Development of a Rules List

[Jon Shafer]

Okay, given the controversy, the two issues I plan on polling so far (on a team-by-team basis) are the ship-chaining and the use of F1.

We have yet to hear from a few teams on some of these issues, so discuss!

[DeepO]

Just to be clear: these are my opinions, I do not represent GS.

DeepO

[vondrack]

Originally posted by DeepO
H_E, that sounds like a extremely well planned and cunning way out of a bad situation

Exploit? Not at all. Why, because the others didn't see marines coming? When you're ready for a SS victory, so some 50 turns after you first could have discovered amph. warf.? I have no compassion whatsoever with those you beat, and if I would have been your opponent in that game I would have congratulated you.

If you use this story as a way to explain why either chaining, or F1 building is an exploit, you have exactly the same arguments for telling to people that the use of RRs is an exploit (as these were also part of your tactic), or that starting to build a SS component using a resource you are sure to have lost when the component completes is an exploit. (as I take it you only kept the alu city for that one turn). You did nothing illegal, not even fishy in that game, IMO. You just used the well-known game mechanics well.

DeepO

Ummm... as it was me on the receiving end of this extremely well planned and cunning way out of a bad situation, I guess I might add a few words here...

First of all... I hold no grudges against H_E - we have had quite a debate after the game and I hope we have remained good friends despite the rather bitter end of an exciting game (which was pretty much ruined by the map generator even before it came to the end H_E talked about).

The problem was not I did not know about ship chaining and thus did not see the invasion coming. I knew about it and believed it to be disallowed (H_E can attest that my tactics matched that). You can hardly say you have no idea why... the opinions on ship chaining differ, from being OK (C3C ISDG) to being banned (MZO C3C DG).

I can live with either way... after mulling it over for few days, I came to the conclusion that even if designers did not plan to have it work that way (which we do not know), it enhances the game and to an extent levels the ground for the attacker and defender. There are certainly much worse "exploits" possible... however, as I automatically considered it disallowed, I consciously did not plan for the possibility and lost the game.

So, I more than welcome this effort of H_E and Trip - let's talk about what is allowed and what is not. I hope we all understand that we are not trying to cast shadows on what happened in the past. Everything that was not expressly forbidden was allowed. No need to feel bad about the ToE build or anything. We may very well end up simply allowing almost everything... however, the important thing will be that we all will know that this or that is allowed and may be used without feeling bad about it.

See... like this F1 thingy... Trip can attest that few turns ago, Lego happened to have a wee little problem with a luxury supply. A game quirk made us lose one luxury supply even though we had it on turn X (last turn of the previous deal) and on turn X+1 (first turn of the next deal). I knew about the way how to fix the problem, but it involved, in a way, the F1 trick... I felt it was grey area at best, so I did not use it and consequently, Lego had some of its builds messed up. It was only afterwards that I posted about it in our forum and asked Trip about whether it was ok to use it or not (he said it was ok). Now I hear GS is using the trick with no hesitation... had I known, I would have used it, too.

So, I believe we simply need to publicly state what IS allowed and what IS NOT. Let's talk about pros and cons and let's accept the will of the majority... allowed or not, no big deal either way - we are all players good enough to play by just about any kind of rules of house rules set. Let's just make sure we all play by the same rules. Trust me, having a game ruined by something you thought was not allowed feels very bitter (and you have NOBODY to blame, not even yourself... ). It would feel even more bitter in this game we have all spent so much time with.

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by DeepO
H_E, that sounds like a extremely well planned and cunning way out of a bad situation

DeepO

The move was certainly not well planned out.
Cunning maybe…. but I think my good friend Vondrack came close to calling me a different name starting with cun* as soon as he realised what I did.



The tactic just happened to just fall into place, because I was using transports as a naval early warning picket line along vondracks coast. The transports just happened to be in the right place at the time when I needed them.

I thought the plan up on turn 1, and tweaked a couple of transport positions.

Lost my aluminium on turn 2 to vondracks rampaging army (the very turn I needed it for the last SS part). I built marines on turn 2 with F1, invaded on turn 2 with a transport chain, took his resource on turn 2, and switched my prebuild to the last SS part on turn 2.

On turn 3, the SS was complete.
I was very lucky to pull the whole thing off. Vondrack had me completely outclassed on the battlefield.

The bad feeling was simply because we had different views on transport chaining being an exploit. As Vondrack said, he could have easily defended his coastal cities better, had he known that I could use a transport chain.
Similarly, I would have not of even considered the move had I not thought the manoeuvre was completely valid.

In order to avoid something similar happening in this game **again** , Trip posted a suggested rule list.

So my vote would be yes to transport chains.
And although I understand the arguments for the use of the F1 trick, my gut tells me that I would prefer it banned…(or limited to fixing bugs under the supervision of Trip)
And the rule regarding the warping of units should be reworded to say that if the intention of gifting a city is to warp units, then it is against the rules. Ie city gifting happens sometimes, and a side effect is that units get warped. Side effect is OK.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
The bad feeling was simply because we had different views on transport chaining being an exploit. As Vondrack said, he could have easily defended his coastal cities better, had he known that I could use a transport chain.
Similarly, I would have not of even considered the move had I not thought the manoeuvre was completely valid.

To be fair, I should note here that had I known ship chaining was allowed, I would have had to deploy more of my troops defensively throughout the war and likely to build more navy on the expense of the sorely needed MA/MI, consequently having a bit less to throw at H_E in my desperate attempt to break his neck in time (which almost happened, though ). Perhaps I'd have been unable to reach his aluminium as fast as I reached it and he would have won anyway...

But ultimately, it's not about who won that game in the end. Considering the game as a whole, H_E did more or less deserve to win it, for numerous achievements. This was about the frustration I felt after opening the last save - I immediately knew what happened, since I knew the only way to pull a seaborne invasion was a ship chain. But at that moment, it was too late to discuss any rules. It was obvious H_E used a manoeuver he considered valid - asking him to replay without it would only bring in more frustration (this time on his side), so I didn't even try... it just felt very wrong and sad...

When it comes to voting on ship chaining, I am probably not going to want it banned now - I'll either abstain, simply accepting what others will want or even vote in favour of it, as I - after much thinking about it - came to like the twist it adds to the game.

As for F1... that's a different story. If it's going to be allowed, then we need to precisely list what is allowed and what is not. Clearly, double-use of tiles is a no-no, while changing production may be acceptable to the majority.

I would personally ban reassigning labourers in the city screen, be it tile->tile or labourer->specialist (though I would like to hear then, if taking a labourer off a tile and putting him immediately back there is ok or not... .

I only have a feeling about one other MZO list point: worker/arty double duty. Clearly, a double-duty is a no-no, but requiring alliances and peace treaties to be respected ingame goes beyond just preventing double duties. It makes even capturing (and using on the next turn) arty impossible, makes cutting resource trades impossible etc. Perhaps just rewording or dropping the "ingame alliance/peace" requirement would make it fine with me. Just state it's not allowed to use captured arty/workers on the turn they are captured if they have already been utilized on that very turn by another team (this would have to include "early completed" PBEM terrain improvements).

[Arrian]

I'm fine with F1 being legal, and I'm fine with it begin illegal. I never saw anything wrong with it (except the sharing tiles thing, which honestly never occurred to me), but if others think it's an exploit, so be it.

to all playing by the same rules.

-Arrian

[bongo]

The sharing tiles thing sounds bad, the other uses of 'F1' sounds acceptable.

[Theseus]

In general, I lean towards DeepO's philosophy, i.e., we have to distinguish between exploits and expertise.

Trip, what resolution mechanism(s) do you intend?

[Arrian]

So...

Um...

What's up, Doc?

-Arrian

[Jon Shafer]

Polling commences soon (as soon as I can get the polls up ).

[Jon Shafer]

If there are any other "controversial issues" which the teams would prefer to have individual polls on please let me know. Otherwise, I will be lumping all of the rest of the rules into a single document to be given a thumbs up or down as a whole by each team.

Additionally, something that needs to be addressed is punishments for rule infractions. I can obviously watch for any breaking of the rules and quickly leverage punishment of some sort if the teams would like. While I don't think that explicit breaking of the rules is something that the group we have here will engage in, I believe it's appropriate for the sake of thoroughness (what's the point in having rules if there's no bite to them?).

I personally would suggest the skipping of turns as a punishment for breaking the rules, with a certain amount based upon the severity of the infraction. For example, if a team teleports 1-10 units they lose one turn, 11-20 they lose 2, etc. We don't have to get that detailed, but I'm just using an example.

One final thing for the teams to consider: a battle log. This has been something that has been very popular for the C3C ISDG, and I feel that it would also be a good system to impliment in this game as well. I think it's just as unfair for teams to be unable to know what happened to their units in this game as it would be in any other.

Please discuss.

[bongo]

Originally posted by Trip
One final thing for the teams to consider: a battle log. This has been something that has been very popular for the C3C ISDG, and I feel that it would also be a good system to impliment in this game as well. I think it's just as unfair for teams to be unable to know what happened to their units in this game as it would be in any other.

Battle log? What's that?
(I am not taking part in the c3c isdg)

[DeepO]

the punishment for breaking rules? What about having to replay the turn, and be the ass of the public forum for a month because you made a mistake? Nobody is going to willingly break any rules everybody agrees upon...

Oh and battle log: please explain, not everyone is in the c3c isdg.

DeepO

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by bongo
Battle log? What's that?
(I am not taking part in the c3c isdg)

Basically you give details of any combat between you and another team to that team. Since you're unable to see what has happened to your units on another team's turn, you have no idea as to what happened. For example, at the end of the most recent war the RP team lost Pamplona and all of the units in it in a grand final battle. But all RP saw was a bunch of units in their capital one turn and the next it was gone along with their army.

The ettiquette for the log would be something like:

"4/4 Ansar attacks 4/4 Pike, does 2 damage and retreats."

Basically giving the same information about each combat that takes place to the opposing team as they should have access to if it were like an SP game.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by DeepO
the punishment for breaking rules? What about having to replay the turn, and be the ass of the public forum for a month because you made a mistake? Nobody is going to willingly break any rules everybody agrees upon...

It says nowhere anything about having replay the turn, which is the problem...

If someone does willingly break the rules, then what? You kind of twisted the situation into a knot there. Basically saying "someone will NEVER break the rules, but if they do we'll 'force' them to do something that isn't even outlined in the rules."