Ruleset Discussion

[DNK]

Well, it's a good way to see what the other civ was doing and how they run things. A good learning experience, and who wouldn't want to rile up an ex-opponent by adding more rancor to their debates?

[mzprox]

Seems we still couldn't finalize the ruleset. We at Apolyton don't have an internal agreement either on some of the topics.

1, we really should not assume that cfc is gona use spy economy. Their unique buildings give them +2 happyness, we too build jails as soon as we can so they won't be ahead of us. They having spi leader are the best position when it comes to civic changing missions, but a: no spy economy is required for that, b: we also had the option to choose spi leader, c Apolyton is one of the teams which allowed civic change missions.

2, double moves. as far as I can tell we don't need to debate the proposed rules, not much difference, we will adapt our gameplay.

3, resource denial by bombing/sabotaging: I just can't see reason why to put some artificial rule to prohibit it.

[Dinner]

I agree with all three of those points.

[Calanthian]

Yes agreed.

[DNK]

eh, seems like I've lost that. That said, the amount of complaining Sommers has done over the proposal lends further evidence to the fact they're seriously considering an ESP economy or abuse of such a mechanic. I'll bow out of that debate now, though, as it will serve little purpose for our team. We'll find out soon enough what CFC is up to anyway in-game.

[OzzyKP]

We are going to have to vote on the ruleset soon I imagine. Let's first resolve the issue of the denial of resource issue.

For those not aware about the issue, when we fight wars in Pitboss turn order is maintained to prevent double moving. We now have a mod that enforces this automatically. Typically the aggressor will move first in the turn and the defender second in the turn. The problem is created when the person moving second in the turn destroys a strategic resource of his opponent, either through espionage or bombardment. Denying oil or other important strategic resources can, of course, have a huge impact on a war. Since the person seeking to deny access to the resource moves last in the turn there is no chance for the resource owner to repair it that turn. They may try to rebuild the well/pasture/mine in the first half of the next turn, but their opponent could destroy it again in the second half of the turn. This could go on forever and thus the player in the second half of the turn could block access to a resource forever. This cannot be countered.

Some people, Sommers in particular, believe this is just the advantage of playing second in the turn. Others believe this is an exploit and an unfair advantage. I don't have very strong feelings about it, but it does seem fishy and seems to exploit the concept of turn order for an unbalancing advantage. I think we should vote on this issue so we can have an official opinion from Team Apolyton.


Should Team Apolyton support a rule banning perpetual denial of strategic resources by the second turn player during a war?

Yes
OzzyKP
DNK

No
mzprox
Dinner
Calanthian

[Hercules]

... The problem is created when the person moving second in the turn destroys a strategic resource of his opponent, either through espionage or bombardment. Denying oil or other important strategic resources can, of course, have a huge impact on a war. Since the person seeking to deny access to the resource moves last in the turn there is no chance for the resource owner to repair it that turn. They may try to rebuild the well/pasture/mine in the first half of the next turn, but their opponent could destroy it again in the second half of the turn.

Should Team Apolyton support a rule banning perpetual denial of strategic resources by the second turn player during a war?

Yes
OzzyKP
DNK

No
mzprox
Dinner
Calanthian

It is not clear if it is a single resource (say oil) destroyed from one mine/well site or all resource of (say oil) from all mines/wells, destroyed/interrupted by one single spy espionage action.

If one spy can halt all site resource production that is unbalanced.

If 5 spies at 5 different locations say sabotage production that seems legimate. The aim would be to be aware of such counter action.

[OzzyKP]

Oh, you mean my wording of the question? It is supposed to refer to destroying resources on the map. What other way are you suggesting?

[DNK]

Let's just choose a preexisting ruleset rather than further complicating this procedure. I think there's only likely to be the two, and they're a bit apart. I don't want to drag this out much longer, so let's vote for either CFC's or Parkin's proposals? I'm actually split between them due to Parkin's handling of some issues, despite previous comments of mine.

[OzzyKP]

Civ4Players said they wanted a rule on this. I'm sure Realms Beyond does too. The other teams might not have the stomach to argue about it forever, but there is probably a majority in favor of a rule if it were put to a vote.

[DNK]

Well, if we're voting on it, I want to make my position clear. The wording as statement has a huge loophole.

A resource cannot be sabotaged or bombarded within 1 turn of its being improved.

Otherwise a team that is NOT at war can sabotage at will any team that is at war and stuck on the first half of the turn timer, even if not at war with the saboteur. It also prevents teams from having to constantly log in at the end of the turn to see if they got sabotaged, etc, when not at war.

[Dinner]

Ozzy, seems like an exploit.

[Calanthian]

I would rather have some rule like:

"Every in-game action which cannot be countered by a counter strategy is prohibited.
No unfair advantages may derive from turn order, XXX and XXX..

Examples of this are: ...

If the above applies this action may be taken ONE SINGLE TIME.
"

[OzzyKP]

Sommers is always scheiming. He just sent this PM to me, Magno_uy, plako, r_rolo1 & sunrise089:

I havent said anything about this in the public threads because some guys are working really hard on it, but the whole constant switching turnorder is kind of absurd right?

Anyway, I think all of this maneuvering is all over one thing, the idea that someone will be perpetually denied Oil right? So how about everyone just gets Oil in their capital, the same way everyone got Uranium in their capital last game. Then all this wrangling over turn order is over and we can just start. This is what I propose:

Effective immediately, all Teams give their implied consent for r_rolo1 to be the final arbiter on the Final ruleset. He will amend/adjust the rules how he sees fit based on all the arguments he has heard and publish his final ruleset in a timely manner.

Implied Consent means we assume that all Teams are in favor of r_rolo1's ruleset UNLESS a spokesman says they are explicitly voting against it. If a majority is against it then we can go back to wrangling, otherwise we can start.

All Teams will tell plako in 24 hours where they are putting their Capital, and he will put Oil on that tile. Game starts in 24 hours.

Can we do this?

[Dinner]

No.