Game Settings Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by Sommerswerd, May 23, 2012.

  1. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,399
    Location:
    On the one spin
    My suggestion would be to just scrap that rule and use whatever rule Spanish Poly usually uses with their Doublemove Mod. LP said that he wrote this rule assuming that Spanish Poly's Mod wouldn't be used. WTF:confused:?

    As I understand it, the way they handle all that attacker advantage/ defender advantage stuff is they just treat it as a strategic concern. I like that approach better because it requires less (or no) admin enforcement.

    But I am concerned with the leader choice right now primarily. I can't be bothered with debating the whole RB team again right now:)
     
  2. grant2004

    grant2004 Citizen

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    America
    It's ok to be paranoid with LP. I really feel like he's the Napoleon of Civ (that's right forget entirely about that other guy :lol:) When you look back at his moves in hindsight everything looks so well orchestrated to achieve his goals, but all presented in a way that makes people who don't know him think he's the most calm, rational, and non-partisan person around. Add on top of that his tremendous skill in micromanaging, and actually playing Civ, and you've really got something terrifying.

    I do think it would be a good idea for us to present an alternate ruleset. One of LP's tactics seems to be that the person who writes the first draft gets 90% of what he wants because amendments are hard to get pushed through. Starting from scratch might allow us to avoid that issue, or swing it in our favor.

    I think we need to ignore settling races entirely because there is no objective way to say who's right in a dispute. The 12 hour rule is great, if everyone keeps a time log of all of their unit moves, and shares them with the other teams. More likely than not two settlers will approach each other out of the fog and meet right at the city site. The first team to notice the enemy settler won't remember how long ago their last settler move was, and certainly won't know when the other team's last move was. With that level of uncertainty there's sure to be accusations of cheating one way or the other, forcing a pause, an angry debate and a moderator decision.

    The idea that teams should join a war on the same side of a turn timer as their allies is good. I'm not sure how that works with the mod though. Obviously, we shouldn't build a set of rules that's contradictory with the mod's mechanics. Unless of course we want to say "Oops, the mod doesn't work this way? I guess we'd better just not use it after all, too bad!" :scared:

    As for the little details of bombing, and worker activity during wars. That's getting into such nit picky detail you're bound to have a dispute just because of an accidental move. It's better to just chalk that one up to a small defender advantage, or let it balance out with other effects of the turn timer that favor the attacker.
     
  3. tobiasn

    tobiasn Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Norway
    I already pointed out the weird consequences of the settler rule:

    So yeah, I agree that is is specific, but it's not uncommon. Basically what I can read out of this is that if you just move your settler in the first 12 hours, it's all good all the time. As this rule is the same for everyone, I guess that's fair, but I don't see the point of this rule at all. It's the same race, it's just a race with less time. So if anything, it's encouraging "clock games" even more. Paradoxical? Or have I missed something?

    My MP experience is very limited, so please fill me in if I did misunderstand anything crucial.

    When it comes to the rest of the ruleset, I have no past experience with pitboss games to draw at. If there's any rules that you feel will impair our game in any way, do explain them to me, and I'll see how we can draw up an alternative/rewrite. Hey, maybe I actually get something out of my years at law school. Wouldn't that be nice :D
     
  4. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,399
    Location:
    On the one spin
    :lol:
     
  5. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    LOL, we got double the lawers capacity of our team :D

    And yes, Tobias you are absolutely right that moving AFTER 12 hours is absolutely the same as moving from the very begining of the turn if its in power for all the teams :D I have noticed that too, but I am too busy lately to start the ruleset discussion seriously.

    Please, you or even better Sommers (he have already a history with LP and he is used to making people look bad in the forums when it comes to Civ discussions ;) ), do make a laugh at LP's expense in the ruleset discussion thread, showing him as no good rule maker. We will need that if we come to arguing rules. Honestly, I think we must take all the good rules we had from previous games, discuss them here in private includint Rolo and then go and ANNOUNCE the rules rather then PROPOSE them. CFC if the organizing site and unless there is obviously unfair rule, the participants must accept and be happy with the rules. Further more, they will be approved by the game admin himself :)
     
  6. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,399
    Location:
    On the one spin
    One problem other teams may have with that is that we are not just the organizer, we are also a team playing the game to win. If we try to dictate all the rules, fair or not, others will naturally say that we are trying to make everything in our favor. What I think we can do, is go on the discussion thread, and say the following (I will say it, don't worry ;)). Everyone already thinks I'm some kind of evil dictator:evil: so it won't be as harmful coming from me... Another thing I will avoid is making it personal to LP. It's already personal enough since I assume he drafted the proposed ruleset, and will naturally be very defensive about it, so I don't want to make it worse than it is already going to be :(

     
  7. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Great!

    And fair too.
     
  8. Majic

    Majic Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    Boden, Sweden
    ...formulate their own proposed Ruleset?

    This sounds like it will take forever, I want the game to start.. =P
     
  9. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,399
    Location:
    On the one spin
    I imagine that some players on other teams will say something similar. To those I would respond that:

    1. The game is going to take over a year. If you can't wait a few days or weeks to finalize the rules, then... bla bla blah (you get the idea);)

    2. If you are truly concerned that each team proposing their own ruleset will take too long, then the easiest thing you can do to shorten the process is to encourage your own team to decline to submit their own ruleset and just go with what the other teams decide.:) (Of course that's not going to help anyone on this Team as CFC is definitely going to be part of the rulemaking process.;))
     
  10. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,399
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Here is a start on our ruleset proposal:

     
  11. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    Personally I prefer if it takes a few weeks still before the game starts, as the multiple disconnects that happens only on the missed Pitboss I'm running is worrying me. I suspect the Spanish developers may need that time to iron out some bugs..

    Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
     
  12. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,399
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Updated to incorporate some other rules. I deleted alot of stuff that was redundant, or making rules to "allow" things that had not been banned anywhere else (and were therefore unnecessary).
     
  13. tobiasn

    tobiasn Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Norway
    @Sommers & co - while I agree that it's fair that every team has a say, it's probably not all teams that really cares that much. The rule you proposed up there is so close to the rule that RB proposed that I'll have to double check to spot the difference. On this matter I firmly believe that it is in our best interest to get it over with as quickly as possible.

    I know you want some kind of upper hand against RB, but right now they're coming off as the more sensible ones in the main forum. Meet them half way, present your suggestion/amendment immediately and be a little softer around the edges. We've already established that we're no pushovers, let's not go all the way to 'annoying' - that only hurts our diplo.

    I'm serious about this, I think the good spirited tone that we had in the leader debate is a much better way to go about things - and ultimately to get what you want.

    Also, remember Sun Tzu. ;)

    @Cal you should be vocal about that in the main forum. I hope you get some help to debug it. Also there has been questions about the possibility to unload the mod mid-game. Can you test that? If you can confirm that that is possible, the critics have no arguments left and we can move on.
     
  14. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,399
    Location:
    On the one spin
    OK tobiasn I will take your advice ;). Posting now with a "soft around the edges" explanation.

    EDIT: I'm glad you feel that there wasn't much difference between our ruleset and the prior ones posted. If you are correct then they should accept ours no problem, as our ruleset is much shorter. I am curious to see if that will be the case :)
     
  15. tobiasn

    tobiasn Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Norway
    That was great. :) Good answer! I think we'll be in agreement quite quickly.
     
  16. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    I have a few questions on some details.

    What about privateers? How will double moves with privateers be handled? And does suicide training (05.a.) apply to privateers that are inherently nationless units? Extreme example: if privateer is about to die anyway, is it OK to move the unit so that an ally gets to kill it instead of an enemy (or neutral team).

    Is 06.d. intended to be applied fully in ISDG or is it a remnant of MTDG rules? In MTDG this is a simple question, since all activity happens in single forum. However, in ISDG things can get complicated especially for those who don't already have accounts in multiple participating forums.
     
  17. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,399
    Location:
    On the one spin
    On the first question, I would say its a clear no. You can't intentionally sacrifice your own units to give your allies experience, whether they are privateers or not. If your ally attacks your privateer, thinking it was a barb, that is legal.

    On the second quetion I would say it is a remnant of MTDG, but you can still use it fine in ISDG.
     
  18. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    I would say that the sacrifice rule applies only to units with visible nationality. Hidden flag units should be exempt. This falls under a general guideline that all rules must be enforceable.

    The double move mod prevents logins on the wrong side of the turn timer, so during war all units would be equally affected. Outside war, all double moves are allowed including hidden flag units.

    Sure, there are barriers to entry for refugees under 06.d. The receiving team has decision authority to accept or reject the player. All the rule says is that refugees are allowed, and if a player from team A joins team B, they can't then give team B information to team C.
     
  19. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Would they be allowed to share information team A had gleaned on team C to team B?
     
  20. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,399
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Yes. Nothing in the rule prohibits that.
     

Share This Page