Defining a full double move ruleset?

[Swiss Pauli]

Why should we stop dogpiles from being a powerful tool? Attacking is already bloody hard. And when you''re in a 2 vs 1 situation and you are the one, you're meant to be in a shit situation.

so we need this rule to stop dogpile attacks becoming overpowered as a side effect of a rule - turn split into 'attacking' and 'defending' halves - that is designed to keep the game flowing.

I think you misunderstood me: my main point was that Krill was trying to keep to the spirit of the non-coordinated dogpile attacks when drafting the new turn-split proposals. If we want to allow coordinated attacks, then we should make that explicit in the rules, not implicitly from giving the attackers & defenders half of the turn each.

[sooooo]

My take on it is that that's what happens in other versions of civ, and I'd like to think that a double move rule is designed to allow a turn based game fit into a sumultaneous timing system without changing the balance of the game. In single player if you are playing 2 AIs then they fight sequentially. In PBEM your opponents fight sequentially. I think it balances attack vs defence nicely.

(please no "But multiplayer is different to single player")

[sooooo]

FWIW I like Krill's draft.

[Krill]

If we wanted true simultanious turns, we wouldn't have a double move rule. The attacking team is restricted to making all its moves in their half of the timer just as the defending team is. But the defender isn't forced to burn half his stack before using the other half of his siege. And it's not a similar restriction that the defender has, it's a completely different restriction.

The defender is, if there is a second civ helping the defence. sunrise + lins + Broker is a good example of that.

Ultimately, if the turn timer is kept at 24 hours, then the FWP/SWP are worth 12 hours. To interleave the attacks both players need to be present. Allowing parties to interleave the attacks doesn't benefit anyone except those that get lucky and can both be present at the same time, which effectively forces 2 players to be in the same timezone. No way could I do that with someone on San Francisco for example. By banning the interleaving, it allows anybody to work together and not get screwed over by forcing them to be present at an unreasonable time.

This rule was also designed to not benefit players working on large multinational teams just because they are large multinational teams. And as said, there are easy work arounds that mean two players can work together closely, such as gifting. because of that, I don't see the advantage to the community to allow interleaving.

[shadyforce]

Ok, thanks guys, I'm starting to understand the intention behind this rule. I am still completely against it though. But if I'm out-voted in a game I'm involved in then so be it.

Edit: That's this particular clause I'm against. The rule-set as a whole looks good. Good work Krill.