Penry

The 'no double move war rule' discussion thread

51 posts in this topic

If you are at war and have played your turn then post in the tracker when you have finished your turn!

 

If you see that PYT is down, and it is a (major) concern of yours then post in the tracker.

Share this post


Link to post
If you are at war and have played your turn then post in the tracker when you have finished your turn!

 

If you see that PYT is down, and it is a (major) concern of yours then post in the tracker.

 

:b:

Share this post


Link to post

If at war do as in a single player game. You may login and look around, change settings but not move units before your turn.

I hate more complicated rules.

Share this post


Link to post

Dont login when it is not your turn is the simplest by far rule :)

 

And changing settings can result in big change of the outcome. i.e. - changing research (get that Nationalism 1 turn earlier so you can draft 5 units the next turn and save your city. Or rearrange citizens working and get that spear 1 turn earlier and the next turn you are able to defend from the pesky pair of chariots who threaten it?

 

Or countless other examples I can give why one should not be allowed to touch anything when it is not his part of the turn. And if you are not going to touch anything, why would you want to login at all?

 

Simplest and most stupid-proof is just dont log in when it is not your part of the timer.

Share this post


Link to post
Dont login when it is not your turn is the simplest by far rule :)

 

And changing settings can result in big change of the outcome. i.e. - changing research (get that Nationalism 1 turn earlier so you can draft 5 units the next turn and save your city. Or rearrange citizens working and get that spear 1 turn earlier and the next turn you are able to defend from the pesky pair of chariots who threaten it?

 

.

What is wrong with that, both side can do it.

Share this post


Link to post

Wrong is that Civ is by nature a turn-based strategy and the simultaneous turns are somewhat compromise in attempt to make the game moves faster, because it does not matters much who moves first in peace time (of course there are still cases where this matters - like rushing for settling a spot - you can lose a spot by who logs in and plays first, or if trading technologies - you have sent trade offers to two teams and the one who logs in first gets the trade, and the second gets nothing and so on).

 

When war starts however, it becomes very important things to be done consequently (both moves and changing settings). Because otherwise advantage will be given to those who have more time to spend online (logging always after his opponent to check what he did and possibly try to counter it) or those who happens to be online at the right time (not being asleep or being at work, etc), and since playing Civ is mainly for fun, but also for rewarding skills, rather than free time, I think "in war loging only in your half of the timer" is the best way to go :)

Share this post


Link to post

As it has been quiet for a few days in this thread I will take the opportunity to ask my last (I hope) question.

 

Is it allowed, or considered good etiquette, to declare war in the following fashion:

 

Player A (or party) plays their turn and ends their turn.

Player B (or party) plays their turn and ends their turn.

 

Player A (or party) logs back in after the above and then declares war on Player B (or party).

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I don't think that this should be allowed and is poor form.

 

Some people can only spare a limited time to play the turn and in the above scenario Player B may not be able to log back into the game (even if they knew that they had been drawn into a war) to adjust for the declaration of war.

 

I think any declaration of war should be made during a players turn, before they hit end turn and finish their turn.

Share this post


Link to post

PBEM is much easier you know....................

Share this post


Link to post

...but slow, and has its own problems unless you trust the people you are gaming with. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
PBEM is much easier you know....................

 

If people played it like a PBEM, but using the Pitboss interface, then life would be a lot easier! :nod:

Share this post


Link to post
I agree that you shouldn't be allowed to log in 'just to look'. Avoids potential misunderstandings.

 

My vote is for:

 

Party A declares war on Party B. Party A therefore goes first and gets the first 12 hour turn-slot of a 24 hour turn timer. Party B gets the second 12 hour turn-slot.

 

If Party A does not play their turn within the first 12 hours, then they've missed their opportunity and Party B may log in an play. Likewise if Party B does not play in their timeslot, Party A can log in and play as soon as the next turn comes around.

 

Either party is entitled for an extension of the turn timer, to a maximum of 48 hours. Each party gets half the duration of the turn timer.

 

So pretty much what Rob has proposed, but for flexibility, I'd also suggest:

 

As soon as Party A hits end turn, Party B can log in and play their turn (even if it is in the first 12 hours). Party A cannot log in until the next turn, Party B cannot log in again until Party A has played. (This is just to keep up the pace of the game).

 

If Party A misses their turn-slot, but Party B has yet to log in an play in their turn-slot, then Party A may log in and play.

 

Cheers

 

I agree with andydog. :b:

Share this post


Link to post
Personally I don't think that this should be allowed and is poor form.

 

Some people can only spare a limited time to play the turn and in the above scenario Player B may not be able to log back into the game (even if they knew that they had been drawn into a war) to adjust for the declaration of war.

 

I think any declaration of war should be made during a players turn, before they hit end turn and finish their turn.

 

:b:

 

War should be declared during your turn, before you hit end turn.

Share this post


Link to post

DoW is an action, so it must be done in the declarer's turn.

 

The question of being or not allowed to log out of one own turn...is indeed a problem:

Transparency points to the NO that's clear.

But each team is composed by several individuals, obviously. And they are not in the same place. We have people in Europe, America and South Islands.

So, I guess the No rule will cause people never see the game. At least for me very annoying.

Share this post


Link to post

So, have we pissed on this enough???? So, what do I need to do, so that I'm not a duochbag(sp)??

Share this post


Link to post

I think we need to come up with a clear, concise ruling that we can all agree on and make sure that everyone who plays in games hosted here at WPC follows them.

 

I've started condensing everything said in this thread and will endeavour to get something up asap.....

 

'Pleasing' everyone will be tough, but if we are to grow as a MP community I think it is a necessary step.

Share this post


Link to post
So, what do I need to do, so that I'm not a duochbag(sp)??

 

Step 1 - don't be a douche.

Step 2 - See step 1. :D

 

Seriously though, it is a good idea to have a clear understanding of this. I know it would have helped to have a clearer understanding of what constitutes a NAP in some games too.

Share this post


Link to post

As an extension to the "don't be a douche" double moves rule during war I propose we add a peacetime 12-hour no-settle period if you and another player are heading to try to settle the same general area (and you both know it).

 

If you move after the other player in the turn order, then you need to wait 12 hours of the new turn before you settle to give the other player a chance to do so, in the same vein as war-time double moves.

Share this post


Link to post

It might do some good insofar as it might apply to situations in which the players involved didn't realize until the turn of settlement that they were even in a race. In situations where they do figure that out ahead of time, though, doesn't that simply move the RL/game-clock strategizing back a turn?

Share this post


Link to post
Quote:
In situations where they do figure that out ahead of time, though, doesn't that simply move the RL/game-clock strategizing back a turn?
Absolutely!

Share this post


Link to post
As an extension to the "don't be a douche" double moves rule during war I propose we add a peacetime 12-hour no-settle period if you and another player are heading to try to settle the same general area (and you both know it).

 

If you move after the other player in the turn order, then you need to wait 12 hours of the new turn before you settle to give the other player a chance to do so, in the same vein as war-time double moves.

 

There are no turn order ; unless you want to change it to a turn based game !

Share this post


Link to post

As I see it, the "no double move rules" want to prevent an advantage from the double move itself, which on turn wants to avoid the introduction of

a "shooter game" concept into the "strategy game".

 

In war one single double move can give a big advantage, like put our artillery in action, nullify enemy artillery, force combat, avoid combat; and all these

comes from the "double move" i.e. if the player instead played twice first place or twice last place said advantage would not be present.

 

IMHO a settlers race is a very diferent situation, the "double move" doesn't bring any advantage; the advantage comes from being the first to play.

So, there is no double move situation here and the "double move rule" is not aplicable here.

Of course it's possible to create ANOTHER rule about the "settlers race" while I do not think a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
As I see it, the "no double move rules" want to prevent an advantage from the double move itself, which on turn wants to avoid the introduction of

a "shooter game" concept into the "strategy game".

 

In war one single double move can give a big advantage, like put our artillery in action, nullify enemy artillery, force combat, avoid combat; and all these

comes from the "double move" i.e. if the player instead played twice first place or twice last place said advantage would not be present.

 

 

Very well said. But the main point is we have from where to start looking at the turn order - this is from the turn before the war is declared (this is to give the defender right to react to the moves of the attacker).

 

 

In war one single double move can give a big advantage, like put our artillery in action, nullify enemy artillery, force combat, avoid combat; and all these

comes from the "double move" i.e. if the player instead played twice first place or twice last place said advantage would not be present.

 

IMHO a settlers race is a very diferent situation, the "double move" doesn't bring any advantage; the advantage comes from being the first to play.

So, there is no double move situation here and the "double move rule" is not aplicable here.

Basically you are right, but there are still some specific detail to cover. For example, because of a "settler double-move race", the losing player will still have his settler well and alive, he will just lose the opportunity to control the city and the surrounding tiles with his culture. In the hotly disputed case between Sommerswerd and E_T, maybe E_T would have settled in a less good position the previous turn if he had saw that Sommers had landed settler too. E_T landed his settler after Sommers played, and after the turn switched E_T loged in to play before Sommers, thus havving the chance to still getting a city on Sommer's island, although not so ideal as he was hoping for. He decides to wait one more turn and to move one tile further to get the better position and he lost the chance to settle. It is still up to the one who logs in first to settle or not where he stands. It is not to the who "settler-double-moves".

 

Quote:
Of course it's possible to create ANOTHER rule about the "settlers race" while I do not think a good idea.
And we come to the main point. Settlers moves cant be regulated or at least I cant think of a fair and working way to do this. Maybe it is best what someone proposed: "If two parties feel they are in race about something and for them the turn order is important, as they suspect their opponents can take advantage of "double-moving" them, then they need to declare war, despite if they actually do fighting or not, the turn order between those two parties will be strict.

Share this post


Link to post
IMHO a settlers race is a very diferent situation, the "double move" doesn't bring any advantage; the advantage comes from being the first to play.

 

As 2metra says, very well said. :)

 

The only rule I can imagine that would make settler competition fairer is, literally, a coin flip. Otherwise, first to log in seems about as fair as anything else.

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now