Rules Discussion

[plako]

See PB2 as to why this does not work. Its too nebulous to be useful. I mean we are already debating the rules to define what "fair play" is, do you really want to deal with defining "good faith?" I mean, we all know what that means but we don't know what each other thinks that means so relying on it can lead to ... messiness.

Basic problem seems to be that it isn't possible to write a short ruleset that wouldn't be exploitable when clever humans start to interpret it. You might be able to write good and hard to break ruleset, but it probably would be several pages long and I'm really not that intrested in using my time to write or even read and comprehend all the details of such a ruleset. I'm just saying what feels most fun to me. If there are players constantly playing unfairly I'm pretty certain they won't last long.

Furthermore this is just potentially minor unbalancing factor. Pitboss games won't never be perfect in respect of balance. Sometimes you get minor advantage in turn order and sometimes you get a big one when someone gifts you handful of cities or suicides his obsolete troops against yours and open up their cities for capture.

I'm surprised that thing that has worked in many other games played e.g. under CFC and tactical can't work here.

[Krill]

The problem isn't reallly the doublemove rule, the problem is fitting a double move rule around turn splits when there are a billion teams involved.

[plako]

The problem isn't reallly the doublemove rule, the problem is fitting a double move rule around turn splits when there are a billion teams involved.

Yet the number of alliances seem pretty limited unless there is something left out from the spoiler threads.

[sunrise089]

Yet the number of alliances seem pretty limited unless there is something left out from the spoiler threads.

India is in 15 alliances. We have two different double-secret alliances with Krill alone because they're so secret we both forgot and negotiated twice
_______

But seriously,

Yet again I suggest simple rule that has worked in most of my other games: "No double moves and when in doubt act in good faith". I also like games where you don't do any actions out of order including e.g. tile utilisation. I would even suggest that no one would log in out of order.

I notice this idea is popular with people that play games outside of RB, but IMHO the cure is way worse than the disease. Multiple logins are crucial for in-game (see other teams' moves, diplo messages) and out-of-game (teamates, taking screenshots) reasons. I think it's pretty clear that some of the higher quality threads across these games wouldn't exist if only one login was allowed.

[Kyan]

The 'all log in once only and play in a certain order' ruleset is already in effect. Isn't it called PBEM?

Apart from that, i generally agree with everything plako and Morgan say. The problem stems if one person makes a move that they deem fine, but someone else deems as being unsporting. The victim then makes an equally devious move justifying it using the previous action and this continues and spirals ad infinitum.

Kyan is getting civ depravation

[ad hoc]

Kyan is getting civ depravation

i hope you mean deprivation, depravation can get you in a lot of trouble

[Kyan]

i hope you mean deprivation, depravation can get you in a lot of trouble

Hahaha.


*cough* erm. No comment?

[Shoot the Moon]

I also like games where you don't do any actions out of order including e.g. tile utilisation. I would even suggest that no one would log in out of order.

I think the problem is that gives such a huge advantage to the player moving second that we'd only see an increase in the arguing as there is more at stake for getting second.

At least in my opinion, I think the simplest way for a 1v1 war is for the defender to chose: at the beginning of the turn the attacker must announce that they are declaring war. The defender then gets to choose a half, if they get double moved that is their fault. Obviously if the defender went last the turn before they could double move, but I think it would be up to the attacker to not declare in a way that gets them double moved (or they could if they don't think that double move will hurt them). (FYI, I don't think we should change the rules for this game as we did vote on attacker's choice, but I think for future ways that would be the easiest as it does not rely on secretly following a turn split or anything like that)

[Krill]

I like Cyneheards rule...we really need something changing in this game, just to try and decrease the time taken to sort out the messes caused by declaring war. Technically, having the attacker choose is what is causing all of the problems, ideally any rule would depend on what has happened previously in the last 2 turns, and not on choice. That means everyone can plan ahead a lot more easily, and the rule is less abusable.

[Cyneheard]

I wish the 12-hour pause didn't have to be there, but what I was trying to avoid was a situation where the One Right Move for declaring war in the 2nd half of the turn was to run the timer down to nothing. If you can, look at the recent war declaration that's requiring a reload because Spullla didn't let the timer run down to nothing before declaring. IMO, that's a problem, where the rules actually force players to be exploiting the start and end of the turn.