Ruleset Discussion

I agree. HUSch makes a good point. Spies are ON, no restrictions, nerfs, bans allowed on individual spy actions. This is a game setting that really should not be changed at this point.

We can vote on the bombard, pillage, blockade thing (which is still an unfair nerf of Second move advantage IMO), but nerfing espy is off the table.:nono:
So, we can't "nerf" espionage, but we can "nerf" warfare? You've said it, not me.

I love how something "totally unimportant and minor" is going to "nerf" espionage: "No, don't take this precious jewel from me, I'll be broke without it, even though it's worth only a few pennies, I swear, but you don't want it, right, because it's so cheap it's not worth arguing over, except if you take it you are really hurting me, because it's so cheap, see?" :crazyeye:

So, are these sabotage missions important or not? It's not like we're even removing the missions, just limiting them to half-strength...
 
So, we can't "nerf" espionage, but we can "nerf" warfare? You've said it, not me.

I love how something "totally unimportant and minor" is going to "nerf" espionage: "No, don't take this precious jewel from me, I'll be broke without it, even though it's worth only a few pennies, I swear, but you don't want it, right, because it's so cheap it's not worth arguing over, except if you take it you are really hurting me, because it's so cheap, see?" :crazyeye:

So, are these sabotage missions important or not? It's not like we're even removing the missions, just limiting them to half-strength...
You can't "limit" espionage missions in any way. Espionage is ON. That is the game settings. We already spent a week(s) arguing about "limiting" espionage. That debate is over. That's all. What more can I say?
 
So is war. We discussed limiting things that could be easily modded out and were potentially major. This is, by your admission (sort of), a minor thing, a tinkering, a fine-tuning, a nuancing of the rules. Just because we agreed on 100% instead of 80% doesn't mean we can't now fine tun to 95%. You can fine-tune both ways...

Anyway, since Apolyton as a whole seems to be apathetic or against this, I'll step out of the debate. I suppose that means you win, sir, though perhaps other teams will decide otherwise :)
 
d) ...something about entering to an existing war. I've no idea how APT mod works and what is possible and what isn't. e.g. If there is a race for spoils of war we could end up in a situation where 3 nations are fighting hot war against each other. So how does APT mod handle a situation where 2 nations are in war and 3rd nation enters to the scene and wants to declare war on both of the nations fighting?

This leaves lot to interpret and also exploit, but I think it is good idea to 1st agree upon these before going in to details.

Is there anyone here that knows APT mod and could formulate d)?
Are teams happy with these? I think a) is the most controversial one so if you disagree please suggest an alternative and we can vote.


Hi, Manolo will confirm. But what I understand.. A and B are in war each other.. A plays before B.
Then C cames and want to declare war to A and B.

If C declares war to A, before A plays.. then the secuence of war will be C-A-B. Then if C declares war to B, nothing changes.

If C declares war to A after A plays, but before B plays , then the secuence of war will be A - (B and C). Ready this, B and C will be able to play at the same time.
So, if C after that, declares war to B before B plays, finnaly the war line will be A-C-B
but if he waits to B plays, then the war line wil be A-B-C

If C declare war to A and B after A and B plays, then the war line will be A-B-C

:crazyeye:

when I said "plays" means , finnish turn
 
by the way.. there's are two important rules to take notice about the mod

1. You can not leave the game without finishing the turn if you had declare a war in that turn. Or at least, you must tell the player you had declare war to, not enter the game till you get back and finish your turn.
2. You can't declare war to a player that's online. And of course you can't stay online just to avoid someone declaring war on you.

this to make sure that the war line is the correct one
 
All teams that have sent me their contact info or granted me access to their private forums are soon getting their starting screenshot. I'm only lacking email info from Spanish Apolyton and CivFr. Please send your team email addresses to me. I have Manolo's address for Spanish apolyton so I did send it there.
 
WePlayCiv email address provided to me didn't work. I've also tried to register an account there with name plako. I didn't get activaion email so, if someone can help me there, much appreciated.
 
I've been playing (or attempting to play) in the test game with the mod on a team with 2 players, and there's a significant problem worth bringing up here.

One problem I'm noticing already for a game with more than one person per civ - I've got limited times when I can log into the game, and I haven't been able to check it in several days because Dave has always ended turn before I can get to it (so it's always Filon's part of the timer). Thus, I'm always booted when I try to get a look at what's going on.

Translate this into 70+ people playing on some teams, at least a dozen or so of which will want to log into the game on any given turn, and you have a problem. Teams will basically be forced to not end the turn (perpetually letting the timer run out), or else many of their members won't get a chance to analyse the situation in-game. Yes, you can take screenshots, but you can't reasonably take screenshots of every single screen every single turn - and even if you did, it's far less efficient than just letting your team members log in to check things out for themselves.
Put simply, the mod does not seem to translate well to games with more than one player per civ. Perpetually never ending the turn is the only way for teams at war to allow all their members to log in to check up on the game, which will lead to extremely slow turns. Not to mention make it incredibly difficult for third parties to declare war on nations already at war.
 
However, I also pointed out previously that your proposed DM ruleset prohibits teams at war from logins on the wrong half of the turn, to prevent the appearance of a DM even if it's just to look around. This still makes it very problematic for the team on the 1st half, who will need to allow any members who want it an opportunity to look before ending turn.

As I understand it, the mod can be set up to only log possible DM activity, while not preventing the login. If we went that route, with a clear understanding that movement in the wrong part of the turn is prohibited but other actions are not, then we could adopt my proposal of having 3 periods in the turn:

Team A moves and does other actions
Team B moves and does other actions
Both team A and B can do post-movement actions

This approach is independent of the parallel debate on what restrictions might be placed on actions. Using monitor-only mode on the website is no worse than restricted login mode for the LP rules proposal (which are more restrictive than the mod and require documenting everything anyway), and doesn't make a big difference for the Sommerswerd rules proposal either.

Can we make a fairly quick decision on which website mode to use? And if using monitor only, let's consider if the 3-phase turn simplifies things.

In an attempt at moving forward, I would also like to propose that teams vote on at least the non-DM portion of the rules. We can play at least until first contact without any danger of hitting any of the related issues, and more likely until first war. There is practically no difference in the bottom line non-DM effects of the rules between the versions. One is simpler than the other. As an experienced admin, I strongly recommend the simple version. The admin will know if something feels like an illegal unfair advantage, and at that point we are better off with a quick ruling than we are with a court case.

Posting as myself, not to be construed as the CivFanatics position.
 
Then we should make this rule :
It's prohibit to log in at the wrong time.

And we need no mod!
 
Well, either of the rules proposed boil down to that. The question is, do we think it's a good idea to do all the documentation proposed by Lord Parkin? And do we like DaveShack's 3rd period of a turn for lookarounds?
 
We also consider pillaging resourses in the end of turn unfair advantage caused by switching to simulateneous turns. In the original turn by turn mode there is no such problem. Making a rule on this is a reasonable price for having fast game. There must be no exception for spies also. This is our official position. CivPlayers
 
Maybe our game admin should take over the role of calling the question on this? The game can theoretically move forward very soon if we can pass at least the portion of the rules not affecting double moves and related issues, since it should be aeons until it matters.
 
RB is in the process of producing a first draft of a combined rule set (the original version plus CFC's). I should be able to post something that we can all get our teeth stuck into by 9pm (NYC time).

Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.
 
I'm back from seeing a movie. If you get the chance, see Moonrise Kingdom - a very strange but entertaining movie.

Anyway, I'm posting here representing RB. I've volunteered to push forward the rule discussion as suggested by Sommerswerd (the game organizer) a few posts back. I will be covering all rules except the rules involving trying to make a simultaneous game into a sequential game.

I've reread the rule set that was being discussed here prior to the game organizers' 'all prior rule sets are invalid' post. I've also reread the rule set that CFC posted. The following is intended to be a public discussion with the aim of combining these two rule sets (or highlighting the particular items that are in disagreement).

I actually prefer the CFC layout of the rules ... clearer, better organized, etc ... so I am starting with that as the frame for the following. I am planning on posting a complete set of rules that draws on both sets (the previously discussed rule set and the CFC rule set) but I will also be throwing in some additions that I hope will bring some clarity to the situation. I'm also going to include some commentary so that people can see where I think the rules should be heading (and why).

Rule Set Layout
Preamble
Rule Infringing
In Game Actions (excluding sequential game items)
In Game Actions (sequential game items)
Out of Game Actions
Administration

I really only thought that we should include a preamble in our rule set while I was walking my dog this afternoon (see other posts on benefits of owning a dog). As such, I haven't spent much (any?) time of drafting one. I think it should go something like this ...

Preamble
We the undersigned, celebrating the game that is Civ IV have gathered together to play ISDG 2012 in the hope of _____. We collectively agree to ______ etc.

We also acknowledge that the preamble is not a rule and is merely a representations of our intent and hopes.

Someone help us out here and jump in with a draft. It should capture what we want to do (for example) :
  • win the game
  • demonstrate our civ4 ability
  • play against the best
  • rule lawyer everyone to death
  • stand victorious on the broken bones and crushed skulls of our opponents
  • etc
... how we want to do it and how we intend to play the game (or what ever else you think we need to include).
Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :
Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.
 
01. Rule Infringing
a. Infringing on the rules is not allowed.

b. When an allegation of rule infringement has been leveled at one or more teams by one or more teams, the game will be paused.

c. Each side of the alleged rule infringement will appoint a spokesperson. 'Prosecutor' for the alleging team or teams, 'Defender' for the alleged rule infringer.

c. Evidence of alleged rule infringement will be collected and forwarded to the Game Admin together with any accompanying explanatory text by the Prosecutor.

d. The Game Admin will forward this information to the Defender and ask for feedback.

e. Upon receiving feedback (or after a reasonable amount of time at the Game Admin's discretion), the Game Admin will rule on the alleged infringement, determine the penalty (if any), the resolution (if any) and those determinations will be acted upon.

f. All rulings under this rule by the Game Admin are final.
The aim of this section is to provide a clear process for what should happen when an allegation of a rule infringement occurs. I don't think we can have a possible rule infringement settled by the teams (or a subset of the teams) that results in an automatic game reload. I think we all want to avoid a future heated discussion about 'that rule infringement was bad enough that you should have involved the game admin'.

I've also stripped out all references to penalties, solutions, etc in the expectation that those items should / will be determined by the game admin.

I play bridge at clubs and the bridge director is called for each and every action that breaks the rules, might break the rules, is a little shady, etc. It is a very good habit to get into and takes a lot of the heat out of a competitive game.

Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :
Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.
 
02. In Game Actions (excluding sequential game items)
a. Suicide Training - Knowingly sacrificing a unit to an ally in order to yield experience points to the victorious unit is not allowed.

b. City Gifting - Conquest, culture flip, UN resolution, and AP resolution are the only permitted methods of city transfer.

c. Unit Gifting, Unlock Building - Gifting a unit with experience that would remove the unit experience restriction for the Heroic Epic is not allowed. Gifting a unit with experience that would remove the unit experience restriction for West Point is not allowed.

d. Unit Gifting, Other - Gifting units to a team currently at war with another team is not allowed unless the giftee is also at war with the other team.

e. Bugs and Exploits - The use of any bug or exploit is not allowed. The decision about exactly what constitutes a bug or exploit rests solely with the admin. Consult with the admin if any action you are considering may be a bug or exploit.

f. In-Game Pausing - Any Team may pause the game. Any team encountering a paused game should consult the CFC based turn-tracker thread. If a team has not requested a pause in that thread, the game may be unpaused.

g. Abusing Pauses - No team should abuse the game pause rule.
I think that a), b) and e) are common to both and I have not adjusted them. I think that c) is a clearer description of the intent than the suggested version (I think the suggested version was also common to the two rule sets). d) is an attempt to give the team attacking another team that is receiving unit support from a 3rd team a chance to attack those units during their portion of the turn set.

Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :
Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.
 
03. In Game Actions (sequential game items)

Ok, I said I wasn't going to cover this ... and I won't (with rules). However, that won't stop me from pointing a few things out.

All of the rules about this item are only required because we don't want to fight a war simultaneously - we want to fight it sequentially. The reasons are pretty clear (for example: people with faster connections / quicker fingers win and that doesn't reflect better civ ability). The mod we have voted to play under forces the two opponents into individual segments of the turn. It does nothing during non-war.

DaveShack has suggested a three way split ...
As I understand it, the mod can be set up to only log possible DM activity, while not preventing the login. If we went that route, with a clear understanding that movement in the wrong part of the turn is prohibited but other actions are not, then we could adopt my proposal of having 3 periods in the turn:

Team A moves and does other actions
Team B moves and does other actions
Both team A and B can do post-movement actions
... but that still leaves some pretty big holes open. I actually posted a 6 way split that does get a little ridiculous but I think it doesn't have any holes in it ...

Segment 1 - player playing first can take non-unit moving, non worker actions
Segment 2 - player playing second can take non-unit moving, non worker actions
Segment 3 - player playing first can take unit moving actions
Segment 4 - player playing second can take unit moving actions
Segment 5 - player playing first can take worker actions
Segment 6 - player playing second can take worker actions
I am pretty sure that all of the above can actually be coded with a mixture of the DLL and Python.

That said, I am also pretty sure that no one would actually want to go to the effort of having to play each turn 3 times.

Another option is that we play a simultaneous pitboss game that is flipped to sequential pitboss game if someone declares war. Can that be done? And to overcome the issues of the pre-war turn ... if you want to declare war, you wait until everyone has played the turn, then announce that you are declaring war, the game is converted to a sequential pitboss game and everyone gets to play that turn again (with exactly the same moves). That last bit is unenforceable but we can trust people to execute it (can't we?).

I'm not sure if I need the next bit as this is something that I could be argued is Ruff posting and not RB Ruff Rule Debater posting ... but oh well ...
Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :
Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.
 
04. Out of Game Actions
a. Team Espionage - All external forms of intelligence gathering against opposing teams are not allowed.
Non-exhaustive list of example: Entering Team Forums, joining multiple teams using different accounts, actively petitioning other players for information, looking around on the CFC (or a 3rd party website) image database for screenshots and save uploads.

b. Game / Pitboss / Save Manipulation or Disruption - Editing the save file (with or without a utility) is not allowed. Intentionally disrupting access to the Pitboss host server is not allowed. Intentionally opening Diplomacy screens and then pausing, intending to lock teams out of playing their turn is not allowed.

c. Pre In-Game Contact - Teams making diplomatic contact before they have met in-game is not allowed. Non-exhaustive list of example: meeting privately to discuss in-game actions, game-related deals, in-game agreements, etc.). Note that teams meeting to discuss rules, ramifications of the impact of votes or rules are allowed.

d. Game Pause Requests - Any team may request a pause by posting in the CFC turn-tracker thread. The purpose of the pause must be included in the pause request.

e. Abusing Pause Requests - No team should abuse the Game Pause Requests rule.
I think there was a lot of similar ground between the two rule sets here. I added some 'game pauses' items to provide some more direction regarding game pauses.
Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :
Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.
 
Top Bottom