Defining a full double move ruleset?

[novice]

I agree that this is a good draft. Let's see how it works in RBPB2.

The bit about declaration of war is either a bit unclear or maybe not thoroughly thought through. (try typing that ten times fast. Yay, alliteration!)

I foresee a situation where Civ X wants to declare war on Civ Y, both civs are aware of the situation, and both teams wait until the very end of the timer to do their moves. Eventually Civ X has to declare war with 2 minutes remaining, has to move all their units in 1 minute, and then Civ Y can do their moves to claim the second half of the (subsequent) turns.

Even better, Civ Y can do most moves earlier in the turn, but leave one unit unmoved and move this in the final minute of the turn. So in effect, the defender can always claim the second half of the turn if he is aware of the situation. Not sure if that is the intention behind the rule, and regardless, it might make sense to modify the rules in such a way that this "race situation" doesn't occur.

[Cyneheard]

Also, anything about settling races? Or should we just keep the "12 hours" rule for neutral-territory settlers except for the initial one?

[Krill]

I foresee a situation where Civ X wants to declare war on Civ Y, both civs are aware of the situation, and both teams wait until the very end of the timer to do their moves. Eventually Civ X has to declare war with 2 minutes remaining, has to move all their units in 1 minute, and then Civ Y can do their moves to claim the second half of the (subsequent) turns.

Even better, Civ Y can do most moves earlier in the turn, but leave one unit unmoved and move this in the final minute of the turn. So in effect, the defender can always claim the second half of the turn if he is aware of the situation. Not sure if that is the intention behind the rule, and regardless, it might make sense to modify the rules in such a way that this "race situation" doesn't occur.

I have thought of that, the problem is my brain is about to melt.

However, the second paragraph doesn't actually turn out that way.

Also, new edit in.

[novice]

Yeah, my brain is having trouble, too. It's easier to point out problems than find solutions.

Let me just say that I think the rule works fine as it is and ultimately race conditions such as this are the players' problem. Each player will just have to decide how dedicated they are to securing that SWP.

One option to avoid the timer being run down every turn and keep the game moving is to just have a public list where players state what their preferred war phase as a defender is. As long as they play their turn in that phase (while at peace), the agressor MUST declare war in the opposite war phase and choose that war phase. Players that are at war are locked into their war phase so "piler-ons" must choose the opposite war phase (as the existing rule already states).

If two civs that are at war with different opponents are locked into the same war phase, and want to declare war on each other, that is one of those situations that the game admin (or the extended, 1v1v1 version, of this rule) will have to handle.

[novice]

[Even better, Civ Y can do most moves earlier in the turn, but leave one unit unmoved and move this in the final minute of the turn. So in effect, the defender can always claim the second half of the turn if he is aware of the situation.]

I have thought of that, the problem is my brain is about to melt.

However, the second paragraph doesn't actually turn out that way.

*Turning up the heat*
Why not?

[Krill]

Yeah, my brain is having trouble, too. It's easier to point out problems than find solutions.

Let me just say that I think the rule works fine as it is and ultimately race conditions such as this are the players' problem. Each player will just have to decide how dedicated they are to securing that SWP.

Yeah, problems definitely need pointing out. It's easier to fix problems that are known than improve something when you don't know where to start.

One option to avoid the timer being run down every turn and keep the game moving is to just have a public list where players state what their preferred war phase as a defender is. As long as they play their turn in that phase (while at peace), the aggressor MUST declare war in the opposite war phase and choose that war phase. Players that are at war are locked into their war phase so "piler-ons" must choose the opposite war phase (as the existing rule already states).

The aim of this rule is to give the declared upon the chance to immediately grab either slot, unless the declarer wants the SWP. In this rule set, I don't see much advantage to having the SWP; I'd much rather have the FWP. I don't really see the need to do anything via an out of game mechanism, but the option is written in: if the 2 parties can come to an agreement on the turn splits out of game, then follow the out of game agreement. If they can't, then follow this rule.

If two civs that are at war with different opponents are locked into the same war phase, and want to declare war on each other, that is one of those situations that the game admin (or the extended, 1v1v1 version, of this rule) will have to handle.

Yes. This rule is designed for anything that resolves down to a 1v1, or a series of 1v1 wars. the moment a real 1v1v1 occurs the game admin has to either alter the rule, or extend the turn timer, or just do somethind to solve hte problem.

[Krill]

[Even better, Civ Y can do most moves earlier in the turn, but leave one unit unmoved and move this in the final minute of the turn. So in effect, the defender can always claim the second half of the turn if he is aware of the situation.]

*Turning up the heat*
Why not?

Go re-read. I just added a kludge I was thinking about. Basically the attacker can always take the SWP this way.

There isn't anyway to keep both parties happy if they both want one part of the turn.

[novice]

Good point that the defender doesn't necessarily want the SWP.

However, if the defender wants the FWP they can just preemptively declare war, so the defender can always choose the war phase they want. That's why I thought one might as well formalize that as a rule. Or not.

[Krill]

Good point that the defender doesn't necessarily want the SWP.

However, if the defender wants the FWP they can just preemptively declare war, so the defender can always choose the war phase they want. That's why I thought one might as well formalize that as a rule. Or not.

Yup, the defender can always pre-emptively declare war. Pre-emptively declare war, and the "attacker" doesn't move anything relevant to the war. Then the defender automatically gets the SWP, because they made the last move. I think. Anyone got an ice pack for my brain yet?

[shadyforce]

Joint attacks

If two players want to attack a single target i.e. a city belonging to a third party, Civ C, then they must move sequentially. ie Civ A attacks with all of its' units, and then Civ B attacks with all of its' units during the phase of the turn belonging to them. Civ C must wait until the phase of the turn belonging to it before it may counter attack or promote any units etc as proscribed above.

I completely disagree with this. Why should 2 teams attacking with a combined army be provented from using all units at their disposal in the most efficient manner?

I've read posts earlier in this thread asserting it is a good idea but I have absolutely no idea why.