[LURKERS] Mr. Gradgrind's Review

[MJW (ya that one)]

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.

IIRC this started because TBS was irate about his improvements being bombed and messing up his mirco. If he cannot log-in player-2 can cause massive havok to player-1 by bombing random improvements (edit: I should say governor).

[Tohron]

Maybe to simplify things, everyone gets a main turn using split rules, then everyone gets a worker turn simultaneously, and then the turn ends once everyone is satisfied with their worker turn?

[MJW (ya that one)]

Maybe to simplify things, everyone gets a main turn using split rules, then everyone gets a worker turn simultaneously, and then the turn ends once everyone is satisfied with their worker turn?

If there is only one turn split then this is the same as 1-2-1 because nothing can mess up 2. It also takes away my 1-2-1-1-2-1-1-2 gimmick of forcing 1 to play his turns back-to-back to speed up the game.

This is probably much better than 1-2-1 or sequential if there is more than one turn split though.

[Tyrmith]

All I can say is you all are making things I feel very complicated, the cure seems almost as bad as the actual issue...

[ipecac]

All I can say is you all are making things I feel very complicated, the cure seems almost as bad as the actual issue...

Is there any value in simply barring the bombing of oil

I had previously suggested this solution in response to REM's problem. Changing the pitboss to sequential seems like the best option though if turn order can be arranged so that the game won't take forever to complete.

[The Black Sword]

My suggestion was playing 1-2-1, whipping, moving workers and city micro allowed in the 'mini-turn' but nothing else.

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.

In this scenario the second player must pause for the first player. Then the first player can log in and play both turns. There's now 24 hours left on the timer for the second player. Ideally he plays within 12, doesn't need to pause and there's 12 hours for the other player.

So it should take up no more time than a usual turnsplit. The 2nd player pausing in this situation is no different than the 1st player in a regular turnsplit pausing with 30mins on the clock(in both cases the pausing player has taken almost the full 24 hours too).

If the players want longer turn times to avoid pausing that's up to them of course.

There is a problem if you have more than 2 players in a war. Well, 1 vs 2+3, the one player in the first slot is fine. But 1+2 vs 3 is going to take a similar amount of time to a 3 way split, because it's unlikely that both 1 and 2 can play both of their turns at once.

In general I think it should never add more than 1 one extra turn split. Even in 1 vs 2 vs 3 the worst case(1 plays his mini turn before 2) is 1 -> 2-> 3->mini turn -> start again. But if 2 plays his mini turn before 1(no reason to have a strict turnsplit in the mini-turn) then it will be just as quick as before (1 plays both of his turns)->2->3-> start again. It's up to the players whether they feel that one extra turn split in multi-player wars is worth it. Though I guess in multi-player wars that is the ideal situation for a sequential game. I don't know how easy it is to switch between the two.

[Mardoc]

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.

Most simply: any turnsplit rule is going to cost quite a bit less time and angst than a reload, ragequit/replacement hunt, or anything similar. It'll probably even cost less time than a mere demotivation. TBS is also convincing that 'pause with 30 minutes left' won't cost all that much time, presuming an engaged fighter, which I think anyone it applies to will be. Remember: these are competitive players; REM almost lost interest over an innocent double-move. Imagine how he'd react to losing a bigger war due to a turn-order detail.

You have no need to apply the rule until two someones actually *reach* Flight and declares war, as long as they know it's coming: probably 10+ turns in the future? Between one Flight civ and one non-Flight civ, there's no need as long as the Flight civ goes first. Good chance that when you *do* apply the rule, it'll be for the decisive game-ending war, so it won't be in effect that long, either.

[Bobchillingworth]

REM's peace terms to Dreylin sound very reasonable to me. That gets the Khmer staggered peace treaties w/ him & Germany, and allows them to finish off Donovan. Instead they're... staying at war and also giving up several cities back to India? What the heck?

[Fluffball]

My thought is to suggest publicly that all players agree to not air-strike strategic resources and that'll be that. It won't dissuade players from building planes since they're obviously still very useful as combat units, but it will dissuade players from doing silly things just to get the second half of the turn. Anyway, I would be in favor of this rule addendum. If Dreylin and REM both approve of it, we could simply go with that. (I expect those further behind to definitely have no problem with it.) Sullla - any thoughts on this?

So I'm clearly biased since I suggested this as well, but I feel this is the most straightforward way to go. Effectively nothing changes and we can get out of the way of the game.

[MJW (ya that one)]

My thought is to suggest publicly that all players agree to not air-strike strategic resources and that'll be that. It won't dissuade players from building planes since they're obviously still very useful as combat units, but it will dissuade players from doing silly things just to get the second half of the turn. Anyway, I would be in favor of this rule addendum. If Dreylin and REM both approve of it, we could simply go with that. (I expect those further behind to definitely have no problem with it.) Sullla - any thoughts on this?

So I'm clearly biased since I suggested this as well, but I feel this is the most straightforward way to go. Effectively nothing changes and we can get out of the way of the game.

Just banning bombing strategic resources isn't good enough because player-2 can cause extereme damage to player-1 just by bombing random improvements (if it was just the tile it would be okay but then you get shafted by the governor). So you would have to ban all strategic bombing.