[PB64] Lurking Randomly

[Mjmd]

BTW why in the world does Ginger want chariots for pillaging. Surely he has enough random old units? As far as scouting that is why Charriu made changes to the explorer.

Edit: I get the hiding units in queue thing. But that is WAY too many. At the point you have two units in decay you've put too many in.

[Charriu]

@thrawn
I really like the Old world approach, you can start a network game to get the early game done and then go to PBEM once it gets more time intesive

We can do that to in civ4 thanks to Ramks simultaneous to sequential switch and vice versa

[pindicator]

@thrawn
I really like the Old world approach, you can start a network game to get the early game done and then go to PBEM once it gets more time intesive

We can do that to in civ4 thanks to Ramks simultaneous to sequential switch and vice versa

Hopefully we worked out all the kinks in 65

[Krill]

This is boring.

Just use the hidden turn randomizer (the one used to process the turns production ie for wonders) as a tie break.

[The Black Sword]

Just IMO, the etiquette thread sets out guidelines to help you not be a jerk, not rules to lawyer. I don't see any jerky behaviour to reload over.

Also, once they agreed peace it should be pretty clear that both sides would want to resettle the border spots ASAP, regardless of if they have seen a settler or not.

[Mjmd]

Should lurkers tell Nauf that even though the rules support him, that he played his turns as far as can be discerned just whenever he could, that a written rule can be overridden by general feeling of it should be different? That to me invites tons of future issues. It might be right HERE, but next time there is a dispute (and there will be) people could go "well you didn't follow the rules in this case and I think this is how it should be". Mind you, I've tried doing what I think is right on multiple occasions and have constantly been told "that isn't how its written and you can't do that". I get it, it sucks. Being on the lurker side for once I think I understand more now though.

I don't know how many people play D&D, but this to me is a classic case of lawful good vs neutral good. Do you follow a bad rule or do what you think is right regardless. As a community and not as an individual I think being consistent for now and working to make it better in the future is the way to go. And mind you, I'm going to regret writing that later.

[Psillycyber]

I'd support preset turn orders during war and during the 10-turns' enforced peace afterwards, with the same turn order enforced throughout the game like in PBEM whenever there is war or enforced peace and chosen at the start of the game via snakepick alongside civ/leader/etc. All other times, it can be a double-move free-for-all.

Times when a turn order isn't active (such as an early peacetime settler race) can always be made into a situation where the preset turn order goes into effect by a player declaring war on another player. This gives players a tool to always predictably influence the turn order without resorting to lurker requests and reloads. But the turn order will only kick in on the turn AFTER war is declared (otherwise, reloads might be required). Leave it up to players to decide, if there's even a strong SUSPICION that they are in a settler race and turn order might matter...well, pre-emptively declare war over it if it is so important as that.

[Mjmd]

10 turns is just WAY too long. It essentially means you could be locked into the same order forever. 5 turns seem fine to me. I like rolling dice in non sequential for tie breaks.

I will say there are reasons I started a sequential game..... But in larger games like PB66 just isn't practical. I do find in larger games people don't quite care as much though (or at least I don't). I think a factor of holding up more people and odds of winning being much lower I think people just go "eh" more often.

[Psillycyber]

I agree that 5 turns of turn order during enforced peace would make games go by faster, but just keep in mind that the whole point of having a turn order, from my perspective, is to give absolutely no grounds for reloads/complaints about turn order, and so prevent controversies from arising in the first place.  It would be nice if the enforced peace period could also be shortened to only 5 turns instead of 10.  Because as long as enforced peace lasts, players have no recourse to resort to in order to influence turn order, apart from appealing to lurkers and asking for reloads.  Once enforced peace ends, players always have the option of declaring war, and the onus can be considered to be on them to declare war if they really care about the turn order and want to absolutely make sure that they get a certain city spot.  Then we could have a very clear, simple set of rules:
1.  Any turn that doesn't have an enforced turn order is a complete double-move free-for-all.  No complaints or reloads (with regards to turn order. We can still have reloads, of course, for mistaken moves that don't reveal new info, etc).  
2.  If you want to enforce a predictable turn order, it is up to you to declare war the turn prior.  

That's extremely simple and unambiguous, but requires the turn order to last for the entire enforced peace period.  That's the trade-off.

[Mjmd]

There is also the trade off as far as turn pace. The general idea of the rules is to encourage people to PYFT. Again, one of the main trade offs of sequential is the turn pace and # of players you can have there. I'm still wrestling with how much I like those trade offs. I know there has been some talk of making the upcoming diplo game into sequential for instance because currently* there are only 6 players. However, when we hopefully get 5 more (sign up!), that probably isn't an option anymore.