The New BTS MTDG turn options

What turn option do you want?


  • Total voters
    19
What are the game settings? Plans are still being finalized – so join the conversation taking place right now! We know for sure that there will be 5 teams, it'll be a simultaneous-turn PitBoss game, played in Civ4 BtS, with a 24 hour turn timer.

I think that was a misprint, as this was the poll that decided what game settings we were going to play. :)
 
Arghh, sorry Krill, I'm not trying to cause a fuss or anything here, but I think there is still a valid point missing. Again, I could still be wrong, but I didn't see anything that really addressed what I was after. So, I'll lay out an example to show what I meant:

Two teams, A and B
1) Sequential turns

1) Team A moves an attack stack up to B's city . . .A---->A
2) B is surprised, reinforcements not there yet . . . . . . . A R'<--R
3) Team A attacks, doesn't take city . . . . . . . . . . . . . A R
4) Team B's units HAVE HEALED! Team B uses the units plus the fresh
reinforcements to overwhelm team A's force . . . . . . . . . B

2) Simultaneous turns

1a) Team A moves an attack stack up to B's city. . .A---->A
1b) B is surprised, reinforcements not there yet. . . . . . . . A R'<--R
2a) Team A attacks, doesn't take city . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A R
2b) Team B's units HAVE NOT HEALED! (Becuase it's still the same,
simultaneous turn!) Team B's reinforcements are not enough to overwhelm
team A's force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . A [B+R]
3a) Team A can promote, retreat/do whatever; B was not able to counterattack

I understand this might be a subtle point but I think it's real and something to consider; simultaneous turns do have an effect on combat even without double moves. Also, bringing in a third team could make things even more complicated (for instance, one team could be sandwiched in the middle; enemy 1 attacks, then its their turn, then enemy 2 attacks; it's nearly impossible for this team to do anything meaningful then!)

Edit: And Sulla's post is obviously the final word; I'm not trying to argue for changing settings and rules already decided on; happy to play anyway.
 
But simultanous pitboss still has the problem of not having enough time, as you still have a time limit to make your choice, pauses will happen in this game, no matter what type we play.

72 hour turn timer is probably a wise idea so everyone can weigh in with their opinions in the team fora, and that gives enough time for inter team diplomacy to take place. And leads to a quicker game for everyone = less people leaving because of inaction.


A pause will only be allowed if a major event happens and in most, if not all cases their will be a clear choice, whereas a potential rule broken could come down to intrepation of that rule.

And you are just providing a way to mitgate the problems with simultaneous pitboss.

Different teams will interpret events differently, leading to arguemnts over the usage of pauses, causing more infighting...

...and yeah, I'm trying to show that the only thing really necessary for simul turns is a (well defined) double move rule. At least if simul turns aren't used in this game then more people will consider using it in the next. Open peoples minds, that sort of thing.


But making it more complex will lead to more mistakes and potential stalling with the game, the less rules, which sequential pitboss gives, means it easier to understand what to do when playing a turn, more rules need to more misunderstanding.

The only rule that is needed for simul turns is the double move rule which can be defined to be very robust, and no rule for pauses are required. But a rule for pauses is required for sequential turns. I agree that a really complex set of rules can lead to more misunderstandings,which is why it would have to be well defined to also remove loopholes, but we would also have to make the pauses rule very robust so that we try to cut down on infighting.


1) Ok, pretty convincing lead.
2-3) It should only be amended if, people say so in that poll, not because you want it to be.

I agree, I don't want to annoy everyone and make everyone play "My Way". As stated above, I just want to explain to people why simul turns can be better than sequential, and why it is viable, and how it is quicker in the long run than sequential turns.
 
Arghh, sorry Krill, I'm not trying to cause a fuss or anything here, but I think there is still a valid point missing. Again, I could still be wrong, but I didn't see anything that really addressed what I was after. So, I'll lay out an example to show what I meant:

Two teams, A and B
1) Sequential turns

1) Team A moves an attack stack up to B's city . . . . . . .A---->A
2) B is surprised, reinforcements not there yet . . . . . . . A R'<--R
3) Team A attacks, doesn't take city . . . . . . . . . . . . . A R
4) Team B's units HAVE HEALED! Team B uses the units plus the fresh
reinforcements to overwhelm team A's force . . . . . . . . . B

1) Simultaneous turns

1a) Team A moves an attack stack up to B's city. . . . . . . A---->A
1b) B is surprised, reinforcements not there yet. . . . . . . . A R'<--R
2a) Team A attacks, doesn't take city . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A R
2b) Team B's units HAVE NOT HEALED! (Becuase it's still the same,
simultaneous turn!) Team B's reinforcements are not enough to overwhelm
team A's force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . A [B+R]
3a) Team A can promote, retreat/do whatever; B was not able to counterattack



Good scenario :b:

I'd get around it by saying that a team has to declare war atleast 24 hours before the end of the turn, so that the defending team can move the reinforcements. I know a few groups who play MP and make the attacker declare war at the start of the turn to give the defender time to prepare, this is just a similar sort of rule.


I understand this might be a subtle point but I think it's real and something to consider; simultaneous turns do have an effect on combat even without double moves. Also, bringing in a third team could make things even more complicated (for instance, one team could be sandwiched in the middle; enemy 1 attacks, then its their turn, then enemy 2 attacks; it's nearly impossible for this team to do anything meaningful then!)

I don't really see what this problem would be in simul turns. Could you elaborate it a bit for me?
 
However, while you can't move units after you have ended your turn in sequential pitboss, I was under the impression that you could promote units even though it was not your turn due to game mechanics. If I'm wrong, then you have a fair point, but if I'm right there is no issue between the game types.
You're correct, you can promote units even when it is not your turn, although there is obviously a delay after battles.

But simultanous pitboss still has the problem of not having enough time, as you still have a time limit to make your choice, pauses will happen in this game, no matter what type we play.
It's not simultaneous pitboss that might have the problem of not enough time, it's non-simultaneous pitboss. With simultaneous pitboss, each team gets up to 5 days to make their moves (perhaps slightly less in wartime when they have to wait for another team to move first). On the other hand, with non-simultaneous pitboss, each team always gets only 1 day to make their moves. Obviously in wartime this will not be enough, so my suspicion is that non-simultaneous pitboss will see far more pausing to gain time than simultaneous pitboss. ;)

With all due respect to those dissenting, a vote was taken and the decision finalized to use a sequential turn Pitboss format. At this point, it is not a setting that is open to debate. I'm sorry if some others wanted differently, but it's impossible to satisfy the desires of everyone in such a large endeavor. Please note that the sequential turns setting was specifically listed in the advertisement on the front page:

What are the game settings? Plans are still being finalized – so join the conversation taking place right now! We know for sure that there will be 5 teams, it'll be a simultaneous-turn PitBoss game, played in Civ4 BtS, with a 24 hour turn timer.

- Sullla
Heh. Just thought I'd make a copy of your quote, since after everything you said against it, you accidentally agreed with those of us pushing for simultaneous turns. Oops. :crazyeye: :lol:
 
Good scenario :b:

I'd get around it by saying that a team has to declare war atleast 24 hours before the end of the turn, so that the defending team can move the reinforcements. I know a few groups who play MP and make the attacker declare war at the start of the turn to give the defender time to prepare, this is just a similar sort of rule.
That is the kind of complex rule i am talking about that sequential pitboss wouldn't need to have, and someone could fall foul of, I am not expecting people to cheat and use the exploit but i am just making sure people don't fall foul of rules and simultanous pitboss to me has more pitfalls than sequential pitboss :)

Heh. Just thought I'd make a copy of your quote, since after everything you said against it, you accidentally agreed with those of us pushing for simultaneous turns. Oops

I do think that is a misprint, though if General W could confirm that would be good.
 
Umm...the part about the reinforcements isn't the main point but thanks for hearing me out anyway. The reinforcements aren't slow because the team doesn't have time to move them; just imagine the reinforcements came from further away and didn't have movement points. Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be the start of the war either; this could be in the middle of war (say, a troop landing from transports). The problem is that team B in the example still doesn't get a chance to heal. (Well, they do heal, just not when they would have in sequential game; they heal at the start of simulataneous turn 3). But it's true that simultaneous war would lead to really long turns/lots of pauses if you had, say, three teams going in order, rather than each having a sequential turn.

And now I just looked at Sulla's post again with a question: the quote from the main page advertisement, does, in fact, say 24-hr simultaneous turns?
Edit: Ninja'd by Lord Parkin; and actually I could even live with either option, so I appreciate the discussion you all had before.
 
Arghh, sorry Krill, I'm not trying to cause a fuss or anything here, but I think there is still a valid point missing. Again, I could still be wrong, but I didn't see anything that really addressed what I was after. So, I'll lay out an example to show what I meant:

Two teams, A and B
1) Sequential turns

1) Team A moves an attack stack up to B's city . . .A---->A
2) B is surprised, reinforcements not there yet . . . . . . . A R'<--R
3) Team A attacks, doesn't take city . . . . . . . . . . . . . A R
4) Team B's units HAVE HEALED! Team B uses the units plus the fresh
reinforcements to overwhelm team A's force . . . . . . . . . B

2) Simultaneous turns

1a) Team A moves an attack stack up to B's city. . .A---->A
1b) B is surprised, reinforcements not there yet. . . . . . . . A R'<--R
2a) Team A attacks, doesn't take city . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A R
2b) Team B's units HAVE NOT HEALED! (Becuase it's still the same,
simultaneous turn!) Team B's reinforcements are not enough to overwhelm
team A's force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . A [B+R]
3a) Team A can promote, retreat/do whatever; B was not able to counterattack

I understand this might be a subtle point but I think it's real and something to consider; simultaneous turns do have an effect on combat even without double moves. Also, bringing in a third team could make things even more complicated (for instance, one team could be sandwiched in the middle; enemy 1 attacks, then its their turn, then enemy 2 attacks; it's nearly impossible for this team to do anything meaningful then!)

Are you sure that healing works this way? I thought units healed at the start of the whole turn, not at the start of one player's turn. If that's the case, then healing for both simultaneous and sequential turns would be identical.
 
:rolleyes:

Looks like Ginger Ale's message on the front page included a typo. It clearly was supposed to state sequential turns, and not simultaneous. (Unless you also want to believe that the game intended 24 hour simultaneous turns?)

Can we please focus the discussion on the settings that HAVEN'T been decided yet? The setup will go on endlessly if the teams go back and re-open every issue just because someone doesn't agree.
 
...and there is a poll with the rule settings in it that has not yet finished voting on. This conversation is relevent to that vote.
 
:rolleyes:

Looks like Ginger Ale's message on the front page included a typo. It clearly was supposed to state sequential turns, and not simultaneous. (Unless you also want to believe that the game intended 24 hour simultaneous turns?)

Can we please focus the discussion on the settings that HAVEN'T been decided yet? The setup will go on endlessly if the teams go back and re-open every issue just because someone doesn't agree.

I actually copied General_W's message from the FAQ thread, so blame him. ;) But yes, we have enough to decide (map settings, team names, passwords, etc.) already, so let's keep it to a minimum.
 
That is the kind of complex rule i am talking about that sequential pitboss wouldn't need to have, and someone could fall foul of, I am not expecting people to cheat and use the exploit but i am just making sure people don't fall foul of rules and simultanous pitboss to me has more pitfalls than sequential pitboss :)

So you are saying it is worth it to spend an extra year on the game just because you don't like having rules?
 
So you are saying it is worth it to spend an extra year on the game just because you don't like having rules?

Whats wrong with an extra year, as long as we all enjoy the game?

And it's not because i don't like rules, it's because those rules can potential be broken easily, by mistake, i know i have done it and it's not nice, the consequences, despite being an honest mistake. Thats what i don't want extra complex rules and that to me simulatanous pitboss opens the possibilities for.
 
Whats wrong with an extra year, as long as we all enjoy the game?

And it's not because i don't like rules, it's because those rules can potential be broken easily, by mistake, i know i have done it and it's not nice, the consequences, despite being an honest mistake. Thats what i don't want extra complex rules and that to me simulatanous pitboss opens the possibilities for.

  1. 24 hours to play the save in = more stressful for turnplayer = turn player burns out. If a team has a turn player burns out and no one steps up to replace him because of the stress (seen this happen before) what would we do then?
  2. The extra year = longer between stuff happening = less to talk about each week/month = moreboring = more people leaving.
  3. Question (and this is applicable to future versions of civ that utilise pitboss): would you prefer it if the length of time that stopped double moves from happening was a changeable variable in the options screen when setting up a game? In MP it is currently 8 seconds, would you prefer it if it were changeable to say 36 hours for a pitboss game? (and this is meant for any simul turns game.)
 
1. 24 hours to play the save in = more stressful for turnplayer = turn player burns out. If a team has a turn player burns out and no one steps up to replace him because of the stress (seen this happen before) what would we do then?

As long as the turnplayer checks the forum on the day the save comes round he should be able to play, what stressful about that? As long as they inform their team mates of any absences then there shouldn't be a problem and again, the team can ask for the save to be paused if they can't play it for whatever reason
2. The extra year = longer between stuff happening = less to talk about each week/month = moreboring = more people leaving.

Well last time when it moved at a turn a week, (roughly) people took part in good numbers, it was when the email wasn't past round that caused people to leave.


Also can i make a note that the last game was a PBEM, and the format worked well, except for the fact a team could not deliver save and the play stopped, the point of doing sequencial pitboss was to stop this.
 
As long as the turnplayer checks the forum on the day the save comes round he should be able to play, what stressful about that? As long as they inform their team mates of any absences then there shouldn't be a problem and again, the team can ask for the save to be paused if they can't play it for whatever reason


Well last time when it moved at a turn a week, (roughly) people took part in good numbers, it was when the email wasn't past round that caused people to leave.


Also can i make a note that the last game was a PBEM, and the format worked well, except for the fact a team could not deliver save and the play stopped, the point of doing sequencial pitboss was to stop this.

Your first and third points are contradictory though; if you can't play the game the turn can be paused, possible pissing off other teams, but we are playing sequential pitboss to stop teams from slowing the caourse of play by not playing the save. Surely you see the, well, idiocy of such a scenario?
 
Your first and third points are contradictory though; if you can't play the game the turn can be paused, possible pissing off other teams, but we are playing sequential pitboss to stop teams from slowing the caourse of play by not playing the save. Surely you see the, well, idiocy of such a scenario?

No their not, the pauses are there for actual reasons to stop the save, the sequential pitboss is intended to stop teams who are not playing the save from stopping the whole game.

And can you stop treating me as a child please. :)
 
No their not, the pauses are there for actual reasons to stop the save, the sequential pitboss is intended to stop teams who are not playing the save from stopping the whole game.

the team can ask for the save to be paused if they can't play it for whatever reason

A pause will only be allowed if a major event happens and in most, if not all cases their will be a clear choice,

You aren't being contradictory? :rolleyes:


And can you stop treating me as a child please. :)

This is how everyone gets talked through points they don't understand but ought to. If you continue not understanding I may have to start using even more basic terminology.
 
Personally, I find it significantly more stressful to worry about if I'm double moving by accident than if I'm under time constraints to get a turn finished, especially since I can pretty much guarantee I can spare 10-20 minutes at some point during the day to play a turn.
 
You aren't being contradictory? :rolleyes:

No, maybe a bit unclear.

The pauses are for actual reasons for the save to be stopped, the sequential pitboss is to stop the save not being moved by a team for no reason


This is how everyone gets talked through points they don't understand but ought to. If you continue not understanding I may have to start using even more basic terminology.

Well done, you just proved my point
 
Top Bottom