RBP3 IT Office - Email and technical issues

[Krill]

Increasing the turn timer later on in the game is often a wise choice (from experience). However, that wasn't the point. The point is that we seem to be having several issues, misunderstandings etc etc. This one got resolved quickly, thank god, but the rules as written are basic and could lead to future arguments.

So far one person has already said that we should leave it until the next issue arises, but that's always a pain to sort, what with different parties wanting different parts and working under different interpretations of the rules etc. I'm just hoping we don't get the problems that other games have had.

[WarriorKnight]

You can send them to me (PM), and yes, that would be a good idea.

Well, just for the record, PM sent.

[RefSteel]

Well, just for the record, PM sent.

Ours too.

Increasing the turn timer later on in the game is often a wise choice (from experience). However, that wasn't the point. The point is that we seem to be having several issues, misunderstandings etc etc. This one got resolved quickly, thank god, but the rules as written are basic and could lead to future arguments.

So far one person has already said that we should leave it until the next issue arises, but that's always a pain to sort, what with different parties wanting different parts and working under different interpretations of the rules etc. I'm just hoping we don't get the problems that other games have had.

I've got to agree with Krill here. All it takes for our current ruleset to break down is for two teams to declare war on the same party on different halves of the turn. Probably we'll be able to resolve it when it happens, but I'd rather see this decided now, BEFORE it actually happens, so that no team's self-interest is involved in the question. Krill's RBP2 ruleset isn't perfect, but it's not materially different from what we agreed upon for this game except insofar as it clarifies multi-party wars and other uncertainties.

I'd rather play the game than hash out more rules, like probably all of us here - but that isn't the choice before us. It's a question of agreeing on the rules now or arguing about them later when something out of the grey area bites somebody. I'd rather get the issue out of the way.

[Ilios]

Hey, what if we just ban all wars from this game? (jk)

[Whosit]

Hey, what if we just ban all wars from this game? (jk)

[tongue-in-cheek]Maybe when PB4 is being organized, we should call it "Builders' Quest" and make it an Always Peace game? With Raging Barbarians. Hopefully we can't get into turn-split arguments with Barbarians.[/tongue-in-cheek]

[Cyneheard]

Always Peace, Deity Level, Raging Barbs, a map with crazy land-grabbing? Sounds like a ton of fun. And maybe a rule that you have to give away cities if it's >50% someone else's culture, just to keep things interesting...

[Shoot the Moon]

Always Peace, Deity Level, Raging Barbs, a map with crazy land-grabbing? Sounds like a ton of fun. And maybe a rule that you have to give away cities if it's >50% someone else's culture, just to keep things interesting...

I call Joao of the HRE

[Cyneheard]

Fine. I'll take Sury of India.

[Whosit]

I call Joao of the HRE

Fine. I'll take Sury of India.

My god, what have I done?!

[Krill]

...Pacal of Inca please.