How to solve double turning

[Imagiro]

I'm looking for a bit of advice on here. Normally I don't really find it a troublesome strategy really, but I have a player in my pitboss game who is complaining about it at the moment.

The way I'm thinking is thusly:

END = End of Turn
Player 1 = P1 etc..

P1 P2 P3 End P3 P1 P2 End P2 P3 P1 End P1 P3 P2 End P2

In the above example. Player 3 goes twice at the end of turn 1 and 2 and then goes as SOON as he can every other turn afterwards which means he'll always be after whoever ends the turn (presuming the person who ends the turn continues and does their next turn). In this case There is a small advantage in turn 3 for P3 as he's gone 3 times, P2 has gone 3 times, but P1 has gone only twice. However you can also look at it as P2 has gone 3 times while P3 and P2 have gone only twice.

If Player 3 wants to maximize his double turns..
P1 P2 P3 End P3 P2 P1 End P1 P2 P3 End P3 P1 P2 End

In this case P3 actually allows P2 and P1 to do a double turn before he goes again.

The way I view it.. is that you might get a small temporary advantage from double moving, but it's corrected in the precedding turns.

What does everyone think?

 

[Fosse]

The problem with double turns isn't that they won't eventually even out, which I think you're right about. The problem is that careful use of one of those double turns could give a crafty player an enormous and irreversible advantage.

If Player 3 in the examples above used those double turns to some tactical advantage in a war, by wiping out the other player's army, or attacking and retreating before the other player has a chance to counter, or throwing two turns worth of catapults at the other guys advancing stack... That's a huge advantage that could be decisive.

So it's only really an issue when at war (or when two settlers are vying for the same city spot), but then it becomes a rather large one.

The solution though is just to play honorably. If you are at war and you are the last to hit the turn button, then refrain from moving your units on the front until you've given the other guy the chance to react to your last turn.

When you go to war, contact the other player and discuss when he's likely to play, when you're likely to play, etc.

This is an example of a situation where simple trust and sportsmanship is the best solution. Some people will sometimes take advantage, and that's too bad. But the rest of us can just use some common sense about fairness and fun to keep the game from being exploited and ruined.

 

[OverloadUT]

I think Fosse hit the nail on the head.

I think it's as simple as saying "If you're at war and you are the last player to take your turn, you have to wait at least 12 hours before taking your next turn to give other players a change to move."

 

[namliaM]

If Player 3 in the examples above used those double turns to some tactical advantage in a war, by wiping out the other player's army, or attacking and retreating before the other player has a chance to counter, or throwing two turns worth of catapults at the other guys advancing stack... That's a huge advantage that could be decisive.

So it's only really an issue when at war (or when two settlers are vying for the same city spot), but then it becomes a rather large one.

The solution though is just to play honorably. If you are at war and you are the last to hit the turn button, then refrain from moving your units on the front until you've given the other guy the chance to react to your last turn.

When you go to war, contact the other player and discuss when he's likely to play, when you're likely to play, etc.

This is an example of a situation where simple trust and sportsmanship is the best solution. Some people will sometimes take advantage, and that's too bad. But the rest of us can just use some common sense about fairness and fun to keep the game from being exploited and ruined.

Honorably that is the key word, personaly I dont mind people taking double turns and the settler thing... Well sometimes you just dont know that a stray settler is heading for that same spot untill its to late....

The point of double turning and honor is "dont take advantage of it"
Clear example of taking advantage
Land units on an Iron mine in turn 1 and Pillage it on turn 2. Atleast give the guy a chance to defend...

What is OK and what not?
Your opponent has a scouting CD2 Longbow doubling back to his town to defend, your stack can strike it the second turn thus taking it in the open field instead of in the city.
Taking the CD2 Longbow is taking advantage and should not be done.
Moving your units to another tile next to the city is not taking advantage and IMHO doesnt "count" as a double move.

Offcourse if the CD2 Longbow is on the Forrest Hill that you want to use for cover then you have to wait and see if the player will indeed try to double back into town or is going to fortify his Longbow there hoping to hold that defendable tile.

Edit: I dont think there has to be a clearcut rule, saying "if at war wait atleast -this many- hours before taking your 2nd turn". The key to me is play with honor, if you feel taking your second turn now is to your advantage.... Dont take it... If all you do anyway is heal up after battle or after taking a town... Or all you do is fortify a new unit in defence... that is IMHO not taking advantage and can only help to move the game along....

 

[Dandridge]

In my opinion double turns are just a feature in MP/Pitboss games. Everyone knows they are possible and so everyone should be prepared to them. All gentleman rules are a little naive, since you can often never know if your opponent has made a double move. Thats why they just simply should be allowed. This is unfortunate, but we are just bound to how Civ4 has been programmed to work.

 

[Civgeek]

Not that we could implement it, but having a minimum (must wait x hours or until all other players have gone again between turns) as well as a maximum turn time set at the PitBoss server would solve the problem. I think ...

 

[namliaM]

In my opinion double turns are just a feature in MP/Pitboss games. Everyone knows they are possible and so everyone should be prepared to them. All gentleman rules are a little naive, since you can often never know if your opponent has made a double move. Thats why they just simply should be allowed. This is unfortunate, but we are just bound to how Civ4 has been programmed to work.

I strongly disagree... Civ is Turn based and the principle should be upheld... Eventho the "simultanious" (spelling?) turn thing kind of contradicts that... The whole reason for the move at the same time is to "speed along" the game IMHO, not to grant someone the possibility to declare war, move a Cavalry unit 3 tiles in enemy land uncontested and have it pillage a strategic resource...

That IMO is blatent abuse of the "settings" and is simply not to be done.

 

[Fosse]

I strongly disagree with the idea that "gentlemen's rules" are naive, or that simply accepting that a system will be abused because it can be is the best approach.

Dirty doubles will lead to controversies every time they are used to one player's advantage over another. Game threads will become flooded with complaints about unfair tactics, the advantages of people who can play any time of the day, and the inherient and obvious (to the disadvantaged, at least) cheat involved in double moves.

Playing in a game where double moves are tacitly recognized as legitimate will breed distrust and tensions, and will very much encourage everybody to adjust their playing time to make such moves themselves. This robs Pitboss games of their freedom in playing time, because now there is a "right" time to play, and that time is the one that gives you the best shot to make a double move. Every time a war breaks out we'll see turns going to the end of the timer in games that were previously flying along, we'll see players accusing other players of dirty tricks, and we'll see threads listing "Dirty Doubles" as one of the top 20 reasons that MP Civ is so unplayable and flawed as to warrant a lawsuit against Firaxis.

If we all play under the assumption that others will not make doubles, and we all make an effort to allow other players' the chance to move when moves count -- as in war and competing settlers -- then we'll all be able to relax and enjoy the game more. The possibility of double moves is a weakness of Pitboss that we have to accept, and I think most are glad to accept it in place of the weakness of a rigid turn order, but not one that we have to exploit.

 

[Dandridge]

By saying gentelemen's rules are naive, I just mean that behind opponents visibility anything can happen. If I'm e.g. attacking an empty city, the opponent can bring knights even behind 12 squares by double moving without me knowing it. I just have to naively trust that he he didn't make a double move.

The other thing is that it's nearly impossible to know when someone has made all his troop movements. Someone can just press the end turn button witout making any moves, let the opponent make his moves according to gentelemen's rules and after that make his own troop movements. If both players make their moves in parts and there are lot's of troops it's very diffucult to keep track who makes double moves and by which unit let alone if you don't have complete visibility.

 

[OverloadUT]

Yes, but you are still saying that just because it can happen, it would be stupid to make a "gentlemen's rule" against it. That's completely against the spirit of the game!

It's as simple as this: If someone is using tactics like that when it has been agreed to be forbidden, then kick them out of the game. Ban them from all of your future games. Seriously, no one wants to play with someone who breaks the rules, and there are plenty of nice courteous players in the community that would be happy to fill in the gap.

Maybe I'm just a BOFH, but I strongly feel there is no need to allow these kinds of underhanded tactics.

 

[namliaM]

Underhanded, well that may be overdoing it a little...

BOFH ??

 

[OverloadUT]

Okay, "underhanded" is a bit strong of a word to describe it. It happened to me in my Pitboss game - someone declared war on me and landed on my shores one turn, and then used the double move to pillage my iron before I even knew I was at war. I don't have any hard feelings against that though, because we had never talked about double turns at that point.

BOFH = Bastard Operator From Hell.

 

[namliaM]

I thought about doing something like that. I landed 2 Axemen on the enemy's only source of Iron. A city beeing 2 tiles away defended by a spear, a cat and Crossbow

I landed my Axemen and pressed enter... Was tempted to pillage but waited instead, both axemen were killed

We had been at war allready for quite some turns (10+), so it wouldnt have been as bad as your's ... But still on IMPORTANT stuff like this double turning... just eventhough I am now still at war only because my Opponent can still build Crossbows had I pillaged that Iron I would have faced a far less (tougher) units and the war, for all intence and purpose, would have been over...
Since I have taken 2 cities (not yet including the Iron city), but now I have to wait for reinforcements as some smart someone thought he could take advantage of the distraction and take me down... Well thats not happening (this game)

 

[Imagiro]

So it seems that the concensus is that there is no real rule you can use.

Since the game I'm running is a friendly game amongst friends, a gentlemans agreement can be used. Seems like the 12 hour rule might be best.

Thanks everyone for your input. I was fairly sure the double turning was only really good for one or two strategic turns (granted, that can win a war) but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

 

[Fosse]

I disagree, as most here are arguing in favor of a rule to disallow such moves, even if not everyone supports anything beyond the "gentlemen's agreement" without any real enforcement measures. But still, that's a rule. If there's a consensus to be had here it must be: The game starter/admin/body of players decides for each game.

In a game where the matter has not been discussed (any number of the "want to join a pitboss?" threads have left the matter relativly untouched) that they should not be used. They are such an obviously dirty -- if legal -- trick that they will cause ill-will and cries of foulplay whenever used. If there is ever a "Default" Pitboss ruleset then I cannot possibly imagine it not containing a note about dirty doubles, and disallowing such moves. I would only consider such tactics if the game host and players have explicitly agreed to allow them, or at least if a discussion with the player I am at war with reveals that both of us would be in favor of allowing them.

 

[IglooDame]

So it seems that the concensus is that there is no real rule you can use.

Since the game I'm running is a friendly game amongst friends, a gentlemans agreement can be used. Seems like the 12 hour rule might be best.

Thanks everyone for your input. I was fairly sure the double turning was only really good for one or two strategic turns (granted, that can win a war) but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

Gentlemen's Agreement does work amongst informed gentlemen - best to keep your fellow gentlemanly players informed ahead of time about the rules to avoid wailing and gnashing of teeth later.

Personally, one of the pitboss games I'm playing in I could have taken my opponent's second of two cities and saved myself a whole ton of grief had I doublemoved, but... ah well, I'd feel like crap about it later.

 

[CB Droege]

When you use OverloadUT's civstats for reporting, you can tell who goes when a little better, but really most people in organized PTBS games stick to 'house rules' like that. and asking people to wait 12 hours between moves when at war is more than reasonable.

 

[JMaltman]

When you use OverloadUT's civstats for reporting, you can tell who goes when a little better, but really most people in organized PTBS games stick to 'house rules' like that. and asking people to wait 12 hours between moves when at war is more than reasonable.

CivStats does help with it.

The spirit of it would be:

"Give the other guy a fair chance to take his turn before taking yours again".

CivStats makes it easy to tell if he has taken his turn without having to connect and be tempted to take advantage. In some games 12 hours might make sense, in others it might mean waiting for the guy to take his turn during his usual timeframe - or waiting for the time when you would normally take your next turn, if either of you are in a schedule like that.

So it just takes being a little more aware.

Having a "Sneaky Double Turn Abusers Wall of Shame" might be the additional deterrent.

 

[namliaM]

A wall of shame... :LOL:

But you have the burdon of prove.. I mean just doing a double turn in turns (i.e. civstats) doesnt mean you "double turned"

IMHO, double turning is like moving 2 turns to get an advantage. I.e. kill an opposing unit...

Double turning does not mean, you are at war... Moved 2 times but nothing happened... It may even play to my disadvantage becuase I may be showing my hand...
But I may have a good reason to do so... In a game I am in I deliberatly double turned. I am at war, but for the moment its a cold war... No units are beeing thrown at each other (yet). Thus my moving "double" didnt cause a problem, but ... I knew I would be unable to do my "normal" turn the day after (or rather that evening). Therefor I would have forfitted a turn, giving me a disadvantage...

So by forcing to "never" double turn you can put people that are unable to "fit" into a regular schedule at a disadvantage... Which is why I think you have to be a bit flexible on the mater... As long as its done in good sportmanship and not deliberatly...

An obvious example IMHO would be taking 2 turns while declaring war on the first turn, razing a city before your opponent even knows he is at war !

 

[JMaltman]

Basically agree with you there namliaM - its the spirit not the letter of the idea that matters.

Double turning in order to make sure you get both yours turns when you know you're going to be out the next day, but not deriving any specific tactical benefit, is a non-issue. And noone is liable to complain.

But when you're talking about specific troop movement with enemy units within a couple of turns move, then it can be a very unbalancing tactic.

I've used walls of shame in completely unrelated messageboard contexts to discourage anti-social/obnoxious behavior, with good results.

Think of it as putting people in the stocks for a while.