The most dreaded part of this pre-game has arrived! :p It's time we come up with a ruleset, and this time, I don't just want to copy and paste one from the ISDG. This one needs to be short, simple, and concrete - AKA, to the point. It should say what you cannot do and what will happen if you do. We also need to overhaul the punishment section (perhaps we should just leave all punishments up the admins? It's sort of hard to just write down a one-size-fits-all punishment for every violation).

Most importantly: allow breaking of in-game treaties. It's your reputation. The admins don't care what happens to it. ;)

So, for those that want to see it, here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=124096) is the old ruleset.


I think we can keep all the exploits in sections 1, 2, and 3 (unless you have comments). However, let's just keep a description of what they are. No need for a "description, definition, purpose, verdict, punishment". Let's make it simple - have a category of "Disallowed Exploits", and then just simply list them and their description. After that, there's just some game-related stuff, like posting in the turn tracker thread, sending the save to the admins, playing within 24 hours, etc.

What we need to discuss:
Refugees (can they share spoiler information or not?)
"Spirit of the Game" - just eliminate this altogether?
Others?

If you guys don't have much to say, I'll just whip up a quick ruleset (similar to the Civ4 MTDG one, very basic) and we'll go from there. :)


CURRENT VERSION OF RULESET:

1.0 - Game Information
1.1 - The Save
All teams are required to play the save within 24 hours, unless they request an extension in the Turn Tracker thread. After playing the save, they must send it to the next team via email. Additionally, the turnplayer must post in the Turn Tracker thread to indicate the save has been sent. The next team's 24 hours begins after said post.

1.2 - Battle Logs
Teams are required to send a battle log to the team(s) they attack during their turn, indicating what units attacked, and what the result was. This includes bombardments as well. A sample line could read: "4HP Rifleman attacks 3HP Mustketman - Rifleman wins, still 4HP".

1.3 - Punishment
The game administrators are responsible for handing out punishment after a violation of a rule. Punishment may be limited to one single player or the team, but it will not be overly harsh or cruel. It could include forced anarchy, forced payment of gold, removal from the team forum for a period of time, or other actions. If a team feels it is unfair, they may appeal the decision.

1.4 - Clarifications
If a team would like to ask the administrator's approval for an action they want to undertake to see if it is against the rules or not, they may PM the administrators and get their interpretation. It is advised that if a team is in doubt, they ask the administrators and get a clarification.

1.5 - Refugees
After a team has been eliminated from the game, its members may apply to become members of another team still active. They are free to share any information they have with their new team.

1.6 - Acceptable Utilities
The following out-of-game utilities are allowed: CivAssist II (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=118540) (v2.0.2387) and MapStat (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=52902) (v2.11.0). When using these programs, please use the latest version. If you would like to use a utility that is not on those list, or a new version of an approved utility, please contact the administrators.

1.7 - Turnplayer Preferences
Turnplayers for a team must have "Always Renegotiate Deals" off in their preferences.

2.0 - Banned Exploits
2.1 - Coordinated Capturing of Units
It is prohibited for teams to capture and recapture each turn units such as workers, catapults, and other non-combat units for the intent of using them twice in a turn against another team.

2.2 - Leader Sacrifices
Teams are not allowed to intentionally provide another team with units for the purpose of generating a Military Great Leader.

2.3 - Contact Trading
Contact trading in-game is allowed at Writing. While a team may send emails to any discovered teams, regardless of whether or not they have Writing, out-of-game contact between undiscovered teams may not occur unless they meet in-game or another team (with Writing) sells the contact to another team.

2.4 - Map Trading
Screenshots and visual maps cannot be traded between teams until Map Making is researched. After that, teams are free to trade screenshots as a normal trade item. Verbal maps (descriptions of the terrain, however detailed, as long as no images are involved) are allowed without any prerequisite.

2.5 - City Trading and Misleading Naming
Teams are not permitted to trade cities with the intent of teleporting units. Teams cannot name or rename cities or units with the names of technologies, resources, maps, units, or gold, nor can they rename units to pass them off as another unit type to confuse the other teams. If in doubt, teams should contact the administrators about their proposed name.

2.6 - Reloading
Reloading the save because of unfavorable outcomes or events is not allowed. If you are playing the save and the game crashes on you, it is permitted to load the save again, but please notify the administrators as well.

2.7 - Save Manipulation
Using any utility for the purpose of altering the game save or a game event is prohibited.

2.8 - Build Sequence
Teams cannot break into the build sequence to change anything, including actions such as hurrying production of a building/unit, changing prebuilds to the desired build, changing city laborers around to prevent a riot, and changing any build to another build (say, from a factory to a rifleman due to nearby enemy units). Instead of taking these actions during the build sequence before your turn, please make these changes during your turn. If a team is wondering whether something would be considered breaking into the build sequence, please contact the administrators.

2.9 - Ships' Visibility
It is not allowed to use up all of a ship's movement points and then press Fortify All, which will fortify not only the units in the boat, but also the boat itself, giving increased visibility on the next turn.

2.10 - Auto Go-To
Units can get double movement (as the second turn of movement happens earlier than it should) if the auto go-to command is used for distances over 1 turn. Do not use go-to commands for over 1 turn of distance.

2.11 - Negative Spending
Teams may not have a negative income when they end their turn which would put their treasury below zero gold, at the expense of just a few units or buildings, in order to gain advantages, such as running full science, which they could not normally afford with their regular income. Although having a negative income is permissible, perhaps to finish research of a technology one turn quicker, exploiting the game in the aforementioned manner, in a way that the disbanding of units and buildings does not make up for the commercial gains, is not allowed. If a team does end with a negative income and gets the in-game pop-up saying buildings/units have been disbanded, they should let the administrators know.

2.12 - Civil Engineer Exploits
It is not allowed for a team to use civil engineers to contribute shields to the construction of a building, and then rush that building and switch to a unit, as the shields from the civil engineers will carry over when they should not. Additionally, teams cannot partly build a city improvement, rush it, and then switch production to another building and continue this process, as the civil engineers' shields will be counted once for each rush, providing a false number of shields.

What was wrong with official treaties?

I definitely agree with keeping it simpler and abandoning the colored punishment system (especially since it was ignored last game anyway :p).

One thing I would like to see added – I think last game the admins ruled that trading workers was illegal. I think the teams need to decide in advance whether slave trades will be allowed or not. I don't have a strong opinion, I just think we should make a decision before the game begins.

Also, although we should keep the rule about no map exchanges until map trading is allowed in game, personally I would prefer that map trading be moved up (and moved to a required tech since nobody will ever research Navigation). If people think Map Making is too early to trade maps, then maybe at Astronomy? (The specific tech is not really part of the ruleset, but it occurred to me now, and I don't think it is completely out of place here).

dutchfire: Nothing was wrong, it's just there was confusion last about whether or not breaking a treaty was prohibited in the rules, not just "morally" wrong.

Chamnix: I don't remember saying anything about trading slaves - you are free to trade workers (via Diplomacy, when they're in your capital), regardless whether they are native or foreign. Is there something I'm missing?

I'm also open to moving map trading up; it would certainly make the early game more interesting. I should start a thread on custom rule changes...I'll do that now.

I must say I was quite surprised at a number of items deemed exploits.

1.7: Why would it not be allowed to trade with another civ for "directions" to its neighbors? Immediate contact trading should of course not be allowed, but AFAIU wouldn't even be possible. But why not asking for directions? That sounds rather ridiculous to me. Sure, you can argue it's against the rules set by the game itself, but that would more likely be because such a feature would be well-nigh impossible to implement. Between teams, I definitely think it should be allowed, as it would add another dimension to the early game trade table.

1.9: Is this at all possible in C3C?

3.2: I just don't see why you should not be able to switch your build queues on the pre-turn. 3.3 is given of course, that's a clear exploit, but 3.2?

3.8: This seems a rather silly restriction. If no fighting takes place, then WW will automatically decrease over time anyway. And if you really don't want to have peaceful relations with another civ, why should you be forced to?

As for your questions, I think refugees should be allowed to say whatever they would, it will just make the game less fun for them if they couldn't talk. And the "spirit of the game" is to not use any exploits specifically listed as such. Any other use of the term is ab-use. I also think in response to Chamnix that slave trade should definitely be allowed. I just don't see the point in disallowing it.

personally, i think we should to let refugees tell their new teams whatever info they want. the rule stopping me from telling MIA all i knew really frustrated me, and seemed too constricting. think of refugees as "spoils of war" who can help you defeat a common enemy.

I thought I read in either Doughnuts’ or KISS’ forum that they wanted to exchange workers, but the admins nixed the idea. There is no way I’m going to find it again, so if I misunderstood, just forget I brought it up. I don’t have a problem with trading workers – I’m just trying to think back to things that may have been disputed last game.

The whole directions thing before map trading is very difficult to define. Realistically, the “green line” agreement between KISS and MIA probably should have been illegal last game. Unless we ban all directional words from everyone’s vocabulary until maps are discovered, there is going to be a very large grey area where it is difficult to know if someone has gone too far.

I don’t think it is possible to rush wonders with an MGL either.

I kind of like 3.2 for a multiplayer game. When I was turnplayer last game at least, I always opened the save at least once to look around before I played for real. One of the examples given in 3.2 is building walls – it is definitely an exploit to check the save, see where enemy troops are, then when you play for real, adjust builds accordingly in the pre-turn. You could make a rule that all builds to be changed during the build sequence must be decided upon before any team member opens the save or something like that, but it just seems cleaner to ban breaking into the build sequence at all. I don’t see it as a big deal – you just must plan your prebuilds to complete the turn after a research project instead of the turn of. Of course, I would also ban scrolling ahead to prevent riots – whatever you left on your last turn is what you get this turn. The simplest rule - no breaking into the build sequence – 3.2 and 3.3 combined.

For 3.8, I agree with Niklas.

I agree that if refugees are allowed to join another team, then they should be able to say anything they want but not bring screenshots or similar information with them – they must rely solely on their memories. Although I liked the refugees MIA picked up last game, I think I would really prefer refugees just be eliminated from the game – one team per customer.

Hmm, I also wonder about 6.3.1. Why not simply post the save in the team forum? :confused:

Refugees
Let the refugees talk and squawk. Just because they say something doesn't mean it will be believed.

Go back to WWII. Jewish refugees told of the horrors of the Holocaust but their information was not believed. They talked and nothing happened.

After WWII, German geeks went to both the US and USSR. Rockets, satelllites and the Space Race occured. They talked and something happened.

This 'talking' was not allowed in MTDG I. It should be in MTDG II.

Utilities
Specify in the Ruleset what, if any, utilities can be used (MapStat, CivAssist etc). Another thread is discussing this; just include their verdict into the rules.

Something nice
A Multi Team version of these two tools that only show the player's info, with limited or no foreign information. Easy to suggest, but a burden to the programmers. I would be willing to help.

I must say I was quite surprised at a number of items deemed exploits.
We (RM and myself) did not make this list, we copied it from another inter-site game.

1.7: Why would it not be allowed to trade with another civ for "directions" to its neighbors? Immediate contact trading should of course not be allowed, but AFAIU wouldn't even be possible. But why not asking for directions? That sounds rather ridiculous to me. Sure, you can argue it's against the rules set by the game itself, but that would more likely be because such a feature would be well-nigh impossible to implement. Between teams, I definitely think it should be allowed, as it would add another dimension to the early game trade table.
Directions have to do more with maps than contacts, but even still, I think it's best if map/contact trading is left to their requisite techs. However, we can move those requisite techs around, so if we want to move contact/map trading to Writing/Map Making respectively, we can do that. I think that'll help alleviate this problem.

1.9: Is this at all possible in C3C?
:blush: No, it's not...

3.2: I just don't see why you should not be able to switch your build queues on the pre-turn. 3.3 is given of course, that's a clear exploit, but 3.2?
Yes, I think that's pretty fair, so I think it's allowable.

3.8: This seems a rather silly restriction. If no fighting takes place, then WW will automatically decrease over time anyway. And if you really don't want to have peaceful relations with another civ, why should you be forced to?
Fair enough.

As for your questions, I think refugees should be allowed to say whatever they would, it will just make the game less fun for them if they couldn't talk. And the "spirit of the game" is to not use any exploits specifically listed as such. Any other use of the term is ab-use. I also think in response to Chamnix that slave trade should definitely be allowed. I just don't see the point in disallowing it.
As I said already, I can't remember every saying slave trade wasn't allowed. :hmm: In any case, letting refugees talk is fine with me I guess. Teams will be fighting over refugees now, just to get information! :)

BTW, thanks for your comments. You've illustrated the bad quality and wordiness of that last ruleset!


edit:
Hmm, I also wonder about 6.3.1. Why not simply post the save in the team forum? :confused:
Yeah, actually, this was an old rule from the Inter-Site Demogame between CFC and other civ-sites, where the leader of the team would send it to everyone on the team. Now, everyone can just go to their team's GMail account to download the save, so yes, this can be eliminated. There's a lot of out-of-game stuff that needs to be corrected for the ruleset.

@ Chamnix, we were allowed to trade workers and Doughnuts and KISS did. The problem to begin with was that you can only do that when both teams have a city on the same continent, which we didn't when the idea was first raised.

One thing that came up is a message sent in error to the wrong team. This happened on a couple of occasions in the last game were one team sent a message to the wrong team, but that team wasn't allowed to use it because it was against the rules. To me that rewards incompetence, if you send a message to the wrong team they should be allowed to see it and use it to their advantage.

I agree with moving the availability of trading maps forward. I think this was moved back because it was to easy for a human player to get them from the AI so there was never a need to explore. Also being able to sell comunication to another team could be moved forward too.

As far as refugees go, they should be allowed to tell their new team any relavent info but they should be allowed to bring over discussions and things that have been posted, it should be only what they remember.

As for treaties, admins should only be able to tell other teams if a team has broken or kept their word in treaties that have been signed. Other then that the loss of reputation to a team breaking their word is more than enough.

I think that Refugees should be allowed to 'talk' ... however I would like the vanquished team's forum to be locked. That way you don't have the refugees going back to their old forum and sifting specific information like how many tiles away a resource or city is located or at turn XXX we were informed that Team Y were AVERAGE Strength compared to Team Z.
Let the refugees rely on their memory.

Swapping Maps should not be allowed until a specific technology is discovered, but general directions should be OK.

Regarding Treaties, I think that it is upto individual teams to decide how honourable they are :mischief: ... however maybe if a treaty has been broken or a team feels slighted, an option could be for a team to post something in the UN. After all we are all informed when a Wonder is completed, whether we have met a team or not.

IIRC, the problem with slave trading was the idea that two teams could agree to trade almost ALL their workers to save maintenance cost. At the end of the treaty period, each team's workers would be returned to them. That was what was nixed.

IIRC, the problem with slave trading was the idea that two teams could agree to trade almost ALL their workers to save maintenance cost. At the end of the treaty period, each team's workers would be returned to them. That was what was nixed.

Ahh i had forgetten about that. Yes the idea was to swap all the workers but that was deemed exploitive, but otherwise worker trades were allowed

3.7 Accepting a Peace Treaty from a Civ then immediately declaring war
This also sounds strange to me - ww decreases slowly during peacetimes (though not applicated) and if war is declared immediately it is back at the old level - is that different in multiplayer game? :hmm:

4.4 Battle Log
Is the condition of the winning attacker before and after the battle also subject to report? Should all be reported that a player in a singleplayer game would see? bypassing units etc.?

3.7 Accepting a Peace Treaty from a Civ then immediately declaring war
This also sounds strange to me - ww decreases slowly during peacetimes (though not applicated) and if war is declared immediately it is back at the old extent - is that different in multiplayer game? :hmm:
Yeah, I think this one is weird too. We can get rid of it.

4.4 Battle Log
Is the condition of the winning attacker before and after the battle also subject to report? Should all be reported that a player in a singleplayer game would see? bypassing units etc.?
Right, you have to report attacking units (even winners), somehow like this:
4/4 Med. Inf. vs. 3/3 Pike -> wins, now 2/4

I was initiallly against allowing refugees to spill their guts to the teams they flee to, as it could result in folks getting access to info that they wouldn't otherwise be entitled to. However, there's really nothing to say that info provided is going to be accurate, is there? I agree now with locking forums and allowing refugees to say whatever they want. Without screenshots or other such supporting evidence, the adopting team is going to have to take their new member's word for the accuracy of their information. Unless the admins want to prohibit refugees from providing deliberately misleading information. That might be too spy-like to be in the spirit of the game.

I don't know why refugees are allowed at all... :hmm:

I once was member of a club that had a (informal) rule: "membership expires upon death".
(Actually the club died before me...) :rolleyes:

But maybe that's part of the pbem spirit I still seem to be lacking... :rolleyes:

the idea was to swap all the workers but that was deemed exploitive, but otherwise worker trades were allowed

I think this needs to be clarified then. How many is too many?

I think that Refugees should be allowed to 'talk' ... however I would like the vanquished team's forum to be locked. That way you don't have the refugees going back to their old forum and sifting specific information like how many tiles away a resource or city is located or at turn XXX we were informed that Team Y were AVERAGE Strength compared to Team Z.
Let the refugees rely on their memory.

Swapping Maps should not be allowed until a specific technology is discovered, but general directions should be OK.

Regarding Treaties, I think that it is upto individual teams to decide how honourable they are :mischief: ... however maybe if a treaty has been broken or a team feels slighted, an option could be for a team to post something in the UN. After all we are all informed when a Wonder is completed, whether we have met a team or not.

i agree with everything in this post. it sums up my views on these 3 issues quite nicely.

I'm not so sure I even like the idea of refugees. If a team is eliminated what's wrong with restricting their posts to the UN (public treads) without placing restrictions on what they say. Anything they could contribute would be in the past anyway.

One big problem with the last game was the silly restrictions on trying to fool other teams. Deception is a big part of the game. If a team can fool another team than so be it.

No, I definitely want to allow refugees in the game, potentially having new blood in the middle-end of the game gives the potential for a fresh start for the refugees, and for helping the people from the recieving team who otherwise might be getting board or simply need a break.

Yeah, I think refugees are crucial to keeping a steady interest in this game. I think teams always could use more active participants. :)

I agree with letting deception and honor be up to the teams, not the admins, this game, as has been stated by many people in this thread.

Yes there should not be any "artificial" punishment for breaking treaties in the ruleset. Let it be handled between the teams through action (or inaction) in the way they interact.

Any thoughts about Gifting cities rules?

It has been raised in our forum.

I know that both KISS and MIA were frustrated by this in the previous game.

KISS wanted to allow Nuts access to the Green Continent and MIA wanted to gain the Lux city that was on the boarder of Nut territory ... however because of teams being at war it was disallowed.

I'm unsure as to the 2.3 Zoom Loading Rule ... is there any further information revealed if you get a 'zoomed view' save or if you get a normal view and 'zoom out' later :confused:

I understand that you can get additional city population info when zoomed out ... but as far as i know everyone did zoom out to grab and post screenies for their respective forums.

I think this needs to be clarified then. How many is too many?
On workers...I think worker trades should be for something of value, like gold or a tech or even for a peace treaty. Trading 1 worker for 1 worker is the exploit...the only thing gained is the free maintenance.

I'm unsure as to the 2.3 Zoom Loading Rule ... is there any further information revealed if you get a 'zoomed view' save or if you get a normal view and 'zoom out' later :confused:


If you open a different game, zoom out, and then load the PBEM with ctrl-L while still zoomed out, you get a view of what the other (previous??) civ can see (their FOW, and maybe centered over their territory), instead of what your player should be able to see.

On workers...I think worker trades should be for something of value, like gold or a tech or even for a peace treaty. Trading 1 worker for 1 worker is the exploit...the only thing gained is the free maintenance.

Hmm, don't you get a 1/2 speed worker? Then the tradeoff is saved gold for slower workers, and it's not a 100% beneficial arrangement. I could actually see wanting the reverse, a sort of POW exchange if both sides of a conflict have captured and kept workers, to get the full-speed ones back, or to be able to join them and keep the citizenship pure. Let's think this one all the way through before calling it an exploit.

I agree with DaveShack on the issue of workers. It is not at all clear to me how this would be an exploit, as I would in many cases rather have the fullspeed worker and pay the upkeep than the slower slave who is free.

On workers...I think worker trades should be for something of value, like gold or a tech or even for a peace treaty. Trading 1 worker for 1 worker is the exploit...the only thing gained is the free maintenance.

Would it be OK for Team 1 to trade a tech to Team 2 for 10 slaves, then the next turn Team 2 sends a different tech to Team 1 for 10 slaves?

I agree with the others who have posted that it is not an exploit in general - if a team prefers extra income to faster workers, then I think they should be able to have it.

Personally, I think we should allow gifting cities - if a team wants to give away one of their cities, fine with me. Better make sure that team doesn't use it to attack you. ;)

Regarding workers, I agree with DS and Niklas: you can pay for full-speed or get a half-efficient worker free. Your call.

The cities rule should be "no gifting or trading of cities for the purpose of teleportation".

I don't really like the idea of a quitting team deciding who wins by giving someone lots of cities.

I don't really like the idea of a quitting team deciding who wins by giving someone lots of cities.

What about allowing for city trading but putting a population cap on it? For example, a pop cap of 12 would allow one size 12 city to be traded or two size 6, etc.

Then have timer, the cap is in effect for 'X' turns (20, 30, 50, whatever).

So, if you have a thirty turn timer, a team could trade a city of five, the clock starts running, and within that 30 turns the team could also trade a city of four and a city of three.

It would allow for stratigic trading and would limit the complete switch over of a quitting team.

I think the sections 4.1 and 4.2 on official treaties can be dropped. The signees of a treaty should watch for treaty violations themselves, this is not for the admins to decide IMO.

Rule 3.5 on ship chaining can go as it does not tell us anything.

Rule 6.4 on passwords can go.

I agree with GA on simply listing exploits without coded "penalties".

Refugees: by locking down the forum I suppose you mean that they lose read access to it. I don't see why it helps, it is quite easy to keep a local copy of your team's forum if you wish. And turnplayers would generally have a large store of screenies and saves, diplomats would have copies of chats and treaties, etc.
So I think we'll have either
- refugees can say whatever they want.
- refugees cannot speak of the past.
- joining a new team is not allowed, and refugees can read (but not post) all the forums.
I don't mind much either way, but I prefer the second or third, because the first option could easily tear a losing team apart before its final defeat.

EDIT: I agree with Chamnix on city trading.

As for "no fooling rule": exploiting weaknesses of the game interface (e.g. naming a city to "Steam Power" and trading it as if it were the tech) should not be allowed IMO.

I think the sections 4.1 and 4.2 on official treaties can be dropped. The signees of a treaty should watch for treaty violations themselves, this is not for the admins to decide IMO.

I think this still has a purpose and would like to keep 4.1 (send the treaties to the Admins). 4.2 (all treaties are private) is sorta gray.

In MTDG I:
Team KISS had a question about a treaty and instead of getting into a shouting match with the other team called upon the Admins to declare a treaty violation.

Perhaps this section needs to be amended to include the steps needed to have the Admins adjudicate on a possible treaty violation.

Why should the admins adjudicate anything? If you break a treaty, you break a treaty, and the other team is free to act accordingly. Admins shouldn't be involved in treaties IMO.

As far as city trading goes the simplest thing to do is to only allow it in peace time (i.e. when both civs involved with the trade are at peace with everyone). The expection would be that a trade occurs between 2 teams at war as part of a peace treaty. Some may think this is a bit draconian but this is the only way that takes away all possiblity of arguing whether or not a trade was to deny another team winning a war ect.

I would rather have a hard and fast rule then have the game stopped by arguments and bickering

Yes that is my view of things Niklas. It should be up to the teams in the game to react to the breaking of treaty terms.


As for "no fooling rule": exploiting weaknesses of the game interface (e.g. naming a city to "Steam Power" and trading it as if it were the tech) should not be allowed IMO.

I think this should definitely not be allowed.

No rules, Great Scotch! Kill first, talk later.

We could make screenshot trading legal as soon as contact is made...

I'm not sure about that - unless you are suggesting that screenshots other than map shots are allowed. Otherwise, I think all screenshots should wait until MapMaking.

pardon my memory :old: At what stage in the game can you trade rival contact details with other teams?

pardon my memory :old: At what stage in the game can you trade rival contact details with other teams? You're acting like me old man.:old: I'm not sure there's a required tech in c3c vs. vanilla.

I'd prefer maps be available as soon map making is researched. There's value in diplo.

pardon my memory :old: At what stage in the game can you trade rival contact details with other teams?
Printing press

Printing press
:lol: Even worse, I have to play a game where I don't make contacts or something.

:lol: Howdy Whomp :wavey:

Should the Printing Press pre-requisite be changed to an earlier technology?

Maybe Writing or whatever tech enables Embassies ???

I'd change it to writing if it was up to me, Printing Press is what you learn when your enemies have 1 city left between them.

I'd change it to writing if it was up to me, Printing Press is what you learn when your enemies have 1 city left between them.

Not in this game young man, not in this game ;)

I'm ok with it being writing. Or, if we want it in the middle ages, education (since that's what education is, sharing information).

Or even keeping it at printing press. In an all humans game, knowledge is power and being the only civ to be able to trade that stuff is pretty powerful.

I assume lying to each other when sharing things is actively frowned upon?

I assume lying to each other when sharing things is actively frowned upon?

Last game it sort of was, but now, I think we're going to let teams toy with each other a bit more. ;) Makes it a bit more interesting.

I don't really like the idea of a quitting team deciding who wins by giving someone lots of cities.

Do you think we'll have a team quit that still has lots of cities? Last game three teams played on despite knowing they would lose. It never crossed TNT's mind to give away lots of cities. There was talk of abandoning our cities and calling it a day but even that was nixed and the team continued to play.

I'm not really in favor of calling anything an exploit in a game where all humans are playing. It's one thing to ban exploits when playing against the AI (who will give you an RoP and then allow you to stockpile a SoD next to their capital). It's another to ban them when we're all playing against humans who a) know how to counter said exploits and b) also know how to use the same exploits. We are all on a level playing field if we simply allow what the Civ III game allows. Why make a bunch of rules that hinder things? The rules are programmed into the game. Let's play it.

BTW, I do not call things like replaying the save or zooming out to get spoiler info exploits. i call that sort of thing cheating.

:agree: I couldn't have said it better than what donsig just did.

1.0 - Game Information
1.1 - The Save
All teams are required to play the save within 24 hours, unless they request an extension in the Turn Tracker thread. After playing the save, they must send it to the next team via email. Additionally, the turnplayer must post in the Turn Tracker thread to indicate the save has been sent. The next team's 24 hours begins after said post.

1.2 - Battle Logs
Teams are required to send a battle log to the team(s) they attack during their turn, indicating what units attacked, and what the result was. This includes bombardments as well. A sample line could read: "4HP Rifleman attacks 3HP Mustketman - Rifleman wins, still 4HP".

1.3 - Punishment
The game administrators are responsible for handing out punishment after a violation of a rule. Punishment may be limited to one single player or the team, but it will not be overly harsh or cruel. It could include forced anarchy, forced payment of gold, removal from the team forum for a period of time, or other actions. If a team feels it is unfair, they may appeal the decision.

1.4 - Clarifications
If a team would like to ask the administrator's approval for an action they want to undertake to see if it is against the rules or not, they may PM the administrators and get their interpretation. It is advised that if a team is in doubt, they ask the administrators and get a clarification.

1.5 - Refugees
After a team has been eliminated from the game, its members may apply to become members of another team still active. They are free to share any information they have with their new team.

2.0 - Banned Exploits
2.1 - Coordinated Capturing of Units
It is prohibited for teams to capture and recapture each turn units such as workers, catapults, and other non-combat units for the intent of using them twice in a turn against another team.

2.2 - Leader Sacrifices
Teams are not allowed to intentionally provide another team with units for the purpose of generating a Military Great Leader.

2.3 - Map Trading
Screenshots and maps (verbal or visual) cannot be traded between teams until INSERT TECHNOLOGY DECIDED UPON is researched. After that, teams are free to trade screenshots as a normal trade item.

2.4 - City Trading
Teams are not permitted to trade cities with the intent of teleporting units. Also, teams cannot rename cities and trade them as if they were a technology or resource (for example, renaming a city "Horses").

2.5 - Reloading
Reloading the save because of unfavorable outcomes or events is not allowed. If you are playing the save and the game crashes on you, it is permitted to load the save again, but please notify the administrators as well.

2.6 - Save Manipulation
Using any utility for the purpose of altering the game save or a game event is prohibited.

2.7 - Misleading Renaming
Teams cannot intentionally try to rename cities as technologies or resources, nor can they rename units to try and pass them off as another unit type to confuse the opponent.

2.8 - Ships' Visibility
It is not allowed to use up all of a ship's movement points and then press Fortify All, which will fortify not only the units in the boat, but also the boat itself, giving increased visibility on the next turn.

2.9 - Double Tile Usage
Scrolling through the city screens in the pre-turn for the purpose of shifting tiles around so that two cities can use the same tile in one turn is prohibited.

2.10 - Auto Go-To
Units can get double movement (as the second turn of movement happens earlier than it should) if the auto go-to command is used for distances over 1 turn. Do not use go-to commands for over 1 turn of distance.

------------------------------

Please provide your comments on 2.3: (do we want to allow directions? If so, how do we differentiate between verbal map & directions?)

Anything else I've missed? Anything people are really unhappy about? There's a lot of stuff in this thread, so I might've forgotten something.

2.8 - Ships' Visibility
It is not allowed to use up all of a ship's movement points and then press Fortify All, which will fortify not only the units in the boat, but also the boat itself, giving increased visibility on the next turn.

I've never heard of this, what actually happens? :confused:

I've never heard of this, what actually happens? :confused:
It gives you increased line of sight.

Do we even need a rule for false wars? I trust that no one would do this but...

It gives you increased line of sight.

How though?

well, if lying is ok, then it may make sense to keep contacts where they are - it makes for more strategy. Do you go for printing press and have better, more accurate information that you can trade around?

I dunno.

How though?By fortifying the boat.

well, if lying is ok, then it may make sense to keep contacts where they are - it makes for more strategy. Do you go for printing press and have better, more accurate information that you can trade around?

I dunno. Misinformation, yes but I wouldn't say lying is ever ok. Reputation and honor does matter imo.

We can't give actual contact in the diplo screen till printing press however giving a team directions to another civ seems ok. I'd be surprised if full contact wasn't made before the end of the AA.

By fortifying the boat.

So, a boat which has used all its movement only gets 1 los?! Or does a fortified boat get an extra los?! I fail to understand what could make this happen.

So, a boat which has used all its movement only gets 1 los?! Or does a fortified boat get an extra los?! I fail to understand what could make this happen.
Fortified boats gets extra los.

Fortified boats gets extra los.

Is this a PBEM-only bug?

Is this a PBEM-only bug?
It happens in any Civ III game. If you fortify a ship, on the next turn, it'll have an increased line of sight.

Why? Maybe the sailors, who don't have to sail the boat anymore, have more time to stare...

2.7 - Misleading Renaming
Teams cannot intentionally try to rename cities as technologies or resources, nor can they rename units to try and pass them off as another unit type to confuse the opponent

Do we want to extend this to city naming as well? IIRC there was a certain team that wanted to hide it's palace jump by naming the new capital the old capital's name. While this wasn't an exploit, it really just made us laugh at it later rather than earlier.

But the exploit of naming a city "Military Tradition" shouldn't be allowed

If we just move all directions/verbal descriptions/contact trading to Writing, I bet by the teams meet each other, they will already be able to trade directions and the like - so if we move all that to Writing, we can also avoid trying to determine what is a direction and what is a verbal map and that mess. Thoughts?


Do we want to extend this to city naming as well? IIRC there was a certain team that wanted to hide it's palace jump by naming the new capital the old capital's name. While this wasn't an exploit, it really just made us laugh at it later rather than earlier.

But the exploit of naming a city "Military Tradition" shouldn't be allowed
You could argue that they didn't rename to confuse the other teams, they just did it to keep the same capital's name. I think if a team tries to rename their cities just to mess with the enemy, then this rule applies.

If we just move all directions/verbal descriptions/contact trading to Writing, I bet by the teams meet each other, they will already be able to trade directions and the like - so if we move all that to Writing, we can also avoid trying to determine what is a direction and what is a verbal map and that mess.

This seems simple and reasonable.

Do you think we'll have a team quit that still has lots of cities? Last game three teams played on despite knowing they would lose. It never crossed TNT's mind to give away lots of cities. There was talk of abandoning our cities and calling it a day but even that was nixed and the team continued to play.

And the players on TNT (and the other teams) deserve a lot of credit for that, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t happen this game. Other PBEM games have been ruined by similar actions. Unless we want to get into the whole “spirit of the game” BS again, then I think that if we don’t want something to happen in the game, then it has to be in the ruleset.

2.9 - Double Tile Usage
Scrolling through the city screens in the pre-turn for the purpose of shifting tiles around so that two cities can use the same tile in one turn is prohibited.

This omits the maximize wealth then production exploit. I think the rule should be no breaking into the build sequence – this includes going to the big picture after discovering a tech and scrolling through cities to change builds or adjust citizens in any way.

Do we also want something about declaring war for purposes of giving war happiness, or is that simply another tradable good?

Another potential exploit - running a deficit treasury so that your cash reserves do not cover the next turn's spending. It carries an in-game punishment of loss of a building/unit, but that is often not severe enough to make up for the advantage gained.

But don't you think that running a deficit is the punishment for that action? If a team doesn't want to have any gold on hand, lose buildings and units, that's fine with me. If they actually want gold, and their units to be kept, I think they'll think twice about prolonged deficits. ;)

I agree with GA. What Chamnix described is not so much an exploit as much as it is a strategy (and a very poor one at that).

I agree with GA. What Chamnix described is not so much an exploit as much as it is a strategy (and a very poor one at that).

I think Chamix is talking about going so far over the limit that even if you lose the 1 unit, it is no where near enough compensation for the deficit spending.

Deficit Spending
Should you have negative income to the point where your treasury goes negative, each turn that you are negative you will have only a single unit or improvement sold-off. It is therefore possible to run at huge deficits, and still only lose one item per turn. This is not allowed, and you must make every effort to maintain a viable economy.

I agree we should just allow deficit spending. Period.

If there is to be a rule against too much deficit spending then the rule should be made explicit and objective. The phrase too much is subjective and as such makes a very poor rule. The trouble with crafting a good objective rule for this, combined with the question of who will be the economic watchdog (do we expect the admins to look at each and every save to ensure the rule isn't broken?) means that I don't see how we can have a realistic rule about this.

I agree with the whole let the game moderate itself thing.

The last MTDG ruleset looks like a nightmare in my opinion. ;)

Other than the base set of rules and the obvious set of exploits/tactics that are banned, we should let the teams decide, at least for treaties.

For example, if someone backstabs your treaty (this happens), then you learn that they can't be trusted :mischief: When you sign a treaty, it is on honor and whoever chooses to break this honor, will suffer by having no allies :cry:. There are no admins to punish this in the real world, therefore.

-Elear

The phrase too much is subjective and as such makes a very poor rule.

So true.

The trouble with crafting a good objective rule for this, combined with the question of who will be the economic watchdog (do we expect the admins to look at each and every save to ensure the rule isn't broken?) means that I don't see how we can have a realistic rule about this.

To me, the GOTM Exploit was clear enough.

The real issue, for me, is how to enforce the rule. Send the turn back to the offending team? Let the Admins edit the save and remove some buildings/units?

I was a houseparent for two and a half years and the best lessons I learned seems so obvious in hindsight.

Don't make a rule you don't know how to enforce.
Don't make a rule you don't plan to enforce.

So, I don't see a way to avoid this exploit, if a team wished to use it.

Same way they enforce any other rule:

1.3 - Punishment
The game administrators are responsible for handing out punishment after a violation of a rule. Punishment may be limited to one single player or the team, but it will not be overly harsh or cruel. It could include forced anarchy, forced payment of gold, removal from the team forum for a period of time, or other actions. If a team feels it is unfair, they may appeal the decision.

All rules have the problem of what the punishment should be. I expect just by making it a rule, everyone will follow it, and enforcement will be moot.

Cham--I don't know how you feel about that exploit but it seems like it should be ruled against. Maybe it's just me but if a team is able to do 4 turn research it should be because they're capable of doing it.

All rules have the problem of what the punishment should be. I expect just by making it a rule, everyone will follow it, and enforcement will be moot.

Oh, boy, that only makes me want to break the rule just to see if I can get away with it. Also reminds me of an ancient Korean saying: :old: Nice guys finish last because they follow the unenforceable rules that no one else follows.

Are the admins willing to actively police this rule? I'm not so sure I want to blindly accept the honor system here. Also, how much is too much? A deficit bigger than the cost of the unit or building that will be lost? How is that cost to be calculated? At the same rate the building would get if it was sold?

Is it ok to run a one turn deficit (with an empty treasury) in unusual circumstances? Is that considered an exploit or is it only an exploit when it is done for a series of turns?

Is it ok to run a one turn deficit (with an empty treasury) in unusual circumstances? Is that considered an exploit or is it only an exploit when it is done for a series of turns?

If you are attempting to keep your civs monetary problems to a minimum, its ok. If you are intentionally spending over by more than would be paid back by selling off a building or a unit, then you are breaking the rule.

I'm tending to agree with donsig here - in this ruleset, I tried to stick concrete and too the point. I shied away from things like the infamous "spirit of the game" and more vague terminology. If we start trying to do "partial exploits", I don't think it'll turn out definitive enough.

@Whomp - I agree it should be banned - that's why I brought it up.

@donsig - I would say there are no "unusual circumstances" when it is OK. That way we have a hard and fast rule with no wiggle room. You cannot run a deficit greater than your cash reserves even for one turn - you can always hire taxmen or build wealth so there is no reason why you can't stay solvent.

And you realize of course that many of the rules are "unenforceable". How are the admins going to know if you fortify a boat or double use tiles without checking every save? How is anyone going to know if you reload? If you want to cheat, so be it.

Oh, boy, that only makes me want to break the rule just to see if I can get away with it. Also reminds me of an ancient Korean saying: Nice guys finish last because they follow the unenforceable rules that no one else follows.

:vomit: oops, something tasted foul there...

Side note: The saying don't add up. TNT did finish last, but they weren't nice guys. How rigidly they followed unenforceable rules? Allow me to, in reference to the above post, be a bit uncertain.

Do the admins have to check every save to enforce the rules? I mean these things would be posted in the forum unless of course a team wanted to be super secret and do everything by PM's or go to the trouble to set up a forum somewhere else. At the end of the day i guess if someone wants to breaks the rules and are prepared to go to all lengths to do so then thats really sad for them. RL must really suck to feel the need to cheat to win a friendly (but competative) game of civ

Also a suggestion i thought of after reading a post from the old game in a certain teams forum, can we have random seed on reload off so people can't complain about the possiblity of save reloads

Random Seed reload OFF ... I would prefer it to stay as I recall needing some screenies and had to retrace what the Turntaker did to get them.

However if it is indeed a concern ... well maybe OFF is OK.

random seed on reload = off means that you can re-trace the turn player's actions without any changes

random seed on reload = on means that you could never retrace steps.


off is the way to go on that. There are times when KISS had to replay the save do to a corrupt or lost file. So there would have been no way to do that and end up with the same battle results. Even the barbs could have acted differently if the setting was on

Speaking of barbs...it's come up in the ISDG game during a barb uprising that the previous teams turnplayers barb setting (NoAIPatrol=1, only NE-SW. If NoAIPatrol=0, they can move anywhere) determined barb movement.

Can we have all turnplayers put their ini to one or the other for consistency?

Back to the topic of negative research spending I'd like to add that to the ruleset. I'd be shocked if my team wasn't unanimous on this.

Yeah - MIA had a disappointment once as well, in that respect.

Random Seed Off should be the way to go.

I agree that it's really sad if anyone tries to cheat at a friendly (even if competitive) game of Civ. Anyone who does, should not be allowed to participate in Demogames (of any kind on CFC) ever again. Zero tolerance on crap, that is.

-Elear

Back to the topic of negative research spending I'd like to add that to the ruleset. I'd be shocked if my team wasn't unanimous on this.yup.. even if it's not enforceable, I think that it needs to be in the rules as a code of conduct, so teams know what is right and what is wrong in this game. Rest assured that if anyone on my team tries any exploitish actions, it will get reported. Now stuff not in the rules, is fair game. Which is why I would like negative research in the rules.

Speaking of barbs...it's come up in the ISDG game during a barb uprising that the previous teams turnplayers barb setting (NoAIPatrol=1, only NE-SW. If NoAIPatrol=0, they can move anywhere) determined barb movement.

Is this ongoing throughout the game? When a team changes turnplayers, do we have to worry about what the current turnplayer has?

Is this ongoing throughout the game? When a team changes turnplayers, do we have to worry about what the current turnplayer has?

I'm not sure, however I would think so.

Is this ongoing throughout the game? When a team changes turnplayers, do we have to worry about what the current turnplayer has?Yep. It's whatever the turnplayer has in their ini.
If Team A's player has nopatrol=0 then Team B would get barbs moving anywhere. If Team B has nopatrol=1 then Team C would get barbs moving on the NE/SW axis.

This would only be a factor when barbs are around.

Actually, I don't think understand this - barbs only move once per turn. How would they move differently for one team than for another? At the end of a round, they either move or they don't. Is it that they move differently based on which team they are closest to? :confused:

Actually, you're right so it would depend on the ini in the file before they move.

So whichever team is last in the turn order, we have to know what their barb setting is, and all their turnplayers should all use the same setting - that makes sense to me. I think it is definitely preferable to have NoAIPatrol=0 - make the barbs move as much as we can.

Agreed. I think most SGers already have that setting.

I would agree - NoAIPatrol=0 is the right way. It's just too wierd if it is not that...

Side note: The saying don't add up. TNT did finish last, but they weren't nice guys. How rigidly they followed unenforceable rules? Allow me to, in reference to the above post, be a bit uncertain.

Dude, saying nice guys finish last doesn't mean that there aren't other reasons why someone can finish last. For example, poor players (whether nice or not) tend finish last. As we all know, TNT certainly played both the Civ and diplomatic games poorly. We also did not break any rules, unenforceable or otherwise. We did take alot of flak for renaming our capital city though doing so did not break any rules. No one stopped to consider the fact that we did that when it was obvious anyone paying attention could figure out what we did. Instead, to add insult to injury, we were basically accused not only of breaking a rule but of doing it in an incompetent manner! So pardon me if I'm a bit worried about the rules you all want to make.

If everyone wants a rule that says no deficit greater than cash reserves that at least sounds like an objective rule. I would point out though that there may be times when such a rule is inadvertantly transgressed. It's quite possible to be in such a tight spot financially while at the same time messing up micromanagement in such a way that an unexpected riot or whatever could put a team in violation. If that ever happened I hope the punishment wouldn't be too severe.

As far as enforcing the rule I suggest that the rule say that if any building is sold or unit disbanded automatically due to a deficit that the team advise the admins so it can be investigated. I'm assuming here that a pop up message appears when this happens. (I don't know how it works because it would never occur to me play that way!)

Finally, the rule should give some indication of the consequences of breaking the rule.

1.0 - Game Information
1.1 - The Save
All teams are required to play the save within 24 hours, unless they request an extension in the Turn Tracker thread. After playing the save, they must send it to the next team via email. Additionally, the turnplayer must post in the Turn Tracker thread to indicate the save has been sent. The next team's 24 hours begins after said post.

1.2 - Battle Logs
Teams are required to send a battle log to the team(s) they attack during their turn, indicating what units attacked, and what the result was. This includes bombardments as well. A sample line could read: "4HP Rifleman attacks 3HP Mustketman - Rifleman wins, still 4HP".

1.3 - Punishment
The game administrators are responsible for handing out punishment after a violation of a rule. Punishment may be limited to one single player or the team, but it will not be overly harsh or cruel. It could include forced anarchy, forced payment of gold, removal from the team forum for a period of time, or other actions. If a team feels it is unfair, they may appeal the decision.

1.4 - Clarifications
If a team would like to ask the administrator's approval for an action they want to undertake to see if it is against the rules or not, they may PM the administrators and get their interpretation. It is advised that if a team is in doubt, they ask the administrators and get a clarification.

1.5 - Refugees
After a team has been eliminated from the game, its members may apply to become members of another team still active. They are free to share any information they have with their new team.

1.6 - Acceptable Utilities
The following out-of-game utilities are allowed: CivAssist II (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=118540) and MapStat (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=52902). When using these programs, please use the latest version. If you would like to use a utility that is not on those list, please contact the administrators to get approval.

2.0 - Banned Exploits
2.1 - Coordinated Capturing of Units
It is prohibited for teams to capture and recapture each turn units such as workers, catapults, and other non-combat units for the intent of using them twice in a turn against another team.

2.2 - Leader Sacrifices
Teams are not allowed to intentionally provide another team with units for the purpose of generating a Military Great Leader.

2.3 - Contact Trading
Contact trading in-game is allowed at Writing. While a team may send emails to any discovered teams, regardless of whether or not they have Writing, out-of-game contact between undiscovered teams may not occur unless they meet in-game or another team (with Writing) sells the contact to another team.

2.4 - Map Trading
Screenshots and visual maps cannot be traded between teams until Map Making is researched. After that, teams are free to trade screenshots as a normal trade item. Verbal maps (descriptions of the terrain, however detailed, as long as no images are involved) are allowed without any prerequisite.

2.5 - City Trading
Teams are not permitted to trade cities with the intent of teleporting units. Also, teams cannot rename cities and trade them as if they were a technology or resource (for example, renaming a city "Horses").

2.6 - Reloading
Reloading the save because of unfavorable outcomes or events is not allowed. If you are playing the save and the game crashes on you, it is permitted to load the save again, but please notify the administrators as well.

2.7 - Save Manipulation
Using any utility for the purpose of altering the game save or a game event is prohibited.

2.8 - Misleading Renaming
Teams cannot intentionally try to rename cities as technologies or resources, nor can they rename units to try and pass them off as another unit type to confuse the opponent.

2.9 - Ships' Visibility
It is not allowed to use up all of a ship's movement points and then press Fortify All, which will fortify not only the units in the boat, but also the boat itself, giving increased visibility on the next turn.

2.10 - Double Tile Usage
Scrolling through the city screens in the pre-turn for the purpose of shifting tiles around so that two cities can use the same tile in one turn is prohibited.

2.11 - Auto Go-To
Units can get double movement (as the second turn of movement happens earlier than it should) if the auto go-to command is used for distances over 1 turn. Do not use go-to commands for over 1 turn of distance.

2.12 - Negative Spending
Teams may not have a negative income which would put their treasury below zero gold, at the expense of just a few units or buildings, in order to gain advantages, such as running full science, which they could not normally afford with their regular income. Although having a negative income is permissible, perhaps to finish research of a technology one turn quicker, exploiting the game in the aforementioned manner, in a way that the disbanding of units and buildings does not make up for the commercial gains, is not allowed.

---------------------
My logic for "verbal maps" in 2.4 - I think, as we saw with MIA and KISS in MTDG I, the hassle of trying to agree on stuff verbally without being able to use screenshots or drawings of the map makes up for the fact that there is no prerequisite. It's nearly impossible to make a "quality" verbal map similar to a screenshot, and it provides an incentive to research Map Making.

Let me know if you have strong objections to 2.12, or its wording. Unless there are serious flaws, I would rather solve disputes through (team?) polling, not more discussion...

Although having a negative income is permissible, perhaps to finish research of a technology one turn quicker, exploiting the game in the aforementioned manner, in a way that the disbanding of units and buildings does not make up for the commercial gains, is not allowed.
Now, IMHO there should never be a case where negative income is applied purposely. the above case permits is however. I think if you get into anarchy and suddenly are faced with huge negative income, so be it. But under normal circumstances, negative income must never be allowed. Not even to finish research a turn quicker. It would be an exploit.

A minor quibble: there need not be zero gold in the treasury; having income so that the gold would go below zero would be the problem.

2.0 - Banned Exploits
2.1 - Coordinated Capturing of Units
It is prohibited for teams to capture and recapture each turn units such as workers, catapults, and other non-combat units for the intent of using them twice in a turn against another team.
I've never seen or heard of this being done. Is this something which could only be done in a pbem game by 2 civs who are allies using each other's units against a 3rd team? :confused:

2.4 - Map Trading
Screenshots and visual maps cannot be traded between teams until Map Trading is researched. After that, teams are free to trade screenshots as a normal trade item. Verbal maps (descriptions of the terrain, however detailed, as long as no images are involved) are allowed without any prerequisite.

Shouldn't the tech be Map Making not Map Trading ?

:blush: Yeah.

TimBentley: Thanks.

gmaharriet: Yeah, because those units are non-combat, allied teams could just capture and recapture each turn those units and use them twice.

ThERat: I think there's a difference between negative gpt (say, -3gpt @ 80% science, 201 gold in the treasury), and having a negative treasury, which is what the exploit is (for example, -11gpt @ 100% science, 1 gold in the treasury), where there is a clear difference between the gained commerce/beakers and the commerce/gold paid from the disbanded units/buildings.

I don’t know if people didn’t respond to these because they disagreed, but I figured I’d repost them in case they just got overlooked (besides, I just love quoting myself :D):

2.10 - Double Tile Usage
Scrolling through the city screens in the pre-turn for the purpose of shifting tiles around so that two cities can use the same tile in one turn is prohibited.



This omits the maximize wealth then production exploit. I think the rule should be no breaking into the build sequence – this includes going to the big picture after discovering a tech and scrolling through cities to change builds or adjust citizens in any way.

Do we also want something about declaring war for purposes of giving war happiness, or is that simply another tradable good?

EDIT: Regarding negative income:

Teams may not consistently have a negative income which would put their treasury below zero gold

I would eliminate the word consistently - if people don't want ambiguity, then we can't have that in there, and I don't see any legimate reason you would put your treasury below zero gold for even one turn.

I saw them, I just didn't respond. Eliminating going to the big picture is not something I support - it's not an exploit; sometimes you'll want to change prebuilds (say, for knights, the turn you discover Chivalry), or adjust other builds/laborers.

sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Deficit spending is perfectly fine as long as there is gold in the coffer. What I meant is spelled out here
I would eliminate the word consistently - if people don't want ambiguity, then we can't have that in there, and I don't see any legimate reason you would put your treasury below zero gold for even one turn.

2.3 - Contact Trading
Contact trading in-game is allowed at Writing. Teams cannot contact each other before this technology via email or private message.
This one is worded poorly, in my opinion. Once a team meets another team, they are free to e-mail/private message/MSN each other whenever they want. However, they cannot trade contacts with each other, whether it be in the diplo window or in an e-mail (Team X is north of you would be improper before writing).

I saw them, I just didn't respond. Eliminating going to the big picture is not something I support - it's not an exploit; sometimes you'll want to change prebuilds (say, for knights, the turn you discover Chivalry), or adjust other builds/laborers.
Banning this will also elimante the chance to prevent riots if you lost a luxury in the interturn or war weariness struck badly... :ack:

If this happens it is common usage (and no exploit imo as the city governor does the same) to go to the first rioting town and fix the mistake for all others. :old:

ThERat and RegentMan: Done and done.

This was part of the ruleset last game:

3.2 - Hitting F1/back-forward to change production

Description: It is possible to use F1 to go into city views and change production or rush items before a city has been reached in the pre-turn production queue.

Definition: This can result in tech-enabled units and Wonders being completed the very turn the tech is researched, or production to be changed in response to an enemy's actions (like Walls if a stack moves toward a specific city and not another)(bold added).

Do we really want to allow that? Also I believe working high commerce tiles then breaking into the build sequence after commerce is computed to work production tiles is a clear exploit that must be banned.

As far as flipping a prebuild the turn you complete a tech, I don't really care one way or another. We lived without it last game, and I don't think it makes a real difference - you just have to plan your prebuild to finish one turn later. My proposed rule would forbid flipping prebuilds, but I wanted a simple rule, and it is more complicated to allow this but ban the hypothetical walls example above.

If the governor prevents riots, then I guess we should be able to also. In that case I suggest making the rule so that the only thing that can be changed in the build sequence is hiring additional specialists.

I can see a reason why a team would deficit spend.

Say you are at 100% science and have built a granary and have 15 gold. You have enough gold to handle 15 turns of deficit research.

In the interturn, you get raided by a barb horse, and now have no gold in the treasury.

This has to be allowed.

Teams may not have a negative income which would put their treasury below zero gold

I would say that having 15 gold with a -1 gpt deficit when you end your turn does not violate this rule regardless of what happens on the interturn. (And I hope nobody thinks that means it would be OK to send the 15 gold to someone with accept and claim they were not violating the rule because the other team hadn't accepted yet).

If something freaky such as barb horse happens, I'm sure an exception can be made.

I would say that having 15 gold with a -1 gpt deficit when you end your turn does not violate this rule regardless of what happens on the interturn. (And I hope nobody thinks that means it would be OK to send the 15 gold to someone with accept and claim they were not violating the rule because the other team hadn't accepted yet).

I suggested earlier that the rule should mandate teams notifying admins whenever a building is sold or units disbanded automatically due to a deficit with no gold to cover it. Then the admins could investigate and determine if there was intentional rulebreaking. As I said earlier, we also need to know what the punishment is. If there is no punishment then there is no use in having a rule. Perhaps we'd be better off just haiving a gentlemen's agreement not to engage in deficits we can't cover from our existing treasury.

I think all teams should be mature enough to follow these rules. Of course, someone could always cheat, but I am sure nobody want to play that cheap.

What is the purpose of rule 4.4 - keeping combat logs? What difference does it make if logs are kept or not? Is it sent to the opposing team so they have some idea what happened to them rather than finding things out the hard way (examination)?

The BattleLog is used in all pbem games ... primarily to inform the other team what you could not see happening.

Without it, it would be difficult to know which team attacked you or if indeed the 'missing' unit was lost due to barbarian action.

It also gives the attacking team a chance to brag their combat achievements to the other. :mischief:

Also to clarify losses the enemy has suffered in the attack, which would be unknown if the defending unit did not get wounded in the encounter.

What is the purpose of rule 4.4 - keeping combat logs? What difference does it make if logs are kept or not? Is it sent to the opposing team so they have some idea what happened to them rather than finding things out the hard way (examination)?
In a PBEM, when you open up your turn, you don't see the enemy units attacking. So, what this rule does is make the game a bit more like Singleplayer - the other team has to report who they attacked, with what, and what the outcome was. In Singleplayer, you'd see an enemy bomber go overhead - in a PBEM, you'd just open up the save to see some of your units damaged/killed! :eek:

Yeah, the combat log is sent to the opposing team. Isn't it pretty clear? "Teams are required to send a battle log to the team(s) they attack during their turn, indicating what units attacked, and what the result was."

1.0 - Game Information

2.4 - Map Trading
Screenshots and visual maps cannot be traded between teams until Map Making is researched. After that, teams are free to trade screenshots as a normal trade item. Verbal maps (descriptions of the terrain, however detailed, as long as no images are involved) are allowed without any prerequisite.

2.12 - Negative Spending
Teams may not have a negative income which would put their treasury below zero gold, at the expense of just a few units or buildings, in order to gain advantages, such as running full science, which they could not normally afford with their regular income. Although having a negative income is permissible, perhaps to finish research of a technology one turn quicker, exploiting the game in the aforementioned manner, in a way that the disbanding of units and buildings does not make up for the commercial gains, is not allowed.

---------------------
My logic for "verbal maps" in 2.4 - I think, as we saw with MIA and KISS in MTDG I, the hassle of trying to agree on stuff verbally without being able to use screenshots or drawings of the map makes up for the fact that there is no prerequisite. It's nearly impossible to make a "quality" verbal map similar to a screenshot, and it provides an incentive to research Map Making.

Let me know if you have strong objections to 2.12, or its wording. Unless there are serious flaws, I would rather solve disputes through (team?) polling, not more discussion...

I don't see any problems in 2.12, but as far as 2.4 goes, this is a text-based game, so is verbal to mean typed text? I can put together a typed map that is just as readable as a graphic map. Are we saying that one map is better than the other? Or are we saying that we can't enforce this rule?

Cyc, I'm not quite sure how you can put together a map using text/characters (yes, this is what is meant by verbal ("words")) that looks just as good as an in-game image. Sure it may be readable, but that doesn't mean it is convenient or looks just as good. What the rule is trying to say is basically that if you want to be able to trade screenshots/maps rather than having to spend time making word-based ones, research Map Making. If you want to be stuck with those ugly text maps, well, it's your call. We had to cover text descriptions and text maps somehow, and this is how it seemed to work the best.

Given that we have pushed trading maps forward to Map Making why not just say no trading of any types of maps or directions until one team has MM.

Robi D, although it's not written in the rules, it'll most likely happen this way. By the times teams start meeting each other, I wouldn't be surprised if one of them had Map Making, or at least one tech away, at Writing, so I don't think this will be a major issue anyhow.

Robi D, although it's not written in the rules, it'll most likely happen this way. By the times teams start meeting each other, I wouldn't be surprised if one of them had Map Making, or at least one tech away, at Writing, so I don't think this will be a major issue anyhow.

I was thinking the same, which is why i don't see the point quibbling over this. That why i suggested just making a hard and fast rule with no grey area.

I was thinking the same, which is why i don't see the point quibbling over this. That why i suggested just making a hard and fast rule with no grey area.

There would be even less quibbling if we just allowed screenshots to be traded from the get go. If we did I doubt we'd see teams sending off screenshots of their starting locations. As I said before screenshots can be manipulated and it is only maps traded within the Civ III game that can really be trusted.

I do however agree with the General that any rule we make should not have grey areas.

1.0 - Game Information
1.1 - The Save
All teams are required to play the save within 24 hours, unless they request an extension in the Turn Tracker thread. After playing the save, they must send it to the next team via email. Additionally, the turnplayer must post in the Turn Tracker thread to indicate the save has been sent. The next team's 24 hours begins after said post.

1.2 - Battle Logs
Teams are required to send a battle log to the team(s) they attack during their turn, indicating what units attacked, and what the result was. This includes bombardments as well. A sample line could read: "4HP Rifleman attacks 3HP Mustketman - Rifleman wins, still 4HP".

1.3 - Punishment
The game administrators are responsible for handing out punishment after a violation of a rule. Punishment may be limited to one single player or the team, but it will not be overly harsh or cruel. It could include forced anarchy, forced payment of gold, removal from the team forum for a period of time, or other actions. If a team feels it is unfair, they may appeal the decision.

1.4 - Clarifications
If a team would like to ask the administrator's approval for an action they want to undertake to see if it is against the rules or not, they may PM the administrators and get their interpretation. It is advised that if a team is in doubt, they ask the administrators and get a clarification.

1.5 - Refugees
After a team has been eliminated from the game, its members may apply to become members of another team still active. They are free to share any information they have with their new team.

1.6 - Acceptable Utilities
The following out-of-game utilities are allowed: CivAssist II (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=118540) (v2.0.2387) and MapStat (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=52902) (v2.11.0). When using these programs, please use the latest version. If you would like to use a utility that is not on those list, or a new version of an approved utility, please contact the administrators.

2.0 - Banned Exploits
2.1 - Coordinated Capturing of Units
It is prohibited for teams to capture and recapture each turn units such as workers, catapults, and other non-combat units for the intent of using them twice in a turn against another team.

2.2 - Leader Sacrifices
Teams are not allowed to intentionally provide another team with units for the purpose of generating a Military Great Leader.

2.3 - Contact Trading
Contact trading in-game is allowed at Writing. While a team may send emails to any discovered teams, regardless of whether or not they have Writing, out-of-game contact between undiscovered teams may not occur unless they meet in-game or another team (with Writing) sells the contact to another team.

2.4 - Map Trading
Screenshots and visual maps cannot be traded between teams until Map Making is researched. After that, teams are free to trade screenshots as a normal trade item. Verbal maps (descriptions of the terrain, however detailed, as long as no images are involved) are allowed without any prerequisite.

2.5 - City Trading and Misleading Naming
Teams are not permitted to trade cities with the intent of teleporting units. Teams cannot name or rename cities or units with the names of technologies, resources, maps, units, or gold, nor can they rename units to pass them off as another unit type to confuse the other teams. If in doubt, teams should contact the administrators about their proposed name.

2.6 - Reloading
Reloading the save because of unfavorable outcomes or events is not allowed. If you are playing the save and the game crashes on you, it is permitted to load the save again, but please notify the administrators as well.

2.7 - Save Manipulation
Using any utility for the purpose of altering the game save or a game event is prohibited.

2.8 - Build Sequence
Teams cannot break into the build sequence to change anything, including actions such as hurrying production of a building/unit, changing prebuilds to the desired build, changing city laborers around to prevent a riot, and changing any build to another build (say, from a factory to a rifleman due to nearby enemy units). Instead of taking these actions during the build sequence before your turn, please make these changes during your turn. If a team is wondering whether something would be considered breaking into the build sequence, please contact the administrators.

2.9 - Ships' Visibility
It is not allowed to use up all of a ship's movement points and then press Fortify All, which will fortify not only the units in the boat, but also the boat itself, giving increased visibility on the next turn.

2.10 - Double Tile Usage
Scrolling through the city screens in the pre-turn for the purpose of shifting tiles around so that two cities can use the same tile in one turn or for the purpose of changing tiles so that a city can work two sets of tiles in one turn, say, high commerce tiles, and then high production tiles, is prohibited.

2.11 - Auto Go-To
Units can get double movement (as the second turn of movement happens earlier than it should) if the auto go-to command is used for distances over 1 turn. Do not use go-to commands for over 1 turn of distance.

2.12 - Negative Spending
Teams may not have a negative income which would put their treasury below zero gold, at the expense of just a few units or buildings, in order to gain advantages, such as running full science, which they could not normally afford with their regular income. Although having a negative income is permissible, perhaps to finish research of a technology one turn quicker, exploiting the game in the aforementioned manner, in a way that the disbanding of units and buildings does not make up for the commercial gains, is not allowed.






Any last comments?

I'll try one more time... I feel strongly that breaking into the build sequence to change from wealth to production or to react to game events is an exploit that should be banned.

The simplest way to prevent this is to ban breaking into the build sequence at all.

The next simplest way is to say breaking into the build sequence is OK only for the purpose of hiring additional specialists (so people can prevent riots).

If people insist on being able to change builds in general in the pre-turn, then I'll leave it to someone else to try to craft a rule that can't be exploited.

list looks good, agree with chamnix, breaking into the build sequence should only be allow to prevent riots or change production (such as finish a prebuild)

...or change production (such as finish a prebuild)

I thought this was specifically the exploit that should be prevented :confused:

To me, Chamnix's post is about changing around tiles to get high commerce AND high shields, whereas you two are talking about whether or not you can change the build queue (and sliders).

Chamnix: Say we leave in the ability to react to riots, change builds, etc. Would this edited rule cover your complaint about changing tiles?

2.10 - Double Tile Usage
Scrolling through the city screens in the pre-turn for the purpose of shifting tiles around so that two cities can use the same tile in one turn or for the purpose of changing tiles so that a city can work two sets of tiles in one turn, say, high commerce tiles, and then high production tiles, is prohibited.

I don't see what's wrong with changing cities to react to something such as riots - I don't see it as an exploit. Taking advantage of the game to do something you normally can't do (get high commerce and high production from 2 sets of tiles) = exploit. Doing something you normally can do (changing the build queue) = not an exploit. I don't think the timing of it makes it an exploit.

2.5 and 2.8 should be combined. I also don't like the use of renaming. Bad taste in my mouth from last game. Should the rule be against naming cities and units? After all, isn't naming a city Horses or Iron or Medicine (without ever renaming it) just as much a problem? Here is my attempt:

2.5 - City Trading and city and unit names
A)Teams are not permitted to trade cities with the intent of teleporting units.
B)Teams cannot name or rename cities or units as technologies or resources or maps or units or gold, nor can they rename units to try and pass them off as another unit type to confuse the opponent. If teams are not sure if a city name is valid under this rule they should check with the admins before using that name.

This frees up 2.8 for another use:

The Build Queue
Breaking into the build sequence is not allowed for any reason.

The only convincing arguement I've heard for allowing this at all is to prevent riots because the governor does this. So why don't we just prevent breaking into the build sequence for any reason and let teams use the governor if they want to prevent last minute riots?

I don't see what's wrong with changing cities to react to something such as riots - I don't see it as an exploit.
Chamnix has a point though - breaking into the build sequence to react to something that happened since your last turn seems like an exploit. I think that if your cities riot because you lost a lux then they riot because you lost a lux. Why should you be able to hire last minute specialists?

GingerAle’s proposed rule eliminates the worst part of the exploit, but it does leave 3 options still:

1. Some towns could build wealth, then be changed to something productive during the pre-turn (not as game-breaking, but still an exploit).
2. The example from last game of switching a town to walls based on enemy movement isn’t covered.
3. It’s one thing to flip a prebuild and have something complete naturally, but I don’t think you should be allowed to hurry production to complete something in the pre-turn.

I’m not incredibly concerned about the possibility of flipping a prebuild on the turn of completing a tech – I don’t see any particular reason it should be banned, but I also don’t see any particular reason why it must be allowed. If you are not allowed to do it, then you flip your prebuild one turn later instead – it has no real effect on the game. That was the rule for MTDG I (old rule 3.2), and I can’t think of a single time it was an issue. The reason I have continued to suggest no breaking into the build sequence at all (or only to hire new specialists) is that it is the simplest way of preventing exploits while having no significant effect on gameplay. If people are adamant about keeping the ability to flip prebuilds the turn they complete a tech, then the rule must be more complicated. Simple is better.

Please check the updated 2.5 and 2.8.

Please check the updated 2.5 and 2.8.

In 2.8 I think include actions such as should be including actions such as or including, but not limited to, actions such as.

Thank you, GA. :goodjob:

PaperBeetle, over in the GOTM/COTM Forum, has found a pair of exploits with civil engineers and rushing units. As you know, civil engineers can only be used to build improvements... but if you use engineers to mostly build an improvement, and then rush the rest... you can switch to a unit and not lose the shields!!

The second exploit is that if you partly build an improvement, then rush it, then switch to another building, the shields for the engineers gets counted again!

Obviously, the 2nd one needs to be banned - double shields is just an exploit.

What about the first? It seems like an exploit to me...

Agreed Automated Teller.

One more add on I would suggest is turnplayers should not have "always renegotiate deals" in their preferences.

I'm not sure if this and noaipatrol should be for the first team of last team playing the save.

Those are clearly exploits, AutomatedTeller; I'll add them in later tonight, and hopefully we can start polling this within the week.

1.0 - Game Information
1.1 - The Save
All teams are required to play the save within 24 hours, unless they request an extension in the Turn Tracker thread. After playing the save, they must send it to the next team via email. Additionally, the turnplayer must post in the Turn Tracker thread to indicate the save has been sent. The next team's 24 hours begins after said post.

1.2 - Battle Logs
Teams are required to send a battle log to the team(s) they attack during their turn, indicating what units attacked, and what the result was. This includes bombardments as well. A sample line could read: "4HP Rifleman attacks 3HP Mustketman - Rifleman wins, still 4HP".

1.3 - Punishment
The game administrators are responsible for handing out punishment after a violation of a rule. Punishment may be limited to one single player or the team, but it will not be overly harsh or cruel. It could include forced anarchy, forced payment of gold, removal from the team forum for a period of time, or other actions. If a team feels it is unfair, they may appeal the decision.

1.4 - Clarifications
If a team would like to ask the administrator's approval for an action they want to undertake to see if it is against the rules or not, they may PM the administrators and get their interpretation. It is advised that if a team is in doubt, they ask the administrators and get a clarification.

1.5 - Refugees
After a team has been eliminated from the game, its members may apply to become members of another team still active. They are free to share any information they have with their new team.

1.6 - Acceptable Utilities
The following out-of-game utilities are allowed: CivAssist II (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=118540) (v2.0.2387) and MapStat (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=52902) (v2.11.0). When using these programs, please use the latest version. If you would like to use a utility that is not on those list, or a new version of an approved utility, please contact the administrators.

1.7 - Turnplayer Preferences
Turnplayers for a team must have "Always Renegotiate Deals" off in their preferences.

2.0 - Banned Exploits
2.1 - Coordinated Capturing of Units
It is prohibited for teams to capture and recapture each turn units such as workers, catapults, and other non-combat units for the intent of using them twice in a turn against another team.

2.2 - Leader Sacrifices
Teams are not allowed to intentionally provide another team with units for the purpose of generating a Military Great Leader.

2.3 - Contact Trading
Contact trading in-game is allowed at Writing. While a team may send emails to any discovered teams, regardless of whether or not they have Writing, out-of-game contact between undiscovered teams may not occur unless they meet in-game or another team (with Writing) sells the contact to another team.

2.4 - Map Trading
Screenshots and visual maps cannot be traded between teams until Map Making is researched. After that, teams are free to trade screenshots as a normal trade item. Verbal maps (descriptions of the terrain, however detailed, as long as no images are involved) are allowed without any prerequisite.

2.5 - City Trading and Misleading Naming
Teams are not permitted to trade cities with the intent of teleporting units. Teams cannot name or rename cities or units with the names of technologies, resources, maps, units, or gold, nor can they rename units to pass them off as another unit type to confuse the other teams. If in doubt, teams should contact the administrators about their proposed name.

2.6 - Reloading
Reloading the save because of unfavorable outcomes or events is not allowed. If you are playing the save and the game crashes on you, it is permitted to load the save again, but please notify the administrators as well.

2.7 - Save Manipulation
Using any utility for the purpose of altering the game save or a game event is prohibited.

2.8 - Build Sequence
Teams cannot break into the build sequence to change anything, including actions such as hurrying production of a building/unit, changing prebuilds to the desired build, changing city laborers around to prevent a riot, and changing any build to another build (say, from a factory to a rifleman due to nearby enemy units). Instead of taking these actions during the build sequence before your turn, please make these changes during your turn. If a team is wondering whether something would be considered breaking into the build sequence, please contact the administrators.

2.9 - Ships' Visibility
It is not allowed to use up all of a ship's movement points and then press Fortify All, which will fortify not only the units in the boat, but also the boat itself, giving increased visibility on the next turn.

2.10 - Auto Go-To
Units can get double movement (as the second turn of movement happens earlier than it should) if the auto go-to command is used for distances over 1 turn. Do not use go-to commands for over 1 turn of distance.

2.11 - Negative Spending
Teams may not have a negative income when they end their turn which would put their treasury below zero gold, at the expense of just a few units or buildings, in order to gain advantages, such as running full science, which they could not normally afford with their regular income. Although having a negative income is permissible, perhaps to finish research of a technology one turn quicker, exploiting the game in the aforementioned manner, in a way that the disbanding of units and buildings does not make up for the commercial gains, is not allowed. If a team does end with a negative income and gets the in-game pop-up saying buildings/units have been disbanded, they should let the administrators know.

2.12 - Civil Engineer Exploits
It is not allowed for a team to use civil engineers to contribute shields to the construction of a building, and then rush that building and switch to a unit, as the shields from the civil engineers will carry over when they should not. Additionally, teams cannot partly build a city improvement, rush it, and then switch production to another building and continue this process, as the civil engineers' shields will be counted once for each rush, providing a false number of shields.


Is 2.13 2.12 OK? I went to the thread in the GOTM forum and tried to put it into a few sentences, so (everyone) let me know if it worked out fine...

GA, in hindsight, the "renegotiate all deals" thing was a problem for KISS at the end of the game and something I would simply request all of the turnplayers turn off in their preferences. It's become a issue in the ISDG.

:thumbsup:

Rule 2.10 is actually unnecessary now - 2.8 makes it redundant. As far as utility programs, I hope people won't object to things like combat calculators or Offa's town capture simulator (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=104677)? If there is any dissension, then forgot I brought it up, and let's vote on the ruleset as it is. Let's get this going!

Added 1.7 (just for you, Whomp!), took out 2.10.

:)

If there aren't any more comments soon, I'll put up a ratifying poll.

I hope people won't object to things like combat calculators or Offa's town capture simulator?no Java scripts are cool with me

One final visit to the negative treasury discussion. I've had games where I had 5g in the treasury and a +8gpt cash flow only to have a current 15gpt trade end due to being declared upon. My thinking is if the team ends their turn with in a projected safe situation (ie GPT + G >= 0) then there should be no penalty. If this is not the case then maybe a suitable penalty would be loss of 1 building & 1 unit per each 10g starting with the oldest non-palace structure and the newest military unit.

Can we have the ruleset in the OP so that I do not have to go looking for it? Thanks.

One final visit to the negative treasury discussion. I've had games where I had 5g in the treasury and a +8gpt cash flow only to have a current 15gpt trade end due to being declared upon. My thinking is if the team ends their turn with in a projected safe situation (ie GPT + G >= 0) then there should be no penalty. If this is not the case then maybe a suitable penalty would be loss of 1 building & 1 unit per each 10g starting with the oldest non-palace structure and the newest military unit.

In a case like this I don't think there should be any penalty beyond the one unit or building that is disbanded or sold. This is not an example of a team trying to exploit game mechanics. I suggested (a few times now) that whenever a team gets a pop up saying a unit was disbanded or a building sold then they should inform the admins who could then investigate and give out a punishment if warranted. Let the admins decide if there was an infringement of the rules, how big a transgression occurred and what punishment (if any) is appropriate. Even when someone is killed in RL it could be anything from premeditated first degree murder to negligent homicide with defences ranging from insanity to self defence. We're agreeing not to purposefully run deficits to exploit a weakness in the game code, we should live to that agreement and let the admins be our judge and jury if problems arise. :hammer:

Can we have the ruleset in the OP so that I do not have to go looking for it? Thanks.

Done.

One final visit to the negative treasury discussion. I've had games where I had 5g in the treasury and a +8gpt cash flow only to have a current 15gpt trade end due to being declared upon. My thinking is if the team ends their turn with in a projected safe situation (ie GPT + G >= 0) then there should be no penalty. If this is not the case then maybe a suitable penalty would be loss of 1 building & 1 unit per each 10g starting with the oldest non-palace structure and the newest military unit.

I added in the words "when they [the teams] end their turn". I think that covers anything the AI's do in the interturn (declare war to stop payments, simply end the deal, etc.).

In a case like this I don't think there should be any penalty beyond the one unit or building that is disbanded or sold. This is not an example of a team trying to exploit game mechanics. I suggested (a few times now) that whenever a team gets a pop up saying a unit was disbanded or a building sold then they should inform the admins who could then investigate and give out a punishment if warranted. Let the admins decide if there was an infringement of the rules, how big a transgression occurred and what punishment (if any) is appropriate. Even when someone is killed in RL it could be anything from premeditated first degree murder to negligent homicide with defences ranging from insanity to self defence. We're agreeing not to purposefully run deficits to exploit a weakness in the game code, we should live to that agreement and let the admins be our judge and jury if problems arise. :hammer:

Makes sense and causes no harm, so I added that in as well.

Shall we take this to the polls? :whipped:

I thought that this was the poll

I figured we'd all just get on with it now as i dont particularly care about the rules and just want to play :D

Twenty four hours went by without any complaints - I think the admins should declare the ruleset adopted and have Rik send the save to the first team as soon as it's done :).

save! save! save! save!

save! save! save! save!crap, I lost power... we need to re-discuss everything since we decided that we should have 5 teams :lol:

OK. I will send Rik instructions to begin making the map. If no one has any more comments posted when he has finished, we will consider the ruleset fair enough? After all, this process of suggestions/editing/more suggestions/more editing was far more productive then a series of polls would've been.

Sounds fantastic! Let's roll 'em, baby! :dance:

errr, do we need a discussion about the play order? Or was this decided already?
Think a week discussing this would be fine with me :yeah:

The play order would be up to the mapmaker the Great Meleet. :worship:

Yes, I have communicated with Rik, and he says he'll see what he can do this weekend. I guess the play order and save passwords are up to him...

:worship:

So we should send our passwords for the save to Rik?

Yeah, if your team has decided on one (most haven't - I wasn't sure from the thread I read in BABE's forum whether or not you guys had decided on one), now would be the time to send it to Rik.

1.0 - Game Information
All teams are required to play the save within 24 hours, unless they request an extension in the Turn Tracker thread. After playing the save, they must send it to the next team via email. Additionally, the turnplayer must post in the Turn Tracker thread to indicate the save has been sent. The next team's 24 hours begins after said post.

...

1.3 - Punishment
The game administrators are responsible for handing out punishment after a violation of a rule. Punishment may be limited to one single player or the team, but it will not be overly harsh or cruel. It could include forced anarchy, forced payment of gold, removal from the team forum for a period of time, or other actions. If a team feels it is unfair, they may appeal the decision.


Seems to me the appropriate punishment for stalling the game for 72 hours should be forfeiture of the turn. An admin opens the save, presses enter, and sends it off. That's really the only way to keep interest up in these situations. It is each Team's responsibility to play the save in the alloted time - if they can't get that done, then they should suffer the consequences. :hammer:

All in favor, speak up! :salute:

Seems to me the appropriate punishment for stalling the game for 72 hours should be forfeiture of the turn. An admin opens the save, presses enter, and sends it off. That's really the only way to keep interest up in these situations. It is each Team's responsibility to play the save in the alloted time - if they can't get that done, then they should suffer the consequences. :hammer:
I mostly agree. We do need to keep the game moving along.

However, I think that the admins should inform the team in question that they (the admins) will do such if the turn is not played within a certain time frame. Perhaps PM the entire team to inform them of this.

If, after this warning and notification, the turn is still unplayed, then, yes, I think the admins should 'play' the turn, as described above.

Good point. However....

When it comes down to it, we all know the save is supposed to be played within 24 hours. It's not optional. Every team and every team member agreed to abide by the ruleset when we undertook this adventure.

It could be overly burdensome on the admins if they were required to not only open the save, hit enter, and email it along, but also send out a PM to 20-odd people a day in advance.

A simpler solution is to put all teams on notice that delays of more than xx [72?] hours are subject to punishment by forfeiture.

Certainly, if there is another MTDG, I will advocate vociferously for this rule - it seems there's no other way to keep a game moving :shake:

I would have the rule go something like:

24hrs elapsed, with no extension posted, one of the Admins should PM the turn player

48hrs elapsed without an extension, 60 with an extension , one of the Admins should PM the whole team

60 hrs elapsed without an extension, 72 with an extension , one of the Admins should post in the team's forum

72 hrs elapsed without an extension, 84 with an extension , one of the Admins should hit enter.

Of course, in strange circumstances, such as a critical UN discussion, these could be modified, but would serve as a guideline.

Note that an extension would only give an extra 12 hrs total.

The basics of Empiremaker's proposal sound good to me.

I'd just suggest that (to lessen the burden on the Admins) they only need to PM the last turn player @ 24 hours, post in the team thread at 48 hours, then put everyone out of their misery at 72 hours.
The PMing at 24 and Posting at 48 can be forgone if an extension is requested – indicating the team is already aware of the delay and trying to resolve it.
No matter what, if you can’t get the save played in 3 days – the show must go on.
(With flexibility for obvious extenuating circumstances, of course.)

Simple, easy to remember… and keeps the game moving!


Note to Wotan – no hard feelings towards you at all. Real life happens, and we know you’ve pretty much been abandoned by your whole team. I, for one, appreciate that you’ve continued to play this long.

I agree we should get some guidelines agreed upon and I do hope the admins will help move the game along. Though in all fairness we can't really expect to enforce this on the current turn.

I think Team Babe is actually waiting for some input from another team, thus we delayed the execution.

However, I don't think I say too much here, if I tell you that the interest in this game has seriously waned. One year of playing the game with little to hardly any action...how to keep up the interest :(

A faster pace will help keep up the interest. It seems to me that this map was not designed for a quick wham, bam, thank you mam kind of win. Once there are Galleons, Frigates & Cavalry on the map, it'll get a lot livelier. And if that's not enough excitement, wait until marines, battleships, bombers,etc are around. (not too mention nukes :evil: )

I'm agreeable to finding a way to pick up the pace. If you're negotiating, then just post a note and you'll get your delay. It's the crackle of static (or the conelrad tone) that's numbing.

I assume you mean - no action besides BABE invading our homeland twice and capturing our small island… (which they are now blocking, btw, preventing further action that we would very much like to give them :D )

In any event, I don't see how waiting on another team prevents asking for an extension, or at least getting the save played in 3 days. If a team is taking that long to respond to a letter, courtesy (not to mention the rules) require that you let the game move along.

If it’s a RL issue keeping a team from playing, I have more sympathy. If it’s just slow diplomacy – I’m less impressed.

Once there are Galleons, Frigates & Cavalry on the map, it'll get a lot livelier.sure? by now everyone has holed in and blocked access...hardly exciting

If it’s a RL issue keeping a team from playing, I have more sympathy. If it’s just slow diplomacy – I’m less impressed.There is more or less 1 active player left on our team, Wotan. Thus, don't be so harsh on him.

I assume you mean - no action besides BABE invading our homeland twice and capturing our small island… :lol: we had to do something to make this game exciting...I guess our team has too many hard core war mongers....that's why I love to follow the other deathmatch going on right now

Once their are Siphai roaming freely in Saberland, we welcome you to land as many Mounted Warriors as you want. :hammer:

:lol: we had to do something to make this game exciting...I guess our team has too many hard core war mongers....that's why I love to follow the other deathmatch going on right now
I'm looking forward to read your forum one day.

I can't even imagine how blue-eyed one (team) can be to think that an invasion like you planned it could happen... :shake:
And I really don't know what you are missing. You know you got opportunity to land on our island. What else can you ask for? The right to do the first strike? :confused:

That forum must be full of evidence of your thinking how stupid the other teams are... :rolleyes:

:shake: :shake: :shake:

Please Paul, let's not open up that discussion again. Let it rest.

Thank you Paul,l guess you have now given me the last bit of information I need to make a well informed decision about whether to continue playing our turns or not. Will contemplate over the possible choices for a few hours and do what I feel is the appropriate action when I get back home in about 8 hours time. Not going to make a hasty decision right now that I might regret later.

Okay, sorry. I should not post when I'm upset. :shake:

But I'm quickly losing interest in this game, too.
And it's not because our in-game rivals don't act like I'd like them to... :rolleyes:

Okay, sorry. I should not post when I'm upset. :shake:

But I'm quickly losing interest in this game, too.
And it's not because our in-game rivals don't act like I'd like them to... :rolleyes:
I have cooled of a bit too. That was also why I posted I would wait for a few hours.

A poll to check the interest in continuing the game would be nice I guess. As someone said previously in the thread the deathmatch is of more interest to me too. I guess a low key building game like this MTDG has turned into is not the scenario that really appeal to me. But I am also not too interested in spoiling a game for anyone that actually enjoy it so I guess you understand the predicament iIhave been in over the past few months.

The attack on Council was never about "winning" a war. It was just to let off some steam and get some action into the game. The outcome is almost equal in terms of losses, maybe if we tally the shields from units and towns lost we come out of it just ahead of Council. But then again it is not worth brooding over.

Maybe the scenario would play out better in CIV?

@ Wotan: I'm glad to hear things have cooled off a bit. But, Wotan, I'm disturbed that you said in the turn tracker thread this isn't a problem about dropping the game and then here you say you have the information you need to decide whether to keep on playing or not. Even if the last remark was made in anger and haste it shows that quitting is still a possibility. The decision really needs to be made one way or another and stuck with. Personally, I'm not sure which is worse, BABE quitting or continuning to play half-heartedly.

I doubt a poll about game interest would be any use. Many of us are interested in the game. We have lots of action and I'm not talking about fending off BABE attacks. Your little war (which you now tell us has no strategic value expect to excite your team) has made us deviate from the type of game we wanted to play. Yet we play to win. We've already had a team discussion about what could be done if BABE quits and we thought about carrying the discussion to SABER, FREE and GONG so we'd be ready. But (until today) you've maintained that you'd play so we kept it to ourselves and patiently waited (and waited and waited). I've personally had a difficult time not quoting some of your earlier remarks about playing the save in a speedy manner. ;)

The bottom line is, if you want to quit then quit. Playing half-heartedly and holding up the game is fun for no one. (BTW, we do not hold the save because we wait for another team to talk to us.) If you decide to play, then play to win. I've heard much about your skills and find it hard to believe you are in a position from which you cannot win.

As a suggestion, perhaps we should see about starting another MTDG. Not one to replace this one but one to run tandem with it. We could use the same teams (though each team could play different civs) and ask for a warmonger map. We could use the same forums we already have. It might get a bit confusing but should be doable. If some of us peaceable types played a war game with the warmongers, would the warmongers finish this one?

Thanks for your comments Donsig. Yes, taking the post in the turn tracker into the equation do make it a bit confusing. When I wrote it I was trying to say that the delay was not due to a discussion about dropping, it was a question about getting an issue sorted that involved more than BABE.

I have unfortunately been experiencing a continuous strain on my ability to keep up in both this game and in the SGOTMs I have participated in. Most of my gaming now happens in airplane seats, airport lounges and hotel rooms. :( (Was originally going to London this morning but the weather conditions in UK are so bad we decided to postpone the meeting so I am actually pretty relaxed right now and just looking forward to the weekend.) That is OK for single games that you can pickup and drop as you please but communicating in a multiplayer game is pretty much damaged by my current RL situation. Niklas know what I am talking about, I barely had time to keep up with activities in our SGOTM5 team tread so was not much of an asset.

So given that the past few months have seen a very limited participation in this game too, I have tried to keep up and play the turns ASAP but I know you guys on the other teams have suffered from this. Turn have been more or less passed on to Council with little or no thoughts going into the process. With Paul also stating he had lost interest I thought this might be a common feeling. I can safely say i would not miss the game should we scrap it now. And I guess had I been in your situation I would probably feel the same way about another team not making every effort to win the game. I can only say it again; I am very sorry my RL situation is as it is. All work and "almost" no play. ;)

I can only say it again; I am very sorry my RL situation is as it is.

Nobody should EVER have to apologize for his RL situation!!!

well to some extent i think it is appropriate. We are dependent on others when playing multigames. when signing up we do so to play the game to the best of our abilities. If not I for one would not find it to be a very enjoyable experience. And since I expect good performance from my adversaries I definitely feel it is appropriate to express my disappointment with my own performance lately.

Basically you're right, but as you mentioned it's a multiplayer game. So it can't be put on one persons shoulders. There should be someone to take over the burden in such tough times...

Wotan, as usual in such a situation the guys who face the situation are the wrong adressees.

This is very much related to a situation I often faced in my baseball team. On sunny day homegames you have lots of guys ready to play, but on rainy road trips you have trouble to put together a team and those guys staying away give their teammates and also the opponents a hard time. :gripe:

You are certainly one of those guys who would join that rainy road trip, I appreciate that. :thumbsup:

For those other guys I'd usually not shed a tear but unfortunately at the start of the season you did put faith in those guys and later in the season can't play the game without them... :rolleyes:

Nobody should EVER have to apologize for his RL situation!!!

I agree completely. Life needs to be lived. The game is a game, we enjoy it but it is secondary to work. Now if we were all eccentric millionares...


Basically you're right, but as you mentioned it's a multiplayer game. So it can't be put on one persons shoulders. There should be someone to take over the burden in such tough times...

I agree, couldn't some of the rapid deathmatch players (among others) stand in for you?

Edit: I didn't see the turn tracker first so just limit that last comment, but it is still is a suggestion for a future time.

@Wotan – I’d just like to repeat that I greatly appreciate how long you’ve soldiered on in this game despite being abandoned by your team. In a very real sense, it’s unfair to hold just 1 person to the 24 hour time limit. That’s supposed to be a time limit for an entire TEAM.

I DO think this is a good game, and I think it’s going to get even better when we get to more advanced technology. I think it’s great that we’re going to have a game with more late era fighting – a rarity in multiplayer games.

However – if there’s very little hope we’ll get to this stage before 2009 – then yeah, it’s hard to keep people motivated and involved.

I was originally one of the strongest advocates to keep BABE playing in this game – but now seeing the consequences of that on game speed - I think we should seriously consider letting Wotan gracefully bow out.

Team BABE’s units and cities can be disbanded – if one city has to remain, then a mod or a rotating committee of turn players from the other teams can just end their turns for them. A 30 turn moratorium could be established on trying to conquer the BABE homeland – to give all teams at least a semi-equal shot at the land-rush that will certainly ensue. Or, alternatively, BABE’s homeland could just be declared a fall-out zone from a massive meteor strike, and totally uninhabitable.

We get the game moving, and spare Wotan from playing alone in a game he’d have never signed up for. As far as I’m concerned, he deserves thanks for giving it an A+ try… not the punishment of having to continue.

There are some comments on our team thread but I guess none feel very committed to the game anymore. As have been said by some in this thread, having me basically hit return might not be too fun for anyone. (I do go through all towns and make changes to production but nothing fancy or game planning related).

I have put the question about what to do to the team and if you could have some patience and let me wait until I have some response I would appreciate it.

First of all, let me say that I really appreciate the time you put into playing the game, without you, it would have stalled completely.

There are some comments on our team thread but I guess none feel very committed to the game anymore. As have been said by some in this thread, having me basically hit return might not be too fun for anyone. (I do go through all towns and make changes to production but nothing fancy or game planning related).

I have put the question about what to do to the team and if you could have some patience and let me wait until I have some response I would appreciate it.

To be honest, I think you're judging yourslef too hard here. Comparing my experience in this MTDG and the Civ4 one tells me that there's a huge difference in the amount of time spent on strategy. In this demogame, our team has calculated a lot of possible options, down to single beakers, hammers and gold. In the civ4 MTDG, we're playing more casual (also as a result of less quality players, even I was good enough to play turns), and are probably making tons of mistakes. In the end, we'll probably lose that game to stronger teams (like Epsilon), but we're still having fun in playing on our own level.

By the way, not all the fun in this game should have to come from the game itself. I've found diplomacy and writing public announcements very enjoyable.

I'm heading out now. But all the kind words have made me think a bit more about the game and so as not to make anything drastic right now I will play the turn as if there is a future for our team. ;) So as soon as I am up and about tomorrow morning I will play and send the turn. Maybe we can enroll someone to assist me play on. As some of you have already said, the BABE position is not at all bad in this game. I guess it is actually pretty healthy even though I have not really managed it properly lately.

And as you say Dutchfire; Much of the fun is from interaction. That is what I enjoy myself and what develop everyones games. I know had I not been on Kuningas team for one of the early SGOTMs I would not be able to play at my current level. And of course through the input from a lot of other guys here at CFC. :goodjob:

Then again I would not judge the rest of BABE to harshly we have entered into a pretty gloomy spot re. this game and enthusiasm is maybe not very high among our ranks. But the current deathmatch sure tell me the team members are good players and good sports despite the current situation in this particular game.

I am not at all upset by Wotan. His slow turn times have genuinly stemed from real life issues. However I am pretty irritated with the behaviour of the babes that do have the time to play but just aren't playing because they don't feel like it. Wotan thanks for sticking with it for so long. I feel some of the babes should probaly take over for you for the same reason that you have been playing for so long. It's dissapointy that it currently seems doughbtful that it will happen at this point in time.

Like Wotan, I can only offer limited time to these types of hobbies. Over the last few months and coming year this will be even more limited. So I've found the games that interest me and will contribute gameplay to them.

Unlike the first MTDG this game is a dead game for me. Part scenario and part the atttitudes. Sorry.

As an fyi in the ISDG one team recently resigned so it is possible.

Unlike the first MTDG this game is a dead game for me. Part scenario and part the atttitudes. Sorry.

As an fyi in the ISDG one team recently resigned so it is possible.

I think I know what you mean by scenario but whose attitude don't you like? :hmm:

Can you tell us how the resignation was handled in the ISDG?

Brazil (CBR) quit and retired from the game because we were crushing them.

This was Civ III? They just retired in the Civ game? What happened to their units and cities? (Pardon my multi-player ignorance.)

Yep, C3C championship round. Everything disappeared and where they had cities there is now rubble.

I am opent to babe retiring as Whomp describes.

Everything disappeared and where they had cities there is now rubble.

:eek: Whoa! How did that come about? Did you guys know that they were trying to resign? I can't imagine the shock of opening a save to find an entire civ evaporated :shifty: