Council Elections in PBEMs

[Googlie]

The trouble with council elections in PBEMs lies in the communications protocols.

In one game I'm in, the poor second candidate (happened to be last in turn sequence) opened his gameturn to find that the election had been called, the bribery et al already done by the election-calling candidate, the votes cast and the election essentially over.

I happened to have the swing vote, and contemplated exiting the game, doing an e-mail round to get the best deal for my vote, then reloading, (but didn't)

(As an aside, the successful candidate in this case didn't even get to see the vote tally - only the defeated one - last in the turn sequence - saw that)

We have adopted a rule that many of the ACOL games have, which is that when you call an election, when you zip and send on that turn you also e-mail all players to advise that an election has been called, who the candidates are and how many votes for each factions are in play. This creates a level playing field and lets the usual vote-buying discussions commence.

I'd like to see this (and the probe advisory) be adopted for the ACT and AXT series of tourney games.

Googlie

[Garth Vader]

The council idea is a good one. I might note that the probe notification rule is already in the tournament. I accidently didn't do this the first time I probed somebody, but I found it odd that I got a message asking if I wanted to declare war on myself. Then I thought I'd remembered seeing it in the rules so I reread them and sure enough it was there.

[DilithiumDad]

This is a good rule. Getting players e-mailing each other is a good thing, helps keep up interest in the game, which is especially important in those 7-player games where the weakest factions may be getting dispirited (but weak factions have the most critical role diplomatically!).

[MariOne]

hey, this one slipped me!
While looking for HP cheats thread, I found this one.

I may add for chronistic (chronicistic? of chronicle...) flavour, that as far as I can tell the issue was first raised by me back in spring '99 in BC4S pbem.
CMN Bingmann approved and issued the rule.
JAMiAM (winner of that pbem) extended the practice adding the breakdown of council votes.

As further notes:
- the caller might even hold his turn when sending the council call, so that even his vote can be influenced by bribery!
- in games where no communications till contact is enforced, the calling of the first council makes all communications free for those who weren't yet in contact. This way, the first broadcast e-mail Council call also takes on the character of a special event, giving start to unrestricted e-mail in-game chatting & plotting!

[LoD]

A very good rule. Even better one is to have the caller inform the collective one turn before the elections.

LoD

[JAMiAM]

LoD,

I disagree with the need for a full turn's notification. If the notice comes when the turn is passed to the next player, there is still plenty of time to conduct the back room dealings. Each of the players could hold the turn, waiting for the best offer.

However, if a full turn's notice is required, then there are additional considerations to take into account. A quick pop boom upsetting the vote counts, for example. Not to mention that the element of surprise is lost.

[Fitz]

If you are playing a game with the AI (but still multiplayer), the player who calls the election gets an added benefit. S/He can bribe the AI at a super cheap price in the election council. For this reason, if I already have the governorship, I tend to start rebribing the AIs about 15-18 years after the last election was called, and repeat on a 5 year basis. It tends to upset the other players when they call an election expecting the cheap bribe, only to find that the AI has already been bought

[LoD]

JAMiAM: Well, both methods have a good side and a bad side. The big pro of the method proposed by me is the fact that the Planetary Council action does not upset the rate of the game.
Of course, all the thing you say are true. However, I think that it simply depends on the players wether they choose total control, or fast game flow.

------------------


LoD - Owner/Webmaster of

THE CHIRONIAN GUILD SMAC Site

[MariOne]

LoD, simply put:
IMO, JAM's way (and ours too), is just an attempt to put things back in place as they originally were - allowing again simultaneous reactions to an event that in pbem became sequential.
Your proposal, is a MODIFICATION to the game rules. Do we really feel the need for that?

(BTW, be sure that when needed, pbems can get on hold for quite some days while frantic negotiations go on, and this doesn't happen for electrions only)

[LoD]

MoSe: Like I said, my proposal simply sacrifices the element of surprise to ensure a steady game flow. So,in normal games that don't make more than 3 turns per week, the "normal" proposal stated by Googlie is sufficent, and, moreover, adived. However, it's quite opposite in 7-player games that have a pace of one turn per day (sic!).

LoD