Discussion in 'Civ4 -ISDG 2012' started by Lord Parkin, Jun 1, 2012.
I don't think RB have stated their opinion on the matter.
Neither I see Team Apolyton casting a vote on it. DNK is not listed amongst the official spokesman/representatives of Apolyton. He is not even the only Apolyton member having a say on this matter. Mzprox is also a team Apolyton member and he said he dont mind it at all.
Actually, DNK has said that he is representing Poly in this thread.
RB vote removed - I assumed that they would vote the rule set they've proposed.
I also see that double move rule is not yet agreed. Basic intent of the rule should probably be agreed upon 1st. I suggest this set:
a) Peaceful double moves e.g. settling races are allowed.
b) Wartime Double moves are handled by APT mod
c) "Declaration of war" double moves are not allowed.
d) ...something about entering to an existing war. I've no idea how APT mod works and what is possible and what isn't. e.g. If there is a race for spoils of war we could end up in a situation where 3 nations are fighting hot war against each other. So how does APT mod handle a situation where 2 nations are in war and 3rd nation enters to the scene and wants to declare war on both of the nations fighting?
This leaves lot to interpret and also exploit, but I think it is good idea to 1st agree upon these before going in to details.
Is there anyone here that knows APT mod and could formulate d)?
Are teams happy with these? I think a) is the most controversial one so if you disagree please suggest an alternative and we can vote.
Yet, Apolyton is neither team A nor B.
Apolyton is a fractured multi-headed hydra of a team. A rambling assortment of overlapping hierarchies and multiple personality disorders. Who can really ever speak for such a thing? I'm not sure we even have any structure as is. Various people of vague portfolios and assignments dash through the dark halls of our forum, attempting to reach a common destination that no single member knows of, shuttling between unnumbered rooms with fluid and ever-changing occupants, hoping vainly that they may at some point find something resembling their original target.
Good luck with your spies we can't even find our own secret documents!
I took over for Ozzy here as he said I could, to discuss this matter. When we officially release our own proposed ruleset or submit a vote for such a set, that will be the "official" team statement, until then we are mostly just all going at it from our own viewpoints. Then Ozzy said that anyone could do it, and now everyone's officially spokespersoning, which is to say none are.
Hehe Fear the Hydra!
No I know that you're neither.. I dig the fact that you'll propose your own ruleset. As far as I can tell, we all agree on most of the rules, and the few disagreements are kinda cemented.
Looking fw to getting this over with, very good that semi-admin-Plako set a deadline
Yeah, we at Apolyton have no strong opinion on these small debates. Basically we can go along with the first proposed ruleset by RB and we will adapt our gameplay if necessary.
Back to this resource denial thing: if we didn't use the spanish mod I would propose the following rule for consideration: a team in war has the right to give up its first moving position by allowing the opposing team to do one double move. So if losing the resource is such a big problem for them that they can not handle any other way they can do this.
I don't think the spanish mod allows the alteration of turn other-and that is btw my biggest issue with it-sometimes it might be better to swich turn order for convenient reasons.
Anyway: I still don't think this would be a big issue at all. very unlikely that one civ would get screwed just because they move first and they can't defend their resource even for a short time.
To me this looks like a very cool way of handling this over-exagerated potential threat
I think Manolo said that he will make it to be able to ON and OFF, so probably it will be possible. But still waiting on someone of the developers to say it definitive is best.
None of the proposals have addressed the 2 primary problems.
1. Removing Second move advantage without simultaneously removing First move advantage.
2. The proposal is totally unenforceable.
And sorry, plako we can't vote on this before the leader selection is done. I have to put my foot down on this. It's just not fair to the team still discussing their Civ choice.
Agreed on the voting.
Really need to allow order switching.
I don't understand this discussion now.
Spies are on (this would decided latest), that is a fact and not negotiable, imo this is so for all spy-actions.
I agree. HUSch makes a good point. Spies are ON, no restrictions, nerfs, bans allowed on individual spy actions. This is a game setting that really should not be changed at this point.
We can vote on the bombard, pillage, blockade thing (which is still an unfair nerf of Second move advantage IMO), but nerfing espy is off the table.
Is that your CFC-team membership 'foot' or your game organizer 'foot' - it is a little difficult to tell sometimes. Maybe you can include an indicator in your posts to help us out?
Hi Plako, thanks for your work.
-> Yuufo@gmx.com for the screenshots please - we'll create dedicated mail accounts once ambassadors and foreign affairs folks have been appointed
Numerous people have called for an end to the incessant ad-hominems. To post something like this completely unprovoked and blatant attack is just plain disrespect to both Sommerswerd and to those that have already voiced their disapproval of such comments.
EDIT: @ plako: You should be able to find our team email.
You can send the screenshot for Team GWT to: regis (at) rrpp (dot) de
gee - I thought my use of 'foot' would take the possible sting out of any harsh reading of my comments. As someone posted the other day, it is very hard to communicate sarcasm via text ... on the flip side, it is very easy to ready sarcasm into text - let me be plain ... I was not being sarcastic, attacking, trying to provoke anything (apart from some clarity).
As I tried to say in my original post, I (speaking only for myself) sometimes find it difficult to tell when someone is talking as a team member, duly deputized team spokesperson or game organizer. I would find some indication of such very useful.
So - the above (tries to) add some clarify to my original post. The rest is a personal comment on the atmosphere in this thread ... I (personally) find it unfortunate that a question seeking clarify is mis-read as an attack. I guess that is one of the drawbacks with text only communication. Who knows ... this post will probably be read the same way.
Edit: I have no official RB position. I am trying to drum up support for one but so far they aren't biting. I am pretty sure that I can land the role I am seeking if I just talk about it long enough. As such, this post is a personal post and doesn't represent the views (or otherwise) of RB, the RB community or any other civ related community that I might or might not be part of.
Ah, okay, thanks. Sorry for assuming you were being sarcastic.
We should all just get drunk to ease the tension.
I was just walking my dog* and realized that I had fallen foul of my own 'suggestion?' / 'observation?' ... I hadn't clarified my role in my post (have done now - see above).
* walking my dog - if anyone has followed my posts for long enough, firstly - heaven help you. Secondly, you would have heard me talking about the benefits of getting a dog and walking it. When you are walking your dog, you have lots of spare time to think ... you only jobs are:
a) don't get run over
b) don't get your dog run over
c) put one foot in front of the other
d) pick up dog deposits
That is, basically, nothing - so you get to think about things. It was during my latest dog walk (98F - stupid dog!), that I realized that I hadn't clarify my position in the post above. I will not now attempt to clarify all of my posts in this forum ... they fall into 1 of 3 categories
a) comments about mod related questions, mainly in my capacity as a BUG / BUFFY author
b) questions about the vote approved mod that is currently being trialed in the demo(?) game
c) one post that was made in my (hoped for) position with Team RB - I'll track that sucker down and edit for clarity
I think that my posts clearly fall into either category a) or b) so I am not planning on editing them. If you find a post of mine where my position is unclear, please PM me and I will seek to add some clarify via an edit. PM me so that we don't bore others to death with an avalanche of post links.
Separate names with a comma.