Pitboss etiquette

[civac2]

The rules are not subjective. At least this one isn't. If a player who expects to be attacked declares war and gets the second part of the turn he/she acts in accordance with the letter of the rules. There is no ambiguity.

[Cornflakes]

Could we approach this a different way by countering the advantages of playing 2nd? The two biggest advantages I am aware of are:

1. (Biggest) By declaring 2nd, the attacker delays the defender’s ability to whip defensive units by 1 turn.
2. Resource availability ... the 2nd in turn order can pillage resources and prevent units completing, against which the 1st in turn order has no counterplay to either reconnect resources or swap build queues to other units.

#1 could be negated by allowing the 1st in turn order an opportunity to log back in, swap build queues to units, and adjust build queues after a DoW, and whip as desired (but not move any units). Turn order between 1st and 2nd mover would be preserved, but 1st in turn order is compensated with that additional round of whip response that is otherwise lost.

#2 is more tricky since that is an ongoing problem against which I don’t immediately see a solution (other than changing when the game checks for resource availability).

[Charriu]

A third potential rule, would be to assign every player a turn order when the game begins, based on their play windows, as in sequential.  The mapmaker assigns each player a slot in the order based on this and therefore, in any war between player 3 and player 4, player 3 would go first and player 4 would go second.

I have to say I like that, as it eliminates most of the problems we have right now. Everybody can see the turn order on PBSpy thanks to the "Id" column. This also allows to switch between sequential and simultaneous whenever the players want, which is a fairly new feature from our mods.

[Jowy]

A third potential rule, would be to assign every player a turn order when the game begins, based on their play windows, as in sequential.  The mapmaker assigns each player a slot in the order based on this and therefore, in any war between player 3 and player 4, player 3 would go first and player 4 would go second.

I have to say I like that, as it eliminates most of the problems we have right now. Everybody can see the turn order on PBSpy thanks to the "Id" column. This also allows to switch between sequential and simultaneous whenever the players want, which is a fairly new feature from our mods.

It's a good solution though the etiquette OH wrote up is good too. Both have the same problem: Someone can choose to not follow them. What to do then?

[civac2]

If it's a rule you can't chose to not follow it. It may be a good idea but you can get in sandwich situations if the war includes more than two parties. In such case you'd have to increase the turn clock or something.

Though again the original rules are unambiguous. People here simply have additional ideas about propriety and fairness that let's them disapprove of the consequence of said rules.

[naufragar]

Though again the original rules are unambiguous. People here simply have additional ideas about propriety and fairness that let's them disapprove of the consequence of said rules.

Bingo.

I said in another thread I'd avoid general rules discussion, but I'm a liar. 

The rules are unambiguous, as demonstrated by the fact that over many, many games they have been used to determine who is the aggrieved party. PB53 was a genuine edge case because enforced peace prevented the players from establishing a turn split in the unambiguous way (war dec). Outside of that, I can call to mind no instance in which there was an unsolvable paradox in the etiquette guide. Yes, on a turn in which two players want to go to war, each can try to wait until the very last second of the turn timer to play. Rare, and hopefully such behavior is discouraged by the "don't be a dick" rule. Otherwise, it's just the cost of simul pitboss.

The rules aren't broken; let's not try to fix them.

[The Black Sword]

#1 could be negated by allowing the 1st in turn order an opportunity to log back in, swap build queues to units, and adjust build queues after a DoW, and whip as desired (but not move any units). Turn order between 1st and 2nd mover would be preserved, but 1st in turn order is compensated with that additional round of whip response that is otherwise lost.

That's a pretty interesting idea that could be worth trialling.

[Old Harry]

One easy rule is to say, once two players have been at war, any future war state will have the same turn split.  That alleviates some of the issues that have both occurred in PB55 and PB53.  But that just kicks the can up the road, and incentivizes early game wardecs to secure superior turn splits.  Its still better than games blowing up as they are now, but its not ideal. 

I suspect this would lead to timer camping at the start of the game by people who want to get the second half against everyone they meet.

A second easy rule is to have every game convert to sequential once war has been declared, as has been proposed in some recent games.  I think this is a better solution, because Civ4 was designed to be played with sequential turns. 

I like this idea, keen to see how it plays out in PB57.

A third potential rule, would be to assign every player a turn order when the game begins, based on their play windows, as in sequential.  The mapmaker assigns each player a slot in the order based on this and therefore, in any war between player 3 and player 4, player 3 would go first and player 4 would go second.

This means player 4 has to play second the whole game? Seems like a boost, but perhaps it could be part of the snake pick to even things up a little?

Also I agree with everything Nauf says.

[Amicalola]

The rules are not subjective. At least this one isn't. If a player who expects to be attacked declares war and gets the second part of the turn he/she acts in accordance with the letter of the rules. There is no ambiguity.

I agree completely with this.

If you are attacking on a specific turn, you are allowed to wait the timer/player out and move second. Otherwise, play when you are able and don’t camp the timer. Seems pretty clear cut and unambiguous to me.

[Mr. Cairo]

A third potential rule, would be to assign every player a turn order when the game begins, based on their play windows, as in sequential.  The mapmaker assigns each player a slot in the order based on this and therefore, in any war between player 3 and player 4, player 3 would go first and player 4 would go second.

I would prefer this to any other change. It's done for every PBEM. Once it's set then the turn order simply becomes another part of the game. it's "fair" in that it's the same throughout and for everyone. It would slow down the game though, real life means that one cannot guarantee a certain playing window every single day.

#1 could be negated by allowing the 1st in turn order an opportunity to log back in, swap build queues to units, and adjust build queues after a DoW, and whip as desired (but not move any units). Turn order between 1st and 2nd mover would be preserved, but 1st in turn order is compensated with that additional round of whip response that is otherwise lost.

I do not like this at all. I think that defenders in this game (all else being equal) are advantaged over attackers. That's why the rules are that the attacker gets to choose. It's not arbitary. This would essentially negate that small advantage and favour the defender even more than the game mechanics already do.

Personally I think the only thing that should be changed is to expand upon "don't be a dick".

And in my opinion, double-moving in peace-time to gain an immediate tactical advantage in a war both parties know is coming very soon would fall under the category of "being a dick".

I suppose a minor change to the actual rules would be to require the maintenance of a war-time turnsplit during turns of enforced peace.