ISDG ~ Ruleset

Guys, just to let you know. I am really short in time currently. So my online time is very limited. But I will participate in the game in any case. And actually I do not care about the rules that much. They are the same for everybody and that's it. I will go with whatever you guys figure out.
 
In order to avoid double-maintenance (and the inevitable errors that usually come with it) I have moved the original of my rules draft to the Conference Thread:

Ruleset

This allows all 4 to edit it.
 
I propose following innovation for diplomacy: 3 subforums at our site and 3 at civforum
Each subforum open ONLY for two teams members and referees.

EDIT: I see at CivForium nick already did 7 subforums. 6 for each pair and one "UN".

I only do not understand why RoP should be visible for all?
Is not this matter of 2 teams only?
 
As far as the sites alternating in turn order ~

If we have Calis as President (DP) of the Democracy Team and Lanzelot starts for the Succussion Team, the game will go quickly, as all players will be in Germany.

Not necessary, just a thought.
 
I only do not understand why RoP should be visible for all?
Is not this matter of 2 teams only?
The RoP should be posted in the embassy of the teamconstellation. Only the two teams and the refs will see it. The UN is an official forum, where every team can post, if there is something the refs want to discuss with the whole players. Perhaps a tavern ist installed there, so we can have fun beside the game.

edit:
post 222 :cheers:
 
Lanzelot, just a few quick changes that don't amount to much.

2.1. Should be "gain access".

4.1. Voluntary is the word you want.

5.1. Might be worded as "Teams may not use Declarations of War or Peace for the purpose of canceling in game contracts.

8.4. Just take this out. It makes no sense.

10.3. Add "up to 96 hours" or "not to exceed 96 hours".
 
One question - since roaming is currently winning for barbs, do barbarians cutting a trade route count for the 20 turn limit on trading?
 
Good question, AutomatedTeller. I imagine that rule 5.2 would cover this, as Barbs seem to always be at war with humans. If not 5.2, then maybe 7.1 would take effect.
 
I imagine that rule 5.2 would cover this, as Barbs seem to always be at war with humans.

That's right. But i am not sure whether we really want rule 5.2, that is a pretty strong restriction with a 20 turns limit. :eek:
 
That's right. But i am not sure whether we really want rule 5.2, that is a pretty strong restriction with a 20 turns limit. :eek:

True, this will probably bring into question the ROP rules and how they affect temporary intrusions.
 
I dunno how to regulate it, but I don't know that I want the elevator. It seems easy to abuse.

I mean, it's one thing to allow a team to not have to tech from lit to education - but to allow 2 teams to potentially make up an age?

With only 4 teams, maybe it doesn't matter, cause maybe there just won't be enough cooperation.
 
I kinda see your point, AutomatedTeller, but I'm not sure I understand. Yes, the team that builds the GLib should get the free techs to Education, until Education is researched by two teams. Then they have to protect that Wonder from all other teams, so that noone else gets to reap the benefits. If a team is so far behind in techs that they will leap to the IA by capturing the GLib after the owner has done it, then maybe the others teams should become involved and stop the capture. Otherwise, all the more glory to the capturing team. Knowledge is power. :)

Of course if this transfer is done on the sly, a review request for the Referees should be made on an ethics ruling (or something like that), as I don't think an agreed to transfer is fair.
 
I'm more worried about a transfer set up between 2 teams that are behind. it's a not unreasonable strategy if the game is fairly peaceful for 2 civs to turn off research in order to catch up to 2 civs that are ahead.

It might be less of an issue in a 4 team game than it was in a 5 team game, particularly in a continents game where there will almost certainly be war...
 
I now better understand your concern. And it can be an issue, but I do see it as an inflamatory issue. One which might induce an unspoken (or spoken) alliance of the two teams in the lead to squash the little cheaters... :devil:
 
My intuition says that game will be over around GP/ Education level. So this trick with TGL gift may be not that strong.
But 8.4 has no harm. We may leave iy as it is.

Can't understand meaning of 5.1 Usually there is the only way to cancel deal is to declare a war.
I think it is allowed. What about intentional Route break?

And how about 4.1?

What role of Referee at RoP? If it may be canceled at any moment? Or just Declare and cancel...

We also need to discuss seeding procedure and what information about map (and when) each team will have. Also Civ choice. What will we do if 2 teams decides to take the same Civ?
 
Can't understand meaning of 5.1 Usually there is the only way to cancel deal is to declare a war.
I think it is allowed.

No, that exactly is forbidden by this rule.

What about intentional Route break?

It's not forbidden, so it's allowed. Aktually it is limited by 5.2

What role of Referee at RoP?

We just check if units do have the right of passage dependig on special thread in embassy. If not, we will enforce a declaration of war.
 
U must accept the New Rules of the Forum.
There was a change in privacy policy. (Ist Datenschutz richtig übersetzt?)
 
Can't understand physical sense of 5.1
Can anybody give me an example?

I am not sure at all, the rule is older than my civforum account. :D
Possibilities are:
1. War happyness and opposite shall not be affected.
2. The regular obligation of 20 turns shall be preserved.

-> You need to cancel threaties regularily.
 
Top Bottom