Yeah, but it allows the defending team to at least have their resource half the time. Without it the defending team can have their resource none of the time if the attacker is determined enough.
I also move that it be included and be instituted for nations not at war, as you don't need an official war to do sabotage missions iirc.
My philosophy has always been to reduce the ruleset to that which can be enforced.
In the sabotage case, you don't really know who it was. What if more than one team has targeted the resource? False accusations would be bad. I could see certain teams tossing a spy out just to get another team blamed.
In the bombardment case, it is possible you're not running high EE, and might not have visibility to whether it's been connected. You dedicate a bomber and hit it every single turn.
I wrote a super long response to these posts that mercifully got eaten by a "windows explorer can't find webpage so I will summarize rather than rewriting.
Note: I'm taking over for OzzyKP on this ruleset thing for Apolyton (for now).
I find it a bit odd that the guy likely to run the only espionage economy now wants to remove the rule that banned bombarding/sabotaging improvements such that a civ could never get the resource...
I don't see why that rule needed to go for the sake of, let's say, "simplicity"
Basically, I want Parkin's bombardment/sabotage rule reinstated, but otherwise we at Apolyton don't see any issues right now.
Well, seeing as no one's going to be bombarding until the late game, it's not really a part of the equation for the most part, therefore altering it from Lord Parkin's ruleset solely serves to allow someone to abuse this mechanic. Someone with an espionage approach, say...
In general all spy missions and detection probabilities factor in the total ESP ratio as a major component. Someone running an ESP economy has a massive advantage there over everyone, and you have to be playing totally coy to not recognize that since I know you know these mechanics better than most (ask Sommers if you don't).
Basically, if you have spent in the total game, say 15,000 ESP while the other guy has spent 500, you've got almost no chance of being detected while he is going to be lucky as hell to get a spy past you.
So, MR ESP ECONOMY is almost invulnerable to sabotage missions, while everyone else is almost helpless against him. Same goes for any old mission.
So, yeah, the cost is the same for all (actually, I think this also is highly affected by total ESP ratio), but the odds of succeeding -or hell just getting a spy onto the tile- are vastly different.
Yeah, but it allows the defending team to at least have their resource half the time. Without it the defending team can have their resource none of the time if the attacker is determined enough.
I also move that it be included and be instituted for nations not at war, as you don't need an official war to do sabotage missions iirc.
1. These posts generally announce the presumption that "CFC is running an Espionage Economy" as well as imply that Sommerswerd is nefariously trying to manipulate the rules to favor the Espionage Economy that you are presuming we will run. I can say alot of things about other teams' strategies that seem "obvious" to me based on their leader, traits, UU's UB's, players on the team etc, but I think that starting a public discussion about what strategies I anticipate another team will use goes against the "no diplo before contact in-game" principle that we generally play by.
2. As far as the "Sommers is nefarious" stuff... I need to know whether that is Team Apolyton's opinion or DNK's editorial before responding (because if its editorial, I'll use PM).
3. There are Second move advantages and First move advantages. The destroy improvement at-the-end-of-the-turn is a Second move advantage not an EE advantage. No amount of EE points will save you from getting your resource blockaded, pillaged, bombarded, culture-bombed, or sabotaged at the end of the turn if you are First move. Destroying improvements at the end of a turn is Second move advantage. Taking it away nerfs the advantage of Second move.
So now you have disadvantaged Second move, but what about First moves' advantages? Just to name a couple, First move can run espionage missions in the window between when Second move's Counter-espy ends (at the end of the turn) and when Second move can't move at the beginning of the turn (during First move's part of the turn). Another advantage First move has is being able to heal-promote, and then attack Second move's wounded, but promotion-eligible units before they can heal-promote. How do we craft a rule to address that?
The answer is we don't. We just let First/Second move advantages be what they are and let them be strategic considerations when making war.
4. Making rules that take away Second move advantage while leaving First move advantage in place as part of some attempt to stamp out any possible advantage that the EE that we assume Sommers will run, could possibly have, is not the correct approach to making the rules. Why make rules that are by your own admission targeted at weakening EEs but not make any rules targeted at weakening CEs, SEs, WEs or SSEs?
It doesn't matter what CFC's strategy will be, it has no bearing on the rules. The rules should be fair for everyone regardless of chosen strategies, or the nefariousness or non-nefariousness of certain players . So as far as guesses about individual or team motivations for rule changes, DNK does not speak for Team Apolyton.
He is, however, empowered to speak on our behalf regarding the rules. His concerns about the rules are valid and stand alone.
Yeah guys, let's keep it civil, without the half-hidden low stabs in anyones (dis)favor. Please.
I firmly believe that the ruleset was and maybe still is too detailed. As one of our team members (he writes quite good English) put it: I'm staying out of this cause I don't understand one bit.
Problem is, if you start by detailing one rule on a level like we're touching on here, you probably need a whole set of rules of the same level of detail - just to make the game balanced for different tactical approaches. In the end all you have is a nerfed game.
This was my problem with the Settler rule too: incredibly hard to enforce, everyone and noone is entitled to unclaimed land, and if "first 12 hours" moves is OK it just becomes more of a clock game. Paradoxical in a way, and a recipe for disaster if you start applying that same logic to workers and other units. It just gets silly.
Example of reasonable logic trailing off into silliness: Wouldn't saying "no military units are allowed to be killed the same turn they are built" be of the same logic as the improvement rule, just applied to a different game mechanic?
Questions like that would be nice to avoid, imho..
I know that some in my team has gone the EE route before, and the discourse is here is less than amicable at times (sadly. It's a game, remeber that), but if we can all try and be a little objective when discussing an objective ruleset, that would be awesome. The rules are there for everyone, as well as the option to choose different tactics.
I have no idea what kind of game the rest of you apply or prefer. But to be subjective when writing rules that govern tactics is a slippery slope. The DM problem at when at war is a serious one - we're playing CIV not C&C - but nerfing game mechanics that are not bugs nor exploits? Personally I don't see the point.
Thanks Ozzy that was clear I'll PM then about the personal stuff and just address the practical stuff. So since you say DNK is speaking for Apolyton about the rules, I want to say that it can't be a proper use of the rules to target or nerf the play of an individual person right? Can I say "Well I know Ozzy loves him some CE, so let's have a rule that specifically targets CE, because I know that that is what Ozzy is going to run?" WTF We can use the rules to target/nerf specific people?!?
More arguments supporting the idea that your shouldn't be able to make rules to nerf an individual:
Spoiler:
Now don't get me wrong, I am flattered that somebody would think that I am soooo super good at this game that we need to make rules that are specifically intended to handicap me and me alone but... d@mn! Is that what the rules are for?
I mean... you (you meaning DNK representing ACS) said that we need a rule restricting espionage missions and that my failure to ban them was because I am... quote
So this rule is targeted at "the ONLY guy who is going to run an EE", obviously meaning Sommerswerd. I say it MUST be targeted in that way, because when we left the rule out of the CFC ruleset, you did not think of it in terms of First move advantage vs. Second move advantage... you jumped straight to agruing that the rule is a necesary nerf on EE. That means that on its face, the rule appears to be a nerf on EE. This is underscored by the concern you later expressed that:
That's not true BTW, but even if it was, So what? So we make rules designed to nerf EE because we want to pre-emptively nerf "Mr EE" (AKA Sommerswerd)?
Better yet, forget Sommerswerd... Why should we be able to make a rule that is specifically targeted at nerfing espionge or Espionage Economies? You said (again , you meaning DNK representing ACS)
Well, seeing as no one's going to be bombarding until the late game, it's not really a part of the equation for the most part
So right there, you admit that you really don't even care about the bombarding, its all about Espionage for you. "We MUST have this rule to nerf that d@mned espionage!" Why? What is the justification for nerfing ONLY espionage?
If you think you know what another guys strategy is, then great, plan and play accordingly. I don't think we should change the rules to pre-emptively nerf what we THINK someone's strategy is, right?
BTW, the point still remains that its unfair to make rules to nerf Second move without a ruleset to nerf First move as well...
We also nerfed nukes, Sommers. We also considered nerfing espionage and other such tactics. There's nothing wrong with nerfing things ahead of time if many people think them to be "broken". I for one think this to be broken, that a nation not at war can perpetually prevent another nation from using a vital resource - it's not a first/second move issue there. It's not just your team that benefits from this potentially, of course, but it is likely just your team that will benefit far more than any other, which forces me to question the specific removal of this limitation on the game.
Obviously, Sommers isn't the only one making decisions for his team, so obviously I cannot target him individually for his team's expected behavior unless he were to somehow single-handedly be running the show for a team of, what is it, 30 people? I will let others consider the validity of this tangent...
Maybe I wouldn't talk so much about Sommers if Sommers wasn't the one spending so much time defending this and attacking that and proposing this and altering that in these threads... Nothing personal, and if I think you're "nefarious" it's only in the best of ways
The point still remains that its unfair to make rules to nerf Second move without a ruleset to nerf First move as well... Whether you can see that issue or if you are so focused on your desire to nerf espionage, that you just can't see anything else, I dont have any control over, but to those who can see the issue, the point remains.
Just curious, Sommer, have you ever played an industrial/modern game where you're perpetually denied Oil? Nothing even slightly compares in power to that "tactic". It's not a matter of "nerfing the second move", it's a matter of not making the endgame a complete joke.
Personally I've never played a game starting in modern/industrial era, but I do remember one game where blockading, bombing and all espionage missions were enabled and yet you were unable to deny Oil to an opponent until you started cheating with double- moving which actually lead to the game to collapse from players quitting out of frustration. I would be way more afraid of such a case, rather than some abuse of hypothetical overpowered, but fair game mechanics
EDIT: Another thing... Now, all of a sudden 'perpetual denial of Oil' is the MOST POWERFUL TACTIC IN THE WORLD!... Nothing can compare to its Powaaaah!...
Are you serious?
Last week CSM was the MOST POWERFUL TACTIC IN THE WORLD!... Nothing can compare to its Powaaaah!
Every week you are claiming something new is so super powerful
It's not just your team that benefits from this potentially, of course, but it is likely just your team that will benefit far more than any other, which forces me to question the specific removal of this limitation on the game.
I disagree with this strongly. I don't think any one team serves to benefit from this more than others. You don't know what our plans with the economy are, as much as you'd like to speculate. You don't know what other teams are planning for their economies. Even if there were only a handful of espionage economies in the game, any economic model will allow you to build sufficient spies to attack resources if you so choose. On top of that the same concepts apply to bombardment, which I would argue is even easier to use, and is accessible by all during this critical late game period that LP has brought up.
Also, for any team to benefit from this rule, they need to control which side of the turn timer they enter a war on. If someone else declares war on you, or if you need to join a war with a turn order already established, you're out of luck. No team is smart enough to know which side of the turn timer they will be on at this point.
I think it's strange that you're questioning "the specific removal of this limitation" when no such limitation exists in the base game. The change to the game is the inclusion of this rule. Why aren't you questioning the person/team proposing the rule in the first place and their motivations? Doesn't it seem strange that a rule, which you believe nerfs espionage is coming from LP and RB, a person and team not at all happy with the results of the espionage vote? Isn't that a little nefarious?
I think the best argument against this rule, is one that hasn't gotten much debate. Daveshack makes a great point about this rule being un-enforceable. You can't know who is attacking your resources with spies on any given attempt. Equally important, in certain circumstances it may not be possible for a team to know that they are violating this rule, depending on if they've had viability to the tile to know when the defending team fixed the improvement, and if other teams have been attacking it. A rule like this seems like it would lead to a massive number of false accusations, mistakes, and delays for admin decisions, which then would be very difficult to give a correct ruling on.
No such limitation on espionage exists the base game. It can't be a removal of a limitation if said limitation does not exist. And the designers put it there for a reason.
Perpetually banning options used by other playstyles limits gameplay options. Everyone playing with exactly the same strategy does not lead to maximum enjoyment.
Side comments seem to indicate it's directed specifically at us, because you fear our espionage economy, which we may not be running, and which you also have the opportunity to run - except you've somehow (it seems) banned it in your minds. Simply because you do not play that way should not mean that no one should be permitted to.
Oh, and also, all espionage missions do scale with empire size, albeit indirectly. Simply put, large empires tend to and are able to produce more espionage points, which in turn makes it more expensive to conduct missions against them.
And just for good measure, it's impossible to enforce/too easy to break accidentally.
BTW, we're still unhappy about nukes being banned.
Map is pretty much ready. After WPC has made the final pick I could place the correct leaders and nations in. If you think it doesn't disrupt the rules discussion, I could also send the screenshots of your starting areas. I just need team email addresses.
Last point, leader choices were made expecting the rules to be a rough amalgamation of the proposed rulesets. Espionage was expected to be on, maybe CSM banned. Changing the rules to a hidden version that was, up to mow, only in your own private forums/heads damages other teams by making their choices potentially suboptimal while leaving your own team unscathed. Seems a tad underhanded. Or "nefarious", if you prefer.
Map is pretty much ready. After WPC has made the final pick I could place the correct leaders and nations in. If you think it doesn't disrupt the rules discussion, I could also send the screenshots of your starting areas. I just need team email addresses.
On perpetual denial, what is the cost of sending a never ending stream of spies to a fixed location? If a team is doing that, they are not spending those resources on other builds. Also it's not guaranteed, as spies can be stumbled upon, counter espionage missions can be run, and the defensive espionage buildings can be built, etc. So in practical terms, it would seem to me that this is more likely to be a theoretical problem than real.
But my real point, as finally recognized by at least one person, is that the rule is fundamentally unenforceable. At best the target has a suspicion. And the rule can be exploited by a 3rd party to cast suspicion on the 2nd party and possibly provoke a punishment for the innocent. As an experienced game admin / sometimes player, I abhor rules which can't be enforced.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
so I will summarize rather than rewriting.
. So as far as guesses about individual or team motivations for rule changes, DNK does not speak for Team Apolyton.
I'll PM then about the personal stuff and just address the practical stuff. So since you say DNK is speaking for Apolyton about the rules, I want to say that it can't be a proper use of the rules to target or nerf the play of an individual person right? Can I say "Well I know Ozzy loves him some CE, so let's have a rule that specifically targets CE, because I know that that is what Ozzy is going to run?" WTF
We can use the rules to target/nerf specific people?!?
...
Are you serious?
the rule is an interesting idea (though I am against it), but impossible to implement. Let's leave it be.
