Pitboss - Q's and A's

[Nugog]

Highly appropriate Av Mr. Worham

[RobWorham]

Let them run in fear!!!!

[FeMme]

We will show them our claws!

Meow

[Keygen]

OK, I've put some thought on the so called double move 'advantage' and have come to the following conclusion:

For example if player A is the last to take his/her turn, consequently will be the first to play the turn after. If this 'trick' is used for passing a number of military units into enemy territory to attack player B it will supposedly give an advantage to player A over player B. However player B is now able to double move his/her units too during that very next turn as player A will have already played and unable to play again until the particular turn is over giving the chance to player B to wait until everyone else has played to do his/her moves twice. But even if player B won't play two turns in a row player A won't be able to do so again without player B plays two turns in between. What I mean? Supposedly player A does a double move during turns 100/101 for example (last to play turn 100 and first to play turn 101). He won't able to double move again during the next turns 101/102 (he has already played turn 101 before player B). He will be able to double move however during the turns 102/103 (last to play turn 102 and first to play turn 103). But that would mean that player B will have played turn 101 after player A and turn 102 before player A. That's two turns alright! Might not necessarily be two in a row but certainly two turns before player A plays again.

Note that if there is a well developed transportation network within the defender's land (roads, railroads) a double move for the defender only means that he/she will be able to move troops in much longer distances than the attacker will. I doubt someone would ever have units promoted to 'Commando' or 'Navigation I', 'Navigation II' & 'Mobility' altogether, in large numbers.

Double move might give an edge only in particular occasions and only if the opposing side (the one that suffers the consequences) is unprepared for that kind of occasions. Two I can think of is a race between two settlers to settle in the same location or a sneak attack of any kind and combination. The first can be solved either peacefully after an agreement taking place or by force. The second one with a well designed and implemented network of information (e.g. scouts/explorers/etc in strategic places around or within the owners territory, or spies within enemy territory, or from an ally) and of course an adequate number of military to repulse the upcoming attack and a good transportation network to move troops fast within national borders.

Taking all the above in account I conclude that double move or taking two turns before someone else is not such an advantage after all. It will rarely be a decisive factor and only against unprepared and weak players. And people exercising that trick often will only alter co players and that could deprive you of the most powerful advantage you may have; surprise.

[Niessuh]

In abstract, double move could be seen as a minor problem which is compensated with the possibility of response in your own double turn.

But when your defensive key city disappears before you even know where they come from, or when your entire fleet will be crushed and the only thing you could see is the entire enemy fleet safe at harbour you will see your compensation double turn with other eyes, believe me: no preparation could counter that

When you play against humans, win is decided in a few game key moments. Taking double turns at these moments gives an absolute advantage

[Keygen]

Losing a key defensive city or your entire navy in a single strike can only mean that you had poor defenses or the attacher had superior forces. Can also mean that he/she's vulnerable to your counter attack in double time next turn.

I don't argue that there can't be any advantage gained by using a double move but doing it against a worthy opponent can be a determinant factor only in a very few occasions and in my opinion it is the surprise more and the double move less that does the harm (caught in the sleep) while doing it against an inferior opponent won't truly add anything.

Besides as much as your opponents can use it against you that much you can use it against them.

My argue goes more on avoiding adding additional rules that can slow down a game considerably just for gaining something that doesn't really count that much.

[Beta]

Thanks for the discussion folks, and for bringing up an alternate view Keygen. Here was Niessuh's post of earlier. Personally, I think it represents the best solution. The only change may be teh exception of 12 hours - which was probably based on a 24 hour turn timer - going to 24 based on a 48 hour turn timer.

IMHO, this maintains the 'integrity' and intent of a turn-based game, while giving us the game speed advantage of pitboss and simultaneous moves.

It is possible to take a 'double turn' in the game by being the last to finish for one turn and then the first to finish the one after that. This has a positive effect because it speeds the game up, but the downside is that it can be exploited for military advantage by moving twice before your opponent has a chance to react.

So to keep the upside of double turns while eliminating (or at least minimizing) the downside, the rule is that if you are at war with another player (or are about to go to war with them, eg. sneak attacks) then you mustn't take two turns before they've had a chance to take one, or in other words you cannot go after them in one turn and before them in the next.

You can use the civstats log page for the game, or the RSS feeds from the same page, to tell if the other player has taken their turn (ask me about this if you don't know what I'm talking about).

One exception: you may always take your turn when 12 hours have passed on the turn timer (since the timer seems to run slow this will probably be a bit more than 12 real hours), regardless of whether they have taken their turn or not, otherwise it'd risk you not having a chance to take your turn at all. Ideally though, you should talk to your opponent(s) and come to an arrangement about the order you are going to take your turns in.

[Aeson]

Double moves are bad enough when your opponent is present and at least has a (IIRC 6 second) chance to react. Against an absent opponent it would just be a joke. There's a reason Catapults aren't 2 movement (with blitz and avoiding terrain movement cost even)... it's a very, very good reason.

In my experience in MP, double moves were the most powerful military tactic. On offense or defense. It's something that's dominated by quick clicking and accurate timing, which is in large part a function of internet connection and graphics card. It's a different type of skill, and can be fun in it's own way, but definitely isn't true to the TBS game.

[Gigante Verde]

Hi

For 7 teams (about 5 members):

24 hours in the beginning...
24 - 36 hours in the middle of game, and
36 - 48 hours in the end

it`s practical and possible for majority of the players on small teams (less 10 members)

If the number of teams was greater, then it`s necessary 48 or 60 hours for turn, no more.

Now, the tend in the treahd is the 48 hours turn, i`ll agreed with it (for now).

[Keygen]

Lets go with the agreed time, 48 hours that is, and then if we can handle a faster pace we decide whether we'll go faster or not

[RobWorham]

Originally posted by Keygen
Lets go with the agreed time, 48 hours that is, and then if we can handle a faster pace we decide whether we'll go faster or not

[emperor]

Originally posted by astrologix
- Alliances, teams, research, etc. : in one of the pitboss we were 14 players from the beginning. Very quickly, alliances were formed and the rest of the game "decided". The techs exchanges are currently very fast paced and are conducting towards a "paranoid" end of the game, with possibly a premature global nuclear end. To avoid this effect, I proposed to play another pitboss game with a "crescendo multiplayer" style that I can resume like this : no alliances or diplomacy until the Communism/Fascism (C/F) techs, after this point alliances or permanent alliances can be signed, and research shared. Before that, only "interface permitted agreements" can be achieved (open borders, protection pacts, map exchanges, etc), and research agreements are forbbiden. No one can say what tech he's currently investigating. No plans between players before C/F. In other words : "single" style until Communism/Fascism and "multi" style after that point. I'm very optimistic on the succes of this way of play. I invite you to particularly discuss this point.

Apart from making the game rather dull and uninteresting, such a thing would be impossible to enforce. Thus I don't think that it is a realistic or sensible thing for us to do.

Originally posted by proviisori
Another thing...

What do people think about using CivStats in this game?

IMO It reveals a lot of information about other teams that you would not otherwise know.

Civstats actually makes it fairer by allowing all players from all teams to see the things which can be seen anyway by any person who has the time to 'babysit' watch the game. Besides, if you know the game well there is a ridiculous amount of information that can be obtained just from keeping an eye on scores, graphs, other game screens, etc. Civstats is more of a convenience than anything else, so I say we go with it.

Originally posted by Keygen
Lets go with the agreed time, 48 hours that is, and then if we can handle a faster pace we decide whether we'll go faster or not

I originally suggested 24 hours in another thread since there will be very little to do during the first 20-50 turns. After that we could shift up to 48 hours, when there's more to do. But I guess I could work with 48 hours at first, though I think it's an unnecessary amount of time (do you really need two days to discuss which tile your warrior moves to each turn? ).

[proviisori]

Originally posted by Lord Parkin
Civstats actually makes it fairer by allowing all players from all teams to see the things which can be seen anyway by any person who has the time to 'babysit' watch the game. Besides, if you know the game well there is a ridiculous amount of information that can be obtained just from keeping an eye on scores, graphs, other game screens, etc. Civstats is more of a convenience than anything else, so I say we go with it.

Not exactly...

I know that one can get all that info, and more, in-game but the point is that CivStats allows to monitor teams that you don't have contact with. For the sake of realism, we should not use it. I think simple turn tracker thread is enough.
The team that is last one to play posts that the turn has rolled.

Originally posted by Lord Parkin
I originally suggested 24 hours in another thread since there will be very little to do during the first 20-50 turns. After that we could shift up to 48 hours, when there's more to do. But I guess I could work with 48 hours at first, though I think it's an unnecessary amount of time (do you really need two days to discuss which tile your warrior moves to each turn? ).

Well... when there is nothing else to do than move one warrior the turn will be much shorter than 48 hours. The turn will roll as soon as the last team hits EOT.

[emperor]

You can monitor the teams you don't have contact with simply by keeping track of the scores displayed in-game. If you know enough about the game, you can tell everything from when a city grows a population point to when (and which) techs are researched. Sorry to burst the bubble, but "realism" isn't a thing that it is 'realistic' to aim for.

The convenience of Civstats outweighs any other detriment that might be seen, and thus I highly encourage that we use it.

[MrWhereItsAt]

I haven't seen Beta repost the link to sn00py's guide, so here it is

Sn00p's guide

Note - I got this just by clicking 'reply with quote' to Beta's original post. It then gives you all the text BEFORE formatting due to /url /img etc. tags. Very handy too, like for seeing just which method Krill used to dodge the autocensor.

Haven't read it myself yet.