CIVplomacy in the Ten Tribes

[DevilHell]

He awoke, not from a dream, or perhaps indeed from one; From an escape to believing that the Tribes were once again united, or at least feigning it pretty well.
He laughed and thought for almost 2 days, viewing how the elders and even members from the Storm Tribes, excited, proposed several actions, and agreed!
He couldn't trust his eyes nor his ears, it was such an unbelievable reality... "It couldn't last" he was sure. But for the sake of his Tribe, he went to check how the Elders wanted to manage this "New Mayan Tribe". He listened for a while, and their decisions where not as wrong as he thought they could be, although, for that moment there were not many really important decisions to make anyway. He then proceeded to head back to his Palapa, thinking that right now, his intellect wasn't needed for such trivial decisions.
But just in that moment! He heard two Elders discussing; A member of one of the Storm Tribes, to be exact, a Children of the Volcano, was arguing with one of those pessimist Elders, who think that the world is going to end and an "Apocalypse" will come.
The first suggested to "build a Monument", because "It would be good to the city and its people" "they would be cultured" or something like that.
The second wanted to train a group of "Scouts", so the Tribe could explore the surroundings of Palenque, and get more information.
He intervened, and said to the first Elder
-What is the hurry on that "Monument" of yours? If we built it, the people would look at it, ignorant, without understanding the point of all that work. What benefits would it bring? What is the point? Distract the masses for a couple of years?
I suggest you to be patient. The different Tribes were separated until few days ago, they need to get used to each others mores, they need to establish a common Tradition.
And for the meanwhile, it comes handy, to explore, and learn from the outside, so our people start to think, and so we can define our empire, our territory, our friends and enemies.
DevilHell then said "I support GreyWithAnE's command" and then he continued his way back.

 

[DevilHell]

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?

Well right now nobody is attacking Carnid, but if someone did, that someone would be out weighed by 3
That's what I find stupid, because: Nobody is commanding to research anything different, and if somebody did, Ceskari is already supporting Carnids action
So Magnive support is unnecessary, and Christos support is just the laziest thing I've ever seen

So if someone attacked Carnid, I suggest Magnive and Christos to change their action to "Command the research of pottery" and "Support the another player" respectively -.-

 

[Slvynn]

I have question.. seeng that some playes changed their command during session, i would like to do it too... I command to queue Monument after Scout construction

 

[Carnid]

One other point I should make clear: Supporting a player does not protect them from attack.

If player A supports player B, and player B is attacked, then player B's action is automatically changed to defense. Player A's action does not change, but now he is supporting player B in defense instead of in Player B's original action.

I will allow you to use the Defend action to defend another player in the same city. This will protect the other player from attacks, but will not give any support to their action.

I'm just following this clarification here. I think we should have two kinds of support. "Aggressive" and "Passive", and that a bunch of players supporting the same idea should be counted as a pool.

Players in Aggressive Support mode would be used in priority to defend, followed by Passive Supports until there is enough players to successfully defend whoever is targeted by the attack. If there are enough players to defend, any remaining players in Aggressive mode will be added to the defense, to throw out the attackers. Players in passive mode, however, will simply go on with the idea and put their strength to support the command. If no attacks happen, Aggressive Supports are also counted toward the command.

If we have player A commanded something, and player B, C doing an 'Aggressive' support to A, and player D making a 'Passive' support to A, but we have evil Dr. X and his crazy wife Ms. Y attack player A (because they don't know that player A is backed by B, C, D, being secretive and all), the way it would work would be :

Player A defends.
Player B is in Aggressive Support mode, so will contribute to the defense. There is now enough players to successfully defend player A, so the other two should technically be allowed to continue supporting the idea (so things get going in the game), however:
Player C is also in Aggressive Support mode, so he joins the defense, making it 3 vs 2, kicking out the evil couple.
Player D is in Passive Support mode, so he doesn't join the attack and continues his support of the idea.

This would allow groups to choose whether to counter-attack during their defense, or give more chances to their idea to be pushed in. Also, if Dr.X and Ms.Y suddenly made a bunch of children, Mad Z, Insane K and Greedy M, and attack our valorous heroes A, B, C, D, it would effectively kick out A, B, C and D out of the city. They could then proceed to have 4 blocking the gates, and one issuing commands, but since they're evil, they would turn to in-fighting and not support each other properly, and our great heroes would find an opportunity to come back and save the city once more!

I just want to avoid the scenario where one player screws up a group of 6 because he attacked the player who issued the command, which has a huge potential to cause the game to stall.

 

[Slvynn]

later yahzuk confirmed that if defence > attack attacker thrown out of city

 

[DevilHell]

I have question.. seeng that some playes changed their command during session, i would like to do it too... I command to queue Monument after Scout construction

Well Magnive changed his action because he didn't notice Carnid's one
And my suggestion of changing actions if Carnid got attacked is logical because it's really stupid that he has 4 supports
But if you changed your action then I would change mine, since there is nobody commanding against GreyWithAnE's action
But if you change it, please don't just edit it, but announce with another post that you changed your action to another

I'm just following this clarification here. I think we should have two kinds of support. "Aggressive" and "Passive", and that a bunch of players supporting the same idea should be counted as a pool.

Players in Aggressive Support mode would be used in priority to defend, followed by Passive Supports until there is enough players to successfully defend whoever is targeted by the attack. If there are enough players to defend, any remaining players in Aggressive mode will be added to the defense, to throw out the attackers. Players in passive mode, however, will simply go on with the idea and put their strength to support the command. If no attacks happen, Aggressive Supports are also counted toward the command.

If we have player A commanded something, and player B, C doing an 'Aggressive' support to A, and player D making a 'Passive' support to A, but we have evil Dr. X and his crazy wife Ms. Y attack player A (because they don't know that player A is backed by B, C, D, being secretive and all), the way it would work would be :

Player A defends.
Player B is in Aggressive Support mode, so will contribute to the defense. There is now enough players to successfully defend player A, so the other two should technically be allowed to continue supporting the idea (so things get going in the game), however:
Player C is also in Aggressive Support mode, so he joins the defense, making it 3 vs 2, kicking out the evil couple.
Player D is in Passive Support mode, so he doesn't join the attack and continues his support of the idea.

This would allow groups to choose whether to counter-attack during their defense, or give more chances to their idea to be pushed in. Also, if Dr.X and Ms.Y suddenly made a bunch of children, Mad Z, Insane K and Greedy M, and attack our valorous heroes A, B, C, D, it would effectively kick out A, B, C and D out of the city. They could then proceed to have 4 blocking the gates, and one issuing commands, but since they're evil, they would turn to in-fighting and not support each other properly, and our great heroes would find an opportunity to come back and save the city once more!

I just want to avoid the scenario where one player screws up a group of 6 because he attacked the player who issued the command, which has a huge potential to cause the game to stall.

Well you can suggest that whole idea to Yahzuk if you want, but just to clarify:

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.

If you get attacked, the attacker will get thrown out of the city, so it is not likely that somebody attacks a player that already has support

 

[Slvynn]

we need some rule here, because Gray changed action as well. Also i dont exactly change action i just queue my pick after current winning one, but its still same - building monument at score priority - means 2nd, if you remove ur support there will be draw again... so in order to place priority 1 in scout it still needs your support... if someone will vote for monument then it will be 2 vs 2 , and if you remove ur vote completely then monument will be priority 1
i think buildings should be queued by priority derrived from votes...

 

[DevilHell]

we need some rule here, because Gray changed action as well. Also i dont exactly change action i just queue my pick after current winning one, but its still same - building monument at score priority - means 2nd, if you remove ur support there will be draw again... so in order to place priority 1 in scout it still needs your support... if someone will vote for monument then it will be 2 vs 2 , and if you remove ur vote completely then monument will be priority 1
i think buildings should be queued by priority derrived from votes...

OOC:

No, that's totally different.
If you change your action, it will no longer be "Building a Monument", it will be "Build a Monument" after the scout is done.
So if I change my action of supporting Grey, he will be the only one commanding a Build, more specifically, Build a Scout, and as there will be nobody giving a different command, Grey's command is gonna get executed

Now, if I change my action, because currently there is no one contradicting Grey's action of building a scout, and suddenly, you re-change your action to build a Monument, then there will be a tie, and both commands are going to get wasted, as something random will be build in-game.
Not something random between the two, but something completely random, like a warrior

So basically, queuing stuff doesn't mean that the action is active, it means you command your action before, so it won't get "trumped" or something

So, understanding this, is your action officially changed to build a Monument after the Scout is done?

 

[GreyWithAnE]

Slvynn: Hooray cooperation! The Maya people have a bright future

Carnid: If (and this is a big if) Yahzuk is open to changing the rules any more here, the Passive/Aggressive supporting mechanic you propose makes sense, but it's hard to understand. We'd end up with an identical, more user-friendly system if we fold "Defend [Other]" and "Support" into the same action. In other words, "Support" automatically reverts to "Defend" if necessary. That way, nobody has to play any guessing games on whether people will be Attacking or Counter-Commanding.

But again, big if.

 

[Slvynn]

No
I call saint yahzuk for rule which makes sense
If there few buildings in vote during session 10 turns timeframe 2nd should automaticalky queued up till end of the session. If there 3 things will fit then top 3 votes, starting with winner. I want monument and it will be stupid if my vote for queuing it would not change in case there more 2 people suddenly want to build it 1st. Buildings should get their votes stacked and then arranged within session timelapse by their votes count priorities
If coalition want to control ALL the queue for a session they shoul take care for winning top votes for all of its 10 turn period
I oficially make monument top 2 which by this call should become remaining session project after scout is done, if it will be on the 2nd place by votes, and will return to draw if your vote is recalled

 

[DevilHell]

No
I call saint yahzuk for rule which makes sense
If there few buildings in vote during session 10 turns timeframe 2nd should automaticalky queued up till end of the session. If there 3 things will fit then top 3 votes, starting with winner. I want monument and it will be stupid if my vote for queuing it would not change in case there more 2 people suddenly want to build it 1st. Buildings should get their votes stacked and then arranged within session timelapse by their votes count priorities
If coalition want to control ALL the queue for a session they shoul take care for winning top votes for all of its 10 turn period
I oficially make monument top 2 which by this call should become remaining session project after scout is done, if it will be on the 2nd place by votes, and will return to draw if your vote is recalled

Yahzuk may not answer that question on time, so I am going to try to explain it again:

Example 1: Two Equal Commands

Player A commands to Build a Monument
Player B commands to Build a Scout
Player C supports Player B's action
Result: Build a Scout(2)>Build a Monument(1)
The Build a Scout command is executed and Player A's action for this Council is wasted

Example 2: Two Different Commands

Player A commands to Build a Scout
Player B commands to Build a Monument after the Scout is done (queuing)
Result: Both player's actions are executed and player B saved his action of the next Council because he already commanded what he wanted

The Commands you issue in a Council Session are executed if they have majority of support, or they are trashed if they are confronted with a more supported Command of the same type
They do not queue if you don't specifically issue a Command to queue them.
So, again, is your Action for this Council Session, to Command to build a Monument after the scout is done building?

 

[Slvynn]

Yahzuk may not answer that question on time, so I am going to try to explain it again:

Example 1: Two Equal Commands

Player A commands to Build a Monument
Player B commands to Build a Scout
Player C supports Player B's action
Result: Build a Scout(2)>Build a Monument(1)
The Build a Scout command is executed and Player A's action for this Council is wasted

Example 2: Two Different Commands

Player A commands to Build a Scout
Player B commands to Build a Monument after the Scout is done (queuing)
Result: Both player's actions are executed and player B saved his action of the next Council because he already commanded what he wanted

The Commands you issue in a Council Session are executed if they have majority of support, or they are trashed if they are confronted with a more supported Command of the same type
They do not queue if you don't specifically issue a Command to queue them.
So, again, is your Action for this Council Session, to Command to build a Monument after the scout is done building?

Pls dont press on

I've told already , that, before calling votes yahzuk and we all should think and clarify the rule of changing votes, and queuing....
The thing that voting for monument and being 2nd on votes != queuing it after 1st building is not correct... By this way game sense is lost for minority of tribes, which will be always outvoted, while some tribes were allowed to have 3-4 members.
Vote for monument 2nd place = queing it after scout, that my point, so, i will not answer your question again because it is , 2nd or 3rd time not relevant to things i trying to say

If you want to control all 10 turns of building queue you should place votes accordingly (by cooperation or without)
The 2nd building by vote count should be automatically queued up unless there is another player which compete for 2nd place with already available or new-coming building or unit.
Same could with tech, lets say someone call for Animal Husbandry, but loses to Pottery, his tech should be 2nd in queue , assuming no-one commands to do Writing or different tech.

 

[GreyWithAnE]

By this way game sense is lost for minority of tribes, which will be always outvoted, while some tribes were allowed to have 3-4 members.

That's only true when the tribes are in direct opposition, which will very rare. Even the Apocalypsos, who want to eventually lose the game entirely, need the Mayans to become very dominant first (and, I should mention, want to complete the Domination and Cultural partial goals, which is exactly what you want to do as well). Devil and I wouldn't be pushing for Scout-first if we didn't think it would yield more culture and dominance in the long run.

That's the design of the game, just like Risk, Diplomacy, or most other good board games. Winning is impossible without some amount of collaboration and cooperation between players/tribes, yet only one player/tribe can win. This selfishness/selflessness paradox is what makes it fun.

So in summary: hey man, we cool.

EDIT: And if you really want to be in a big tribe, you can join the Inferno tribe as your action this turn, instead of queueing the Monument. You'll be the 4th member, and they're not that different from Vocano anyway.

 

[Carnid]

Pls dont press on

I've told already , that, before calling votes yahzuk and we all should think and clarify the rule of changing votes, and queuing....
The thing that voting for monument and being 2nd on votes != queuing it after 1st building is not correct... By this way game sense is lost for minority of tribes, which will be always outvoted, while some tribes were allowed to have 3-4 members.
Vote for monument 2nd place = queing it after scout, that my point, so, i will not answer your question again because it is , 2nd or 3rd time not relevant to things i trying to say

There is a difference between a VOTE and issuing COMMANDS. Both can be used to either build/research/whatever something right away, or to queue up something. In order to queue up a monument, for example, you need to specify that you are QUEUING a monument as the next construction project. If you command to build a scout NOW, but your command is supplanted by someone else command to build a monument NOW, your command is simply lost. It is NOT queued next. VOTES have the advantage of being prioritized before commands, because the resolutions become laws, and you cannot command something against the law. As Yahzuk said earlier:

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."

The distinction between commanding (or voting) a research and queuing a research are obvious.

Tribes in minority will have to work together. Besides, all tribes will most likely end up in minority as the game will progress, because of the 15% rule. So yeah, if you want to build a monument, and don't think you have a chance to beat the current build command, you can always command the monument to be built AFTER the scout. This way, when the scout is built, the game will not stop and the monument will be built right away. Of course, should another council be formed, new commands can then remove your monument from queue or choose something else to be built. Unless you call for a VOTE to queue a monument after the scout. Then, if your resolution wins the majority of votes, a monument will be built after the scout and the only way to cancel this is to issue a new VOTE removing that resolution.

 

[Slvynn]

1. We , ob course, are cool
2. Why i need to join Infernos? Why you didnt joined them? I Wanted to play culture game, but , from 1st turn there will be very little sense.
3. you all 3 are teamed, and say from point of view of dominating tribe.
4. I still think that in order to keep building queue coalition of players must keep number one in votes.
5. I've made proposal to adjust the rule, which do makes much mroe sense, to make queuing = voting (commanding/supporting) in case your votes/commands take 2nd place. (ie 1 command 2 supports for scout, 1 command 1 support for monument = monument automatically queued after scout)
6. Why need me to force me to say/announce something what contradicts the point i trying to make, several times, and completely ignoring it? We are all just cool, I've made proposal in order to balance things.... I hope i can propose it and wait till all players and creator express their thoughts on the matter? and it does not affect your tribe negatively either, by the way....

 

[Ceskari]

Ceskari sits by a stream flowing at the edge of the city. He contemplates the turmoil of the last few days... Where just a week ago was nothing, a gathering of people has become a semipermanent encampment, with people erecting sturdier structures to live in. Coming from the jungle to this place seems like the world has changed. Vines were crawling upon forgotten pyramids where Ceskari had left for his foray into the unknown.

Now, he feels united with the flow of the stream, the water, everything in it. His vision stretches far into the future, if these people can stick together, their path can reach the stars. The common code seems to be still changing, people arguing about their "rules" of engagement seem no concern to Ceskari. He draws circles within circles in the sand, wishing to not be disturbed.

He sends a wish to the great spirit Yahzuk to look upon this world and decide, once and for all, on the remaining issues on "rules" so we can go on living by this code of conduct.

 

[11 Rabbit]

Greetings everybody! These forum games seemed a lot of fun just reading them, and I hope they're even more fun when playing them!

Wishes to join the game as a Child of the Inferno.

 

[yahzuk]

So I'm back and you guys have sure been busy witha the questions while I was gone. I've only been able to skim the thread so far, and I'm planning to try to go back through and address as many of the questions as I can, but from skimming it there's two major points I want to hit right off the bat.

1) I have no problem with people changing their orders for any reason they please. You don't need ay special reason. This is the kind of game where players are going to try to convince other players to do things. That means when a player announces they're going to do something, other players are going to try to convince them to change their minds.

That's great. Do that. I think there are much stronger arguments to be made than simply calling their position stupid, but you can go with whatever angle works for you. But do make sure you stay within the Forum's code of conduct rules!

Also, as someone mentioned, if you're going to change your order, make a new post at the end of the thread (or send me a new PM) and don't simply edit your original post.

2) Some of you have been reading the rules enough to start figuring that there are ways for other people to mess up your carefully laid plans. To this I say: TRUE.
To me, this is a game feature, not a game flaw. You may not agree with the position, in which case I'm sorry, but don't expect it to change.
(Instead try to find ways to mess up their carefully laid plans to mess up your carefully laid plans)

Anyways, over the next while I will try to go back and address the other questions not covered here.
~Yahzuk

 

[yahzuk]

I just want to avoid the scenario where one player screws up a group of 6 because he attacked the player who issued the command, which has a huge potential to cause the game to stall.

I want to encourage one player to try to screw up a group of six. Talk about efficient use of your action! That one guy - he gets it. He's gonna go far in this world.

But fear not, citizens! You cannot stall the progress of the Mayan empire. No matter what happens or fails to happen in the council session, the game will move forward. In absence of decisions of the tribal elders, the smallfolk will simply cast lots to decide what to do.

~The Truly Horrible St. Yahzuk

 

[yahzuk]

I'm just following this clarification here. I think we should have two kinds of support. "Aggressive" and "Passive", and that a bunch of players supporting the same idea should be counted as a pool.

Players in Aggressive Support mode would be used in priority to defend, followed by Passive Supports until there is enough players to successfully defend whoever is targeted by the attack. If there are enough players to defend, any remaining players in Aggressive mode will be added to the defense, to throw out the attackers. Players in passive mode, however, will simply go on with the idea and put their strength to support the command. If no attacks happen, Aggressive Supports are also counted toward the command.

If we have player A commanded something, and player B, C doing an 'Aggressive' support to A, and player D making a 'Passive' support to A, but we have evil Dr. X and his crazy wife Ms. Y attack player A (because they don't know that player A is backed by B, C, D, being secretive and all), the way it would work would be :

Player A defends.
Player B is in Aggressive Support mode, so will contribute to the defense. There is now enough players to successfully defend player A, so the other two should technically be allowed to continue supporting the idea (so things get going in the game), however:
Player C is also in Aggressive Support mode, so he joins the defense, making it 3 vs 2, kicking out the evil couple.
Player D is in Passive Support mode, so he doesn't join the attack and continues his support of the idea.

This would allow groups to choose whether to counter-attack during their defense, or give more chances to their idea to be pushed in. Also, if Dr.X and Ms.Y suddenly made a bunch of children, Mad Z, Insane K and Greedy M, and attack our valorous heroes A, B, C, D, it would effectively kick out A, B, C and D out of the city. They could then proceed to have 4 blocking the gates, and one issuing commands, but since they're evil, they would turn to in-fighting and not support each other properly, and our great heroes would find an opportunity to come back and save the city once more!

I just want to avoid the scenario where one player screws up a group of 6 because he attacked the player who issued the command, which has a huge potential to cause the game to stall.

Interesting idea but too complicated for this game. Sorry!