Game Settings Discussion Thread

[talonschild]

As far as I see it, B just gave up the doublemove AND the ability to deny resources. Their only real recourse would be to shuffle we gave the opportunity to shuffle every turn, though I understand that that risks a war comprised solely of doublemoves. Maybe every 2 turns then. In any case, as few as possible.

 

[DaveShack]

I was suggesting 3 turns, that leaves resource denial with some effect while taking it off the table as a discussion point. Pull their teeth and eventually they won't be able to bite any more.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I was suggesting 3 turns, that leaves resource denial with some effect while taking it off the table as a discussion point. Pull their teeth and eventually they won't be able to bite any more.

So now we have gone around and around and a whole team is threatening to quit (civforum.de - German team I think)... and it seems where we are now is adopting a rule that means we will be swapping turnorder constantly in the middle of Wars to keep moving in and out of Second position. Read the spoiler scenario for an example of how fun that will be:

Spoiler :

Turn 1 - A is at War with B, A moves first, B moves 2nd and cuts A's Oil.
A now wants 2nd move, so A forces B out of position by allowing B to doublemove
Turn 2 -So B moves first, then A moves and repairs his Oil
Then C declares War on A and cuts his Oil again. A now wants 3rd move, so A forces C out of position by allowing C to doublemove
Turn 3 - So B moves first, then C, then A moves and repairs his Oil
Then D declares War on A and cuts his Oil again A now wants 4th move, so A forces D out of position by allowing D to doublemove
Turn 4 -So C moves, then D then BUT THEN B SAYS :Hey its been 3 turns! I get to move back into 2nd position now! So B moves and then forces A back into First move by allowing A to doublemove. A moves and repairs his Oil.
Then E declares War on A and cuts his Oil again...

And so on, and so on ad infinitum...

Now realize that with 9 teams playing, we will almost certainly end up in a 5 on 4 ( If not a 6 on 3 or 7 on 2) and this situation will definitely occur.

What about this... 2metra suggested two alternatives that I think could actually be combined into one resolution to this whole delay. Here it is.

Effective immediately, all Teams give their implied consent for r_rolo1 to be the final arbiter on the Final ruleset. He will amend/adjust the rules how he sees fit and publish his final ruleset in a timely manner.

Implied Consent means we assume that all Teams vote in favor of r_rolo1's ruleset UNLESS a spokesman says they are explicitly voting against it.

All Teams will tell plako in 24 hours where they are putting their Capital, and he will put Oil on that tile. Game starts in 24 hours.

How does that sound. Good right? (Thanks 2metra)

 

[tobiasn]

Why the hardliner approach when everybody seems to be on the same page, suddenly? What do we have to gain by that? We even have a proposal from ruff setting the shuffle thing to 5 turns. Basically, what we have now is a ruleset that is almost exactly like we want it, with a small inclusion of a rule that actually makes sense. I don't think the hardliner approach will get us to the finish line any faster, it will just piss people more off.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Read the spoiler. The turn shuffling thing does not prevent resource denial.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Also, consider this. A forces B into first position then repairs his Oil. But some other civ, that A is not at War with keeps logging in After A and cutting A's Oil. A has no way to force them into first position because they are not at War.

 

[tobiasn]

Also, consider this. A forces B into first position then repairs his Oil. But some other civ, that A is not at War with keeps logging in After A and cutting A's Oil. A has no way to force them into first position because they are not at War.

I know There's nothing to do with this. Thankfully

But there's quite a few disagreeing with you that the shuffle-turn-thing doesn't help anything. I also changed the proposal to max one shuffle each 5 turns per war. Less hassle for the admin, over a long war between two parties the same result as with shuffling each turn, and it nullifies that edge case you described.

Also, setting a limit on it makes it even closer to our original rules, even trough i had to include another paragraph.

All in all I think we can have an agreement now, and after all the greif that would be a nice way to end it..


Edit: I also think we shouldn't use the word "espionage" or anything remotely connected to that in the main forum. You did a good job explaining the first/second turn advantages as a strategic tool. This new proposal is very much building on that idea. And there has been no mention of espy ever since.

 

[Caledorn]

Sommer has a good point here. I think the shufflething would be a nightmare waiting to happen, and that when it happens it will be an administrative mess for r_rolo and potentially me as well as I may have to reload the game time and again due to people disagreeing and claiming rule infractions...

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[tobiasn]

Ok, please read my proposal and see if you understand it. And then see Magno's post where he explains that this can be done from the web interface.

If you hate the idea, and if it's a total hassle, I'm not gonna push it any more. But as 2metra, Dave and others have chimed in in the public thread, there's at least some division on this.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Read my PM. It addresses 90% of what you just said.

 

[talonschild]

Wait - the Germans are threatening to quit? Where'd you read that?

 

[Caledorn]

Wait - the Germans are threatening to quit? Where'd you read that?

In the main organization thread. They gave us a deadline of one week for game start.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bowsling]

The whole German team quitting is a load of ham anyways. Draculea (the one issuing the threat) is not registered as a spokesperson of any team - not just the German team (although he isn't on any roster, so his nickname could be different from site to site).

It would be akin to me going and threatening that Team CFC would quit - utterly absurd.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The veracity of his threat is not the issue. What concerns me is that it is even being made at all and what that is an indication of.

For example, I am 100% certain that if I went on the public thread right now and declare that the game is starting in 24 hours, CFC's prior ruleset is the Final Ruleset and all ruleset discussions are over, of course there would a firestorm of accusations, threats to quit etc, primarily from RB players, but in the end RB will play, albeit with a bad taste in their mouth towards me and possibly CFC in general. Not to mention that SOME of their players will quit in "protest". We don't want that if its not necessary, right? That's why if people who have been waiting silently and patiently up to now but are now all of a sudden threatening to quit, we should take them seriously. That's my thought.

Remember, this delay is solely for RB's benefit. Let's not lose sight of that. DNK already stated that Apolyton is weary of rules discussion and just wants to start. Civforum.de has said the same, as has one of the French sites. I think that if we put the question to a vote "1. Start the game now with the CFC ruleset or 2. Continue to Draft the RB ruleset" Choice 1 would win 8 to 1. Of that I am sure.

 

[YossarianLives]

I just read the public Ruleset Discussion thread and wanted to pop in to say I think we should officially vote to approve tobiasn's proposal as written and revised as soon as possible. We are so close I can taste it!

Ok, I'll go back and read up on our discussions on this issue now.

 

[YossarianLives]

Ok, just caught up with our own discussion. We are not worried about perpetual resource denial, that's just RB, right? Based on what I can tell from our arguments over the past days/weeks, we feel that there are sufficient in-game methods to prevent perpetual denial (ie anti-espionage, planting a spy/sam infantry on the resource, etc). So, if RB and other teams agrees to tobaisn's proposal, then let's get on with it. Also, my understanding is that if you declare war on someone, it has to be during the same part of the turn as your ally, so you could not keep having allies enter the war in the last part of the timer to keep up the resource denial after you have been shuffled to the front.

Ultimately, I have confidence that our team will be able to accommodate to whatever ruleset we end up using, and win this thing!

 

[2metraninja]

Winning is not always possible Sometimes it not even depends on you. Keeping high spirit helps of course.

Now to the rule-set point. It seems we are close to matching positions with Ruff, but is he speaking on behalf of RB? If he agreeing to the merging rule-set makes it legal? Otherwise, the posibility to change turn order is nice and wont hurt if we have it in the rules. Even better if RB are happy to calm down their fears of everyone hurting them unfair.

Also no need for the teams to choose capitol settling location for Plako to put the Oil - this can be done at any time when the game starts and actually teams are settled. We just need a savegame from the host to be sent to Plako, he uses the password and places the Oil and sends back the save to the host to start the game after no more than an hour downtime. Am I right?

 

[plako]

Winn
Also no need for the teams to choose capitol settling location for Plako to put the Oil - this can be done at any time when the game starts and actually teams are settled. We just need a savegame from the host to be sent to Plako, he uses the password and places the Oil and sends back the save to the host to start the game after no more than an hour downtime. Am I right?

After the game has started, there aren't easy ways to make changes to map.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Ok, just caught up with our own discussion. We are not worried about perpetual resource denial, that's just RB, right? Based on what I can tell from our arguments over the past days/weeks, we feel that there are sufficient in-game methods to prevent perpetual denial (ie anti-espionage, planting a spy/sam infantry on the resource, etc). So, if RB and other teams agrees to tobaisn's proposal, then let's get on with it. Also, my understanding is that if you declare war on someone, it has to be during the same part of the turn as your ally, so you could not keep having allies enter the war in the last part of the timer to keep up the resource denial after you have been shuffled to the front.

Ultimately, I have confidence that our team will be able to accommodate to whatever ruleset we end up using, and win this thing!

You are missing several points here...

1. The "sufficient in/game methods to prevent resource denial" are irrelevant if all you have to do is keep a stack of workers on the tile to just repair it whenver the resource is destroyed. Destroying the tile cost resources, worker re-builds are free. Resource denial is supposed to force you to spend resourcces to stop it from happening. But with the rules RB wants, they wont have to spend any resources. They can just use the free worker re-builds to perpetually keep their resource connected.

That is what gets missed in this discussion... "Perpetual resource connection" is just as powerful as perpetual denial. The Civ game has so many ways provided to destroy a resource, pillage, bombard, sabotage, occupy, blockade... You are SUPPOSED to be able to deny resources to your opponents. Why is "free perpetual connection" OK but "perpetual denial" is so OP and unfair? At least denial actually costs something, while re-connecting the resource is free. All RB is trying to do here is save themselves from having to spend any resources on protecting their tiles. We would be fools to let them do that.

2. You don't have to declare war in the same part of the turn as your ally. It is just recommended that you do so to avoid a 3 way timer. Plus what if you are not allies, but just two guys who happen to want to go after the other guy?

3. And your point still does not address the fact that if Civ C just sabotages the tile and does not declare war, there is no "part-of the turn" for him. He can sabotage at the end of the turn all he wants.

4. And your last point is valid, but that doesent mean we should let people handicap the game in their favor.

 

[Bowsling]

A three-way timer is a very drastic measure to implement every time there is a 2 vs. 1 timer. Making the turn timer any more than two days is way too long for each turn.

Remember too that there was in fact a three way war at one point in MTDG II (Quatronia vs. Merlot vs. Sirius), but we didn't even use a three-way timer there, we just moved Quatronia and Merlot to the same half.