[LURKERS] Mr. Gradgrind's Review

[Epoxy]

REM just asked a question.

Rules check. Were they to be retaken would I be disallowed from using the 'return to DZ control' option?

I assume so but would like clarification

The rules say 'no city trades', and on one hand it could be seen that REM must have possession of the city prior to transferring ownership of the city—a de facto city trade. But this might be contentious, what does everyone think?

Edit: Commodore ninja'd this while acknowledging it as a grey area. Good call.

[BRickAstley]

Now that some teams are considering teching to Flight, should we advise the players on rules for tile bombardment, turn splits, and worker actions? I think it would be unfun/unbalancing for the players to have some of their builds disrupted every turn due to clock rules, and it might be prudent to put out an advisory soon, before any of them commit to Fighters.

What was the last proposed/agreed upon set in here?

[Tohron]

Now that some teams are considering teching to Flight, should we advise the players on rules for tile bombardment, turn splits, and worker actions? I think it would be unfun/unbalancing for the players to have some of their builds disrupted every turn due to clock rules, and it might be prudent to put out an advisory soon, before any of them commit to Fighters.

What was the last proposed/agreed upon set in here?

I believe we're still going with the 1-2-1, where in the "2nd turn" you can only adjust cities and use workers, since nobody seems to have been pushing for an alternative.

[Old Harry]

I like the idea of switching to sequential turns. I'd offer them the choice of the two ideas, but you're the boss, boss.

[MJW (ya that one)]

I like 1-2-1 better because it places players under more pressue to end turn by making them ask for an extension and not just holding the save and it technically keeps the game a pitboss but your the GM, Brick.

[Tohron]

Would sequential turns even solve the issue of the person who's first to Flight being able to knock out the oil tile of anyone before them in the sequence, ensuring that they never have oil when the turn ends and thus preventing them from building aircraft, modern ships, or tanks unless the Flight player loses all cities (and carriers) in range of the enemy oil? That was, after all, the original cause of this discussion.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Would sequential turns even solve the issue of the person who's first to Flight being able to knock out the oil tile of anyone before them in the sequence, ensuring that they never have oil when the turn ends and thus preventing them from building aircraft, modern ships, or tanks unless the Flight player loses all cities (and carriers) in range of the enemy oil? That was, after all, the original cause of this discussion.

In BtS production happens at the END of your turn so you can hook up the oil and do your production just fine.

[BRickAstley]

With 6 players left I fear that sequential turns will really slow the game down even more.

and with 1-2-1 I dont feel like there's been a good solution to what I had mentioned before.

I am in agreeance that this is a good idea, but how do we handle the problem of the turn timer? Let's say 2nd player plays his turn with 30 minutes left. Does he then pause it every turn until 1st player has logged in to check and make sure he doesn't need to make any reactionary moves? Is 1st player responsible for hitting that small window to keep the game rolling at a good pace? Is 2nd player required to play his turn with at least 6 hours left so 1st player has that reactionary time built in? My first reaction is no to all of those but then we lack a concrete way to handle it.

I agree that it would be healthy to rule something but I don't feel confident into either option. Help talk me into one or both options please.

[MJW (ya that one)]

With 6 players left I fear that sequential turns will really slow the game down even more.

and with 1-2-1 I dont feel like there's been a good solution to what I had mentioned before.

I am in agreeance that this is a good idea, but how do we handle the problem of the turn timer? Let's say 2nd player plays his turn with 30 minutes left. Does he then pause it every turn until 1st player has logged in to check and make sure he doesn't need to make any reactionary moves? Is 1st player responsible for hitting that small window to keep the game rolling at a good pace? Is 2nd player required to play his turn with at least 6 hours left so 1st player has that reactionary time built in? My first reaction is no to all of those but then we lack a concrete way to handle it.

I agree that it would be healthy to rule something but I don't feel confident into either option. Help talk me into one or both options please.

You would always try to hook up the resources/repair so player 2 would always pause and wait for player one. This might be clunky enough to go sequential or just bite the bullet and banning bombing of improvements.

The best case the sessions would go: player 1-player (main turn) 2-player (turn) 1-player (worker turn) 1-player (main turn) 2-player (turn) 1-player (worker turn) with player 1 taking taking a working turn and main turn back-to-back. If there's more than one split that wouldn't work and I would go sequential. Banning bombing changes the rules of the game so I would just bite the bullet and go sequential but if you feel the game won't finish otherwise then just ban bombing improvements.

Edit: You could make 1-player taking a worker turn and main turn back-to-back an explict rule and make the turn timer seperate from the game.

[Fluffball]

Is there any value in simply barring the bombing of oil, but allow pillaging? It's sort of gimmick given that it can be reconnected immediately and takes very little effort to bomb, and it's only relevant because the map design didn't give enough oil. If someone can pillage oil that means they're actually in a threatening position and not just casually bombing things like the coffee guy in Avatar.