CIVplomacy in the Ten Tribes
- Thread starter yahzuk
- Start date
Okay, so as an example, let's say someone wanted the resolution mentioned earlier. Your action during this council session would be Call for Vote: "Palenque must always build the highest available strength unit.
At the end of this council session (Monday), we'll see if the action resolves. The only way it wouldn't would be if someone attacked you, cancelling your action and forcing you to defend yourself.
Then, council being over the game will progress 1 turn. Since there is an open vote, the council would meet again (the 2nd council) after that 1 turn.
In the announcement of the new council session, I would announce that there was a resolution to be voted on. Players would get to vote YES/NO to pass the resolution in addition to their action for that council session. Voting does not count as an action, but players could campaign (does count as an action), which would double the strength of all their votes (if there were multiple issues to be voted on).
Since this particular resolution is about Palenque construction, only players in Palenque could vote on it. Right now Palenque is our only city of course, but if perchance a player was attacked and forced out of the city during the 1st council session, they would be unable to vote.
At the end of the 2nd council session, the votes are tallied. (There is no way to stop a player's vote, although you could attack a player and cancel their campaign action). If Yes > No, the resolution passes and goes into effect. If tied, it fails.
Part of that means, plan in advance the timing for your resolution because you need to be a gameturn ahead. For research or construction, not such a big deal. You'll lose a turn that would get spent researching or building something else, but then can be switched.
But if your resolution was The Mayans will selection Tradition as the next social policy, you want to do that before the council session when its an "urgent matter" to select a social policy. Because if you wait until then to propose the resolution, some other policy will be chosen during that 1 game turn advance between council sessions. (Either by someone's order on what policy to choose, or random selection). Of course, the vote on your resolution still happens. If it passes it still goes into effect, and Tradition would still be chosen as the next social policy. But that social policy might be 20-30 gameturns down the road, instead of right away.
Does that help?
See other posts on the first part. View it as joining a tribe is the new players' action for this council session (just as switching tribes would count as an action for existing players). Therefore they don't get to perform any other action.
OK, this clarified almost everything, just one more question:
To queue up the techs to research, do we have to command it, or do we have to make a resolution for it? The same for construction.
GreyWithAnE
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Messages
- 137
This one I think I can handle, even though yahzuk, as always, has the patience of a saint with us.
Anything can be Commanded, except for the following (from Page 1):
May not be used to control foreign policy.
May not be used to sell buildings or disband units.
May not be used to change result of a Resolution. (I.E., Resolutions "trump" commands)
(Although if you want to command construction, you have to live in that city.)
Resolutions, on the other hand, are limited only by our imaginations, political (voting) realities, and the fact that we can't change the rules of the meta-game.
To queue or not queue, that is the question.
What are "game decisions" that stop the game progress to hold a council session?
Open Votes
Construction
Research
Social Policies
Religious Beliefs
Wartime Combat
Otherwise, 10 gameturns will pass between council sessions..
Not unit orders (except for wartime combat)
Not deals with foreign powers
Not gold purchases
Not game decisions listed above that already have something queued up
By having the next decision already in the queue, you remove it as an urgent game decision
Say Palenque starts building a scout and it takes 7 turns. (Ignoring all other matters), the council meets again on turn 7 to decide what to build next.
But say building a monument after the scout was already in the queue. Now the game doesn't need to stop on turn 7 for a council session. The people already know what to do next. Then the council meets on turn 10, and the monument is already 3 turns in. It could still be decided in that council to change production to something else, but you have the advantage of 3 turns on your side. That might earn you the support of a few other people who wouldn't have agreed to start building the monument, but don't want to see those 3 turns go to waste by cancelling it.
What are "game decisions" that stop the game progress to hold a council session?
Open Votes
Construction
Research
Social Policies
Religious Beliefs
Wartime Combat
Otherwise, 10 gameturns will pass between council sessions..
Not unit orders (except for wartime combat)
Not deals with foreign powers
Not gold purchases
Not game decisions listed above that already have something queued up
By having the next decision already in the queue, you remove it as an urgent game decision
Say Palenque starts building a scout and it takes 7 turns. (Ignoring all other matters), the council meets again on turn 7 to decide what to build next.
But say building a monument after the scout was already in the queue. Now the game doesn't need to stop on turn 7 for a council session. The people already know what to do next. Then the council meets on turn 10, and the monument is already 3 turns in. It could still be decided in that council to change production to something else, but you have the advantage of 3 turns on your side. That might earn you the support of a few other people who wouldn't have agreed to start building the monument, but don't want to see those 3 turns go to waste by cancelling it.
But I mean, you can command to research Pottery
But if you want to queue up techs then you would have to do a resolution
And if it passes, it will be harder for anyone to do a resolution to cancel THAT resolution
Besides, I don't see how you could queue techs up with a command
So the real question would finally be, can we queue techs up? As you suggested to Carnid, GreyWithAnE?
Edit: Because I was writing when yahzuk posted
So, if there's nothing "urgent" to decide, the council meets every 10 game turns because of yes
So basically the resolutions expire after 10 turns(?
Again, I agree with all this, but my simpler answer was going to be: it can be done either way.
Command has the advantage or going into effect immediately after the council session, and allowing you to do "potentially" something all by yourself (provided nobody conflicts with your command or attacks you).
Resolutions have the advantage or permanence and priority over commands. There is a lag before they go into effect and you need a majority vote to pass them, but then your opponents need a majority vote to negate them.
And just for the record, your command can be to put something in the queue, but your command can also be to take something out of a queue.
~Saint Yahzuk
All of the following are valid:
Command: "Change current research to Pottery."
Command: "Research pottery after the current research project."
Resolution: "Change current research to Pottery."
Resolution: "Research pottery after the current research project."
Resolutions don't expire. You could during this first council session propose a resolution "Palenque shall immediately build a giant death robot as soon as it is able." If it passes, that resolution will go on the books and stay there unless someone passes a resolution to change or cancel it. And some 400 turns from now when we have the technology and the uranium, Palenque will stop whatever its doing a build a GDR.
Is that a good use of your single action for this council session - that's up to you to decide. But I'll let you do it. Because that's the kind of wonderful GM I am.
~Yahzuk
(tiredness is creeping in!)
That said - after the GDR was built, the resolution no longer has any meaning and I probably would remove it just for housekeeping. So in that way I guess resolutions do expire upon completion.
FYI - I'm away for most of tomorrow and Monday so probably won't be able to answer many questions between now and then. I think there's a lot of examples out there from the good questions so far, that most things should be clear enough for this first session.
And if not...."Learn by doing!"
-Yahzuk
And if not...."Learn by doing!"
-Yahzuk
Carnid
Chieftain
Carnid
Chieftain
So, if I understood the rules clearly, it means that if player A commands something, and is supported by player B, C and D, but evil Dr. X attacks player, cancelling his command, player B, C and D turns out to be supporting.. nothing?
That doesn't seem right. I think players who support each other should be put in a pool, regardless of who command initially, and the remaining players not being attacked would calculate the strength of the command. Else there is no point in supporting anyone if the whole thing can be canceled by a single other player. That would mean we'll always have to make our commands and supports in private, and the only viable strategy to possibly counter a group's command would be to randomly attack them and hope to pick the right target, which is only a viable tactic if you know you don't have enough players to have a stronger command, which you will never know because it's always private.
Also, people who support each other should automatically be considered as defending each other, else it would leave us to choose between defending a player (the one issuing the command) and supporting him. Which is a guess, again, because we don't know whether the opponent will try to out-command us or attack us. This means the whole system requires a lot more guessing than thinking.
You have to pick a command issuer, guess whether you should support or defend him, and the opponent has to guess whether they should try to guess who is issuing the command and attack him, or if they should try to out-command the other. And all this coordinated via social boards and PMs. I understand it leaves room to spying and treachery, but that's going to work one time, and then the "gangs" will define themselves and that'll be the end of that.
I guess we'll just see how it goes.
That doesn't seem right. I think players who support each other should be put in a pool, regardless of who command initially, and the remaining players not being attacked would calculate the strength of the command. Else there is no point in supporting anyone if the whole thing can be canceled by a single other player. That would mean we'll always have to make our commands and supports in private, and the only viable strategy to possibly counter a group's command would be to randomly attack them and hope to pick the right target, which is only a viable tactic if you know you don't have enough players to have a stronger command, which you will never know because it's always private.
Also, people who support each other should automatically be considered as defending each other, else it would leave us to choose between defending a player (the one issuing the command) and supporting him. Which is a guess, again, because we don't know whether the opponent will try to out-command us or attack us. This means the whole system requires a lot more guessing than thinking.
You have to pick a command issuer, guess whether you should support or defend him, and the opponent has to guess whether they should try to guess who is issuing the command and attack him, or if they should try to out-command the other. And all this coordinated via social boards and PMs. I understand it leaves room to spying and treachery, but that's going to work one time, and then the "gangs" will define themselves and that'll be the end of that.
I guess we'll just see how it goes.
christos200
Never tell me the odds
Support Carnid, who commanded the research of Pottery.
Well, in the beginning we are not playing that mucch against each other
If somebody attacked Carnid, then there would be 3 people supporting his defense, that would be Carnid's strenght (4) vs random player (1)
So random player would be thrown out of the city and somebody would surely stop him from coming again.
Although: I sincerely find REALLY stupid that there are 3 people Supporting Carnid.
They should wait and see:
1)If Somebody commands another research AND has MORE (I mean 2 people supporting) support than what Carnid originally had (With Ceskari's support)
2) If somebody attacked Carnid, hi is defended already by Ceskari, so the player attacking Carnid would still get thrown out of the city, so it would be better to command again, since nobody wants another research
They should perform commands of their own.
You are right, it's not specified
I'm gonna pm Yahzuk with this and others things I found
I hadnt previously considered that, but it makes good sense and i like it. Gives that evil dr.x a little to think about before attacking someone well supported. Of course, defense must be greater than attack, attacker not driven out on a tie. Let it be so.
GreyWithAnE
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Messages
- 137
Last clarification here: When Ceskari "supports" Carnid, that still counts as purely to counter other commands, and not attacks, right? Carnid seems to assume the answer to the above question is "yes," but DevilHell looks like it's "no" and Yahzuk didn't clarify.
In other words, it looks like the rules have a difference between "defending" another player (protecting that player from Attacksw, and allowing the attacked player to still execute his/her action without automatically reverting to "Defend") and "supporting" another player (bolstering the strength of their command when resolved against a contradictory command). Just want to make sure that's still true. FWIW, I certainly wouldn't complain if we merged the two actions.
Hooray rules!
And folks: let's see some support for that Scout before the council ends tomorrow, eh?
