Double turn

[Viktor Ahriman]

I am requesting a reload back to the beginning of this turn.  Millcc, you cannot make 2 turns back to back.  You made your move at then end of the last turn, then again this turn.  You should have waited at least to the 10 HR mark. 

[Dandridge]

What happened? The civstats log looks quite confusing. You both seem to have logged in several times during the turns. Did you start the war during the 185 BC turn? Is it possible that you also DM'ed during the previous 170 BC turn (=finished the turn before waiting full 12 hours)? Though it seems that millcc1 didn't log in during the first 12 hours either during the 170 BC turn.

Very confusing. Why do you both log in several times during the turn It's objectively impossible to say when someone has really made the moves.

1/2/08 12:17 pm Viktor Ahriman Logged out
1/2/08 12:14 pm Viktor Ahriman Logged in
1/2/08 10:13 am millcc1 Logged out
1/2/08 10:12 am millcc1 Finished turn
1/2/08 9:58 am millcc1 Score decreased to 582
1/2/08 9:58 am millcc1 Score increased to 625
1/2/08 9:58 am Viktor Ahriman Score decreased to 529
1/2/08 9:56 am millcc1 Logged in

1/2/08 9:51 am  A new turn has begun. It is now 155 BC
 
1/2/08 9:24 am millcc1 Logged out
1/2/08 9:24 am millcc1 Finished turn
1/2/08 9:19 am millcc1 Logged in
1/2/08 4:29 am Viktor Ahriman Logged out
1/2/08 4:23 am Viktor Ahriman Logged in
1/1/08 11:49 pm Viktor Ahriman Logged out
1/1/08 11:32 pm Viktor Ahriman Finished turn
1/1/08 11:26 pm Viktor Ahriman Logged in
1/1/08 5:14 pm Viktor Ahriman Logged out
1/1/08 5:03 pm Viktor Ahriman Logged in

1/1/08 4:17 pm  A new turn has begun. It is now 170 BC

1/1/08 12:13 pm millcc1 Logged out
1/1/08 12:06 pm millcc1 Logged in
12/31/07 9:44 pm Viktor Ahriman Logged out
12/31/07 9:43 pm Viktor Ahriman Finished turn
12/31/07 9:37 pm Viktor Ahriman Logged in
12/31/07 9:08 pm millcc1 Logged out
12/31/07 9:07 pm millcc1 Finished turn

12/31/07 9:06 pm  A new turn has begun. It is now 185 BC

12/31/07 9:06 pm millcc1 Finished turn
12/31/07 9:03 pm millcc1 Logged in

[Viktor Ahriman]

I did declare war first, but after i ended my turn, millcc logged back in to do more moves, i of coarse counter that when i logged back in.  I waited my last turn till around the 12 hour mark, mill didnt go do his turn until the last few hours last night.  Then he went again.  I believe this to be a double turn.  How can a person counter someone else in war when two turns are done right after another?  During war, its the persons responsibility do to there turn in that 10-12 hour window, but if they cant, you cant expect the other person to wait.  But that also doest mean the person that waited till the last moment can go twice.  Mill should have waited at least 12 hours from his turn last night.  That is why i am requesting a reload back to the begining of this turn.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

OK guys, I was hoping this could have been avoided, since we had clear "no double turns" rules agreed upon before Chaos and Civility was underway.

The rules are here:

http://www.chaosciv.com/index.php/topic,25.0.html

Specifically:

Double Turns

It is possible to take a 'double turn' in the game by being the last to finish for one turn and then the first to finish the one after that. This has a positive effect because it speeds the game up, but the downside is that it can be exploited for military advantage by moving twice before your opponent has a chance to react.

So to keep the upside of double turns while eliminating (or at least minimizing) the downside, the rule is that if you are at war with another player (or are about to go to war with them, eg. sneak attacks) then you mustn't take two turns before they've had a chance to take one, or in other words you cannot go after them in one turn and before them in the next.

You can use the civstats log page for the game to tell if the other player has taken their turn.

One exception: you may always take your turn when 12 hours have passed on the turn timer (since the timer seems to run slow this will probably be a bit more than 12 real hours), regardless of whether they have taken their turn or not, otherwise it'd risk you not having a chance to take your turn at all. Ideally though, you should talk to your opponent(s) and come to an arrangement about the order you are going to take your turns in.

In short: no double turns when at war.  This especially includes the turn when war is declared.  This will be tough to enforce, so self-policing and reference to civstats will be needed.

Now...I've read and re-read these rules, and I can see where they can be somewhat grey in their interpretation.  Add to that, the circumstances as cited by Dandridge above, regarding the Civstats log.  It becomes incredibly difficult to interpret just when a person has done his turn, since it's possible to "finish" your turn, but then log back in and make moves later (and vice-versa).

My interpretation of the "no double turn" rule has been that the warring parties should agree upon a turn sequence after war has been declared, and stick with that.  In this current instance, it would seem both parties double-turned.

I'm going to have to make a judgment call one way or another here, and unfortunately that means one (or both) parties are going to be unhappy with the decision I make. 

I have saved a backup of the previous round of autosaves, and I am requesting that if anyone has anything to weigh in on interpretation of the Double Turn rule, I would like to hear it now.

Even if we roll back (as everyone is permitted one rollback request as of 12-28-07), we need to make certain we are interpreting the double turn rule the same way, so we don't have to go through this again.

[Levgre]

I did declare war first, but after i ended my turn, millcc logged back in to do more moves, i of coarse counter that when i logged back in.

What do you mean, countered that?   If you moved, then he moved, then you countered, all in one turn, that was wrong on your part. 

That would mean you went  both before, and after him.  Not quite the same as taking two turns in a row, but still illegal.

When double turn rules are in place, this is how it works:

Player 1 moves
Player 2 moves
end turn
player 1 moves
etc.

if you did the following:
Player 1 moves
Player 2 moves
(player 1 counter moves)
end turn

that would be illegal.

[Dandridge]

Just by looking the civstats log as an outsider it's objectively impossible to say who moved units and when.

As I understand it Viktor declared war on turn 185 BC after millcc1 had finished his turn. Then millcc1 logged in again during this turn to check the situation. He observed that Viktor had declared a war and might have made some additional moves or might have just looked the situation.

Then Viktor logs in again soon in the start of next turn (170 BC). He believes millcc1 had made some moves during the previus turn (after Viktor's declaration) and decides to "counter-move". This was the phase where Viktor probably should have raised the double move issue instead of just "countering".

On the other hand millcc1 didn't log in within the first 12 hours of the 170 BC turn. But we don't know the reason. Did he want Viktor to make his move first? Or didn't he bother to log in, since he had observed that viktor had already logged in the start of the turns and potentially DM'ed?

Anyway I think that either Viktor or millcc1 should have raised the DM issue already during the 170 BC turn and not just "counter-move". Any kind of countering is pure double moving and it should be stopped right when observed.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Astute of you, Dandridge, and I concur on all counts.

I will be making an executive decision, which will likely annoy both parties--which means it will hopefully be the correct decision, given the circumstances. 

I will also clarify the Double Move rule, so this issue will hopefully not pop up again.  This will be posted in a new thread as an announcement, so all will receive an email notification regarding the changes.

Thanks for weighing in guys, and helping to affirm what I have been contemplating.  Stay tuned...

[Viktor Ahriman]

OK, here is how I see it.  I declared war on Millcc.  I finished my turn.  Then Mill logged back later after he finished his turn and moved units near my lands.  So my next turn, I just moved to counter those units that he moved last turn, the fear was he moved them after my turn finished, so if he logged back in next turn, he would be able to move them again, thus a double turn on THOSE UNITS.  I did not move any others until that 12 hour mark.  So I was under the impression that when he does his turn, he can do it, but cant go again right away.  He was well under the 12 hours.  He needs to wait at least 12 hours.  Because how fair is it that he goes twice without me being able to counter anything?  Otherwise anyone can do that.  Just wait till they are the last one, then go again next turn.  When you are at war, you should do your turn at the same time if possible.  So the turns dont get mixed up.  That is what happened now.  I waited till the 12 hour mark, but how long do i wait?  If i did it right, he still would have gone twice.  In this instance, he had a stack of troops in front of my stack.  I logged out not doing much this turn.  Didnt attack him.  He used his turn with a couple hours left, moved his stack around mine, then his second turn moved that same stack into my lands and razed a city.  How was I able to counter that?  He should have waited after that first move.  For at least 8 hours to get to that 12 hour limit.  Otherwise like I said, anyone could do this.  Either you do your turn before that 10-12 hour limit occurs, or you risk the chance of the turns becoming flipped flop.  Unless like Capsavian said there is comminication from the party that cant make his turn to request more time from the other nation to make his turn.  So the turns dont get flipped flop.  That is what happened in this situation.  Mill waited too long, so now the turns got flipped flopped, and it should have been his turn, but is actually mine because he waited to long for his last turn.

Viktor

[DribNairb]

I have just read the rule clarification, and while it makes sense and I will be happy to along with it, it doesn't match my personal view of what a double move is. I will try and define it to see what anyone else thinks:

I see Simultaneous Turns only as a means to speed up the game and nothing else. This means that the game should be treated by players as if the game was being played with sequential turns and all players logged in at the same time (this is a turn-based game after all!)

Now, if sequential turns were in use, my understanding is the following happens:
 Player 1 logs in to play a turn. He moves all his units and presses Enter. From this point on he may change research, perform trades, view opponents moves etc. However, he cannot under any circumstances move or upgrade his units until ALL OTHER PLAYERS have moved theirs and pressed Enter.

Unfortunately, the rule clarification doesn't cover this since 2(a) states "When war has been declared, the defender will be allowed to log in once to counter-move or assess the situation, even if he has already made his move for that turn.  Their status has changed from peacetime to wartime, so it's fair to allow for a reaction."
To me this is wrong. If turns were taken sequentially the defender could not counter move his units until his next turn (otherwise defending units can get an initial double move to help defend the city under attack).

Secondly, rule 2(b) includes "Logging in twice during a turn sequence while at war will now be considered a double-move". However, there are legitimate cases where this may happen. If Player 1 declares war on Player 2 and during that turn either Player logs in and offers a trade with Player 3 (eg. for cash to upgrade units) then that Player will be at a disadvantage due to the fact other players are not logged in at the same time. If Player 3 subsequently logs in and accepts the trade then that Player should be able to consider this trade as being performed on his turn (because in sequential turns he would have waited for Player 3 to accept the offer before ending his turn) and thereby login again to perform the unit upgrades.

Therefore I think the rule should be "you may log in and perform unit movement if and only if you would be able to perform such a move if the game was being played with sequential turns".

It means that both players in this instance performed actions they could not have done with sequential turns, but I would hope that after the reload both players will be able to avoid such actions.

However, what I have said does not match up with the Double Turn clarification thread. I humbly suggest that the clarification should be changed...

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Thanks for the feedback, very thoughtful.

2(a) was cited as such because I felt that a change in "mod" (from peace to war) would require a second look for reactionary purposes by the defender.  However, you make a strong case in treating the turns as sequential when in war.  Thus, I concur and will revise this rule, to remain consistent with wartime turn sequences and simplify things.  (I agree with Drib's point)

2(b) on the other hand--allowing someone to log back in during times of war under the auspices of trade, to me, is contradicting your argument against 2(a).  If the turns are sequential and not simultaneous, we have to be consistent across the board, I think, in enforcing this.  (I disagree with Drib's point)

After all, there is no way to know whether a player is logging in to satisfy a trade agreement, or if he is using that login to perhaps move some troops into a better position.


As such, I agree with your argument for rescinding 2(a), but that same logic must be applied then to 2(b).


I am the Game Servant though, and not the Game Overlord here for Chaos and Civility.  If anyone disagrees with this newly-proposed clarification, by all means please speak up.

In the interim, I will roll back to December 30th as originally stated, utilizing the revised and clarified Double Turn rules.  If popular opinion amongst players is to further revise them, we can always roll back to December 30th a second time.  Ahhh, remembering 2007.

[Sonnybonds]

The rules about DM are not all cleared up for me yet. What is legal and illegal in the turn before and the turn where someone declares war? In the rules it says that the defender is allowed to react in the turn he is declared war.

But is the following situation legal?

Civ B end turn
Civ A end turn

next turn:

Civ A declares war and end turn
Civ B end turn

In this situation Civ A made a DM but not in war time. Is this fast attack legal? I have been attacked like this in my last game with chariots and lost valuable resources that way and there is nothing i can do about it.

[DribNairb]

But is the following situation legal?

Civ B end turn
Civ A end turn

next turn:

Civ A declares war and end turn
Civ B end turn

Again, my own personal opinion is that you (and your opponent) should follow the rule: "you may log in and perform unit movement if and only if you would be able to perform such a move if the game was being played with sequential turns".

The rule should apply both at peacetime and during wartime. But in most cases during peacetime it makes no difference in which order players move their units and is therefore relaxed simply to speed up gameplay, but NOT to give any player an unfair advantage. This particular case clearly does have an affect on play and therefore the rule should be enforced.

[DribNairb]

2(b) on the other hand--allowing someone to log back in during times of war under the auspices of trade, to me, is contradicting your argument against 2(a).  If the turns are sequential and not simultaneous, we have to be consistent across the board, I think, in enforcing this.  (I disagree with Drib's point)

After all, there is no way to know whether a player is logging in to satisfy a trade agreement, or if he is using that login to perhaps move some troops into a better position.

As such, I agree with your argument for rescinding 2(a), but that same logic must be applied then to 2(b).

I must agree that there is no way of knowing for certain the reasons for a player logging back into the game. My point about 2(b) was that any individual player will know themselves if they are breaking the rule (and therefore will not break it - we are all capable of this surely?), whereas under the previous rules the grey area meant some players clearly thought they weren't doing anything wrong.

However, in order to allow for a third party to adjudicate in the event of a dispute I agree that rule 2(b) is the best way to enforce it, even if it does prevent some legitimate (albeit rare) situations. Perhaps a 2nd login should be allowed only if the opponent is aware (eg. through agreeing on these messageboards) of what the player states he will do on a 2nd login, but without that agreement a 2nd login while at war is considered illegal.

[Dandridge]

Regarding the 2(a) point it's very much possible that during the turn that the war is declared the "defender" doesn't even know that he is in war. A player might just log in 2nd time during a turn and realize that he has been declared. Now he is of course not allowed to move any units, but should log out immediately. Though it might be impossible to know whether he moves units or not.

The rule 2(b) is usually good and clear, but there can be some nasty exceptions like:

- player A moves 1st and pillages B's only Oil well (+ fixes his own Oil). Player B moves 2nd and pillages A's Oil and fixes his own well. If player A is not allowed to log in again during the turn and fix the Oil well after B's move, player A might not ever get Oil only because he has to move 1st. A special case, but I've been in a Pitboss game where just that happened to me.

- Several players in war: players A and B are in war against players C and D. A has to move before C, but after D. B has to move after C, but before D. So A can't log in if D hasn't logged, but D is waiting B who is waiting C who is waiting A who is waiting D. So no one can log in. In fact there can be more complicated multifaceted wars. In this game f.ex there was already a period where I was in war against B + C + D and B + E were in war against F. Keeping correct turn order can be hell in these kind of situations.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

The rules about DM are not all cleared up for me yet. What is legal and illegal in the turn before and the turn where someone declares war? In the rules it says that the defender is allowed to react in the turn he is declared war.

But is the following situation legal?

Civ B end turn
Civ A end turn

next turn:

Civ A declares war and end turn
Civ B end turn

In this situation Civ A made a DM but not in war time. Is this fast attack legal? I have been attacked like this in my last game with chariots and lost valuable resources that way and there is nothing i can do about it.

It's a sticky situation, but my interpretation would be that, yes, the scenario you describe above would be legal, though frowned upon. 

We technically allow double turns in times of peace--just not in times of war. 

This scenario, along with the examples DribNairb and Dandridge provide are examples of existing grey areas which make the pitboss setup with simultaneous turns enabled (as we have) have potentially unfair "gaming" of the system.  It's imperfect, but that will probably always be the case!

I'm looking at this from an enforcement standpoint though;  the simplest rules are the easiest to understand and then enforce.  Going by an honor code is warm and fuzzy, but I worry that it opens up the door for disputes which can't be arbitrated.

But again, I'll capitulate to what the masses want, if a consensus of sorts can be reached.

[Levgre]

I feel double move rules should also apply when you "intend" to go to war very soon, like if you are going to go to war within the next turn.  The double move rule should apply to any situation where you gain a strategic war advantage, by moving 2 turns in a row. 

So, what should be done, is the declaring player gives a declaration separate from simply entering the borders, a turn or two before they actually enter the borders, at which point the double move rules will come into play effective on the turn after the declaration.

[Viktor Ahriman]

I think we are making this way too complicating.  Like Capsavian said, its not going to be perfect.  I would think this:

Player 1 makes his move
Player 2 makes his move and declares war - possible taking out units or workers.  Now this may not seem fair to player 1, but player 1 should be able to see troops coming to have some warning that something may happen.
New turn
Player 1 makes his move and now has the chance to counter attack
Player 2 makes his move

I dont think is right at all for player 1 to log back in the turn that war is delcared to move units.  1 reason is because he will be moving them after player 2 made his move.  Which means player 2 will be waiting for player 1 to do his turn next turn.  That means that player 1 will have the chance to move those same units AGAIN.  I think it would be best to keep it a turn for turn basis during war.  The only time the turns would get flip flopped is if one player doesnt do his turn by the time the 10 HR timer hits. 

[Capsavian Hopewell]

So, what should be done, is the declaring player gives a declaration separate from simply entering the borders, a turn or two before they actually enter the borders, at which point the double move rules will come into play effective on the turn after the declaration.

Really, you want a pre-war declaration a turn or two before actually declaring?    

Sorry, I'm going to have to go ahead and vote "NO" on that one.   

[Levgre]

well, you'd actually declare war, but by declaring war just with alt-click on their name, not by entering their borders(possibly with a double move)

[Sonnybonds]

Well i think its better when you also have the no DM rule in the turn of 2 turn before the declaretion of war. This seems the must fair and as said civ4 is actually a turn based game so the simultanaus turns we have in Pitboss is actually not correct but neccasary for a game to finish within a year or so.

In the Oobs rules there is also a no DM rule in the turn before declararion of war.

[Carolus Maltman]

Its less difficult than you would think to enforce a "no double moving for the turn before declaring war" rule.

A declares war on B on turn T, and its up to A to ensure he does it without moving last in T-1 and then first in T, to have a blitzkrieg double move.

Scenarios:

T-1 A moved first -> A is free to declare war on B anytime in turn T, either before or after B moves.

T-1 B moved first -> A must let B move first in turn T, THEN declare war

And then whatever A sets as the turn order during turn T becomes the standard turn order for the war.


Now we could make an exception where if B doesn't move in turn T, with a small amount of time left on the clock, then A can declare war at that point regardless, since B had ample time to take his turn.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

OK, so no DM the turn prior to declaring was, as well.  That seems straightforward enough to me, and makes good sense.

The countdown timer exception (12 hours remaining) would still apply regardless, so that point is already taken care of.

Any objections to this?

(by the way, Sonnybonds--just waiting on you to do your turn, sir!)

[Sonnybonds]

Its less difficult than you would think to enforce a "no double moving for the turn before declaring war" rule.

A declares war on B on turn T, and its up to A to ensure he does it without moving last in T-1 and then first in T, to have a blitzkrieg double move.

Scenarios:

T-1 A moved first -> A is free to declare war on B anytime in turn T, either before or after B moves.

T-1 B moved first -> A must let B move first in turn T, THEN declare war

And then whatever A sets as the turn order during turn T becomes the standard turn order for the war.


Now we could make an exception where if B doesn't move in turn T, with a small amount of time left on the clock, then A can declare war at that point regardless, since B had ample time to take his turn.

Well in this case A had the change to declare war earlier and there for he planned a DM.
As i said: CIV4 is not intended for DM so if you can avoid it then you should avoid it.

A small question: Can we have a compleet list of what is a DM and what is allowed and what is not allowed?
not everybody reads all the posts here on the forum.

[DribNairb]

An extra note about double turns - although we have said in the rules they are allowed only during peacetime, I think they should still be acceptable if all warring parties agree (eg. in the game I am at war with Capsavian/Viktor mainly because England is my Vassal. We have all stated we don't really intend to attack each other so the other we take our turns is pretty much irrelevant).

I have been playing the last few turns under this assumption - ie Although I am at war I feel like it is still peacetime. As long as other players agree there is no reason for us to have to wait for each other to take turns.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

I have been playing under this same assumption, to be honest.  Perhaps sloppy of my to assume without verifying ahead of time with all parties, but the only turn sequence I have concerned myself with has been Aidern-England-Agarthia. 

I guess there's potential trouble if Drib was to, say, donate a large sum of cash to England, who then upgraded troops before Agarthia took his turn (assuming Drib was previously AFTER Agarthia in sequence). 

Otherwise, I personally have no problem with this;  with five parties at war amongst each other, it might otherwise be stretching the reasonable ability to adhere to specific turn sequences!