Pitboss etiquette

[pindicator]

One simple way is to draw a fixed turn order at the start as if it's a PBEM, then play simultaneously when it doesn't matter, and fall back to that order when it does.

I was going to propose this in the next game I played, with one addition: Whenever there is a dispute between two players, the turn order is used to conduct the turn; after resolution the player who came earlier in turn order is moved to the end of the turn order.

Could also move the earlier player to come just after the other player involved, or down X spots, but the idea is that you would rotate who would be earlier in turn order for these disputes and one party would not always be at advantage/disadvantage the whole game. It's based off the Reputation system in Libertalia, if anybody has played that before.

[Mjmd]

Proposal for new rule>

New Rule

After a war in which cities have been razed any cities settled by the person in 2nd half of former war in that area should be settled in 2nd half for five turns.

I wanted to allow a faster turn pace with this while allowing players to pivot to other wars if they wanted to easier (very common reason for peace is then to go bash someone else / defend from someone else).


Note, I've also posted a poll for change to rule #6 in general thread.

[Tarkeel]

I've been thinking about this thread for a while, and I think the following should fix what's the underliyng issue with for the turn order conflicts.

Do not double-move in a way that gives a lasting advantage.

This is very much in the spirit of the rules as written, to the point that I thought it was written. Personally I've been applying this to such things as making scouting contact and avoiding sentry nets. The "lasting advantage" is intentionally vauge and is modelled on the regulations for Formula 1, which should give the lurkers suffcient leeway on how to solve disputes.

My personal opinion is that if you double-move into a situation that requires a turn-split, then that would be a lasting advantage for which the remedy is that the turn-order for the first move should apply. This is how it's handled for explicit war declarations, and I think it should apply to situations where you're avoiding sentry nets, double-moving past units that could kill yours, or (dare I say it) discovering a settler race. For first contacts it's easily remedied by just stating where your unit was relative to the other player when you made contact.

[Mjmd]

So I think with sentry nets and double moving past units its easy because most of the time that is "known". I've also never had trouble asking people about where I've met there scout.

Part of the problem with settler races is they are often unknown or uncertain of timing of each party as well as "when is first set in stone". Sometimes its obvious, but far from always and its often messier. Player x moves first two turns, Player y the next turn, and then player x double moves into a settler race. Player x probably built that settler and started moving it while they were first in turn order, but before the double move player y was first. Should player y get first just because they were first the turn before the double move? What if Y was first for two turns? Where is the line; especially if its switched back and forth a bunch?

Other than the general confusion about "when is turn order established" the reason I have long been a proponent of coin flip is that it doesn't benefit people who have more time. While incentivizing people to play faster is preferred vs 2nd in war turn problem, I would still just prefer the removal of incentives where possible.