Ruleset Discussion

[ruff_hi]

05 - Administration
a. Game Administrator - r_rolo1 has sole authority as game administrator. Replacement of the game administrator must be agreed to by all teams.

b. Victory - The winner of the game is the first team recognized as winner by in-game victory dialog.

c. Defeated Teams - Player on teams that are eliminated are permitted to join another team. These "refugee" players are free to share any information from their old team with their new team. They may NOT engage in team espionage by reporting information on their new team to any other team.

e. Voting - All votes during the game require unanimous agreement by all teams. If teams cannot reach unanimous agreement the decision will be decided by the game administrator.

f. Game Reloads - All game reloads will trigger an automatic game pause (game admin will post such in game pause thread) for a minimum of 24 hours or until each team that logged in to the game after the reload point has stated in the game pause thread that they are ready to continue.

Again, I think that the majority of these are similar between the two rule sets. I've added f) to address the situation where:

• Team ABC plays their turn and hits End-o-Turn
• Something happens
• Game Reload is called for
• Reload occurs but is prior to Team ABC's in-game actions
• Team ABC never realize that the game was reloaded and miss their turn

Sure - Team ABC could still miss their turn but at least every team knows that they should check back on the game at least daily to see if a reload has occurred.

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.

 

[ruff_hi]

And that is it - over to the other teams to discuss. I hope that I have fairly combined the two sets - if you see a situation where I haven't, please point it out and we can make an amendment. My aim here is to drive as quickly as we can to a common rule set and / or identify the areas where there is disagreement.

Edit: Oh - r_rolo1 just posted a 'Sugestion (sic ) for ruleset' that, after a quick glance, looks to be 100% CFC's that was posted here earlier. I think r_rolo1 has jumped the gun here a little (I pm'd that to him) as I thought that we are still trying to follow the game organizers' lead of posting rule sets for combining prior to going to the next stage of voting on them. I think I also read a player's comment that combining the various rule sets in private wasn't on the up and up (a position that I agree with) and, hence my public attempt to produce a combined set above.

Finally - I am treating the timing of my post announcing my intention to post a draft combined set (Jun 25, 2012, 04:07 PM) and the subsequent* suggestion by Sommerswerd to the game admin and his post (Jun 25, 2012, 06:10 PM) as purely coincidental.

* who knows - Sommerswerd and r_rolo1 might have been discussing this post for days.

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.

 

[DNK]

02. In Game Actions

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.

What is the purpose of this rule?

 

[DaveShack]

Spoiler interesting but irrelevant :

The way I read the intent of that is to ensure that the team which has already gone first doesn't receive units in the middle of the other team's turn, ie enforcing the turn order. The way you enforce the turn order in the context of the mod is for the team gifting to be at war with the enemy of the team receiving.

I don't think that this rule is needed. In fact, I think it takes away a little from the game. Suppose A declares on B, with the secret support of C. If C is required to declare on B to give A units, then the nature of the diplomacy between A and C becomes apparent to B. But C could be in a soft alliance with B, while really being in a true alliance with A under the covers. I think we want to allow this kind of backstab.

A really observant turnplayer for B will determine that C's soliders go down while A's go up, so it is possible to discover what's up -- with the proper discipline and attention to detail.

No team benefits or is harmed directly by either allowing C to gift while at peace with the opponent, or by requiring C to be at war. All teams are at an even footing. The decision here is driven by whether you think "sneaky" play is fun, or not. Personally, I think successfully pulling the wool over B's eyes is art of the highest form. And if B figures it out, they always have the option of declaring on C to get the turn order straight.

Posting as myself, not a representative of CivFanatics. I'll probably go through the proposal point by point, after digesting it a bit.

Edit: I misread 02.d -- on 2nd reading it looks like the intent is to prevent Team A from giving its units to Team C, to preserve them when they would have been destroyed by B. Maybe that is something to avoid...

 

[DaveShack]

I routinely use 5f in the games I host. In fact, after a reload that loses actions I specifically log in and pause it myself when hosting, then I post in the tracker thread and ask for teams to repause, until everyone has played and/or checked in.

 

[DNK]

Might as well just change the wording to prevent that specific abuse: giving an effective double-move by gifting units when out of order because you're not involved directly.

 

[mzprox]

About that 2d: we should not take away the possibility to support someone (either secretly or not) with units without going into war yourself. The other side can declare war on you if they feel that's their best interest.

 

[ruff_hi]

Thanks for the discussion guys. I'll cycle back with some examples of possible abuses that 2d is trying to address - hopefully that will bring some clarity.

Might as well just change the wording to prevent that specific abuse: giving an effective double-move by gifting units when out of order because you're not involved directly.

In pitboss games, gifted units retain their movement points (ie if they have moved, they cannot move again ... if they haven't moved, they can move). In pbem games, they are given a completely new set of movement points. As such, I don't think this rule is aimed at any double move option.

 

[tobiasn]

Hi ruff,

Thanks for the revised rules. It's good stuff. I like the part about the dog

I'm trying to get my head around the 2d-rule. Basically I understand that you'll want to avoid a situation kinda like this:

A and B is at war. B is supported by C, but C and A is at peace. A has first turn.

A wants to attack the units that B has available for that turn.
A attacks and finishes.
B starts. B gets SoD from C. A cannot attack this new stack.

This is how I understand you when you write

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.

Can we find some way to formulate that rule so that it doesn't disallow that thing mprox is talking about? Also, DaveShack has a point up there that should be addressed, probably..

Other than the side-effects of that specific rule, it's my understanding that CFC is totally fine with the rest of your revised proposal. I have no official duty though, so this is posted with my very own personal hat on

 

[ruff_hi]

I checked back with some others (@RB) re 2d and got some replies ranging from those quoted above (similar to DaveS') but also including this specific example ...

Player A is fighting player B in player C's land. Player A attacks with his army, then to avoid player B being able to kill them he gifts them to player C.

Now, based on the RB feedback as well as that above, I am tempted to nix 2d. In the above situation - what the flank are you doing fighting in C's land if C isn't at least neutral to you?

In the tobiasn example ...

A and B is at war. B is supported by C, but C and A is at peace. A has first turn.

A wants to attack the units that B has available for that turn.
A attacks and finishes.
B starts. B gets SoD from C. A cannot attack this new stack.

... again, I am tempted to think that a lot of this has to come down to intense diplo ... if you are A and you don't want C entering the war to support B, then you better talk your @#$@# off to C to get them to at least neutral.

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.

 

[ruff_hi]

Any other comments / feedback / issues that need teasing out? What about someone signing on to write a preamble for us?

Edit: Not to mention the 500lb gorilla - the sequential in-game rules - that section is unformed and fully outstanding (ie not done).

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.

 

[Bowsling]

In the tobiasn example ... ... again, I am tempted to think that a lot of this has to come down to intense diplo ... if you are A and you don't want C entering the war to support B, then you better talk your @#$@# off to C to get them to at least neutral.

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.

But this isn't really a case of diplomacy. If done in wartime, it can become a fully legal double move under this scenario:

A is at war with B and C. A is running a hardcore espionage economy and knows where all of B and C's units are. A sees a large C stack heading his way through B territory, but it can't attack him this turn. C plays before B and moves the stack until it has 1 movement left, then gifts the whole thing to B. B profits.

 

[ruff_hi]

A is at war with B and C. A is running a hardcore espionage economy and knows where all of B and C's units are. A sees a large C stack heading his way through B territory, but it can't attack him this turn. C plays before B and moves the stack until it has 1 movement left, then gifts the whole thing to B. B profits.

B gets a whole lot of units that only have 1 movement point left. Movement points do NOT reset with gifted units in pitboss games. They DO reset in pbem games.

 

[Bowsling]

Ah, my bad.

There still is, however, a possibility for a peacetime double move with unit gifting. I suppose that will be covered with the double move rules.

 

[2metraninja]

Thanks for the discussion guys. I'll cycle back with some examples of possible abuses that 2d is trying to address - hopefully that will bring some clarity.
In pitboss games, gifted units retain their movement points (ie if they have moved, they cannot move again ... if they haven't moved, they can move). In pbem games, they are given a completely new set of movement points. As such, I don't think this rule is aimed at any double move option.

Despite technically correct (units keep their movement), there is still ways to double-move with units gifting. Strange you did not thinked of it given your desire to address each and every situation which potentially may or may not arise.

Might as well just change the wording to prevent that specific abuse: giving an effective double-move by gifting units when out of order because you're not involved directly.

DNK is absolutely right here that with gifting units there can be made a double- move. Example for clarity:

A is first in the turn order while at war with B. A plays and finish his turn. Then B plays his turn and sees there is weak spot in A's defense and A cant bring any units to defend next turn and advances to threaten that weak spot. Then C logs in, sees the situation, discuss it quick with A and decides to send him reinforcements. C is not at war, so he can move his units after B, gift them to A and those same units once under A's control will have full fresh movements in the beginning of the next turn to wreak B's plans effectively double-moving B.

Not to try to wreak the whole rule-making process, but why dont you guys try to get over the fact that Civ is such a game that it never can have perfect rules. If there was to be found such perfect rules, you guys over RB could have this rule at hand years ago with your obsession of making everything fair and square. I know such rules dont exist and you are trying to make something especially for this game. We still need rules but digging in to those endless specific cases and trying to prevent anything is not the main purpose we are intending with this game, nor will give us the game starting any soon. Even if imperfect, we prefer to play it rather than arguing endlessly.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Rather ironic considering the cause of the week-long (and counting) delay so far was a certain proposal that every single team create their own ruleset for this game. Everything else was ready and there was already a decent drafted ruleset - we could have started a week ago if not for a certain proposal from a very small minority determined to stall the game over the ruleset.

Yet now, when someone puts considerable effort into creating a decent ruleset amalgamated from the versions submitted, in order to get this dying game back on its feet, you roll your eyes in disgust. At least a token gesture of thanks might be in order; Ruff has put significant time into this of his own accord.

Or is any ruleset besides your own completely unaltered version (which you admit and others confirm is flawed) unacceptable? In which case, why the pretense with the week-long "we want a discussion and more rulesets" stalling?

Sure it's impossible to think of everything when writing a ruleset. But that's no reason to discard the things that have been thought of.

 

[2metraninja]

Rather ironically that this game organized by CFC is intended to be an Inter-Site-Democracy-Game, instead of RealmsBeyond-only-home-rules-game. To me this looks like the most normal thing on this Earth that the organizers will have something to say about the rules and of course that everyone else will have the right to propose rules. RB is only 1/9 of the teams. Yeah, we already heard that RB consider the opinion of the other teams as one of "village idiots", but thats life, you will still have to hear and consider everyone's opinion.

It is like deja-vu each other day someone from team RB coming here to suggest this game is "dying" only because things are discussed and not everyone accepts for given your own opinion on first sight. Yesterday it was Azza, today it is you, who is on schedule for tomorrow?

Or is any ruleset besides your own completely unaltered version (which you admit and others confirm is flawed)

Oh, Dear Lord, how I love such biased statements. All I am doing is pointing out one more thing which will needs addressing if we go to the route of "address everything possible". My

own completely unaltered version

is just a short and easily to obey/enforce thing and it is just a bit more flawed than your own version, which I just showed you that there are huge holes as-it-is

(which you admit and others confirm is flawed)

My (personal) desire is to have as less rules as it is possible and avoid gray and requiring interpretation rules like

e. Abusing Pause Requests - No team should abuse the Game Pause Requests rule.

What abusing constitute of?
Or writing tens of lines about not allowing possible shenanigans with gifted units, where you miss the most significant of them, which I pointed?

Please, dont include Ruff in the whole thing. Saying me suggesting/questioning a rule is disrespectful to Ruff for his efforts in preparing the rules is just the same thing you do by accusing us of stalling the game because we want good and working rules for a game which will last for the next 2 years. If one week earlier start is so important for you, someone may doubt if you are suitable for such a game.

Sure it's impossible to think of everything when writing a ruleset. But that's no reason to discard the things that have been thought of.

In this particular case I am pointing out a flaw in the detailed rules, which obviously was missed/overlooked by Ruff and even after pointed out by DNK, he still dont get in under attention.

 

[vranasm]

my opinion on this whole matter (so not speaking for CFC which I am part of) is

how the hell you want to run at least somewhat reasonable MP game with so much hate going on now?

feels like CFC and RB decided to solve the mystery of who is better MP players and use other participants as some tools in this competition.

You never will make perfect rules and in this atmosphere of hate the game is destined to end as a big fiasco.

There will be issues, there will be abuses (intended or nonintended), but in this atmosphere that can't end good.

I think all 3 posters from last few pages have to calm down a bit and us newcomers allow to enjoy somewhat good game.

I understand that in simultaneous game there is a lot of abuses available and the rules have to make somewhat good framework, but no amount of rules will make enjoyable game if the participants don't make the good game themself.

You can always decide to use or not use overlooked abuse by rules. It's up to your individual decision not to cheat/exploit/abuse things that are morally on the fence.

In this atmosphere it looks like everyone stands by the rule of "what is not forbidden is allowed" and that will not make good game.

I for one want to see how teams manage their empires, their tech paths, maybe lead warfare with stacks etc. But certainly not into this "well let's throw up our game and at the same time screw RB game by gifting CFC all gold and huge stacks of army"... and no amount of rules will solve this if the willpower is there.

 

[tobiasn]

whs.

 

[Manolo65]