Ruleset Discussion

[azzaman333]

By fortifying the boat.

So, a boat which has used all its movement only gets 1 los?! Or does a fortified boat get an extra los?! I fail to understand what could make this happen.

 

[Whomp]

So, a boat which has used all its movement only gets 1 los?! Or does a fortified boat get an extra los?! I fail to understand what could make this happen.

Fortified boats gets extra los.

 

[azzaman333]

Fortified boats gets extra los.

Is this a PBEM-only bug?

 

[RegentMan]

Is this a PBEM-only bug?

It happens in any Civ III game. If you fortify a ship, on the next turn, it'll have an increased line of sight.

Why? Maybe the sailors, who don't have to sail the boat anymore, have more time to stare...

 

[Tubby Rower]

2.7 - Misleading Renaming
Teams cannot intentionally try to rename cities as technologies or resources, nor can they rename units to try and pass them off as another unit type to confuse the opponent

Do we want to extend this to city naming as well? IIRC there was a certain team that wanted to hide it's palace jump by naming the new capital the old capital's name. While this wasn't an exploit, it really just made us laugh at it later rather than earlier.

But the exploit of naming a city "Military Tradition" shouldn't be allowed

 

[Ginger_Ale]

If we just move all directions/verbal descriptions/contact trading to Writing, I bet by the teams meet each other, they will already be able to trade directions and the like - so if we move all that to Writing, we can also avoid trying to determine what is a direction and what is a verbal map and that mess. Thoughts?

Do we want to extend this to city naming as well? IIRC there was a certain team that wanted to hide it's palace jump by naming the new capital the old capital's name. While this wasn't an exploit, it really just made us laugh at it later rather than earlier.

But the exploit of naming a city "Military Tradition" shouldn't be allowed

You could argue that they didn't rename to confuse the other teams, they just did it to keep the same capital's name. I think if a team tries to rename their cities just to mess with the enemy, then this rule applies.

 

[peter grimes]

If we just move all directions/verbal descriptions/contact trading to Writing, I bet by the teams meet each other, they will already be able to trade directions and the like - so if we move all that to Writing, we can also avoid trying to determine what is a direction and what is a verbal map and that mess.

This seems simple and reasonable.

 

[Chamnix]

Do you think we'll have a team quit that still has lots of cities? Last game three teams played on despite knowing they would lose. It never crossed TNT's mind to give away lots of cities. There was talk of abandoning our cities and calling it a day but even that was nixed and the team continued to play.

And the players on TNT (and the other teams) deserve a lot of credit for that, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t happen this game. Other PBEM games have been ruined by similar actions. Unless we want to get into the whole “spirit of the game” BS again, then I think that if we don’t want something to happen in the game, then it has to be in the ruleset.

2.9 - Double Tile Usage
Scrolling through the city screens in the pre-turn for the purpose of shifting tiles around so that two cities can use the same tile in one turn is prohibited.

This omits the maximize wealth then production exploit. I think the rule should be no breaking into the build sequence – this includes going to the big picture after discovering a tech and scrolling through cities to change builds or adjust citizens in any way.

Do we also want something about declaring war for purposes of giving war happiness, or is that simply another tradable good?

 

[Chamnix]

Another potential exploit - running a deficit treasury so that your cash reserves do not cover the next turn's spending. It carries an in-game punishment of loss of a building/unit, but that is often not severe enough to make up for the advantage gained.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

But don't you think that running a deficit is the punishment for that action? If a team doesn't want to have any gold on hand, lose buildings and units, that's fine with me. If they actually want gold, and their units to be kept, I think they'll think twice about prolonged deficits.

 

[greekguy]

I agree with GA. What Chamnix described is not so much an exploit as much as it is a strategy (and a very poor one at that).

 

[azzaman333]

I agree with GA. What Chamnix described is not so much an exploit as much as it is a strategy (and a very poor one at that).

I think Chamix is talking about going so far over the limit that even if you lose the 1 unit, it is no where near enough compensation for the deficit spending.

Deficit Spending
Should you have negative income to the point where your treasury goes negative, each turn that you are negative you will have only a single unit or improvement sold-off. It is therefore possible to run at huge deficits, and still only lose one item per turn. This is not allowed, and you must make every effort to maintain a viable economy.

 

[donsig]

I agree we should just allow deficit spending. Period.

If there is to be a rule against too much deficit spending then the rule should be made explicit and objective. The phrase too much is subjective and as such makes a very poor rule. The trouble with crafting a good objective rule for this, combined with the question of who will be the economic watchdog (do we expect the admins to look at each and every save to ensure the rule isn't broken?) means that I don't see how we can have a realistic rule about this.

 

[Elear]

I agree with the whole let the game moderate itself thing.

The last MTDG ruleset looks like a nightmare in my opinion.

Other than the base set of rules and the obvious set of exploits/tactics that are banned, we should let the teams decide, at least for treaties.

For example, if someone backstabs your treaty (this happens), then you learn that they can't be trusted When you sign a treaty, it is on honor and whoever chooses to break this honor, will suffer by having no allies . There are no admins to punish this in the real world, therefore.

-Elear

 

[CommandoBob]

The phrase too much is subjective and as such makes a very poor rule.

So true.

The trouble with crafting a good objective rule for this, combined with the question of who will be the economic watchdog (do we expect the admins to look at each and every save to ensure the rule isn't broken?) means that I don't see how we can have a realistic rule about this.

To me, the GOTM Exploit was clear enough.

The real issue, for me, is how to enforce the rule. Send the turn back to the offending team? Let the Admins edit the save and remove some buildings/units?

I was a houseparent for two and a half years and the best lessons I learned seems so obvious in hindsight.

Don't make a rule you don't know how to enforce.
Don't make a rule you don't plan to enforce.

So, I don't see a way to avoid this exploit, if a team wished to use it.

 

[Chamnix]

Same way they enforce any other rule:

1.3 - Punishment
The game administrators are responsible for handing out punishment after a violation of a rule. Punishment may be limited to one single player or the team, but it will not be overly harsh or cruel. It could include forced anarchy, forced payment of gold, removal from the team forum for a period of time, or other actions. If a team feels it is unfair, they may appeal the decision.

All rules have the problem of what the punishment should be. I expect just by making it a rule, everyone will follow it, and enforcement will be moot.

 

[Whomp]

Cham--I don't know how you feel about that exploit but it seems like it should be ruled against. Maybe it's just me but if a team is able to do 4 turn research it should be because they're capable of doing it.

 

[donsig]

All rules have the problem of what the punishment should be. I expect just by making it a rule, everyone will follow it, and enforcement will be moot.

Oh, boy, that only makes me want to break the rule just to see if I can get away with it. Also reminds me of an ancient Korean saying: Nice guys finish last because they follow the unenforceable rules that no one else follows.

Are the admins willing to actively police this rule? I'm not so sure I want to blindly accept the honor system here. Also, how much is too much? A deficit bigger than the cost of the unit or building that will be lost? How is that cost to be calculated? At the same rate the building would get if it was sold?

Is it ok to run a one turn deficit (with an empty treasury) in unusual circumstances? Is that considered an exploit or is it only an exploit when it is done for a series of turns?

 

[azzaman333]

Is it ok to run a one turn deficit (with an empty treasury) in unusual circumstances? Is that considered an exploit or is it only an exploit when it is done for a series of turns?

If you are attempting to keep your civs monetary problems to a minimum, its ok. If you are intentionally spending over by more than would be paid back by selling off a building or a unit, then you are breaking the rule.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I'm tending to agree with donsig here - in this ruleset, I tried to stick concrete and too the point. I shied away from things like the infamous "spirit of the game" and more vague terminology. If we start trying to do "partial exploits", I don't think it'll turn out definitive enough.