RAH rules: Description and Origination of

[ColdWizard]

being lazy as i am, i don't want to have to look in a bunch of different threads every time i forget the particulars of rah rules. it'd also be beneficial for newbies and other people that don't know them (not to mention forgetful old farts ), so here's my compilation from the old MP thread and Xin's thread, along with additions/corrections as posted by rah (and others). please inform me of any more omissions and/or other errors and new rules adoptions:


Settings
Level: Deity
Barbarians: Raging Hordes
Production: 2x
Movement: 1x
Map size: 39x49 for 4 player, 37x47 or smaller for 3 player (map size varies, the only consistent factor is TINY ROCK)
Landmass: Large
Landform: Continents
Climate: Wet
Temp: Cool
Age: 3 Billion
# of Civs: 4 (ideal, 3 if necessary), no AI
Time limit: None
Huts
Turn-based

Special stipulations
Not Allowed: city bribes*, alliances, wonder trading, unit teleporting (includes caravans), tech trading, blatant cheats (map peeking, non-unit creation, sabotage proofing, cheat-o-matic, lag-related cheats, etc.), caravan re-homing, selling improvements/disbanding units after losing the city/unit, building the Great Wall, hard feelings.

*NO city bribe.
If the barbs take a city, you OR anyone else may bribe it.
BUT, If someone drops out of the game and the AI takes over, and bribes one of your cities. Only the person that owned the city may bribe it back, since it normally shouldn't have been bribed in the first place.
AND others should refrain from conquering the city until the original players has taken back control.


Allowed: Incremental buying, black clicking, tech stealing agreements, trade agreements (to allow caravans to be delivered), all other player arrangements (any agreements can broken when advantageous), all wonders except Great Wall (may agree to eliminate certain ones in duels), pre-worked settlers, selling improvements/disbanding units before losing the city/unit, diploguiding.

Other: Restart when host gets techs, try not to penalize player drops (reloading if necessary). Airbases, allowed only as real airbases, not allowed in city radius nor allowed to build a line of them to block air lanes.

rules.txt Modifications: Oracle expires with Industrialization.



Origination of (as posted by rah)
They are not called RAH rules because I made them up. They have just evolved over time with the group that we play with. The only reason they are called that is because in the early day's i had the fastest machine and a cable modem, therefore, I usually hosted. And they know the name annoys me
[and more from another thread]
Sounds like our early games with XIN, right after MP came out.
We all cheated, trying to figure out what we could do. Every 30 minutes or so, XIN would say, found another one. It was always hilarious. After a couple of months we started to discuss which ones we would allow and which ones were banned. That was the beginning of "RAH" rules.


Glossary - definitions provided by: Ming, Scouse Git[1], rah.
caravan re-homing - unlike normal units you cannot hit the 'h' key to change the home of a caravan - however the 'support from this city' option is available from within the city screen - this has led people to believe that rehoming is not an intended feature and hence is a cheat -- the advantage -- imagine all your caravans - even those produced by a poxy 2-city - being rehomed to your size 24 SSC and sent - well anywhere you like!!!
the cheat-o-matic - is a tsr that allows the game parameters to be changed on the fly while the game is running
diplo-guiding - using a diplomat or spy (or other unit that ignores ZOC) to lead other units through an enemy's zones of control.
disbanding units - disbanding units in anticipation of losing the unit to bribery is allowed so long as it's done before the bribery occurs.
non unit creation - Move a unit from the city that it is homed to, to another city.
Now this requires good timing. Open the screen to home it to the new city. Now wait till the machine is switching over to your turn, quickly press the homing selection. If you catch it right, the unit will not home to the new city but become a non-unit.
pre-worked settlers - You start a settler working on something, (like transforming grassland to forest, anything that takes longer than a turn)
Now before he finishes, clear the command. THe turns that he spent working are "saved up" the next command you give him, (if you planned it right) will allow it to be completed in one turn. Hence the term, "pre-worked". This was more useful in 1x1x games for fortress building. In 2x1x games a fortress can be built in one turn, so it's not as critical. BUT it still has many uses. Let's suppose you're sending a settler out to convert some terrain. But barbs pop up so you hold him near a city for a turn to clear out the barbs. He can start his task and move out later without wasting any time overall.
Sabotage proofing - is similar [to non-unit creation]. when a diplo approaches your city, open the build queue and make ready to buy the item. When the diplo sabotages production, The shields that you had will still be in the box. Buy it up. No lose of shields.
Selling improvements - Selling an improvement in anticipation of losing a city to enemy attack is allowed as long as the sale is conducted prior to the lose of the city.
Unit teleporting - During your turn, you can move a unit... then gift it to your partner. He then gives it back to you and you can move it again in the same turn. Repeat... You can have unlimited movement. Really nice when you want to move a diplo in on some city.



Reference threads
Xin Yu's FoA Thread - Xin's role in the development of disallowed exploits.
Settings Preferences thread - rah posts up rah rules, and origination of such rules.

[Ming]

Raging Hordes is standard

[rah]

Very good.

Correction.
Map Size varies, and has over the years. The only consistent factor is TINY ROCK

Currently 39x49 for 4 players. Sometimes 38x48. After multiple restarts due to techs, may bump size. For 3 players, we'll start at 37-47 or even smaller. Whatever feels right. But for four players, it's pretty consistent.

Additions,
RAGING HORDE
Huts
All wonders in play (may agree to elim certain ones in duels)
All standard game files. (no mods)
Turn based

Allowed,
Trading maps, if you dare. The same goes for all the other player agreements. Expect agreements to be broken when advantagous. (get over it )

The not penalize player drops is important. We'll hold the game and wait. Or reload to a previous turn if player gets back and he's screwed. But sometimes the save isn't good or we didn't notice the player dropped fast enough, so sometimes it doesn't work out that way, but the intent is no penalty. We'll usually ask the player when he returns how it looks for him before we continue. If it's just minor crap, they usually say to just go ahead.



Ok, guys, what else am is missing?

[Flatlander Fox]

The part where you always win...

Or at least build HG...


The IRB shocked me when I learned of it's allowance... I had been dutifully rush-building stuff the old way for awhile... THAT'S why I was playing so terrible.

[rah]

I guess that's a good reason for us to have a thread like this. Our original group never even blinked on that one so we assumed that no one else would. Boy were we wrong. I remember a thread where it was hotly debated.

Of course now that you know, we expect your level of play to be equal to ours.

RAH

[Flatlander Fox]

Then I guess I better not play with you anymore...


On topic: No doubt that the rules that you play by makes you a better player on all settings... My overall game has improved by the dustings I have recieved...

Thanks but No Thanks.

[War4ever]

preworked settlers is allowed too...which i had no idea for two years..... but hey ..no Hard Feelings right

[ColdWizard]

i even remember forgetting to put in raging hordes ("i'll put it in later" )


for a long while i couldn't remember if incremental rushing was allowed or not, but doing it anyway, figuring that with my mad skillz nobody would mind

[rah]

I forgot about the preworked settlers. Yes it's allowed. Probably since no one ever *****ed about it. It was never discussed. So it was in by default.

FF You're always welcome when we have a slot.

Yes, It takes me a bit to get used to other settings. I always forget the happiness counts less than Deity and build my temples too early. And I'll build on the wrong terrain until i remember.
But after a while, I remember.

2x movement, I really really dislike and am not likely to play that setting. There is something disburbing about Cats moving and attacking on the same turn. Diplos moving 4 is also a bit much.

But I will agree that I'm better at "RAH" rules, only because we use them.

RAH

[rah]

CW at the incr buying comment. And your new sig, just noticed it.

Go ahead and list 39x49 as the size for 4 player.

Other world settings never posted before
Landmass large
Landform Continents
Climate Wet
Temp Cool
Age 4 Billion

They have varied but these have been used for the last couple of years.


MING, could you put an entry and link to this thread in the GL?

[DrSpike]

The link in the GL would be good. I wondered what the rules were for a while before finally asking in the Xin Yu ACS thread. Great thread CW.

[ColdWizard]

more changes and additions made

Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
On topic: No doubt that the rules that you play by makes you a better player on all settings...

every setting except for 2x move, which offers different opportunities and challenges. 4 move diplos are cool and very annoying, depending on who's using them

[ColdWizard]

Question: is bomber-shielding allowed or not?
not that many of these games seem to get to bombers, but i don't remember the subject popping up before

[Scouse Gits]

Yeh - I've just dissed bomber shielding over on Strat - with apologies to Xin and the X-pack - but I still think it's iffy to say the least -- what's the consensus -- perhaps should start a thread?

[ColdWizard]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Yeh - I've just dissed bomber shielding over on Strat

your post is what spurred me to ask

[rah]

I see this is as the perfect place to discuss. When we come to a agreement, CW can add or delete from the original post. These types of ongoing discussions will also keep the thread near the top for easy reference.

Bomber coverage.
(YEAH LIKE WE EVER GET THAT FAR )
Seriously though..... I have mixed thoughts on this one. Definitely no on the whole xpack concept with airport/fortress, that seems a bit excessive. On normal bomber coverage, I would lean to NO, not acceptable. But could be convinced otherwise if overwhelming thougt otherwise.

Other opinions.

I SAY NO TO BOMBER COVERAGE.

Rich

[ColdWizard]

i also say no to bomber stacking/shielding. seems like an unintended consequence to fighters being the only unit able to attack bombers

[Scouse Gits]

Started a poll over on Strat - last I looked three nays and nary an aye -- we certainly have disallowed less questionable moves in the past - I still smart from Airbases - it seems to me that by Radio one can argue convincingly for an Engineer upgrade that allows all kinds of terrain magic - but I lost -- similarly Caravan rehoming is to me much more realistic than Bomber Shielding (?BS?)

[DrSpike]

Well I'm off to strat to vote yes to bomber shielding. I can see I'm going to be in the minority here.

[ColdWizard]

but why do you say yes?

[rah]

Yes, please tell us your reasoning, I see people kinda waffling here, and possibly being able to be convinced. I am far from rock solid on this one.

How about airbases? I say no inside of city radius.
creating air shields that way is silly, and the extra production is def a cheat.


CW, add no caravan rehoming to the list. forgot that one.

RAH

[ColdWizard]

re: airbases. i can live with them outside city radius so long as they do not become within the radius of new cities. pre-existing airbases that find themselves within a new radius should be pillaged before the city is put down.

[DrSpike]

I've had a couple of drinks this evening (sorry I mean I attended the meeting of the strategic gaming society - we don't have our own premises but we found a few places that were willing to accommodate our discussions of.......civ) but I'll have a go.

My reasons:

1) It is not that the player shielding cannot be attacked, but that he can just be attacked with fighter units. I don't think this is unreasonable. It is a factor in war that when a country gets air superiority ground troops are less effective. Bomber shielding seems a fair representation of this.

2) A less fundamental argument perhaps, but relatively this seems as fair as other ZOC tricks.

3) It is always hard to say what the intended effect of units was, but I think the fact that ZOC for air units works the same way in SMAC is indicative of intent. As an aside I don't think SMAC players consider this an exploit (and it exactly the same principle).

4) A wise man on these forums once (I can't remember who, sorry ) justified the dubious process of preworking settlers by arguing that it wasn't an exploit because there was a strategic cost to the strat. Having a trade-off, an opportunity cost, is critical, otherwise you have uberstrats. Such no-brainers are not conducive to balanced skilful play. This also applies here, since there is a cost and a risk. Other strats that players now take for granted such as black square clicking, triangulation of city location, etc etc, are all things which have no justification other than the fact they are there, with no opportunity cost. These are what you should look at first IMO I suspect the only reason they are there is that you cannot regulate these areas.

Hope that helps.

Anyway I guess this is kinda moot as MP games aren't going to reach flight.

[DrSpike]

To muddy the waters further I was surprised to see SG felt using airbases as anything other than an airbase was valid. This is clearly against intent, and somewhat of a no-brainer strategically in a lot of cases. I think it thus fails both tests.

CR is a tricky one, but since the resource and trade route is coming from the original city I think it is dubious, and would probably disallow it. There is a lot of skill with caravans though, I can see why some want it to be allowed.

Anyway I apologise if my simple request for a posting of the RAH rules has reopened what may be tired arguments for long time MPers. You have your rules and they have stood the test of time.

I just realised how appropriate that was

[ColdWizard]

Originally posted by DrSpike
My reasons:

1) It is not that the player shielding cannot be attacked, but that he can just be attacked with fighter units. I don't think this is unreasonable. It is a factor in war that when a country gets air superiority ground troops are less effective. Bomber shielding seems a fair representation of this.

less effective yes, but bomber shielding makes it impossible for ground units to attack in the first place

[Bloody Monk]

This is very interesting even for the bleacher bums who don't have MP. Just one question, please.... What do you mean by TINY ROCKS??? Thanks

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by DrSpike
To muddy the waters further I was surprised to see SG felt using airbases as anything other than an airbase was valid. This is clearly against intent, and somewhat of a no-brainer strategically in a lot of cases. I think it thus fails both tests.

Feel free to muddy away ... I think you are probably right - it is a no brainer, but it appealed to me when I 'discovered'/re-discovered/read in the forum about it (I cannot honestly recall which it was) - but the people here were very clear that they viewed it a cheat - so cheat it is and no more do I even think about it -- vet Crooks and Super Ironclads do all the damage way before Radio -- Caravan rehoming is as has been said above a much more difficult case - the concensus is no, but as I recall the last debate was close. Now bomber shielding - strikes me as totally counter intuitive - if there were some variant of 'fighter shielding' I could see this as air cover, but with bombers - it just doesn't work for me -- result - if the vote goes as seems likely in its favour - I shan't complain if anyone shields their troops, I just won't do it myself.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk
This is very interesting even for the bleacher bums who don't have MP. Just one question, please.... What do you mean by TINY ROCKS??? Thanks

It means small maps. Such maps have a larger concentration of mountainous areas than you're probably used to. At least that is what I always thought Rah and co meant.

[Scouse Gits]

Even though its disallowed - What is "Unit Teleporting"?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits

if the vote goes as seems likely in its favour - I shan't complain if anyone shields their troops, I just won't do it myself.

Everyone should have the same strategic resources open to them. Everyone has to use strats they find annoying sometimes if this is to be the case.

Only strats that aren't too unbalancing will survive in the long run. For me realism arguments always take a back seat to balance/playability arguments. It may be that your gut feeling is correct and this strat shouldn't be allowed, but I had to argue (well it started as just me - last time I looked the yes votes were pulling ahead) since it really doesn't seem detrimental.