Development of a Rules List

[DeepO]

Trip, I don'tknow about public battle logs. Obviously, these shold be accessible in forum, so that you (or the judge) can check them in case of something fishy going on. However giving it to the other party as well? We should discuss this before implementing such a big change to the game. GS has been in 2 wars so far, and while it is sometimes frustrating to not know what happened, it can also from time to time be part of your strategy.

And as to twisted situations in knots: it was not my intention. I'm too naief perhaps, in that I'm willing to believe nobody will break the rules willingly. In case people proof me wrong, we can always use this forum as our UN court... if all the other teams agree something was against the rules, we can then decide on sanctions. I see no reason to do so now, but perhaps that's just me

DeepO

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by DeepO
Trip, I don'tknow about public battle logs. Obviously, these shold be accessible in forum, so that you (or the judge) can check them in case of something fishy going on. However giving it to the other party as well? We should discuss this before implementing such a big change to the game. GS has been in 2 wars so far, and while it is sometimes frustrating to not know what happened, it can also from time to time be part of your strategy.

As I said in the PTW ISDG forum, why should teams not be able to have access to that information?

The only reason a replay feature wasn't included in PTW was due to time and budget constraints. It wasn't a priority. But if there had been all the time and money in the world to get everything done that the team wanted to, then there would be a replay feature, and you would be able to see exactly what happened, just like in SP.

Just because something is the status quo is not a reason to not question whether it's right or not...

Maybe we should make a rule banning the building of RRs and see what new "strategies" emerge from that? What, not a good idea? Why not?

And as to twisted situations in knots: it was not my intention. I'm too naief perhaps, in that I'm willing to believe nobody will break the rules willingly. In case people proof me wrong, we can always use this forum as our UN court... if all the other teams agree something was against the rules, we can then decide on sanctions. I see no reason to do so now, but perhaps that's just me

Like I said, thoroughness.

Maybe I'm too much of a cynic, but I like to have all of the bases covered so that the possibility of that sort of situation doesn't even have to be questioned.

[DeepO]

I'm not saying I'm objecting public battle logs, it's just that this is a big change to a game that has been going for nearly one and a half year. I've got to think on this to decide my position in this, and I'm sure others need that too... this is not an obvious 'yes' vote from everyone involved.

Oh, and a game without RRs... sure... but not after we railed most of our territory

Re: punishment: there is such a thing as trying too much to anticipate all situations. I'm more of the type that doesn't waste too much thought on something that only has a slim chance of happening

DeepO

[vmxa1]

Punishment may be hard to determine. Your example, say they send so many units they eliminated the other civ, think a one turn loss is a problem?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by DeepO
I'm not saying I'm objecting public battle logs, it's just that this is a big change to a game that has been going for nearly one and a half year. I've got to think on this to decide my position in this, and I'm sure others need that too... this is not an obvious 'yes' vote from everyone involved.

I feel this would be a major improvement, which is why I suggested it. I find the lack of information in PBEM games to be more of a case of "how can I screw my opponent out of information that he should know" than a "strategy."

Yes I understand that it changes a lot (and that is hard for some people to swallow after nothing changing on a game-wide basis rule-wise for quite some time), but I do think that this would make the game better and more fair for all teams involved.

[lmtoops]

I like the idea of having a battle log. Of course it a pain in rear, having to document all your battles and publishing. I know in all my PBEM games, it's bothersome not to know what happened to your huge stack of troops. The battle log does not give out any secret information.

I suppose this would need to be another team poll.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by lmtoops
I like the idea of having a battle log. Of course it a pain in rear, having to document all your battles and publishing. I know in all my PBEM games, it's bothersome not to know what happened to your huge stack of troops. The battle log does not give out any secret information.

Most teams (i.e. all so far engaged in combat) have already posted logs within their own forums for their own teams so that everyone can see how the battles went. I don't think it would be much more work to have them edited a bit to be sent off to the affected team as well.

I suppose this would need to be another team poll.

Yes, that is wise. I will open up a new poll on that along with rule infraction punishments.

[bongo]

I think a battle log is a good idea for new games, it's a good and sensible way of adding a feature that was never implemented due to lack of time and money.

I would be very reluctant to add it to a running game though, especially one that has been going on for so long. The lack of information on what other teams are doing on their turn can be annoying but it is equal to all teams and has been made part of everyones strategy.

[Panzer32]

no way, I would never become a turnplayer again if we needed battle logs. Its part of PBEM, deal with it.

[asleepathewheel]

at times this game feels like a job already, battle logs would be just one more thing to have to deal with, and I don't think I would want to do it.

[Cort Haus]

The long-term answer is software implementation (Civ 4).

The game save could include a 'transaction log' like a database uses to reapply changes exactly as orginally made. The log is used to 'replay' the other civs turns when a PBEM is loaded up.

[Beta]

My personal opinions:

Battle logs - Ok - but a pain. More programming would have been nice.

Galley chains - (Then again - it does help combat the defensive advantage of railways.)

F1 - hmmm. No opinion, other than the double-tile use is clearly out.

Now - some others:

RR movement as it currently stands - give me a break. Make it a set number of tiles - OR - require units to use a turn to disembark and not be able to attack on the same turn they use RR's.

Pre-builds: farcical. "We were part way through building the pyramids, but we decided to change it to the Hanging Gardens???" Explain that one. Or - "we were almost finished the university - but we needed a battleship instead." Yes - that makes good sense. IMHO, you should be able to salvage maybe 10% at the most of a pre-build's shields. I think it would be more challenging to have to do the planning from start to finish on a build. This would require some thought on game mechanics regarding wonders - especially when you have 550 shields sunk into something and someone else completes it. Then again - maybe that should be the risk you take.

And - regarding the ship chain - clearly - a more realistic portrayal of ship movement is required that would obviate the need for such an exploit.

[vondrack]

Umm, Beta - you certainly are a purist, aren't you?

But seriously - I know infinite RR movement and other things you mention could work better, that's for sure, but we are talking rules for THIS VERY GAME here. I do not see how we could address the issues you mention...

[Beta]

Originally posted by vondrack
Umm, Beta - you certainly are a purist, aren't you?

But seriously - I know infinite RR movement and other things you mention could work better, that's for sure, but we are talking rules for THIS VERY GAME here. I do not see how we could address the issues you mention...

I should have been clearer. I fully agree that we cannot implement my 'purer' ideas for this game. They are just issues that I have with the game mechanics. They are NOT serious suggestions for changes here.

As to being a purist - I was a pretty serious board war-gamer at one point, back in the late 70's and early 80's - which were the haydays of wargaming - hence the origins of my 'purity'.

[ZargonX]

My thoughts on battle logs (for anyone who cares )

I think they are a good idea in most situations, however I feel there is one instance where they should notbe used. If there are no survivors in a stack after an attack, nor immediately adjacent to the attacking units, I do not think a battle log should be sent. No survivors = no one to say what happened. Think of it as the advantage of a swift, overwhelming attack: the element of suprise is still in the attacker's favor.