1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

New pitboss

Discussion in 'Civ4 - PitBoss Games' started by 2metraninja, May 16, 2014.

  1. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    I am in full agreement with this, and this is also how I would rule. I.e. that the moment you know that you intend to declare on a neighbour within a few turns, you stop double moving and allow the other player to play his turn before you play your next turn, as if you were already at war.

    However, 2metra does not agree with this. I've had a long discussion with 2metra on Google Talk, and we disagree strongly on this subject. 2metra has asked me if he can post our chat here, and I have given my blessing to that as well - the chat is quite long though. :p

    As for the peaceful abuses of double moves that OT4E mentioned in his post, yes, it can absolutely be viewed as artificial - and I understand that some people do. E.g. 2metra and I spent a lot of our chat debating double moving settlers. I argue that you simply avoid moving a settler 4 moves in a row. You log in, move your settler, end turn, and then allow your opponents (whether you know they have a settler or not) the opportunity to move, and then you can move your settler 2 more moves - and so forth. Not all players agree with that, 2metra is definitely one of them - and that is fine by me - but I would rule against double moving a settler, in other games, based on my opinion on this matter.

    Here's a run down of the current situation however:

    The relevant rules of this game are as follows:

    and

    Rules 1 and 2 does not say anything at all about peacetime double moves. Rule 7 on the other hand is a rule that was invented at Realms Beyond, and one of the implicits of this rule is that double moving someone you know you will declare war on within a few turns is "being a jerk", and it gives you an unfair advantage. 2metraninja does not agree, and thinks that only the last turn before you declare war is relevant to this ruling, and that double moving someone you know you will declare war on within a few turns is "your tactical advantage if you play two times in a row".

    Now, I clearly view double moving a few turns before war as "being a jerk", and I would clearly rule in REM's favour here as I am used to players adhering to a basic code of honour where you simply don't double move someone when you know you will go to war with them.

    That is also my ruling on this matter - i.e. I intend to reload to the beginning of the turn. Now, if a majority of the players disagree with that, then I am obviously not able to rule properly in a game that does not follow the RB rules, and I will gracefully resign as the game admin and allow you to find someone else to arbiter your disputes in the future. The reason I am doing my ruling on this before possibly stepping down as admin is to let the game continue. If a majority disagrees with me, and you call in someone else to arbiter, it will take time to find someone that can do the job as arbiter for you, and in the meantime the game will have to be paused - possibly for a long time.

    If a majority of the players do agree with me however, I suggest the following amendment to the rules, to ensure we have a clarification of this in any future situations:

    These are just suggestions for rules, that will make any arbitratings in this specific game easier in the future, as everyone will thus be aware of them. If there are suggestions for clarifications, then please feel free to suggest them, as I wrote these suggestions in a rush.

    If someone strongly disagrees with these rules and do not want them included, then realise that I will rule by something similar to these rules anyways if similar situations arises later in the game, so if this is a game breaker to anyone, it's probably best if you find another game admin rather than kill the game over some (to me) simple and rather sensible rules.

    Lastly, I will in no way be offended if anyone asks me to step down - even a majority - so there will be absolutely no bad feelings from me towards anyone, and I will happily continue to host this Pitboss and future Pitbosses for CFC regardless of this. But, as I told 2metra in our chat, in future Pitbosses, I strongly suggest making sure things like "double moving settlers" and "double moving up until the turn before war is declared" is allowed in written form inside the rules, so there can not be any discussion around the subject - with either me or anyone else as admin. :) When I admin, I adhere to the written rules of the game, and even though 2metraninja thinks this game's rules allow peace time double moves, rule #7 is the one I am making my rule upon - and obviously 2metraninja and I simply disagree upon what that rule involves. If the rules had included clear wording that double moves only count as breaking the rules if they are done in the last turn before a war declaration, and while the war is ongoing, I would have ruled in HBHR's favour.

    Oh, and a short edit: For this particular game, I will not rule on any settling disputes, just to make that adamantly clear. 2metraninja disagrees so strongly with me on that subject that I do not wish to force a rule like that down on the game. That means that everyone should be aware of the fact that double moving settlers is perfectly acceptable behaviour in this game, and that I will disregard any and all complaints about people double moving them if any arises, and I continue as the game admin. Please amend this statement to the rules in the first post, 2metraninja. :)
     
  2. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    I am not sure what you mean here, so I need you to specify. To specify what I meant myself: Every time the turn flips, the Pitboss generates an autosave at the turn start. That's the save I intended to use, as I assume the double move happened this turn? If it occurred last turn, then I will use last turns start of turn autosave. I will not use any player login save for this incident.

    As for war declaration this turn, I do not believe that should pose a problem, unless REM has something to say on the contrary (do note though that by reloading and you now being aware of an upcoming war, REM, your argument needs to be pretty solid for me to say that HBHR needs to postpone his war for one turn. I really don't want to do that unless there are overwhelmingly good reasons for it!).
     
  3. ReallyEvilMuff

    ReallyEvilMuff King

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Messages:
    716
    2metra, my interpretation of the no double moves rule was to not give advantage to someone who could play at any time of the turn or secondarily, someone who holds up the game timer to claim an advantage. As I said if I had logged in before the end of the turn the stack appeared in my sentries sights then I would have had a turn more preparation for the war, allowing me to slave a turn earlier etc.

    Basically last turn, without a turn order was a case of:
    Whoever managed to log in first would get the advantage of moving first in the war, despite HBHRs sub already having the advantage of an extra turn his stack not being visible to me. I saw the stack and knew it was coming for me, and would have had a turn more to prepare had I logged in then. I do not think it is that much to ask that as your attack stack is now visible to the defending party to adhere to a turn order, as otherwise whoever controlled the turn rolling the turn before this would be at advantage. I actually thought this was more the reason for turn orders over anything else, not giving advantage to controlling the turn rollover.

    Compare this to a sequential game - I would have seen the stack when I did and thus until the stack arrived I would have been playing 'first' in essence. By claiming the first half of the turn they gain a turn on me essentially, which is also part of the reason the no double moves rule is in place. It is huge comparing 0 turns notice to 1 turns notice, but still noticeable with 2 instead of 3 turns notice. It does make a pretty big difference this early with the amount of units in play.

    Then the unit move issue is interesting, although to me no different as if logged in first I was going to pillage his road, but as I could only log in after (a mere 30mins after the turn had rolled, he had gained moving a cata along the road plus probably other units. Again I fall into the same addage as before. Consider what would happen in a sequential game as civ is designed for, and I would have been able to pillage the road without any issues. So again, whoever gets to log in first would have had an advantage.

    We could stretch this out further. If sub had delayed the timer until he was the one to end the turn, then immediately played the next turn basically guaranteeing himself of going first the next turn to use the road before it got pillaged and first in the turn order would that have been acceptable? It is then only a small thing to extrapolate back and see that we probably should have been maintaining a turn order, which is what I thought we were doing since seeing the stack. Otherwise you reach the situation again where whoever can log in first/control when the turn rolls has an advantage, which I think falls under rule 7 quite adequately.

    Re caledorn. I have no qualms with whenever the war declaration comes, as I said I knew it was coming as soon as I saw the stack. I did not need the HBHR comment to realise that! I only ask that whatever turn we reload to, we play in turn order that I saw the stack, ie myself first in order, HBHR or his sub second.
     
  4. HBHR

    HBHR Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    93
    Hi Caledorn, the "double move" happen this turn, 325 BC. The last turn (330 BC) my bro can't finish the turn, and don't move the troops, so, i need you use the save before the end of the past turn, perhaps with the Sinimiustra logged off save (you can see it easyly with the Civstats log). I'm going to DoW to REM in that turn, last turn, not actual turn (sorry my english :sad: ) since ¿Elkad? don't finish his turn itself, have not problem with my "being a jerk" and double move troops.

    Best regards
     
  5. ReallyEvilMuff

    ReallyEvilMuff King

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Messages:
    716
    I hold no grudges hbhr, indeed between us players we can't seem to get a complete verdict whether it was or was not outside of the rules. I would have stuck by whatever Caledorn said.

    However, if he had ruled it to be ok, then I could have waited until being last to play, played twice before the war declaration, and thus got the first move and to move units if you take that interpretation of 'no war has been declared therefore there can't be a double move'. It quickly becomes a bit messy, and holds up the game.

    If it helps Caledorn I do not mind using sinamustas login save for the reload. It will save faff of an extra turn for everyone to replay, and would not have changed anything I like have done, as I would not have seen the declaration until my login this turn.
     
  6. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    I am afraid the final save of Sinimusta last turn was overwritten when Sinimusta logged in this current turn, so that is not an option. :( And looking at Civstats, most of the people who played last turn has already logged in this turn, so it's either the autosave for the start of this turn, or the autosave for the start of the previous turn. I suggest we use the one for the start of this turn.
     
  7. HBHR

    HBHR Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    93
    Sorry Caledorn, but i need you restart the last turn, because i can't finish my moves...
     
  8. OT4E

    OT4E Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    198
    From my experience attempts to implement complicated rules about double moves dont bring appropriate result. So I am completely fine with "stop being a jerk rule".

    One important thing I think must be mentioned is that the responsibility for performing double moves lies on the player. And it is fully your duty to take care of everyone to be happy with how are you making moves. If you see that you are going to interact with a potential enemy you must comply turn order. It can be 1 turn before the war is declared or even more. In doubtful situation better let your opponent move first.

    About settlers there cant be clear solution. Someone is always being first to move settler somewhere. Harsh ruling will result in not finishing turns, timer-tracking and not sleeping during nights that will obviously give advantage to the players who can share more real time to the game.
     
  9. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Before I read all that was said since my last post, I will post what we spoke with Caledorn, as it happened just about then and it is attempt to settle principles rather than anything else. Caledorn is the one who can make a judgement if no mutual (between the 2 parties involved) acceptable solution can be found.

    And of course, it is a food for thoughts because I am not favoring any of the two sides in this based on anything else, just my beliefs.

    So here is a transcription of the chat without any editing of what was said:

    Spoiler :
     
  10. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Splitting in 2 sections as it was over 30000 characters long:

    Spoiler :
     
  11. ReallyEvilMuff

    ReallyEvilMuff King

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Messages:
    716
    I actually kinda agree about your posting with settlers 2metra, as that is slightly more arbitrary, and greyer. That is luck of who starting logging in first a while ago. But here I saw a stack at the start of a new turn with my sentry and completely changed my production priorities and made moves in my empire to bolster the threatened cities. I would have done that the turn before if I had known, ie logged in after I played. So I then assumed that a turn split had been created.

    I had thought about holding the turn and then claiming the first half of the turn myself, basically making the turn roll, but I thought that would be a very gamey thing to do and would set a bad precedent. I firmly believe that holding the turn for your advantage to claim a turn order you would like, or rushing to log in first to get a turn on your enemy isn't the best way to settle these things. Further down the line it will just get silly, if there are a few wars 48hr turns might be needed, and no one wants players holding these so they can get the turn part they wish. In good faith I was playing a turn split because I thought that was agreed upon in the rules.

    Not quite sure what to suggest re the turn roll... Going back to the start of the turn before seems a little much. How about if I claim the first half of the turn, as in play this turn and first next, would that be acceptable to all involved? It prevents a 2 turn reload which would be a bit meh for everyone and was the main crux of my feeling at the situation, plus prevents me from having to hold the turn and in my mind being a jerk about the whole affair. I am willing to let the cata go past my warrior to get things moving again, how is that?

    I have played my turn as if that was acceptable. If it isn't then we can still reload.
     
  12. ReallyEvilMuff

    ReallyEvilMuff King

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Messages:
    716
    So on the whole 2metra I largely agree with you, but being able to double peace move back a turn before the war as you suggested just asks for trouble later on down the line. Also I wanted to get a definitive ruling for the future of the game
     
  13. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Starting to write my replies to things as I read them:

    My level of knowing how to search internet had returned me those results:

    "Dont be a jerk" was first used as a phrase in RB site from Scooter in 2012 and it was describing to not double-move in war. http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/archive/index.php?thread-5558-8.htmlWhile "dont be a jerk" was used at WPC site in 2009 http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-109.html so we cant claim that RB invented the rule at all, nor we can generalize that this rule means "somehow follow peace turn order", it was intended to address especially war double-moves before there was spelling what exactly consist of a double-move. Nor I can agree that because you see RB have way more games played as a community, they must know best what is fair in civ. PBEMs have no the issue with double-moves as they are played with consequential turns and I can safely claim that I played pitbosses before RB's first pitboss which took place in 2010 and I had more pitbosses played than the RB 22 pitbosses ( 5 of them still being played, so not completed and PB23 just started - dont know if they played a turn or not yet). So saying "RB guys know how the game must be played" is not a strong argument in this case. I have my opinion and if someone is to change it he have way better arguments than "RB guys know well what works from experience". OK, so much for RB.

    This I see as still a bit vague (guys, how someone knows the exact moment he decides to go to war? how one knows the exact moment he decides to change job because he is no longer happy with current? or how someone knows the exact moment he decides to fall in love with a woman? ) and how it can be proved in case of dispute? Or in case the admin looks at saves and somehow decides when the decision was made, is he going to reload 3 turns back? Will this be less harmful and with potential of killing the game?

    Still, I am OK with extending the pre-war declaration period (with current rule it is 1 turn before you declare), but we need to think of what is done if say you want the first half of the timer, or you want the second half of the timer - this is important and is linked with strategy, element of surprise, etc, etc, it is like who gets to play with the white figurines in chess - it is serious advantage. In chess, it is between 52% and 56% statistically whites vs blacks. If we take the middle case - 54 vs 46 is serious advantage, same thing goes for civ I think. So what if the one who intends to declare war follows the turn order, but his "victim" (because he dont know he must follow a turn order) double-moves the attacker 1 turn before he is ready to declare? What does the attacker then? Postpones his attack with another 3 turns? This might be the difference between victory and defeat.

    I have no problems with general sentiment "dont double-move as the game is not intended to be like this" I have problems with trying to make artificial and impossible to catch or enforce rules. "Dont double-move in the turn before you declare war" is simple enough and still give time for the opponent to react. Yes, shorter time - 1 turn, but such is life. This is turn based game. Turns and who plays when have impact on the game. If someone failed to secure himself peace with diplomacy or with extended sentry net or strong enough defense, maybe he should had did that. Does HBHR have the right to ask for a reload if REM now moves twice in a row seeing he is going to be attacked? No. Why? Because HBHR must had take care to not announce his intentions of attacking REM beforehand and give him time to react in 2 turns. Please think and try to understand that there must be a border and a limit since when it is counted as a double-move, as otherwise we go to just playing in consecutive games where everything is clear. And there, who gets the advantage of the "whites" is clear since the beginning of the game.

    OK REM, but HBHR could say he was unjusted by you playing first in the previous turn? What if he wanted to play first, so he plays first 2 turns later when he was about to attack you? When who plays first is decided? How it is practically going to be implemented? I for example cant do that. I play when I have time. I go to work, have family, have social life. If it happens that I want to declare war to someone and I want to take the second half of the timer depriving my enemy of the chance to whip 1 more defender in that border city, am I going to just accept I will miss my turn because I must not enter before him if the war is not going to be declared this turn?

    But isnt at all the desire to have first or second half of the timer as a whole managing the timer "to have advantage"? Even if it is 4 turns beforehand, but you still manipulate the timer. Or it is not allowed to want to have a choice between the first or the second half of the timer for tactical reasons? And is it not allowed to want an advantage for yourself? The one who attacks can time his attack just as in RL, isnt it? Border must be drawn somewhere. 1 turn before this is good border for several reasons. You can tell there was a rule breaking at first sight. The second you enter the game and you see you are being declared a war, you can check civstats and there is show if you were double-moved or not. Everyone can see civstats and say: yes, there was a double-move or not. And once there is a double-move, you pause the game and you ask for reload. Simple as that. What if you were "double-moved" 3 turns before the actual declaration of war? Are we going to check civstats 3 turns back? Are the data still available? Is the host going to reload 3 turns before this? What happens with the other players? Wonders being built, religions being found, cities being settled, not to mention the hassle to replay 3 turns.. This is almost impossible. Just in principle, I have something against rules which cannot be implied or enforced. Nothing can be 100% fair, nor in life, nor in games. I accept that. Do we stop live or game? I will of course accept ruling by our host despite if it is against my belief. Show must go on. But I prefer games with clear rules. And few rules. And if a rule cannot be spelled, then it is not a good rule.
     
  14. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Honestly, if it was me, If I had felt the simple rules was abused and as a result I am getting unfair disadvantage, I was going to still put production as I want in cities, then just not end turn. I was going to make sure I will login first in the next turn and do whips and moves and all I desire. There is still no war, so I am not double-moving anyone. If my opponent wants to declare me a war, he is free to do so, but then he cannot double-move anymore.

    Yes, someone can call it clock games, I call it turn-based games played consecutive game mechanics.
     
  15. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Here, I want to state that gentlemen conduct of war and game as a whole is something I strong believe in and recommend.
     
  16. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,262
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    Would it be easier if Random Eye movement (REM) just move first the next and HBHR/Brother player after him?
     
  17. ReallyEvilMuff

    ReallyEvilMuff King

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Messages:
    716


    There is a lot I agree with there, and in general like what you post - the more time the reload encompasses the worse it is.

    I also agree to a certain extent with the attacker choosing the half of the turn that they like, within reason. But as you say you have a life etc outside civ like we all do, this does as you say penalise against those who can devote more time to the game.

    My argument is that he chose his turn half when he moved into my sentries view in the second half of the turn, after I had played. Thus my only possible reaction time was at the start of the next turn, this starting to create the turn split. If he had logged in before me and moved into view then, I would have edited my build orders and would have assumed the second half of the timer. The whole point of getting the second half of the timer is giving your opponent 1 less turn to prepare and react with. So he has received that bonus already and I start playing a turn split. Then this is overridden by a double move to claim the first half of the turn, I feel aggrieved.

    The onus is on the attacker here I believe to chose a turn split. I had been playing before him before this, and I just logged in and played my turn when I could. I did not know there was a declaration coming until I saw it the stack next turn, and if that did not create the turn split, then we enter a situation where gaming the timer becomes the way to ensure the first move in the war and a bonus in the war; as now the stack has been seen claiming the second move for the initiative on the attack has been lost.

    So I am basing my reason on he chose the turn split by moving into my sentries view. I did not try to get any turn half as I did not know there was a war coming. I am not trying to manipulate the timer to have an advantage, more to prevent myself being at a disadvantage.

    I certainly don't understand your other post, you contradict yourself from earlier. Fair enough if your viewpoint is that is clock tactics, but you just said that we all have real life things that take precedence over civ, and this limits when we can play which is true. Therefore in a situation like this it helps those who cannot play as they have more RL commitments like you mentioned in the first post, to set up the turn split as soon as war is obvious and apparent. I could also engage in those consecutive turn based mechanics playing, but I feel this is a bit unfair on those who cannot and can only play a turn in a small window once a day. Thus I think for the future this would be important. If I hadn't said anything I probably would have tried that, but I felt that that was a little seedy and disingenuous. It is much fairer for all involved no matter how much time you have to play, if once a turn split is set up it is followed, and it isn't decided purely the turn before you declare.
     
  18. ReallyEvilMuff

    ReallyEvilMuff King

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Messages:
    716
    I offered this in a previous post to get the game rolling, and have already played my turn this turn as if that would be acceptable. I felt bad about causing a reload to a couple of turns back, and want to get the game moving again, and this solves most of my complaint without causing a reload. I am waiting for caledorn/HBHR reply on that.
     
  19. HBHR

    HBHR Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    93
    Sorry, but i need reload to last turn... if not, REM is doing double move to me... because i don´t move my troops last turn (REM know i can DoW him last turn AND move my troops inside his borders, but i preffer lost this advantage to obtain first turn at war, but if this is not possible, y need to replay my las turn, because i can't finish it)

    Best regards
     
  20. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Also forgot to thank to REM for at least kinda agreeing with me. It takes inner strength to agree with something if it is not favoring you. That is gentlemanlyness and sportsmanship in action :)

    Of course we all players do play for fun and to enjoy, best would be if both players can come to some agreement between them.
     

Share This Page