ISDG ~ Ruleset

These are stupid, too. If someone invades your borders, just declare war on them. Given the numerous other examples where we're on the honor system, it's just silly to get legalistic about borders and RoP. Just use the in-game system -- it works fine.

It does not work. Enforcing DoW from invader only works in SP-Games. To substitute this lack such a rule is needed. You may be simplify it be always DoWing when entering foreign country. But since entering and leaving immediately is usually possible, there is no need to enforce this by rule. This special rule is deliberated well and has proven so.

This seems unnecessary and arbitrary. Is there a reason to ban automated orders, or does someone just not like them? If there's a good reason, it should be mentioned here.

Automated actions break the turn order. And so does manipulating MM before calculating production is done by Civ-Engine.

Doesn't the game itself enforce this? :crazyeye:

It does. This rule is older than Patch 1.22. In older Versions of C3C it was possible to steal more techs each successful try.
 
It does not work. Enforcing DoW from invader only works in SP-Games. To substitute this lack such a rule is needed. You may be simplify it be always DoWing when entering foreign country. But since entering and leaving immediately is usually possible, there is no need to enforce this by rule. This special rule is deliberated well and has proven so.

It still seems overly complicated. Can't we simplify it?

Automated actions break the turn order. And so does manipulating MM before calculating production is done by Civ-Engine.

These should be mentioned, then.

It does. This rule is older than Patch 1.22. In older Versions of C3C it was possible to steal more techs each successful try.

Since it's not needed anymore, we should get rid of it. It's a waste of time and energy to have such a complicated ruleset for what should be a simple game.
 
It still seems overly complicated. Can't we simplify it?
It is simplified, Elephantium. The language barrier is hard to get around. I. Larkin has major problems with this also. Do not get caught within another nations cultural borders at the end of your turn without getting an ROP (manual and posted in the Embassy forums) first. If you can get in and back out, fine. But if you leave a unit within the cultural borders of another nation, you'll probably be forced to declare war by the Referees and may have to disband your unit. It's not as stupid an idea as you think.



These should be mentioned, then.
The auto-move rule will negate a lot of problems during the game. Teams won't be able to claim their auto-move was the reason for their violation of the rules. You can stretch out an uato-move and then step it back to a single move's length fairly easy. This is not a mjor issue. The not breaking into a city screen rule is a standard rule. Unfortunately, if one does not list this rule, the cheaters will of course break the rule. As you know, every rule they can break, they will.



Since it's not needed anymore, we should get rid of it. It's a waste of time and energy to have such a complicated ruleset for what should be a simple game.
I agree that useless rules should not be listed. That's why the Great Library rule had to be re-worded. Maybe this is an in-house CIFO deal, where they've figured out a way to cheat, and they are holding each other at bay.
 
This 'heavy' of a ruleset makes me feel like I would need a lawyer over my shoulder to play. I wonder how anyone will be able to finish a single turn in less than a day...
 
This ruleset is a mess!
This ruleset is the result of more than a month of heated discussions. I'm quite glad that these discussions are finally over, so please don't stir it up again... :wallbash:
I can assure you: every single rule has its reason... (In the last couple of weeks I learned that our beloved good old C3C is riddled with bugs like a moth-eaten rug. The possibilities for exploits and cheating seem limitless... Just the information gained from F11 (by repeatedly changing the tile assignment of your cities and watching how the numbers change in F11) allow you to get precise information on the number of beakers, shields and food collected by every opponent every turn, on when he build which unit or city improvement, on when he peeled off another worker or settler, on how his start position looks like etc etc. You just collect the data turn after turn, solve a couple of mathematical equations and of you go. It's like looking into your opponents F1 screen...)
I will address some of your points below.

These all sound fine although I have to point out that they depend on the honor system.
The entire C3C game depends on the honor system... It's probably better to not play it at all in multi-player modus. Single-player competitions like GOTM are perhaps better, but if you don't trust your opponents, then look for a different hobby.

This is too vague, and it sounds intimidating. I signed up to play a game of Civ 3, not a bloody accounting exercise. This makes it sound like I have to document every last mouse-click while playing, and that's patently ridiculous.
Some of the people at Civforum wanted exactly that: document every single action... I'm quite glad I managed to get this "relaxed" rule...

These are stupid. If alliances are going to be unregulated, so should trades.
These rules prevent a couple of very nasty exploits. For example two teams could exchange all their artillery units, thus saving a lot of unit upkeep. They could "share" an iron resource, so that both teams can build swordsmen with only one iron available, etc.

These are stupid, too. If someone invades your borders, just declare war on them. Given the numerous other examples where we're on the honor system, it's just silly to get legalistic about borders and RoP. Just use the in-game system -- it works fine.
I think it is rather stupid to declare on them, if they trespass on your territory. Why should you reward them with war happiness for their misdoings? No, if they absolutely want to enter your territory against your will, then you should be the one enjoying war happiness!

The in-game RoP system is insufficient, because you may be willing to let one galley or scout through your territory, if the other team grants the same to you, but you don't want to give them full RoP. In single-player you can just say "leave or declare", but in MP this option is not there.

This seems unnecessary and arbitrary. Is there a reason to ban automated orders, or does someone just not like them? If there's a good reason, it should be mentioned here.
In one of our recent PBEMs muzbang just showed us a nasty bug, if you play two civs in a row and click "Continue game" instead of "Save and exit". What happens is that basically the workers of the first civ work at double speed. So you get a mine in 3 instead of 6, etc. I did not test it yet, but I can imagine that automated workers may show the same or a similar bug.

This is similar to the well-known bug that units on "auto-move" get twice the speed. (They make one move during your turn and the next move right before the next party loads the game, then they "pause" in the second turn. So you could send a spearman from 6 tiles away into a city that is about to be attacked, and save it this way. Or send a settler two tiles in one go and beat another party to an important location. Etc.)

Also, if this type of deception in diplomacy is banned, then so should deception in contracts and alliances (section 4).
Good point actually. (But I will certainly not start another discussion. Let the games begin, the rules are as good as they will get.)

This seems like a pointless rule -- unless a graphics mod could reveal things like Oil tiles before Refining is discovered. Could someone confirm whether that's the case?
I don't know, as I never used any graphic mod other than the standard one that comes with the game. However, after what I saw in the last couple of weeks, I can imagine that exactly this is the case. The Civforum players must have a reason for this rule... :rolleyes:

Doesn't the game itself enforce this? :crazyeye:
Actually, after justanick confirmed this, you are right. I didn't know it was one of their old rules that got obsoleted by a patch. I thought it was meant to prevent yet another exploit (after all, I haven't done that much tech stealing in my Civ3 carrier: either my games end earlier, or I never bother to research that optional tech and build a small wonder... So I could well imagine that they found another trick how to get more techs in one attempt...)
So I guess the rule can be deleted, but on the other hand it doesn't hurt, so why bother?

Would anyone actually agree to sacrifice units for another team to get leaders?
Yes, why not, if the other team grants you the same?

And CivAssist II. It organizes some types of information SO MUCH better than the game client itself that it's not reasonable to expect me to play without it.

...and if the concern is about spoilers, CivAssist doesn't cause a problem in that regard.
CAII had been disputed heavily for weeks, and in the end we had to let it go. I love it as well, but it does have a couple of exploits, for example it displays submarines on the map, when it shouldn't do so.

This seems dumb -- either make them amphibious or not, don't make it a weird cross between the two.

Besides, this rule is intended to prevent a team from blockading their coast with Warriors. Simply making Archers amphibious will prevent that tactic.
The rule is meant to prevent coastal blockade, but cities should be save like in the real game. And archers are not sufficient, because once you have discovered Invention, you can no longer build archers, but the other team could still build warriors by disconnecting their iron...

Sir Lanzelot
 
The entire C3C game depends on the honor system... It's probably better to not play it at all in multi-player modus. Single-player competitions like GOTM are perhaps better, but if you don't trust your opponents, then look for a different hobby.

This is the only interesting statement for me.

Why the hell do people at CiFo (at least few of them) not understand that???? These people I am talking about seem to make a passion out of the game. And exactly that is beyond my understanding.
 
:lol:
And you don't have a passion for this game, Calis? I beg to differ. How did you become so good? By accident? ;)
 
About the Archer....

Just having the Archer or UUs equal to the Archer having amphibious assualt is a good idea. Even letting the Lonbow be amphibious to cover the periods between the Archer and the Marine is digestable. Beserker naturally are amphibious, no problem there. And Marines are called Marines becuse they have aways been amphibious, so no problem there either. But the other units, such as the TOW Infantry should not be part of the rule. That is going over-board, in my opinion.

Wouldn't want you to start a new discussion Lancelot. We've already bent over enough on this one. ;)
 
:lol:
And you don't have a passion for this game, Calis? I beg to differ. How did you become so good? By accident? ;)

More than 10,000 posts = Passion.

Less than 10,000 posts = Dabbler.

:D
 
More than 10,000 posts = Passion.

Less than 10,000 posts = Dabbler.

:D
No, that's passion for the forum format. :D

I had a passion for Civ3 long before I made my first post.
 
I don't know, as I never used any graphic mod other than the standard one that comes with the game. However, after what I saw in the last couple of weeks, I can imagine that exactly this is the case. The Civforum players must have a reason for this rule... :rolleyes:

We had this case in the beginning of DG6. Luckyly, the information gained wasn't that important. But can you garuantee that?

This is the only interesting statement for me.

Why the hell do people at CiFo (at least few of them) not understand that???? These people I am talking about seem to make a passion out of the game. And exactly that is beyond my understanding.

I think they do understand. But what is fair/legal and what not depends on point of view. There is the need for a relativly heavy ruleset for a game with 50 participants with 50 different points of view.

More than 10,000 posts = Passion.

Less than 10,000 posts = Dabbler.

:D

:D
 
And CB, you know as well as I do that a large portion of CFC posters change their log-on name and continue posting while starting their post count over.
 
:lol:
And you don't have a passion for this game, Calis? I beg to differ. How did you become so good? By accident? ;)

:blush: Maybe a bad choice of words.

I meant the passion to analyse EVERY bit of information to an extent that is beyond me. I am also playing with my heart and still are rather successful.
 
But what is fair/legal and what not depends on point of view. There is the need for a relativly heavy ruleset for a game with 50 participants with 50 different points of view.

Well, for the CFC MTDG II, a much smaller set of rules worked fine. There was just one point of heavy discussion and that was coastal blocking. This is solved in the ISDG by semi-amph. archers.
 
I am not sure what to do with that. :confused:
If you look at the big picture, justanick is a DGer. In his relations with CFC, he is mainly dealing with SGers and GOTMers. DGers look at things a little differently. I can see his point.
 
I. Larkin has major problems with this also.
What do you meant here Cyc?

I only complain about first enter. But you and klienheld insisted about that. Well, I disagree but Co4 have decided...
I don't know, however, how referee will enforce "war in Game" if it is impossible. {Peace treaty running and no way to bombard/capture/attack something}

Also 5.1 still not clear for me, "with the purpose" depend on interpretation but if it just mean that war should be at least two turns it is OK.

I think at present stage we may have proofreading for typos or obvious logical mistakes.

Also one can ask for clarification of rules, but not to start new cycle of discussion.
 
What do you meant here Cyc?
I meant, because of the language barrier, you were having major problems understanding the intricacies of the rule. I believe I explained it quite a few different ways, but was unable to communicate effectively the benefits of the rule.

I only complain about first enter. But you and klienheld insisted about that. Well, I disagree but Co4 have decided...
I don't know, however, how referee will enforce "war in Game" if it is impossible. {Peace treaty running and no way to bombard/capture/attack something}
And first enter (or first contact, in other words) is one of the most important parts/benefits of the rule. You need to pay for the information you are used to normally stealing for free by trespassing. That's it in a nutshell. If you want the Eagle team to supply you with information about our nation, so you can firm up your planning for our destruction, then start shelling out the gold, good buddy. Otherwise, stay out of our cultural borders. Period.

I'm not sure how capable the CIFO Referee will be, but denyd is very capable. He can stop game play at the request of the nation whose borders have been violated, send the save back to the team violating those borders and replay, having them declare before they enter the borders. Otherwise, the game stops there. It's that simple. If you don't want to declare war, and can't get an ROP posted in the Embassies, stay out.

Also 5.1 still not clear for me, "with the purpose" depend on interpretation but if it just mean that war should be at least two turns it is OK.
This rule got all messed up because no one was brought into the conversation. Only Lanzelot's opinion mattered. The rule, in my opinion, didn't focus around the length of time the deal went down according to Lanzelot (in this case 1 or two turns), as this would make the rule lightweight and helps very little when it's a "last team standing" game. The essence of the rule, IMO, is that the RESOURCE can't be traded more than once every twenty turns, unless it is disconnected by means listed in the rule. This would keep the team with the resource from threatening to end the deal, doing so, and then trying to use the same resource again in a new deal with the same team. Once you trade a resource to another team, it's a twenty turn deal. You can break it if you want, but you're trashing your reputation. Once you've made the deal, you can't use it for renegotiation with the same team for twenty turns. Simply said, put up or shut up. If you can't hold your deal for twenty turns, you can't make another (with the same team and the same resource) unitl the original 20 turns is up.

I think at present stage we may have proofreading for typos or obvious logical mistakes.

Also one can ask for clarification of rules, but not to start new cycle of discussion.
I think it's too late for this also. This is probably as close to a rules clarification process as you're going to get.
 
This ruleset is the result of more than a month of heated discussions. I'm quite glad that these discussions are finally over, so please don't stir it up again... :wallbash:
Sir Lanzelot

Not a very satisfying answer :nono: I wasn't originally part of setting up the ISDG, so I don't get any say in the rules? I just have to roll over and accept whatever insanity the CivForum people foist off on us? :eek: Way to take the "Demo" out of "Inter-site Demo Game".
 
Top Bottom