Ruleset Discussion

[DaveMcW]

If you eliminate 2 of 5 teams, that basically ends the game.

Are you suggesting a new rule?

 

[Indiansmoke]

Exactly. So if B is in a defensive war, they have a considerable advantage in terms of unit whips compared to if A is in a defensive war. Team B's reinforcements appear immediately after their battles, while Team A has to wait for Team B to play (and attack them) before their reinforcements appear. So, for instance, if one more unit would make the difference between keeping a city and losing it, Team B keeps the city while Team A loses it in an otherwise identical situation.

I cannot believe you still don't get this basic concept.

I repeat BOTH teams get the units at beggining of global turn so the player who plays first gets to move units first...

So according to proposed (and usual) double move rules if you play second in a war and play last in turn so turn ends after you press end turn then you must not move anything but wait for opponent to play first...so you cannot bring first units from back cities if you play second...got it?

If you are talking about 1 unit in the 1 city defending then both players A and B will get the unit there at beggining of turn no mater who plays first.

So player A gets to

1. Upgrade troops first before player B gets to upgrade troops after battle
2. Move new units first
3. take fortify positions (hills etc) first
4. hit with catapults first

These are massive advantages

This is why the double move ruleset needs clear clarification or even better non simul turns are needed in this game.

This is why poles about such things are absolutelly useless as 80% of the people voting have never played a simul turns pitboss and do not understand what they are voting for.

Anyone who has ever competitively played a pitboss will tell you that people wait to be the ones to atack first in war so to enjoy all these advantages...It gets really silly most of the times even during wars when people try using various tricks (like missing unimportant turns) to gain the play first advantage.

So in a perfect simul turns rules pitboss it would be like this

Player a attacks player B defends but player B is not last in turn since some other team has delayed playing.

So when new turn rolls over player A should wait for player B to log in, upgrate troops move troops from back cities and then log out, leave player A to log in play all his moves then log in again and play the rest of his moves.

Is this possible in any realistic way?

 

[DaveShack]

Is this a problem only in the 1st turn of a war? The only reason I see B has a problem is that they didn't know A was going to attack, right? If they did know, or even suspect, or had reasonable intelligence, then they can upgrade units and move up reserves the turn before the war starts.

Would it work to require DOW to come a turn before any attacks?

 

[Earthling]

No; the first player to go in any turn during a simultaneous turns war is at a significant advantage. Not gamebreaking, but significant. Usually this favors the attacker because they get to choose to go first when they DoW and that turn order is established.

Sequential turns has one slight flaw in how healing works (not at the end but at the start of a turn) but it's more evenly distributed between both teams warfare wise otherwise.

However as far as I've ever seen this - and pointed out in the last demogame too, in simulataneous turns going first brings more advantages - getting to use newly built units, fully healed units, etc... though with march promotions or something the defender could mitigate things a little bit, that's not very common in regular civ IV BtS.

I should stress, though, that you'll notice I HAVE voted for simultaneous turns. This is due to experience in the last demogame where I think things got far too bogged down and ultimately all possible problems/controversies involving wars apparently weren't solved anyway. So in short I can live with the minor imbalances this might bring - war preparation, diplomacy etc... should still be more important really than concerns of turn order. Reasons to have quicker and simultaneous turns come down more heavily in favor of doing so for me.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Are you suggesting a new rule?

No, I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about a rule, I'm talking about psychology. If 2 out of 5 teams are forcefully imploded, it's unlikely that the remaining teams will have much of a desire to continue. It's been proved time and time again through many of these demogames. When teams start quitting (or being forced to quit), the implosion of the whole game is usually not far away. Thus, it seems logical not to increase the odds of the game imploding by being overly harsh on teams that, at one point or another, have relatively low activity.

Of course, we also shouldn't be overly lenient on the teams that consistently take far too long to play, and as a result cause activity and interest to drop in the other teams. So it's a matter of striking a balance.

I cannot believe you still don't get this basic concept.

I repeat BOTH teams get the units at beggining of global turn so the player who plays first gets to move units first...

I do realise that. I'm not trying to argue that playing second is always better than playing first. But playing second does have its (limited) advantages too. I'm not going to keep repeating myself here, so I'll provide a concrete example and leave it at that.

For instance: Team A has a few Horse Archers 2 turns from some of Team B's underdefended cities, hidden from view. Team A declares war and moves so that the Horse Archers are 1 turn away from the cities and can strike next turn.

- Now, if Team A chose to play first, Team B would be able to whip units during their turn, which would appear in the cities at the end of the turn. Thus Team A would face extra defenders, potentially causing the sneak attack to fail.

- On the other hand, if Team A chose to play second, then Team B would not be able to react and whip until the following turn. Thus their whipped units would not appear until AFTER Team A attacked - meaning there would be no additional units during Team A's initial attack, allowing them to more easily take the cities.

That's just one example, but hopefully you can now see my point.

 

[DaveShack]

Don't know if my point got missed, so I'll make a more concrete example.

Team A wants to attack team B. What I'm suggesting is we don't allow either side to move across the border until the turn after the DOW. Or maybe even the 2nd turn after DOW, if B has already played in the current turn. Would this be enough to negate the advantage of going first and even it out? Or does it break surprise attacks too severely?

If team B is any good they should have sentries posted to ensure that A can't approach and attack by surprise. Though that doesn't preclude a backstab by a former ally or neutral.

 

[BCLG100]

I don't really like that idea at all Dave. The mechanics of civ4 are already heavily weighted in favour of the defender, sometimes the only advantage the attacker can gain is that of surprise. There would literally be no point in ever going to war, you may as well tell them where you're going to attack whilst you're there and with what, just so everyone can adequately get their troops in to position.

 

[Indiansmoke]

I do realise that. I'm not trying to argue that playing second is always better than playing first. But playing second does have its (limited) advantages too. I'm not going to keep repeating myself here, so I'll provide a concrete example and leave it at that.

For instance: Team A has a few Horse Archers 2 turns from some of Team B's underdefended cities, hidden from view. Team A declares war and moves so that the Horse Archers are 1 turn away from the cities and can strike next turn.

- Now, if Team A chose to play first, Team B would be able to whip units during their turn, which would appear in the cities at the end of the turn. Thus Team A would face extra defenders, potentially causing the sneak attack to fail.

- On the other hand, if Team A chose to play second, then Team B would not be able to react and whip until the following turn. Thus their whipped units would not appear until AFTER Team A attacked - meaning there would be no additional units during Team A's initial attack, allowing them to more easily take the cities.

That's just one example, but hopefully you can now see my point.

This is only for the first turn of war and it concerns 1 city, it also assumes you are in slavery and it assumes TEAM B will have enough pop to whip a defender in the city at question...and we are talking about 1 defender....so team B gets to have 1 more defender in 1 city for the first turn of war while team A has a long list of benefits.


In any case war attacks succed by force or by surprise. In both cases Team A has the advantage. By surprise because it can take cities, pillage, capture workers etc before team B even knows there is a war and by force because of all the reasons mentioned, gets to promote first move first etc.

 

[Indiansmoke]

Don't know if my point got missed, so I'll make a more concrete example.

Team A wants to attack team B. What I'm suggesting is we don't allow either side to move across the border until the turn after the DOW. Or maybe even the 2nd turn after DOW, if B has already played in the current turn. Would this be enough to negate the advantage of going first and even it out? Or does it break surprise attacks too severely?

If team B is any good they should have sentries posted to ensure that A can't approach and attack by surprise. Though that doesn't preclude a backstab by a former ally or neutral.

Abit confused about what you are saying. What do you mean move across border? You have to be outside of opponent border to declare war or your units will be kicked out at declaration.

 

[pindicator]

Is it really an issue that the attacking party gets to dictate the time and place of the attack? I mean, isn't that basic strategy? And not just CIV either but in warfare in general?

 

[Lord Parkin]

Don't know if my point got missed, so I'll make a more concrete example.

Team A wants to attack team B. What I'm suggesting is we don't allow either side to move across the border until the turn after the DOW. Or maybe even the 2nd turn after DOW, if B has already played in the current turn. Would this be enough to negate the advantage of going first and even it out? Or does it break surprise attacks too severely?

If team B is any good they should have sentries posted to ensure that A can't approach and attack by surprise. Though that doesn't preclude a backstab by a former ally or neutral.

I think that would break the surprise element of the game too much. Basically it's equivalent to writing a diplomatic message several turns before the war stating "We're going to declare war on you soon, make sure you're fully prepared so you can repel our invading armies and make our sneak attack useless!". Where is the fun in attacking if one of the few things that gives an attacker an advantage (the element of surprise) is taken away from them?

 

[galdarian]

I agree with Sommerswerd in that any team wishing to pause the game should have an associated in game cost otherwise there is no disadvantage to pausing. Granted there are going to be times when real life is more of a priority however you don't want pausing to be used as a game mechanic to buy your team more time to assess, evaluate and react.

By placing an in game cost to pausing, Teams will have to weigh up whether it's better to have turns of inaction vs monetary, or other, payment.

Where i disagree with Sommerswerd is on the destination of the payment. In the example of paying X gold to all other teams you COULD have a situation (worst case) where by all teams are pausing equally resulting in a net benefit of $0 yet extending the game somewhat. Perhaps the payment should just be deducted from the Team by an Admin to be given to no one.

In this way the strategic decision would be between direct economic costs vs indirect economic costs. I.e. Do I pay the fine to be able to move my worker / settler / army or do I forfeit their turns to preserve my treasury.

 

[DaveShack]

I think that would break the surprise element of the game too much. Basically it's equivalent to writing a diplomatic message several turns before the war stating "We're going to declare war on you soon, make sure you're fully prepared so you can repel our invading armies and make our sneak attack useless!". Where is the fun in attacking if one of the few things that gives an attacker an advantage (the element of surprise) is taken away from them?

I was just replying to the discussion on Team A getting too much of an advantage when attacking with a method for taking that advantage away, if someone really thought it was wrong to have the advantage. The other comments on the topic have rightly pointed out that surprise is really the only advantage an attacker has when forces are equal. If the attacker is stronger to begin with, then no amount of compensation will let a weak defender survive. If the attacker is weaker, the attack will most likely fail except for possibly drawing first blood.

 

[HUSch]

The real problem with simul and double moves is in 3-side wars.
2 not-allies against a third or 2 allies (with a general command) against the third.
Which kind of sequence do you think is right and how 8and who) will this to make.

btw
we have vote for simul, because the faster way. the big disadvantage is, you can't make dg-votes in teams about the game. At the beginning of turn you look and poll team-decisions which aren't possible then, because the situation has changed.

 

[Darkness]

Any form of payment would unbalance the game, as civs who haven't met the paying team yet can't get the money until they do meet them. And a sum of money is considerably more powerful in the early game then in the late game.

I'm opposed to all possibilities to pause the game. Except admin-decisions of course.


Another important topic:
I know this is not a popular topic, but it should be discussed before the game starts: Punishment for breaking the rules. I hope no-one will break the rules, but there is always the possibility that someone will do so, so we should be prepared for that. It would be best to define punishment for all forms of rule-breaking before the game starts, otherwise there's always going to be whining and discussion about any punishment the admins hand out. "Too heavy punishment" or "too light punishment". IF this is all defined before the game starts, then there really is nothing to whine about, 'cause then all have pro-actively agreed to this before the offense has taken place and no-one can complain about the punishment, because it was already set and defined before the rule-breaking occurred.

 

[DaveShack]

I prefer to win by good play, not by invoking rules.

 

[Darkness]

I prefer to win by good play, not by invoking rules.

Meaning?

 

[DaveMcW]

It would be best to define punishment for all forms of rule-breaking before the game starts, otherwise there's always going to be whining and discussion about any punishment the admins hand out. "Too heavy punishment" or "too light punishment". IF this is all defined before the game starts, then there really is nothing to whine about, 'cause then all have pro-actively agreed to this before the offense has taken place and no-one can complain about the punishment, because it was already set and defined before the rule-breaking occurred.

You're welcome to propose any punishments you want, that's what this thread is for.

Don't be surprised if people discuss and whine that your rules are "too heavy punishment" or "too light punishment".

 

[Krill]

Please god don't use the Poly demogame rule, I had to take over admin in that game once they hit a real problem, and that rule was a nightmare to work with for both the player and the admin.

I'd suggest this one instead that originated from some of the good points of the original poly rule. It isn't perfect, there are one or two additions that would be easy to add in to stop
end of turn abuses (by shortening the amount of time for each team, and making all moves in the last hour illegal). But that is about the most thorough rule I've seen around. And as a short note, the timings in the rule assume a 24 hour turn timer, but a 48 hour turn timer is more realistic (IMO), so adjusting the number of hours in the split is required.


Apolyton Demogame rule v1.1, for war between 2 parties of indeterminate size. This rule is not designed to cope with a war between 3 separate parties, so the Game Administrator reserves the right to adjust the rule to fit the needs of the game should the needs of the game alter.

Turn will be split equally between the two parties. The party with the first part of the turn has until the in game clock reaches 12:00 hours remaining of the turn, i.e. the first half of the turn, and the second party has from the in game clock shows 12:00 until the end of the turn, the second half of the turn. Each half of the turn is thus named "First War Phase" and "Second War Phase", abbreviated to FWP and SWP respectively.

The method of determining who gets which part of the turn is 2 fold:

1. the parties agree between themselves to an equitable split. If this is not possible then:
   
2. The team that moved last in the turn of the declaration of war will get the last part of the turn.

If a party finishes the turn early, they can signify this by a post in a specified thread indicating they have finished their turn and the next party can play their turn. They do NOT have to end turn, but they may end turn to signify that they have finished their turn in lieu of public posting.

In the phase of the turn belonging to the designated party, the following actions are legal:

Moving any unit,
Promoting any unit,
Upgrading any unit,
Gifting a unit,
Drafting any unit.

This is the only part of the turn that these actions are legal.

If anyone uses auto-promote, or auto-moves, to gain an unlawful advantage a reload will be required, unless repeat offences happen in which case the Game Administrator reserves the right to have the offending units deleted from the game.

Slaving, changing city builds, and changing tiles worked, is legal during ANY part of the turn.


Joint attacks

If two players want to attack a single target i.e. a city belonging to a third party, Civ C, then they must move sequentially. ie Civ A attacks with all of its' units, and then Civ B attacks with all of its' units during the phase of the turn belonging to them. Civ C must wait until the phase of the turn belonging to it before it may counter attack or promote any units etc as proscribed above.


Declaring war

For the purpose of movement, declaring war will count as movement. Once war has been declared, the party declaring war has to finish moving all of their units and end their turn before half of the remaining turn time has elapsed since the declaration of war, or within half an hour, whichever is longer

In cases where a war declaration occurs and the side declared upon (the declared) still has units to move, the declared may still move these units, and this counts as a move for the purpose of which party gets the SWP in all subsequent turns.

ALL DECLARATIONS OF WAR, AND ENDED TURNS, SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED via screenshot Also, please send an email stating you have declared war. This isn't a rule, it won;t be enforced, but as said below it is good manners.


Retrospective analysis

The double move rule shall also be applicable to movement on the turn prior to the declaration of war.


Illustrations

The following are illustrations, and any any conflict between the illustrations and the rules as stated above, the illustrations are wrong


Example 1:

Civ D intends to declare war on Civ E. Civ D has a stack of 1 movers next to Civ E border that will be the attacking force.

On the turn before war is declared, every team apart from Civ D has ended turn. Civ D logs in, and moves the slow movers into Civ E land, declaring war. At the start of the next turn, Civ D immediately moves the slow mover stack onto a hill for extra defence.

This is an illegal double move, as Civ D during Civ Es' phase of the turn, under the "Retrospective analysis" rule


Example 2:

Civ F has a fast mover stack with no movement points 2 tiles away from Civ G border, with no roads on the tiles towards the border. At the end of the turn Civ F moves to road all of the tiles, making it possible for Civ F fast mover stack to attack a lightly defended Civ G city. Civ F ended turn after Civ G.

At the start of the next turn, Civ F declares war on Civ G, AFTER Civ G has logged in at least once, and razes the lightly defended city.

This is NOT a double move, as Civ G had the chance to move after Civ F roaded the tiles. It would be a double move, if Civ F moved before Civ G logged in and out of the game.


Example 3:

Civ M, N and O plan to declare war on Civ P.

Civ M declares war on Civ P, and moves all of their units. Civ P logs in and then moves units relevant to the conflict at hand, ending turn. Civ P is thereby allocated the SWP unless both Civ M and Civ P agree otherwise.


Example 4:

X turns later while Civ M and Civ P are still at war, Civ N wants to declare war on Civ P. Civ N may declare war on Civ P at any time, but must declare war during Civ Ms' turn if Civ N is to move any units. If Civ N declares war during Civ P part of the turn, Civ N may not move any units until the following turn until the phase of the turn belonging to Civ M.

Later on, Civs M and N are attacking Civ P, and have 2 stacks of units against a city of Civ P. Both stacks are identical, and contain catapults. It is decided that Civ M attacks first. Civ M decides to attack with all of its' catapults, and then stops. Civ N then attacks with all of it's catapults, and then with the remainder of it's units, capturing the city. This is a legal move. Once Civ N starts to attack, Civ M may not move, upgrade or promote any units involved in the attack in anyway.


Example 5:

Later still, Civ O decides to back stab Civs M and N. Civ M moves a stack of units into Civ P land, and Civ O declares war and attacks them, before Civ N has moved or FWP has finished. This is illegal, as Civ O is decided to be on Civ Ps' side and hence uses Civ P phase of the turn to move. If Civ O were to wait until it was the Civ P phase, then attack the stack during Civ P phase it would be legal.

(the reason for this distinction is to keep the game moving as much as possible).


Example 6:

Civ R decides to gift units to Civ P. Civ R moves units into a city threatened by Civ Ms' units, and gifts the units immediately after the turn rolls over. This is illegal; the units may only be gifted during Civ Ps' SWP. (this shouldn't matter as units can be gifted with 0 movement points remaining)

 

[HUSch]

thx Krill, interesting post, i 've a note of understanding to

Example 6:

Civ R decides to gift units to Civ P. Civ R moves units into a city threatened by Civ Ms' units, and gifts the units immediately after the turn rolls over. This is illegal; the units may only be gifted during Civ Ps' SWP. (this shouldn't matter as units can be gifted with 0 movement points remaining)

Civ R can make a double move (can it move in civ M - time/turnhalf) or when should/can the neutral civs move?