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

Ruleset Discussion

Discussion in 'Civ4 -ISDG 2012' started by Lord Parkin, Jun 1, 2012.

  1. DNK

    DNK Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,562
    Location:
    Saigon
    So, we can't "nerf" espionage, but we can "nerf" warfare? You've said it, not me.

    I love how something "totally unimportant and minor" is going to "nerf" espionage: "No, don't take this precious jewel from me, I'll be broke without it, even though it's worth only a few pennies, I swear, but you don't want it, right, because it's so cheap it's not worth arguing over, except if you take it you are really hurting me, because it's so cheap, see?" :crazyeye:

    So, are these sabotage missions important or not? It's not like we're even removing the missions, just limiting them to half-strength...
     
  2. OzzyKP

    OzzyKP Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2000
    Messages:
    1,632
    Location:
    Washington, DC USA

    akpalicz at gmail.com
     
  3. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,870
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    You can't "limit" espionage missions in any way. Espionage is ON. That is the game settings. We already spent a week(s) arguing about "limiting" espionage. That debate is over. That's all. What more can I say?
     
  4. DNK

    DNK Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,562
    Location:
    Saigon
    So is war. We discussed limiting things that could be easily modded out and were potentially major. This is, by your admission (sort of), a minor thing, a tinkering, a fine-tuning, a nuancing of the rules. Just because we agreed on 100% instead of 80% doesn't mean we can't now fine tun to 95%. You can fine-tune both ways...

    Anyway, since Apolyton as a whole seems to be apathetic or against this, I'll step out of the debate. I suppose that means you win, sir, though perhaps other teams will decide otherwise :)
     
  5. Magno_uy

    Magno_uy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    273

    Hi, Manolo will confirm. But what I understand.. A and B are in war each other.. A plays before B.
    Then C cames and want to declare war to A and B.

    If C declares war to A, before A plays.. then the secuence of war will be C-A-B. Then if C declares war to B, nothing changes.

    If C declares war to A after A plays, but before B plays , then the secuence of war will be A - (B and C). Ready this, B and C will be able to play at the same time.
    So, if C after that, declares war to B before B plays, finnaly the war line will be A-C-B
    but if he waits to B plays, then the war line wil be A-B-C

    If C declare war to A and B after A and B plays, then the war line will be A-B-C

    :crazyeye:

    when I said "plays" means , finnish turn
     
  6. Magno_uy

    Magno_uy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    273
    by the way.. there's are two important rules to take notice about the mod

    1. You can not leave the game without finishing the turn if you had declare a war in that turn. Or at least, you must tell the player you had declare war to, not enter the game till you get back and finish your turn.
    2. You can't declare war to a player that's online. And of course you can't stay online just to avoid someone declaring war on you.

    this to make sure that the war line is the correct one
     
  7. plako

    plako Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,009
    All teams that have sent me their contact info or granted me access to their private forums are soon getting their starting screenshot. I'm only lacking email info from Spanish Apolyton and CivFr. Please send your team email addresses to me. I have Manolo's address for Spanish apolyton so I did send it there.
     
  8. plako

    plako Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,009
    WePlayCiv email address provided to me didn't work. I've also tried to register an account there with name plako. I didn't get activaion email so, if someone can help me there, much appreciated.
     
  9. Lord Parkin

    Lord Parkin aka emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,374
    Location:
    New Zealand
    I've been playing (or attempting to play) in the test game with the mod on a team with 2 players, and there's a significant problem worth bringing up here.

    Put simply, the mod does not seem to translate well to games with more than one player per civ. Perpetually never ending the turn is the only way for teams at war to allow all their members to log in to check up on the game, which will lead to extremely slow turns. Not to mention make it incredibly difficult for third parties to declare war on nations already at war.
     
  10. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    However, I also pointed out previously that your proposed DM ruleset prohibits teams at war from logins on the wrong half of the turn, to prevent the appearance of a DM even if it's just to look around. This still makes it very problematic for the team on the 1st half, who will need to allow any members who want it an opportunity to look before ending turn.

    As I understand it, the mod can be set up to only log possible DM activity, while not preventing the login. If we went that route, with a clear understanding that movement in the wrong part of the turn is prohibited but other actions are not, then we could adopt my proposal of having 3 periods in the turn:

    Team A moves and does other actions
    Team B moves and does other actions
    Both team A and B can do post-movement actions

    This approach is independent of the parallel debate on what restrictions might be placed on actions. Using monitor-only mode on the website is no worse than restricted login mode for the LP rules proposal (which are more restrictive than the mod and require documenting everything anyway), and doesn't make a big difference for the Sommerswerd rules proposal either.

    Can we make a fairly quick decision on which website mode to use? And if using monitor only, let's consider if the 3-phase turn simplifies things.

    In an attempt at moving forward, I would also like to propose that teams vote on at least the non-DM portion of the rules. We can play at least until first contact without any danger of hitting any of the related issues, and more likely until first war. There is practically no difference in the bottom line non-DM effects of the rules between the versions. One is simpler than the other. As an experienced admin, I strongly recommend the simple version. The admin will know if something feels like an illegal unfair advantage, and at that point we are better off with a quick ruling than we are with a court case.

    Posting as myself, not to be construed as the CivFanatics position.
     
  11. HUSch

    HUSch Secret-monger

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Germany
    Then we should make this rule :
    It's prohibit to log in at the wrong time.

    And we need no mod!
     
  12. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,946
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Well, either of the rules proposed boil down to that. The question is, do we think it's a good idea to do all the documentation proposed by Lord Parkin? And do we like DaveShack's 3rd period of a turn for lookarounds?
     
  13. OT4E

    OT4E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    198
    We also consider pillaging resourses in the end of turn unfair advantage caused by switching to simulateneous turns. In the original turn by turn mode there is no such problem. Making a rule on this is a reasonable price for having fast game. There must be no exception for spies also. This is our official position. CivPlayers
     
  14. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Maybe our game admin should take over the role of calling the question on this? The game can theoretically move forward very soon if we can pass at least the portion of the rules not affecting double moves and related issues, since it should be aeons until it matters.
     
  15. ruff_hi

    ruff_hi Live 4ever! Or die trying

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    9,038
    Location:
    an Aussie in Boston
    RB is in the process of producing a first draft of a combined rule set (the original version plus CFC's). I should be able to post something that we can all get our teeth stuck into by 9pm (NYC time).

    Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.
     
  16. ruff_hi

    ruff_hi Live 4ever! Or die trying

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    9,038
    Location:
    an Aussie in Boston
    I'm back from seeing a movie. If you get the chance, see Moonrise Kingdom - a very strange but entertaining movie.

    Anyway, I'm posting here representing RB. I've volunteered to push forward the rule discussion as suggested by Sommerswerd (the game organizer) a few posts back. I will be covering all rules except the rules involving trying to make a simultaneous game into a sequential game.

    I've reread the rule set that was being discussed here prior to the game organizers' 'all prior rule sets are invalid' post. I've also reread the rule set that CFC posted. The following is intended to be a public discussion with the aim of combining these two rule sets (or highlighting the particular items that are in disagreement).

    I actually prefer the CFC layout of the rules ... clearer, better organized, etc ... so I am starting with that as the frame for the following. I am planning on posting a complete set of rules that draws on both sets (the previously discussed rule set and the CFC rule set) but I will also be throwing in some additions that I hope will bring some clarity to the situation. I'm also going to include some commentary so that people can see where I think the rules should be heading (and why).

    I really only thought that we should include a preamble in our rule set while I was walking my dog this afternoon (see other posts on benefits of owning a dog). As such, I haven't spent much (any?) time of drafting one. I think it should go something like this ...

    Someone help us out here and jump in with a draft. It should capture what we want to do (for example) :
    • win the game
    • demonstrate our civ4 ability
    • play against the best
    • rule lawyer everyone to death
    • stand victorious on the broken bones and crushed skulls of our opponents
    • etc
    ... how we want to do it and how we intend to play the game (or what ever else you think we need to include).
    Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :
    Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.
     
  17. ruff_hi

    ruff_hi Live 4ever! Or die trying

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    9,038
    Location:
    an Aussie in Boston
    The aim of this section is to provide a clear process for what should happen when an allegation of a rule infringement occurs. I don't think we can have a possible rule infringement settled by the teams (or a subset of the teams) that results in an automatic game reload. I think we all want to avoid a future heated discussion about 'that rule infringement was bad enough that you should have involved the game admin'.

    I've also stripped out all references to penalties, solutions, etc in the expectation that those items should / will be determined by the game admin.

    I play bridge at clubs and the bridge director is called for each and every action that breaks the rules, might break the rules, is a little shady, etc. It is a very good habit to get into and takes a lot of the heat out of a competitive game.

    Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :
    Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.
     
  18. ruff_hi

    ruff_hi Live 4ever! Or die trying

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    9,038
    Location:
    an Aussie in Boston
    I think that a), b) and e) are common to both and I have not adjusted them. I think that c) is a clearer description of the intent than the suggested version (I think the suggested version was also common to the two rule sets). d) is an attempt to give the team attacking another team that is receiving unit support from a 3rd team a chance to attack those units during their portion of the turn set.

    Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :
    Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.
     
  19. ruff_hi

    ruff_hi Live 4ever! Or die trying

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    9,038
    Location:
    an Aussie in Boston
    03. In Game Actions (sequential game items)

    Ok, I said I wasn't going to cover this ... and I won't (with rules). However, that won't stop me from pointing a few things out.

    All of the rules about this item are only required because we don't want to fight a war simultaneously - we want to fight it sequentially. The reasons are pretty clear (for example: people with faster connections / quicker fingers win and that doesn't reflect better civ ability). The mod we have voted to play under forces the two opponents into individual segments of the turn. It does nothing during non-war.

    DaveShack has suggested a three way split ...
    ... but that still leaves some pretty big holes open. I actually posted a 6 way split that does get a little ridiculous but I think it doesn't have any holes in it ...

    I am pretty sure that all of the above can actually be coded with a mixture of the DLL and Python.

    That said, I am also pretty sure that no one would actually want to go to the effort of having to play each turn 3 times.

    Another option is that we play a simultaneous pitboss game that is flipped to sequential pitboss game if someone declares war. Can that be done? And to overcome the issues of the pre-war turn ... if you want to declare war, you wait until everyone has played the turn, then announce that you are declaring war, the game is converted to a sequential pitboss game and everyone gets to play that turn again (with exactly the same moves). That last bit is unenforceable but we can trust people to execute it (can't we?).

    I'm not sure if I need the next bit as this is something that I could be argued is Ruff posting and not RB Ruff Rule Debater posting ... but oh well ...
    Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :
    Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.
     
  20. ruff_hi

    ruff_hi Live 4ever! Or die trying

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    9,038
    Location:
    an Aussie in Boston
    I think there was a lot of similar ground between the two rule sets here. I added some 'game pauses' items to provide some more direction regarding game pauses.
    Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :
    Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.
     

Share This Page