Rules Discussion

[Keygen]

Great Fosse, we can use another team. 7 teams sound better than 6

[Zoid]

More is always better

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Zoid
More is always better

See Zoid and I can agree on some things.............Just not labour laws........

[fed1943]

Laws? Easy!

Socialist when buying, liberal when selling.

Best regards,

[emperor]

From past experience, it's always easy to get endlessly bogged down in rules discussions. Thus, the best solution is to keep the discussions brief, and the rules succinct.

Originally posted by conmcb25
You aren't going to prevent this, its part of the game mechanics, but whoever takes a double move for offensive gain better be careful because then the defender can do the same next turn......

It *should* balance out.

It doesn't. A double move which allows an aggressor to 'illegally' capture a city and destroy ships/planes/great people and/or gain a strategic position in the process (for one example) does not equate to any double move that the defender could then make. The extent of collateral damage which might or might not be inflicted during a double move is also another major factor.

The solution should be simple though - everyone who plays agrees not to double move during a declaration of war or inside of wartime. ("Double moves" in peacetime happen naturally and don't actually matter.) The two teams in the war agree to play their turns in a specific order (A then B, or vice versa). This game should be registered on Civstats, so then players can check up that double moves are not being performed.

If a double move does occur, and it gives a serious advantage, the team who was a victim of the move should be able to request a reload of that turn.

That's pretty much it, as far as I can see.

[astrologix]

I agree, Lord Parkin.

This simple rule should allow us to start this game soon

[emperor]

Yeah, that and just a general "fair play" rule should be fine. ("Fair play" as in not exploiting game mechanics or bugs to gain an unfair advantage.)