Disputes Thread

[AutomatedTeller]

Seems to be a couple of things here:

1) Is it ok to go in and change things around after you have ended your turn and before the next turn begins?
2) If this isn't ok, how do we enforce it?

The first is a rule change/clarification. The 2nd, seems to me, is impossibly to catch, so we just have to say people shouldn't do it and trust that people are playing with some honor.

[Zeviz]

And what would happen in 3-way wars? Would every team get just 16 hours to play? What about 4-way wars?

The rules as they stand are clear and have been approved by all teams:

1. If any unit moves during the war, you have to give opponent 24 hours after you move it.

2. You can't move units after hitting "End Turn".

Rule 1 does not mean that turns have to be played within a 24 hour window. It just means that if your opponents move half of their forces early and the other half late, they can't move the second half until 24 hours later. This rule has only 1 purpose: prevent a team from being at a disadvantage as long as its members can log in every 24 hours.

We've had several months of discussion about rules and settings before the game even started. It's too late now to try to revote on things. (Otherwise, an admin should open the editor and erase the starting position of 7th civilization, to prevent its neighbors from having unfair advantage.)

[GeoModder]

@Indiansmoke: for your information, your own turnplayer (whoever it is at any given moment) has in principle broke the ruleset you're proposing. For the last two turn he/she was online during turnover, imo to attempt to see how production goes in a city within visual range.
So are you saying you would force your own turnplayer stop doing this? Because, technically, the moment the next turn starts he's breaking your own rule proposal (he's checking things in the first 24 hours of a turn).
Further more, personally I have a tendency to post any tiny chance within the team forum which happens within contested territory (even with screenshots) during wartimes. You're quite welcome to ask the game admin to compare my public notes within my team's forum with what happened ingame. I'd be surprised if he found discrepancies.
And as a last point, this rule you propose can easily be broken by a simple statement that "can't check on civstats for this or that reason". As I'm typing this, civstats doesn't load in my browser, simply forcing me to check if the turn hasn't switched yet.

[Krill]

Firstly, you can't stop any discussions. You're admin of this game by popular vote, you're not Ming. And secondly, reloading the save every time someone b1tches about "unfair" conduct is a sure way to kill this game or make it less fun. Its already a lot less fun than it was before this whole double move mess started. I'm sure PAL feels that as well, that's why they're blowing (Indian)smoke up our asses...

1. Which is why I said I'm not going to stop any discussions...
   
2. Which is why I won't be doing that...
   
3. This forum was nice a quiet because noone was arguing which is why everyone was having more fun before this thread was started. It's a game, we don;t have to argue over every little thing and insult other people because they have different ideas about how things should go.

[mostly-harmless]

There is a rule on the double move because it can give you nasty surprise attacks.
If we could make the fog of war being pushed back further by cultural borders we would not even need that rule.
I don't see the slightest problem with teams changing things like building queues, or tile assignments later during a turn.
Indiansmoke, you make it sound like this option is only working against you and not open for your team as well?
Could it be, that it is at the moment working against your current situation (being on the attack, I assume?)?

And at some others here: stay civilized, it is a game!

mh

[sunrise089]

Indiansmoke - I am struggling to remain as civil and calm as Krill would like in the face of what seems to be a silly view on the game and its rules.

Simultanious turns is to speed up game...not for the reasons you mentioned.

This is wrong. Sequential turns is patently unfair. It allows the first team in the rotation to have an advantage in settling contested spots, building wonders, etc. A simple example will illustrate. Imagine you have two cities threatened by a large enemy stack of knights. With sequential turns the attacker can hit with one knight at a time, perfectly adjusting promotions to ensure the best odds and no wasted units. In simultaneous turns a player who wants that level of precision must sacrifice giving the enemy time to react. Just because we can exploit the AI via sequential turns (which are a necessity considering the processing power available to the computer) doesn't make them better. MP guys figured this out long ago.

Regarding rules..So you say by working better tiles than you should have, you are not gaining an unfair advantage?

How is this "better tiles" than someone should have? if during your attack you loose units and suffer war weariness, is whipping unhappy citizens away an unfair advantage? It's simply reacting to the circumstances.

Regarding time to discuss....you have 24 hours to discuss from beginning of turn...you say you need 48 hours....I am quite happy myself (will have to check with my team though) to increase the timer of the game during wars (make it 96 hours) so every team has more time.

I think any suggestion that further lengthens the turns speaks for itself

Finnaly and back to the issue of "gaining an unfair advantage".

If you log in after us you see the outcome of the battles. So you know which attacking units of ours won and which lost and what health our units have, whether they gained a promo etc.

Um...don't YOU know the outcome of the battles? Can't you then alter your build queues to replace any sort of units you unexpectedly lost on the attack? It seems odd that this wouldn't work both ways.

So for example if you had overflow from previous turn slave and could produce unit in 1 turn for next turn...all that info would help you decide whether you need axe spear or chariot...so all you do is log in after we make the battles and look at the outcome, then decide what to build using your overflow...isn't that unfair?

Again, this is how literally thousands on MP games have been played, and it worked out just fine. The attacker can likewise do the very same thing.

[Krill]

Nice post Sunrise

[Zoid]

1. Which is why I said I'm not going to stop any discussions...
   
2. Which is why I won't be doing that...
   
3. This forum was nice a quiet because noone was arguing which is why everyone was having more fun before this thread was started. It's a game, we don;t have to argue over every little thing and insult other people because they have different ideas about how things should go.

Well you said "I'm not going to stop any discussions in this forum so long as they don't break the rules of this game or Apolyton which led me to belive that you were threathening to do just that...

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Krill for the record i was not flaming in my post i was making sensible points !!!

and for goodness sake lad your British whats with all this dude nonesense ?

[Swiss Pauli]

Just to get things straight in my own mind: the proposal from Indiansmoke would apply only in wartime.

re: changing tile assigments - the AI does this automatically, and potentially not as the player would wish. If I'm working plains cows and the tile gets occupied, the AI will probably work another food tile. If I actually want the hammers for production, and maybe let the city starve a little, I think I should be allowed to re-assign to a plains mine.

re: changing production. I think each team should be able to do this after seeing the outcome of attacks. The team playing first can make these alterations after their attacks, but they should also be able to do so having seen the outcome of any attacks made by the team playing last. This will slightly favour the defender, as the attacker has to get its reselected unit to the front line, but I don't think it's unbalanced, and I think it's more balanced than denying the team playing first post-defending changes. This would give a clear advantage to an attacker to move last in war, as he can see the attack outcomes (as he'll be the one making most attacks) and then alter production accordingly, while the team playing first has to stand idly by, and potentially lose production if a needed resource is disconnected.

[Indiansmoke]

OK .... will not argue over this anymore...It is clear that no-one sees any value in what I proposed. I did not say it for our team to gain an advantage, but to avoid further controvercy.

Sorry for waisting your time..I have nothing against anyone here...peace and game on

[RobWorham]

I have nothing against anyone here...peace and game on

[sunrise089]

[GeoModder]

I contacted Krill about what appears to be an illegal move made by a PAL player. I also took the liberty of pauzing the game.

[Zoid]

OMG...