New pitboss

[Caledorn]

Fine with reload. The turn order must be strictly followed during war and some turns prior to the war, peaceful abusing of double moves are a bit artificial though.

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.

My opinion is that there is no such thing as "peace double-moves" simply because there is no such thing as "peace turn order". You cant observe turn order with everyone in a non-sequential turn games. And with more than 5-6 players sequential turns take so much time, it becomes impractical. For me, simple and working rule is "Dont move twice before your opponent have a turn to react on the turn of declaring a war and after this while in 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.

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:

1. War double moves (for shorter double-moves or DM). No war double-moves are allowed. Game will be reloaded in case of a double-move. Here in red is what war double moves consist of:

1.1 Player A plays in turn X, then Player B plays after him in the same turn X and declare war to Player A. The turn switches and Player B plays before Player A.
1.2 Player A plays in turn X, then Player B plays after him in the same turn X without declaring war to Player A. The turn switches and Player B plays before Player A and declares war to Player A.
1.3 Player A and Player B are already in war. Player A plays first in turn X in the turn split. Player B logs in after him in turn X, then log off and before the turn advances to turn X+1, Player A logs in in to the game again.
1.4 Player A and Player B are in war. Player A plays second in the turn order, but he logs in before Player B.

2. Turn order and turn split. Once in war, there must be maintained a so called Turn split. Turn split is the part of the timer where you are supposed to do your moves. Normally, turn is split in two parts - first and second. But sometimes in complex wars, timer can be split in 3 or more parts. Say Player A and Player B are in war. Player A plays first in the turn split, then Player B plays, but after him Player C logs in and for whatever reason declares war to Player B. Then on the next turn, Player C must wait for Player B to play before he makes his moves. But because Player B must wait for Player A to play first, Player B is in the middle part of the turn split. Normally, half the timer makes a turn split, but when in war, players must be extremely cautious and play as early as possible to leave more time for their opponents to play their turns after them. Also, if the player who waits for his time to play misses for whatever reason his window for play, the game must be paused or there will be reload if the turn switch to X+1 without the player(s) in the second or third or whatever number miss their turns.

and

7. Dont be a jerk.

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:

Rule 1.0.1: At the time you realise that you intend to go to war with one or more of your neighbours within just a few turns ((I suggest 3 turns if everyone wants a clearly defined amount of turns)), you must adhere to a turn split from that point forward. If, during those turns, you realise that you will not go to war after all, you are free to stop following the turn split immediately from the point you realise.

Rule 1.0.2: Rule 1.0.1 does not count if a situation arises where you go to war with someone for an immediate reason, like e.g. a poorly guarded settler on it's way to settling a spot you need etc. It only counts if you are building up forces to a war that is included in the long term expansion of your empire.

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.

 

[Caledorn]

I don't agree. But if a reload, we need you reload before the turn over. All said, we can't finish the unit moves the last turn because travelling issues, so we need a reload since Sinimustra' last logged in in the turn before to 325 bc (330 bc?)
Edit: I'm going to declare the war to REM this turn (330 bc) any problem with that?

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!).

 

[ReallyEvilMuff]

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.

 

[HBHR]

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!).

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 ) since ¿Elkad? don't finish his turn itself, have not problem with my "being a jerk" and double move troops.

Best regards

 

[ReallyEvilMuff]

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.

 

[Caledorn]

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.

 

[HBHR]

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.

Sorry Caledorn, but i need you restart the last turn, because i can't finish my moves...

 

[OT4E]

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.

 

[2metraninja]

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 :

Caledorn: Ugh. I don't know how to properly explain to HBHR that prewar moves also is considered double moves if you gain an advantage by doing it
Изпратено в 17:35, събота
Caledorn: He seems completely oblivious to this judging by how he has written his post..
Изпратено в 17:35, събота
2metraninja: I am reading now the explanations
but is there at all a war declared?
Caledorn: No. But I'm sure you are in definite agreement that if I intend to declare war on you on two turns and then double move my forces into position, you would be less than amused
Even if the war isn't declared until after my forces are in position
2metraninja: for me this is normal tactical out-playing and not a double- move
someone want the first time of the timer? well, he gets more RL time and he gets that
time=part
Изпратено в 19:43, събота
Caledorn: Then our opinions differ. I don't see it as a tactical move at all - I see it as a "be a jerk" move, playing timer games to get advantages that would be impossible in a successive turn game. But of course differing opinions on the matter is not a sin, so I am not trying to convince you that your opinion is wrong. Only that we see it very differently.
I have to make an admin judgment based on my opinion though, unless a majority of the players disagree. Which I left room for by not making a reload before everyone gets their say in the matter
��
2metraninja: of course you have all the power to make the admin judgement, I am saying my own opinion
Изпратено в 19:46, събота
2metraninja: in fact, what REM is saying about him losing a turn of production of units is not correct
he can well wait till the end of the turn and play twice on his side too if he thinks HBHR is going to declare him a war
I did that a lot of times and I consider it normal behavior
Caledorn: No, that is correct, and I am aware of that.
The production part that is. Not the other
2metraninja: so REM is also free to claim the first half of the timer if he wants
it is the attacker's (declarer of war) responcibility to not double-move
Caledorn: You really shouldn't do that in any of the RB Pitbosses though. You'd get some heavy comments in your lurker thread.. I guess I am very much influenced by the "Do not be a jerk" rule from RB in how I view my games. I even attempt to follow turn order in peacetime.
2metraninja: I of course also understand the reason behind "this is impossible in consequtive turns as this game is intended to be played", but then, who decides who gets to move first and in the example with settlers race settle the spot?
with consequtive turns it is clear - whoever is up in the players list, he plays first
Caledorn: Feel free to argue this in the thread though! I haven't made a reload yet, so there is still time to present arguments for not doing a reload. If HBHR and REM agrees with these points, then a reload won't be needed. ☺
2metraninja: it is like playing with the white figures in chess
Caledorn: The turn order dictates, just as in war..
2metraninja: but there this is serious consideration and they make all efforts that not one player plays always with the white figures
ok, but when the turn timer is set?
Caledorn: Any move that gives one part an unfair advantage by abusing the timer/simultaneous turns are double moves
2metraninja: on the first entering on turn 1?
Caledorn: No, players are free to move around in the turn order whenever they feel like it as long as they don't abuse it by eg double moving a settler ☺
2metraninja: then I would say it is unfair to those being in different time zones than the host, because they have worse chances of entering first when the game goes alive
this is what I try to say. what consists of "abusing"
Caledorn: No, that's not correct, as the turn flips in completely various times
2metraninja: what give one player right he to consider himself rightful owner of this still unsettled land?
because he played first the previous turn?
Caledorn: Sometimes in the middle of the night here, other times in the middle of the day.
2metraninja: ok, lets look at hypothetical situation
Caledorn: No. If he played first the previous turn, he gets to play first time the next turn too, if there is a race condition involved. If no race condition it does not matter.
2metraninja: it is turn 3 of the game, players are playing with start in modern era, so they already have settlers and they play on overcrowded map
but how is determined a "race" exists?
lets follow my short example
the game starts, turn 1
REM and HBHR are neighbors
they both have settlers
between them there is space for 1 settler
to settle

Caledorn: It's very simple. Never double move a settler in an area where there exists potential for a race.
2metraninja: they both intend to move their settlers on the same obvious spot, but they dont see each-other yet
Caledorn: Double move workers etc is fine. Or in an area where it's uncontested. If you happen on an opponents settler in an uncontested area after a double move, then you can freely claim innocence.
2metraninja: but once one of them moves on the settling spot, the other will see his settler
now what? because one of them had the luck or more free time to login in to the game first, the other must give up the settling spot?
Caledorn: Again : never double move a settler in an obvious contested area. It's really that simple. ☺
2metraninja: I ask again - when a race (or potential war preparation moves) are starting and when the turn order is set?
so you say the one who have luck to enter the game first and bring his settler in the spot have all rights on this spot?
Caledorn: For war, as soon as you know you intend to declare war within a few turns, it is upon your honour to restrict yourself and follow turn order. That is gentleman's honour and code.
No, not if that player played first in the previous turnS<--- (that S is critical here)
2metraninja: all of the previous turns?
5?
Caledorn: If that player only happened to play first in the previous turn, he would already have double moved the other player.
2metraninja: 10?
what if they switched playing first?
Caledorn: 5-10 is a good limit
If they did several turns ago, no problem
If they did willfully, no problem
2metraninja: and what if they played like REM-REM-HBHR-HBHR-REM-REM-HBHR-HBHR-REM-REM
Caledorn: This is about gentleman's honour
2metraninja: and that last REM is REM moving the settler in place?
I know honor
but honor means not to give up when there is not clear definition
Caledorn: Then I would favour HBHR as they were both double moving one another on a regular basis, so neither could claim anything &#9786;
2metraninja: if there can be clear definition, I abide by the rules
if no, I dont think it is much gentlemanry to just give up
and? can you tell how HBHR-REM turns were in the last 10 turns?
or 5?
why you judge on the last 3 turns?
all I am saying is that it is not clear how the turn order is
and it is not right to judge on the last 2 turns
"he double- moved"
this means the other guy doublemoved the previous turn
Caledorn: With the new tools in the RB Mod, which are also available for an unmodded game, I could tell what happened 200 turns ago. But without that I have to rely on the limits of Civstats, and the players word. If I cannot reach a clear consensus based on that I have to ignore the request and ask the players to move on.
&#1048;&#1079;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1085;&#1086; &#1074; 20:04, &#1089;&#1098;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1072;
2metraninja: you know that if no one misses turns, for one to double-move, this means the other double-moved the previous turn, or he can double-move this turn?
no, it is about principle
I had this arguments in RB
Caledorn: No. That's not correct. If I end turn and play right away, I am double moving.
2metraninja: "but he double-moves with settlers"
ok, if the last 2 turns the turn order was REM-HBHR-HBHR, when was HBHR playing the turn before?
Caledorn: Yeah, and on RB double moving a settler in an obvious race would incur lurker penalties
2metraninja: what if REM played twice before this?
&#1048;&#1079;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1085;&#1086; &#1074; 20:07, &#1089;&#1098;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1072;

Caledorn: Like I said earlier, if both players have no established turn order at all it gets difficult. So the bottom line is to just not double move settlers. As long as everyone follows that rule, or whatever we should call it, noone will ever be upset about it either.
2metraninja: I am making a discussion. when I tried to have discussion about this "peace-time double-moves" and ways to prevent this, there were RBers who refused to listen to reasons and proposed outright stupid solutions as that no one moves settler 10 hours after his last login
which "last login" also depends on time availability, which immediately goes to favoring the ones with more free time
which is plain wrong
I dont really care what happens in this case, for me important the principle
for me "whoever played first in the previous turn have the right to play first in the next" is plain nonsense
because this "he played first in the previous turn" depended on time availability
and this cannot be traced to turn 1
and even if it can be traced
who gets to play first in turn 1 is also determined by time availibility
Caledorn: A turn order cannot be based all the way back to turn one.
2metraninja: exactly
so when exactly is set the turn order
Caledorn: It has to have some kind of sensible way to figure out.
2metraninja: so someone can "double move"
Caledorn: That is simple to answer: the players themselves
BGN and I am in a war in PB18. We modified the turn order in PMs
2metraninja: how is someone supposed to not double- move settlers? always play first in the timer ?
Caledorn: No. By not moving them 4 moves successively.
2metraninja: agreeing the turn order is 100% fine, I did that a lot of times, but it is not like crying "I was doublemoved" when there is no war at all
Caledorn: Allow your opponent players the time to move their settler 2 too, before you move your additional 2 moves.
2metraninja: opponents?
you mean all of the players on the map?
or just neighbors?
Caledorn: No. Your obvious neighbours/opponents
2metraninja: or just neighbor in that direction?
how is "obvious" decided?
Caledorn: It's about making moves sensibly
On RB, through the lurkers, if the players are unable to figure it out themselves. That's why they have lurkerbased games.
2metraninja: when it comes to calling "sensibility" to decide a game ruling, for me it is clear there is no clear rule
Caledorn: There is. Don't move a settler 4 moves in a row without allowing the person you are moving against the opportunity to move first. It's quite sensible, and makes the game more fair
2metraninja: I am 100% OK with a judge judging on his feelings
&#1048;&#1079;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1085;&#1086; &#1074; 20:17, &#1089;&#1098;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1072;
2metraninja: even if I dont move 4 times, this means that whoever happen to play eralier in the timer, he is guaranteed to have advantage over me?
why is that?
what gives him the right to settle before me?
Caledorn: No? How can you say that? If all players adhere to this everyone is on equal footing..
2metraninja: no
example
2 players
they both produce settlers in border cities
there is a road
or no road - does not matter
but the city can be settled on the second turn
so
on the beginning of turn X, both settlers are born right?
following "dont move 4 moves your settler against neighbor" who will settle the city?
Caledorn: if both players have adhered to a turn order from the beginning in that case, then the turn order decides who gets to settle. if neither player has adhered to a turn order, and they have played haphazardly, it becomes a borderline decision
2metraninja: but how it is possible to adhere to turn order with all 4-5 neighbors?
I would never ever agree to that
Caledorn: you are obviously not going to be in a settler race with 4-5 neighbours
2metraninja: turn order with 4 neighbors, which on their side have 4 neighbors to adhere to turn order is impossible

Caledorn: if that ever happens it would be one of those Terry Pratchett one in a million chance
2metraninja: what if it is toroidal map and the neighbors of my neighbors are also my neighbors?
Caledorn: at most, you could be in a race with two of them
2metraninja: no, no, it is the principle
Caledorn: you are talking about so hypothetical situations that they have never happened
2metraninja: you cant follow "peace-time turn order"
Caledorn: I am not interested in ruling by hypotheticals. I am interested by ruling in situations that are real.
2metraninja: no, just ruling would be following principles
Caledorn: if we follow your line of hypotheticals you could reduce all the rules of the game to a shamble, because you can always find a hypothetical situation that makes the established rules look silly
2metraninja: if you cant make principle which to be worded and thus people can follow it, then it is judging by inner feeling
Caledorn: there's always at least 3 what if's that challenge established rules in simultaneous turns
2metraninja: which is 100% OK
Caledorn: the thing is .. double moving settlers has happened in RB's past too
2metraninja: no, for me, sensible rule is "do not double-move in war or the turn before declaring it"
Caledorn: eventually they realised that double moving settlers created unfair situations, and a lot of bad blood that was completely unneeded
2metraninja: here is firm border
Caledorn: that is also okay - but I disagree
2metraninja: "the turn before war is declared"
100% unbreakable
Caledorn: the sensible thing to do is to stop double moving the turn you realise that "I intend to declare war on neighbour X very soon"
and keep a strict turn order from there on until after the war is done
and that is also a clearly worded rule, with no ambiguations
aka a firm border
it leaves a lot more trust in the hand of the players too
because it means that it is up to the players themselves to decide if they want to follow that code of honour or not
2metraninja: I am tired of explaining that there cant be such thing as "peace-time double-move" because there is no "peace-time playing order" at all. if someone tells me he is following a turn order with ALL of his neighbors since the turn he realised he is neighbor with them, then I might say: OK, dont ing double-move" and give it to the chance that this player played before given player the turn they met. which is also a matter of chance, but well
Caledorn: limiting it to the final turn before war declaration is a rule that will cause bad blood between players
part of the reasoning behind rules like this is to avoid any potential for conflict
to avoid players starting to dislike one another
2metraninja: I intend to declare war to each and everyone in this game if this suits me. does this forces me to stick to turn order with everyone?
Caledorn: no - you are twisting my words now
of course you do
2metraninja: ruling WILL cause bad blood
Caledorn: that's the point of civ
yes, but the bad blood is against me
and I have no problems with that
2metraninja: just ruling by one way or other, you will make sad and angry different players
Caledorn: that's why I accept to be admin
2metraninja: this is what I am trying to say
that is why there must be rules which can be defined
Caledorn: it is also why RB's system is far better than the system of a game admin, because the rulings are made by a lot of people who are not playing the game and who have observed both sides
2metraninja: because when there are defined rules, the admin have easier time
Caledorn: if you wish, I can clearly define these rules
2metraninja: he say: this is the rule, I look at the situation and say who broke the rule
yes, all this discussion is about rules
Caledorn: the problem is, there is no rules defined for the CFC 2014 Pitboss, so I am left with ruling based on my own preferences
2metraninja: not about how this particular case will be judged
no. there ARE rules
Caledorn:

Caledorn:

7. Dont be a jerk.
2metraninja: I wrote what consist of double-move in the opening post before the game begin
Caledorn: you included that
that is the foundation of the RB rules
2metraninja: 7. comes to describe what is missed
Caledorn: double moving someone you will declare war on in two times = being a jerk
two turns - sorry
2metraninja: but in the case there is a clearly written with examples rule about double-moving, this cannot apply
Caledorn: oh, but the rules only include "war double moves"
they say absolutely nothing about out of war double moves
2metraninja: but he gives him time to double- move him back too
this is rule
Caledorn: they are not mentioned in any way
2metraninja: I specified also there are no "peace-time double moves" because they cant be judged easily
&#1048;&#1079;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1085;&#1086; &#1074; 20:33, &#1089;&#1098;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1072;
2metraninja: plus, the settler race is different case, because it ends with the settling of the city, while the current case does not ends with declaring a war
Caledorn: your rules state nothing about peace time double moves
the only thing you state about that is this sentence:

If you are the last player to play the turn, when you hit "end turn" the
server will advance the turn while you are logged in. You can play your
next turn immediately (don't do this during a war..). Hit end turn
again..
other than that sentence, there is nothing pertaining to non-war time double moves
&#1048;&#1079;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1085;&#1086; &#1074; 20:35, &#1089;&#1098;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1072;
2metraninja: I explained in the thread that there cant be followed peace-time order so my position on this is clear. but even looking on this from strict juridical way, in the Western law system it is "everything that is not forbidden is allowed" because you cant describe each and every single specific case
Caledorn: I cannot rule a game based on that
&#1048;&#1079;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1085;&#1086; &#1074; 20:41, &#1089;&#1098;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1072;
Caledorn: So either I must step down as admin (gracefully of course, I am not irritated - just surprised that you would think moving twice in a row against someone you intend to declare war on in 3 turns is "just a tactical move" and not abusing the Pitboss simultaneous turn system) and you find someone else to rule in this matter, or I will have to rule based on the RB rules which I have found to be the best rules to avoid bad blood between players.
&#1048;&#1079;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1085;&#1086; &#1074; 20:43, &#1089;&#1098;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1072;
2metraninja: it is my firm belief that it can be described by "just a tactical move" because it does not break any rules which can be described with words
rules, not general guidelines or something in the sphere of personal feelings
Caledorn: Well, as I said, you have to be careful with following that firm belief on RB, or you may find yourself being given penalties by the lurkers :-/
on CFC it's different of course
2metraninja: I've been already in that there, but no one can argue sensibly with me there
about what is it "peace double-move"
Caledorn: That's probably because you don't want to listen, because you are very very firmly set in your beliefs that everything needs to be ruled by clear definitions and words - and you disregard the rules that have been made by experience
2metraninja: best was Lewwin's "eat shits, dude" or somethinglike that lol
Caledorn: (that is not an insult btw!)
2metraninja: poor guy
Caledorn: many of the unwritten rules at RB are based on experience. Look at how many PB's and PBEM's they have conducted. They know what causes conflicts, for sure
2metraninja: here is the problem - you mention "rules have been made by experience" is actually not a rule
Caledorn: I am sorry that Lewwyn would write anything like that .. That's completely non-constructive
They are rules - everyone just knows them by heart, and they follow them because they know that they are included in the "Do not be a jerk"

2metraninja: but more like the natives in some countries rulemaking - it have name - it is called "common society judging"
Caledorn: no no
you completely misunderstand how these rules have come into existence
these rules have come into existence by agreement of all the players
everyone there knows them by heart because they remember the horrible conflicts and situations that have killed games in the past because they were not followed in the past
why do you think people on RB dislike Parkin so much for instance?
2metraninja: give me again reason why player A would have the right to settle the spot between him and his neighbor in the example I gave you with the 2 border cities?
because he entered first in this turn?
because he had the luck to enter first in the previous turn?
why he enters first to play, isnt it gaining an unfair advantage?
Caledorn: no - only if he played first in several previous turns
no
2metraninja: why? this gives him 1 turn advantage
Caledorn: because the other player can disrupt it at any time, or have the courtesy to send a pm and ask to have the first half of the turn because of the current game situation
2metraninja: just because he had luck to have his playing window close to when the turn switches?
Caledorn: no
again - please read what I am writing
2metraninja: ok, give me other reasons
I do read
we speak about rules
Caledorn: as I have said a lot of times now .. if a turn order has been established, and is being followed by the players, that is the basis for how this is judged
2metraninja: rules are not "lets be nice and agree between ourselves"
but WHEN it is established?
who establish this turn order?
what if it deviates ?
Caledorn: if a player suddenly stops following the turn order to double move a unit that gives him an advantage, then he is the one who gains an unfair advantage
for the fourth time: just don't double move a settler .. laughs it IS that simple, Dimo
2metraninja: to follow a turn order means that there must be such in first place
and you CANNOT have established turn order with EVERYONE
Caledorn: no, but you CAN have a semi-established turn order with your neighbours, and you CAN avoid moving your settler 4 moves until your neighbours have played their turns
it is really very very very simple
2metraninja: I dont agree that someone having luck to play before me few turns before actual race starts gets right to be 1 turn ahead of me
for me it is really simple too
Caledorn: no because you think you have to be the only one who cannot move a settler 4 moves the way I interpret you
if all players adhere to that, everyone has the exact same ground to play from, and it is 110% fair
2metraninja: but you cant realistically adhere to that
Caledorn: why?
I do
I have done so in 2 pitbosses at RB now
What's the problem?
2metraninja: the fact that there can be a race means that BOTH players intended to settle this spot, they had built settlers and had them on the move LONG LONG ago
do you start following turn order the time you set settler for build?
Caledorn: no
I follow turn order whenever I have a settler completed. I move him 2 moves, end my turn

2metraninja: otherwise, it is again a matter of free time who plays first in a X-10 turns
and then everyone can insist this turn order to be followed
Caledorn: Then I move him again 2 moves after my neighbours have had the opportunity to move their settlers (if they even have any)
if they play after me in the same turn that I moved the settler, then I get to move the settler 2 more moves first thing next turn
2metraninja: but what gives you right to move your settler before your opponent once you complete him?
Caledorn: if I played after them in the same turn, I need to wait until they've played in the next turn before I move the settler again.
2metraninja: OK, I understand what you mean and what you do
but it comes to who played first in the turn the settler is completed?
is that the definition?
Caledorn: the turn the settler is moved first.
2metraninja: whoever have play first in the turn when a settler is completed, he have 1 turn of movement advantage?
Caledorn: if you happen to be lucky enough to move your settler before your neighbours, then that's luck.
2metraninja: oh luck
Caledorn: if you happen to be unlucky enough that they got to move their settler first, then that's their luck.
2metraninja: I know when my settlers will be completed
that have nothing to do with luck
Caledorn: yep - but you do not know when your neighbours settlers will be completed.
you can only speculate
you do not even know if they build a settler at all unless you have a lot of esp on them
so here's where basic common sense comes into the picture, or you make this sound as if you can't move a settler at all.
2metraninja: by the same logic you dont know when he will move his settler in sigth
you may have luck in playing once, then turn switch so you play second time and settle before him?
Caledorn: correct. but with this logic it doesn't matter if a settler comes into sight, because you know that neither you nor him have moved the settler 4 moves where you have only been given the opportunity to move it 2.
2metraninja: no, those who say settler must be moved in turn order are those who make it seems that you cannot move settler at all
Caledorn: no, because you should never move your settlers more than 2 moves until he gets a chance to move his 2. and he is of course following the same rule, so there is no conflict.
no, you are twisting it into that ;-)
because you strongly disagree with the rule, you are trying to find any way possible to make it sound like a silly rule
which is perfectly okay
it works 110% over at RB
and has done for years
so the only problem is players who do not wish to follow it
2metraninja: but how you at all know someone is moving a settler? are you serious you establish and follow a turn order with everyone when you build a settler?
Caledorn: I don't have a problem with that
yes
and again, I've done that in 2 PBs over there now, and I know everyone else does too.
2metraninja: I may say the same thing with more reasons - that because you like that "rule" you try to find things that support it and twist the facts
Caledorn: if there is a crisis about play times etc, you either state in your thread that you need to move it twice, and let the lurkers decide on that - or you ask the lurkers to log in and move it for you after the neighbours get to move. another reason why the RB system is so good, because you can always ask a lurker to log in and do something for you.

 

[2metraninja]

Splitting in 2 sections as it was over 30000 characters long:

Spoiler :

2metraninja: for me establishing peace-time settler turn order is ridiculous. what if I have settlers and keep them to use when I see need? how I keep order on that? I do this a lot of times
Caledorn: you can but I am not twisting anything because I like the rule. I am giving you clear examples - real world examples - of how the rule works, why it works, and that there is a lot of players that adhere to it in a civ community that takes their civ playing pretty serious
if you have 200 settlers, it's irrelevant
the rule starts to go into motion immediately when you move one of them.

Caledorn: you can but I am not twisting anything because I like the rule. I am giving you clear examples - real world examples - of how the rule works, why it works, and that there is a lot of players that adhere to it in a civ community that takes their civ playing pretty serious
if you have 200 settlers, it's irrelevant
the rule starts to go into motion immediately when you move one of them.
2metraninja: but this "rule" comes down to who have luck in joining the game first
this is what I am against
not to mention it is ridiculous to follow turn order in peace time with everyone who can potentially be your competition in settling
tell, me, isnt it "who enters first on settler completion have 1 turn advantage" case?
even in case you can afford to have turn order
Caledorn: you may think that. Do note that I do not look down on your opinions by placing them inside quotation marks though. That's employing a suppresion technique against my arguments, where you attempt to ridicule my opinions as less worth than yours. :-(
2metraninja: quotations to make things clear
and set
and to ask if I understand them 100% correct and if you agree with them 100%
Caledorn: in your opinion.
2metraninja: well, I do it, so it is my reasons that matter?
Caledorn: this is a rule, it works at RB, you disagree with it, I agree with it.
that's the bottomline
&#1048;&#1079;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1085;&#1086; &#1074; 21:10, &#1089;&#1098;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1072;
Caledorn: you cannot change my mind on this matter, because I see how well it works at RB, and how little friction there is between the players there thanks to rules like this. I do not think I can change your mind on the matter either, as you seem dead intent on ridiculing the rule by lots of "this is impossible" and hypothetical situations that have never even happened (and several of them I doubt will even ever happen)
2metraninja: when it comes to repeating that it is a rule that works and avoid giving logical and technical reasons why it works, for me the case is clear that there are no such logical or repeatable mechanics
oh, you should had started with "you cannot change my mind on this" so I spend time trying to bring examples and logic
it is your belief, no matter right or wrong, I have no problems with that
Caledorn: to make this simple: if you want me as game admin in a game, you need to understand that I will apply RB logic to my rulings, as I know those rules work very well. If you do not want me to apply RB logic to my rulings, then you need to write up a clear and consise set of rules in advance that ensures that I cannot apply RB logic to the rulings.
So you will actually have to make specific rules that contradict the RB rules for matters like this for me to rule by different rules.
I have no problems with that either, as long as I have a clear and consise set of rules to rule by
In this case, however, there is no clear rule that says anything about peace time double moves
2metraninja: the clear set of rules is there, but still I prefer to have ruling which I dont agree to instead of having no ruling at all
Caledorn: Only rule 7 "Do not be a jerk", and that one sentence about being able to play straight away if a turn is flipped by yourself
I will consider what you have said in regards to how I rule this game - which is why I did not stop the discussion right away, because I need your input too to make a ruling
2metraninja: oh, man, there is said what is forbidden. forbidden is to double-move in war and the turn before declaring a war
Caledorn: I needed your point of views, so I can take them into consideration.
Yep - but there's not a word about peace time double moves
2metraninja: exactly
Caledorn: And "Do not be a jerk" is the RB rule that in fact DOES include "do not peace time double move"
2metraninja: so they are not forbidden
Caledorn: That's one of the main rules within the rule "Do not be a jerk", Dimo
and you wrote it as one of the main rules
2metraninja: there is not a word for declaring a war either
so declaring a war is not forbidden
not a word about bulding units - it is allowed and not forbidden
Caledorn: if you did not know what the "Do not be a jerk" rule involves, you should not have written it in the rule set that I am using as a basis for ruling
2metraninja: it is just the same as "be a good person" but being a good person varies a lot
it is not a rule as "rule"
Caledorn: Why is is written at §7 of the rules if it is not a rule?
2metraninja: if HBHR sees this as normal tactic and not being a jerk, he is not a jerk, is that OK
we need to ask HBHR is he is feeling as a jerk

Caledorn: if REM sees this as being a jerk, is that ok?
2metraninja: if he says he is not, then we agree he is not acting as one
Caledorn: who is right? HBHR or REM?
REM obviously sees it as a jerk move, while HBHR does not - that's easily extrapolated from the thread
2metraninja: if Imp.Knoedel exits the game via alt-f4 "just for the luls", he IS being a jerk
Caledorn: so who is right?
2metraninja: after we saw he was not being a jerk, but he wanted to not look stupid, we forgive him and remove the penalty
Caledorn: In retrospect I think he just wrote that trying to be funny, making a joke of it, when what he was really trying to say is that "hey, I accidentally hit alt+f4".
2metraninja: for me HBHR is right
the rules are clear on this
about who is jerk, I cannot say
if options on "who is jerk" differ, we ask the admin
my opinion is HBHR is not making a war double- move, which is forbidden
and because he also believes he is not making something forbidden, he is not a jerk
man, I really have to go, made a meeting with a friend and he will be mad at me
&#1048;&#1079;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1085;&#1086; &#1074; 21:21, &#1089;&#1098;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1072;
2metraninja: if you dont mind, I will post our chat at the forum, because I want to give food for thoughts for those who are new and have not had this kind of situations, so everyone can judge for himself
discussion is always good thing
see you a bit later
Caledorn: feel free to do that
I am writing a post there now.
and I am of course not upset or irritated in any way - we disagree on this, and that's perfectly fine.

 

[ReallyEvilMuff]

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.

 

[ReallyEvilMuff]

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

 

[2metraninja]

Starting to write my replies to things as I read them:

Rule 7 on the other hand is a rule that was invented at Realms Beyond

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.

Rule 1.0.1: At the time you realise that you intend to go to war with one or more of your neighbours within just a few turns ((I suggest 3 turns if everyone wants a clearly defined amount of turns)), you must adhere to a turn split from that point forward. If, during those turns, you realise that you will not go to war after all, you are free to stop following the turn split immediately from the point you realise.

Rule 1.0.2: Rule 1.0.1 does not count if a situation arises where you go to war with someone for an immediate reason, like e.g. a poorly guarded settler on it's way to settling a spot you need etc. It only counts if you are building up forces to a war that is included in the long term expansion of your empire.

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.

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

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?

someone who holds up the game timer to claim an advantage.

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.

 

[2metraninja]

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

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.

 

[2metraninja]

Here, I want to state that gentlemen conduct of war and game as a whole is something I strong believe in and recommend.

 

[classical_hero]

Would it be easier if Random Eye movement (REM) just move first the next and HBHR/Brother player after him?

 

[ReallyEvilMuff]

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.

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.

 

[ReallyEvilMuff]

Would it be easier if Random Eye movement (REM) just move first the next and HBHR/Brother player after him?

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.

 

[HBHR]

I offered this in a previous post, and have already played my turn this turn as if that would be acceptable. I am waiting for caledorn/HBHR reply on that.

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

 

[2metraninja]

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.