and ending when that Civ is at Peace with everyone.

For practical purposes this may mean that if the DMW ends on Turn 100 then the new declaration of war may not be able to be declared until Turn 101 depending upon when everyone at war with the DMW defender accepts the Peace Treaty. By the definition above all previous wars must have ended before the new attacker can declare war.

[Sommerswerd]

Sure. If you look at the clarification you notice the phrase "It is perfectly within the rules for two teams to cooperate to keep a Defender constantly in a state of War", which means the 2nd Attacker does not have to wait for any Peace Treaty to be signed in order to declare War himself. In fact, why would he? He can declare War whenever her wants on whoever he wants, as long as the rules don't prevent him from doing so. I used the word "simultaneously" to indicate that the 2nd attacker's declaration of war can be in the same turn that the 1st attacker makes the mandatory Peace Treaty. EDIT: As long as it is AFTER the DMW Peace is in place. (It could also be any turn before or any turn after as a 2nd attacker can attack whenever he wants, independent of DMW being enforced on someone else). Upon reflection, I realize that I France is right and it was actually me who was mistaken. I will edit my posts accordingly and fix the clarifications to reflect this.

In other words France, the rule is intended to work exactly as you have already interpreted it. I posted the clarification so that we would have that memorialized somwhere that's easy to find.

[Sommerswerd]

For practical purposes this may mean that if the DMW ends on Turn 100 then the new declaration of war may not be able to be declared until Turn 101 depending upon when everyone at war with the DMW defender accepts the Peace Treaty. By the definition above all previous wars must have ended before the new attacker can declare war.

I may need a clarification on this question EDIT: Upon reflection, there was nothing wrong with the question, it was my answer that was indeed confusing.

If I understand correctly what you are asking, then the answer is that when you invoke DMW it only applies to the Civs you are at War with when you invoke it as well as any Civs who Declare War on you between the time you invoke DMW and the Time the DMW Peace goes into effect. Generally you invoke DMW against everyone that you are currently at War with, unless for some reason you specify that it doesent apply to certain Civs (like maybe if you have some seperate agreement with them that you will never invoke Measured War against them). So for example if Civ C declares War on Civ A then Civ B declares War on A then Civ D declares War on A, then A invokes Measured War, then B, C and D have to accept Peace treaties with A in 10 turns. If anytime AFTER A invokes measured War against B, C and D, Civ E comes along and declares War on A, the DMW against B, C, and D does not apply to E. A would have to make a seperate DMW declaration against E. DMW is different from SMW. DMW only applies to the individual attacker, not globally to all Civs. Note that with SMW you get mandatory Peace with ALL War opponents regardless of when they declared war on you, last turn or 100 turns ago, doesent matter. But with DMW you only get Peace from the guy you were at War with when you asked for DMW. The same is true for DMW.


I hope that was helpful. Let me know if you have any other questions. I will post that clarification now in case anyone else was confused about that.

[France (DoB)]

I wish I had understood that the Defender could pick and choose who they wanted peace with when declaring DMW as I would have done that differently. Oh well no big deal. Live and learn.

You should change item 6.1.1 though because it does not match what you have described as your intention for the rules.

By 6.1.1 War =

defined as beginning on the first turn that Civ is at War with anyone, and ending when that Civ is at Peace with everyone.

A simple substitution for the word "war" in 6.7 Defenders Measured War gives the following syntax.

Defenders Measured War - War ("defined as beginning on the first turn that Civ is at War with anyone, and ending when that Civ is at Peace with everyone.") may continue for 10 turns. After 10 turns, a 10 Turn peace treaty must be accepted"

As the substitution shows based upon the definition in 6.1.1, at the end of 10 turns the civ calling for DMW must be "at Peace with everyone" or else they are still at war!

I don't really care one way or another as long as I know what the rules are but as the above logic shows the rules as originally written do not match your intention/clarification.

[China (DoB)]

Is it possible Sommersword, that the official rules and clarifications be put in a word file that you can be attached and downloaded to reference and print off?

[Sommerswerd]

I wish I had understood that the Defender could pick and choose who they wanted peace with when declaring DMW as I would have done that differently. Oh well no big deal. Live and learn.

EDIT: Has anyone given you a Peace Treaty yet as a result of you asking for DMW? If not, then I don't see why you can't just retract your request for DMW as to one or more of the parties you are at War with. I doubt they would object if it has no effect on them. Given the fact that I botched the explanation of DMW, if you want to retract your DMW you can do so, although given your situation as you describe it, I am not sure you would want to. Anyway, its up to you.

You should change item 6.1.1 though because it does not match what you have described as your intention for the rules.

By 6.1.1 War =

A simple substitution for the word "war" in 6.7 Defenders Measured War gives the following syntax.

Defenders Measured War - War ("defined as beginning on the first turn that Civ is at War with anyone, and ending when that Civ is at Peace with everyone.") may continue for 10 turns. After 10 turns, a 10 Turn peace treaty must be accepted"

As the substitution shows based upon the definition in 6.1.1, at the end of 10 turns the civ calling for DMW must be "at Peace with everyone" or else they are still at war!

I don't really care one way or another as long as I know what the rules are but as the above logic shows the rules as originally written do not match your intention/clarification.

OK. EDIT: France you are absolutely right in your interpretation of 6.1.1 and I was wrong. I realized this after reviewing my notes. One The intent of 6.1.1 is to make it clear that if you declare War on someone in 300 BC and never make peace with them all the way until 1000 AD and beyond, you are still an Attacker in one continuous period of War, despite the fact that you and the Defender have never fought a battle. Another intent is to give a clear definition of how the word "War" is to be interpreted throughout the Measured War rules.The word "War" in 6.5 refers only to the war going on between the attacker and the Defender who requests DMW from that particular attacker. 6.1.1 is talking about Continuous War, however, I can see how that could be confusing, because I left the word "War" by itself in the section, when I could probably have just left it out. Thanks for pointing that out. For purposes of clarity, if you (you meaning anyone) find it confusing, you can just ignore the word "War" in 6.1.1, and focus on "Continuous War" and "Period of War."

Anyway, since you said you just want to know how it works, just to repeat, you have to ask for DMW again if you get attacked by somebody else after you invoke it the first time.

Hopefully that clarifies things a little.

[Sommerswerd]

Is it possible Sommersword, that the official rules and clarifications be put in a word file that you can be attached and downloaded to reference and print off?

Did you try highlighting them and copy/pasting into your own Word doc?

[Byzantium (DoB)]

SO are we switching back to 12hrs?

[Sommerswerd]

Just a general comment. The original Ruleset that I showed to Robert was about 4 times as long (yea... that's right) as the one we are using. It had alot of legalese and what-if's and clarifications and examples for reference of every possible this-and-that, and every imaginable eventuality. But then I realized that it was just way too long, and overly complex. When I first started participating in Civ forums, I used to be EXTREMELY into closely analyzing/interpreting rules and such and I got accused alot of being too "leagalistic." I have learned to tone that down alot over the years, believe it or not.

Anyway to get to the current ruleset I did alot of stripping down and simplifying and combining things to capture the spirit of the long-as-all-hell ruleset. I think the result is much easier to digest and understand, however, the risk you run with doing that (simplifying the rules) is that then you open things up to "alot of legalese and what-if's and clarifications and examples for reference of every possible this-and-that, and every imaginable eventuality." Plus in the simplification process, you may miss something. Of course, you can avoid some of that by having the super-long ruleset, but... you get the idea. Its a catch-22.

The point is, if anyone has any concerns over the rules or needs clarification on what I meant by this or that when I wrote it, just come to me and ask, and I will do my absolute best to answer any questions you have.

[Sommerswerd]

SO are we switching back to 12hrs?

We have players that say they can't do 12 hrs.

[France (DoB)]

If The word "War" in 6.5 refers only to the war going on between the attacker and the Defender who requests DMW from that particular attacker then does the term war in section 6.7.3, also dealing with DMW, only deal with the war between attacker and defender?

6.7.3. If the Defender has captured any cities in the War, he can not invoke Defender's Measured War, until the cities are either returned to the parties the cities were captured from, or refused by those Civs.

Specifically in the scenario of A declares war on B. A takes city from B. C declares war on A. A declares DMW on C.

If the term "war" in reference to DMW only refers to the war between the attacker and defender then A does not have to give the city back to B.

If the term "war" in this case refers to the continuous war definition then A has to give the city back to B.

I had originally assumed the latter especially since the rules used the term "parties" instead of "attacker" and the plural "Civs" implying a many-to-one relationship instead of the one-to-one relationship between the attacker and defender however I no longer have any clue. Which is it?

[Sommerswerd]

The latter. if you are going to call for DMW, you have to give back all the cities you have taken in the continuous War. Otherwise you could capture a bunch of cities and then use DMW to prevent your victim's ally from taking them back. The rules/wording are not perfect, but some thought was put into them.

Again, I think you were correct in pointing out that the inclusion of the solo word "War" in 6.1.1 (which is meant to define "Continuous War" and "Periods of War"). And again, I think this is a reflection of the attempt to simplify the ruleset. Thanks again for your diligence in pointing these things out before they become issues. EDIT: To reiterate, "War", "Continuous War", and "Period of War" all mean the same thing for the purposes of the Measured War rules, just as the rules suggest they do. France was correct to point this out, and I was mistaken to say "ignore the word "War." The definition is sound. My original explanation of rule 6.7 was unsound.

I think there are terms in the other Measured War rules that make it clearer how the rule is to be applied. The one thing that confuses matters is when you keep trying to apply rule 6.1.1 definition of "War" which I already said to just ignore, to the mentions of War in other rule sections. Just use section 6.1.1 to define Continuous War.

[Sommerswerd]

So I goofed everyone . Time to face the music and fess' up. You can see my edits above to reflect how I goofed, but I will summarize in one post here, and then go correct the clarifications and amend the rules appropriately. Thankfully this was spotted before it had any in-game effect

The conversation with France made me go back into my notes on the original ruleset and I realize that France had it right the first time... War in 6.7.3 is supposed to be governed by the definition of War in 6.1.1. That 6.1.1 definition of War applies to all the Measured War rules.

My error was in the clarification of 6.7 that I posted, again, as France originally pointed out. DMW is intended to end all Wars the Defender is in, regardless of when they were started and by who. I still intended players to be able to specifically exclude individual Civs from the DMW, but looking at the rule, it doesent allow that, and frankly such a situation is not going to work in practice for many reasons. So under Rule 6.7 DMW ends all Wars the player is in after 10 turns. Of course, if the Defender wanting to invoke DMW has taken cities in the War, they have to return them before they can invoke DMW (Rule 6.7.3).

So again, France was correct to say that this means the "Tag team" partner has to wait for the Peace to be accepted to Declare War on the Defender, if he wants his declaration of War to be outside of the DMW. Of course this raises the issue that I admittedly missed when making the rules. What happens if the Defender or Attacker fails to accept the Peace Treaty on the turn the DMW Peace takes effect?

So the answer has to be, that the 2nd Attacker can declare War the turn after the DMW peace was supposed to start, and not be affected by the DMW. So if the DMW Peace was supposed to start on turn 100 but it doesent get accepted until turn 101 or too late in turn 100 for the 2nd attaker to Declare War before the turn ends, the 2nd Attacker can declare War in turn 101 and this is considered a New War period, since all Wars with the Defender were supposed to end on turn 100.

So I think this is appropriate for an amendment, which I will write now. Again thanks to you France for pointing this out. I think this is a more clear solution.

[France (DoB)]

Given the fact that I botched the explanation of DMW, if you want to retract your DMW you can do so, although given your situation as you describe it, I am not sure you would want to. Anyway, its up to you.

No retraction necessary as the rules are now as I originally understood them when I declared the DMW.

[Greece (DoB)]

Greeks will welcome any timer reduction if possible, maybe not 12hrs but anything below 20hrs will satisfy us much what do you all think 16hrs?