Discussion for Rules: #5 Reload Option clarification

[Capsavian Hopewell]

As per Rule #5:

5. Reload Option

5.1 - Each civ will be permitted a maximum of ONE reload.  This reload request must be requested publicly via the ChaosCiv.com forums within 12 hours of the turn in question.  The reload will use the most recent autosave for that civ (autosaves occur at the start of each player's turn).

It's been mentioned several times in Chaos and Civility 2, that this rule can be somewhat subjective when it comes to reload requests which may be interpreted as giving the reloading nation a tactical "second chance".  In particular, repositioning troops to provide better defenses when on the receiving end of a surprise attack.

I'm sure we can all agree this "violates" the spirit of the Reload Option, but as with anything, your perception will vary depending on your position in the game.  Thus why I feel we need to make this rule more absolute--more black-and-white.

Any suggestions on how we might amend this rule to be clearer?

I would like to thank everyone for continuing to be good sports throughout these games and for not taking anything too seriously!  I'm of the mind that solid rules help keep the ambiguity to a minimum and allow us to all focus on the fun and avoid potential bad blood.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

I guess the first step would be in identifying what the intention of the reload option should be:  SHOULD they in fact be allowed to make tactical changes?  Or should they be restricted solely for "user error" type of mistakes (settling a city in the wrong spot, accidentally clicking "delete" on your stack of units, accidental capitulation, etc.).

And if the latter is the case, there still remains ambiguity in enforcement.  As with anything, a certain degree of sportsmanship has to exist.

[Fosse]

What have been the various triggers for reloads?  If most of them have been non-controversial, and only one or two worth examination, then we might focus on why those one or two are in a grey area.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

I'm going to miss a few here, I know.  But as I recall, the reload requests have included:

* accidental settlement of a great person when player wanted to use him for something else
* misunderstanding of game mechanics as it pertains to cultural borders instantly (and temporarily) shrinking, resulting in roadway usage for attackers (this one was controversial)
* counter-attack by defending nation against an occupying invader (this one was also somewhat controversial)
* player initiated revolution, but selected wrong civic
* player accidentally auto-promoted military units
* player accidentally gifted military stack to neighbor, when intended instead to just move them
* player moved units in a manner they didn't intend, while at war
* player accidentally capitulated to a lesser power, when they intended the opposite offer

So...most are not really too controversial, I think.  It's the ones moreso when a player is at war, really.  Maybe we could simply disallow reload requests when a player is currently at war?  They could still technically ask a friend to request a reload, assuming their friend took his turn before the warring player and is making the request within the 12-hour restriction.  I think this would be less likely though, as most players recognize they have but one reload PER GAME and will want to be frugal about its use.

[Fosse]

I agree that most of those are non-controversial and in no way problematic.

I recall the borders one quite clearly.  I do not recall the second military one... the counter-attack by defending nation against an invader.  Perhaps it was before my time.  Can you point me to the appropriate forum posts?

[Capsavian Hopewell]

That was in reference to Elkad's reload request at http://www.chaosciv.com/index.php/topic,637.0.html

It was only semi-controversial, as the fact remained that I made a bonehead move in defending the captured island city with wounded units, while harboring a full complement (five or six, I can't recall) of full-laden galleons.  The move, which Elkad recognized and exploited, cost me an all-but-guaranteed victory.

I could have used my reload option at that point, but that would have just spread the sour grapes around, I think.

So I don't begrudge him at all, though suspect that would have been a reload which might not have "qualified" under a revised standard.  Just my opinion though, and of course I might be biased since I was the one who was on the losing end of that reload.

[da_Vinci]

Might be worth mentioning the reloads that did not happen (were not even requested) ... such as when da_Vinci committed the combined Yourcenaean, Campechian and Rohan forces to an attack on the Scottish stack that had unexpectedly (but it turns out not unpredictably) low collateral damage effects, making it a military disaster.

In my opinion, not reloadable because it was a decision error, not a technical error.  And the game mechanics that I was not completely clear on were not ones that are really very occult.  Whereas the border shrinkage issue seemed to surprise a number of us, which made that seem a reasonable reload (but might not be again as we all have now learned from it).

So I think in general, reload for a technical error, yes ... but reload for a decision error, no.  Requires some level of trust in its application, I suppose, but the group so far has proven to be trustworthy, at least in the OOC world ... 

dV

[Munro]

So I think in general, reload for a technical error, yes ... but reload for a decision error, no.  Requires some level of trust in its application, I suppose, but the group so far has proven to be trustworthy, at least in the OOC world ... 

This also captures my view perfectly.

In which context, I am not even convinced we need this rule, to be honest.  I think there should always be scope for a reasonable and responsive host to consider requests for reloads based on a 'technical' error that had serious and permanent consequences.  They would be expected to be rare, and requested on a case by case basis, and as a fellow player I wouldn't begrudge any reasonable request.  In which context, I'm not sure why we need a limit.  The test of 'reasonableness' and the game servants judgement should prevent abuse - and setting a quota also risks having reloads requested in situations where it isn't really necessary, partly out of a feeling of entitlement.

So I would prefer to just remove this rule entirely.  If a situation arises where a player feels there is a case for a reload, it should be judged on the merits of the situation in question, and handled by the game host, on a case by case basis.

Obviously it would be completely different if the intention is for reloads to be available to correct 'decision' errors (including acting on information which wasn't or couldn't be known the first time around).  That substantially changes the nature of the game in my view and is open to all kinds of unsatisfying abuse - whipping out wonders the turn before you (retrospectively discover) an opponent completes them, upgrading units the turn before an unknowable surprise attack, retrospectively changing your city MM to be the first to a particular religion or tech when an opponent beats you to it by 1 turn...  This would not be consistent at all with normal game mechanics (or good sportsmanship) and I would not be in favour of this all.

Cheers,
Munro

[Capsavian Hopewell]

I can't remember specifically why we opted to create the rule and limit it to one reload per game...other than, I think it was mentioned/alluded to in CC1 that with 18 players (now 28 in CC2, and hopefully even more in CC3), reloads over "minor" technical mistakes gets to be cumbersome.  It's not only a chore for me as game servant, but reloads cause random events to be re-rolled.  In the case of battles, this poses an opportunity for tactical changes by third-party nations too.

The points dV and Munro made here are both valid of course.

One thought:  if, for CC3, we are able to adapt a sort of RP system, perhaps the "RP points" currency could be spent on a reload by a nation.  Since RP points would be the primary objective of the game (other than simply conquering your neighbors!), players would be hesitant to burn through their RP point cache--but they would have the option to do so if needed (within the spirit of the game).

[Elkad]

That was in reference to Elkad's reload request at http://www.chaosciv.com/index.php/topic,637.0.html

It was only semi-controversial, as the fact remained that I made a bonehead move in defending the captured island city with wounded units, while harboring a full complement (five or six, I can't recall) of full-laden galleons.  The move, which Elkad recognized and exploited, cost me an all-but-guaranteed victory.

Wow, I didn't know they were all loaded.  I figured I got a few units, but just catching your fleet at anchor was my intention.

I literally realized my mis-move before my ships were done doing the animation.  I stopped right there and went to look at the rule.  Since it had no restrictions at all (other than the 12hr rule), I used it.  If the rule had contained more restrictions, I would have taken my lumps.

And even with the rule as-written, I wouldn't take a reload that undid an enemy move as well as my own, unless the enemy consented (pretty unlikely...).   If I'd seen the opportunity, attacked and lost the battle, I wouldn't have used my reload for a second try either.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Yes, each were fully-loaded with veteran macemen and knights.  It hurt badly.  Believe me! 

But again, I was the bonehead to allow the island to be defended by three wounded units while full ships were in port.  I was too focused on the next move, which was a launch against your capitol and quick retreat back from your East Indiamen.  So you made a solid tactical move.

[Fosse]

I'm in pretty solid agreement with Munro's last post.

I see Maltman's reload being controversial.   I think that this one was somewhere between a mechanical problem and a decision one.  If any of us had expeted the border behavior we would have done X.  We didn't, so we did Y, which made the razing of his last city with a Knight possible.  It was a decision made with faulty understanding of mechanics, not on faulty or incomplete intel.

I think it'd be fair to limit reloads to things like button push errors.  The misuse of a great person, accidentally declaring war on an ally by Ctrl-Clicking their name.  That sort of thing. 

I think accidental moves in war time are a bit tougher to make the call on.  Elkad's reload thread doesn't clarify exactly what happened behind the scenes (though it appears all was in bounds, of course).  Miscalculating something and leaving a unit exposed on accident?  Not so easy to justify.  Getting a string of bad RNG results?  No way. 

I could see replacing the rule with one that just says reload requests for dumb UI blunders will be considered case by case, and providing a couple of the above as examples.