New Pitboss Ruleset Proposal

[Twinkletoes89]

I do like the look of these improved rules at first glance and I am sure they will still look good after further scrutiny.

I do think a solid set of rules is essential for Pitboss should the players choose to use them. It means that people are not excluded from playing because they can only play for an hour a day and are against players (like myself) who can play at many times of the day and so have a greater chance to exploit double-moving if we shredded all the rules.

Good Job Sullla

[dazedroyalty]

I do like the look of these improved rules at first glance and I am sure they will still look good after further scrutiny.

I do think a solid set of rules is essential for Pitboss should the players choose to use them. It means that people are not excluded from playing because they can only play for an hour a day and are against players (like myself) who can play at many times of the day and so have a greater chance to exploit double-moving if we shredded all the rules.

Good Job Sullla

The conflict seems to be between players who have enough time and players who don't. It seems we need a good rule set for those who want to play PB but only can log in once a day, but that's not to say we couldn't run a game that doesn't have rules as well for those who are more available and/or those who aren't concerned about double moves.

In terms of rules, I think this is the best set yet simply because it is the simplest. I'm not experienced enough to find loopholes or suggest major changes, but I like that the idea that the entirety of the rules can be contained in such a small space.

[plako]

Someone asked about how things are handled elsewhere. There are rulesets around, but as far as I know they are not ambitious as the ones presented here and the ones presented by Krill. I think main reason for this is that the games also play differently and are not that competitive e.g. Players usually log in once per turn and normal player don't care that much about acting last/first. Naturally there are players who try to take the benefits of playing last in the turn when attacking, but RB games are onlyt ones where I've seen that defenders purposefully delay playing their turn to make life of the attacker harder.

I haven't thought all cases using this ruleset, but I see at least potential problem. if defender plays the turn before declaration early attacker's only choice to act 1st on war declaration is to double move.

[Nakor]

Looks like a good ruleset, Sullla!
Don't know about the city gifting, you can easily talk your way out of that, though... guess it all comes down to good sportmanship.

[sunrise089]

Sullla, RBP1 featured player bargaining all the time, and there were fewer disagreements there than in RBP2 and RBP3. Krill's attack on Lin - voluntary turn split, coalition attack on Exploit - voluntary split, and I believe there were others.

Let's not understate just how big of a deal enforced turn splits are, plus how big of an edge these new rules give the defender. People say all the time that we need to protect players who have limited time to play...but enforced turn splits and giving the defender the second half all of the time does the opposite - it forces peaceful players to always play in that second half of the turn to make sure they can react. And think about the wars across the RBP series, successful and unsuccessful:

*RBP1 - Rome vs Zulu
*RBP1 - Inca vs Sumeria
*RBP1 - Mali+Persia vs Carthage
*RBP1 - Coalition vs Inca
*RBP2 - Rome vs Korea
*RBP2 - COW vs India
*RBP2 - India vs Greece
*RBP2 - Ottomans+Rome vs Inca+Korea
*RBP2 - India vs Ottomans
*RBP2 - India+Mali vs HRE
*RBP3 - Inca vs Aztec
*RBP3 - India+Ottomans vs Carthage+Egypt+England
...
I've not even listed all of them, but the attacker by no means always won - in at least five of the above the initial attacker, despite choosing to attack (and therefore probably in the stronger position) lost. When the attacker was victorious, they very often moved in at the last second. Just to use two attacks I'm familiar with, the Sumeria+India+Spain attack on Inca in RBP1 and the India attack on Greece in RBP2 both involved last-second stack movements to try and catch the defender off balance. Those horse archer forks or other 2-move tactical plays get a lot weaker when the defender always sees them coming. Plus as was said above, if the tide terms the former defenders have a big edge (and a big reason never to sign peace, keeping the annoying turn split going) because they can move in last second, but they don't need to as the former-attacker can't slave.

Now don't get me wrong - I like this ruleset as rulesets go, but I'd still much rather handle player issues as they come up through bargaining.

Really though, both sides can get along peacefully - if CiV isn't fun and we start two pitboss games, it's fine to have one "no rules" and one with this ruleset.

[sooooo]

It looks simple, and simple is good.

When I read new pitboss rulesets, I try to pick holes in them (sorry!). Here's my attempt:

The rules favour the second placed team. This is because any slaved units appear for the 2nd team when that team hits enter (well, before the 1st team can move at least). Units slaved by the first team will not arrive until that team's next turn, after the 2nd team has moved.

This means that it's best to get declared on rather than declare war on someone else. So what I'd do is get a third party to declare war on me. That puts me in the second half of the turn. Then I'd declare war on my targetted team. Since the third party and my target would be on the same side of the war, I'd keep the second half of the turn (remember, the better half) and my target, teaming with the third party, would take the first half. Then I'd declare peace with the third party (whom I had of course bribed ).

In general though, I quite like the rules.

[Sullla]

Well naturally these are just suggestions, every game would have to pick whatever rules (if any) the players want to use. There's no need at all for a team game like the proposed Fall From Heaven one; the rules are intended for a free-for-all situation.

The problem I see with the sunrise/darrelljs "we don't need any rules, we'll make it up as we go along" approach is this: under a Pitboss format, there are indeed advantages to be gained from clock manipulation. By timing your logins and war declarations, the attacker can achieve a real sucker punch on the defender. And unlike an online game, the defender cannot be logged into the game 100% of the time, so they can't respond fairly.

That leads to further clock manipulation: not ending turn. Being forced to log into the game every 9 or 12 hours. Manipulating units and the timer to pull off double-moves that the other guy can't see coming (like the regoarrarr/Exploit war in Pitboss #1). I'm not saying this style of play is wrong per se, but it's not a game I'd care to play. It is... very metagamey. I hate the notion that timing the playing of a turn at certain points on the clock can yield huge gameplay advantages. Because some players and some teams will inevitably grasp for those edges, and then if I'm in the same game, I *HAVE* to play the same way, or I'm forced into a disadvantage.

Ugh. I think this works better.

sooooo, your post is pretty funny, but I hope no one would actually stoop that low in a real game. Phony wars for clock manipulation would be a gross violation of good sportsmanship.

[darrelljs]

sooooo, your post is pretty funny, but I hope no one would actually stoop that low in a real game. Phony wars for clock manipulation would be a gross violation of good sportsmanship.

. Oh wait, you might not be following PB3...

Darrell

[Sullla]

One other thing: couple posts saying this gives too big an edge to the defender. Actually, it only gives the defender the edge on a single turn, the first turn that the war starts. And it does so simply by taking away the ability of the attacker to sucker-punch the defender with 1 minute left on the clock.

Of course, if the roles are reversed, and the initial attacker becomes the defender, then it's true that they can't whip cities in response to what the other side does. Or is that true? Everyone has to stop thinking in terms of "Turn 100, Turn 101" etc. Even if the initial attacker finds themselves on the defensive, in truth they aren't suffering from a disadvantage at all. Look at it this way:

Turn 100a: Attacker starts war (and can whip)
Turn 100b: Defender responds (and can whip)
Turn 101a: Attacker responds/whips
Turn 101b: Defender responds/whips

Defender successfully counter-attackers

Turn 110a: Initial attacker moves/whips in response to Turn 109b
Turn 110b: Initial defender moves/whips in response to Turn 110a

And so on. If the roles reverse, the initial attacker is *NOT* losing their opportunity to whip cities. They have the chance to whip in response to what their opponent did the PREVIOUS turn (T109b above). Then the initial defender whips in response to what their opponent did on their previous turn (T110a). People are getting hung up on the turn numbers, which don't mean anything. In both cases, the units take a turn to appear. Drafting doesn't change the equation, because the units can be moved immediately by either side. Pitboss #2 had this wrong, because it allowed the teams in the first half of the timer to whip TWICE, essentially granting them an "free" half-turn of sorts.

I hope that clears things up. It makes more sense once you look at multiple turns, instead of concentrating on each one individually.

[sooooo]

Hmm, not sure about that Sullla. It is different, and that's not just for the first turn. The 2nd player's slaved units arrive before the 1st player gets to play, so they can defend cities (though cannot promote). The 1st player's slaved units appear after the 2nd player gets to play, so any units the 1st player slaves on the turn that the 2nd player assaults a city do not get to participate in the battle.