Gamemaster Guide

This page assists new Gamemasters to learn how to GM games.

## Commands

Server commands can be reviewed here: Server commands

Client commands for Gamemasters are listed below:

**Supercow lock** - `ctrl-alt-shift-S`: by default the lock is on. Turning it off will allow you to better inspect game elements, as if you were a player. For example, with supercow lock `OFF`, you can click on cities or unit stacks. When supercow lock is `OFF`, the game client has taken you out of `OBSERVER MODE`. This means other important observer and Gamemaster features will be lost while the lock is off. You can recover them by relogging or toggling the lock.

**Debug Mode** - `ctrl-shift-E`: exposes the server's log messages, which may be useful for helping developers debug a crash, etc.

## Trading Cities

Freeciv-Web allows players to trade cities. However, the setting is `OFF` by default. (If it were `ON`, there would be too many temptations for cheating.)

Players may approach the GM and explain they want to trade cities. **They must give a normal reason that's a win/win for the self-interest of both nations.** A win/lose city trade that unilaterally favors only one nation (e.g., "I'm quitting") is not encouraged or automatically deemed acceptable. In some cases, the GM may decide that unilateral favor is acceptable: it may preserve game integrity or game balance, prevent giving a hollow victory to the competing alliance who would win simply from having an enemy quit the game, etc.)

### Doing the trade

Inform both players that it's their duty to notify you after the trade is completed. Then do:

`**/set trading\_city enabled**`

Be sure to turn it back off after they inform you that the trade is completed:

`**/set trading\_city disabled**`

## Turn length

Turn length should be increased when players need it. Here we tend to favor the rights of the minority who need extra time, over the majority who don't need it and want the game to go faster. It's a balance between preserving integrity by not forcing players to lose their turns or play improperly or stressed out, vs preserving fun by not making players bored and impatient or stressed out they can't finish their turns. The table below gives a vague approximation about what turn lengths are appropriate during which phases of the game.

Turn lengths should always be one off from a multiple of 12. This aligns the timer to the 24 hour earth clock, but off by 1 so that specific geographic regions don't get turn change always at the same times of day, which would give advantage to some time zones and not others. Acceptable lengths under this paradigm are: **11, 13, 23, 25, 35, 37, 47, 49.** Ultra-longturn: 59, 61, 71, 73, 83, 85.

Starting with UR32 and R44, an automatic turn timer extension is built into the game. Turns become 25 hours at T60, 35 hours at T100, and 85 hours on T121. This potentially reduces the number of times the GM must change the timer to only once per game: on T121, where roughly half the games have already finished.

`**/set timeout**` is used to increase turn length. Note that the command **does not add** to the timer. It resets the length of the timer, in seconds. There are 3600 seconds to an hour.

**Setting the turn length with console commands**
 `**/set timeout 169200**` | **47 hours** | T110 - T150 \*

\* 47h is appropriate when a nation becomes "superpower size" and requests it: approximately 80±15 cities.

## Multi-account issues

finding multi-account, common patterns, discovery

## Cheating Suspicions

These will generally be reported from an in-game player.

You should also try to catch them yourself by logging in often enough to have an idea what's unfolding in the game.

## Mediation Scenarios

### No RTS requests

#### RTS theory

RTS is not *ipso facto* bad or discouraged. In pure game theory, RTS is more fair than allowing a player exclusive right to attack with a guaranteed privilege of sustaining no counterattack. So why are NO RTS requests are part of the game? Because players are not online 24 hours per day, and this creates a chain of implications. How? Well, some players get NO RTS simply because the other is offline. Players who are online less would then incur the disadvantage of being attacked without getting to RTS. Meanwhile, players who camp online more often would get *both* NO RTS when it's to their advantage, *and* RTS when it's to their advantage. FCW balances this by having periods where RTS is allowed, and also periods where it is not allowed.

RTS legality chart

#### Mediating incidents

Players will often complain about a NO RTS request not being honored, during a time of the turn when RTS is allowed and encouraged. For reference, the times RTS is allowed can be found here. In such cases simply link them to the chart and the rules. Give explanations if appropriate.

Sometimes players will be emotional and accusatory on each other over RTS. At such times, you can create a mediation server or a 3-way chat to hear both sides. These have the potential to be very hot, emotional, and disorderly. But can be controlled with some methods. Before moderation starts, inform the players that they will speak one at a time when you call upon them to do so, and the party who is least civil and most out of order may have the decision go against them. This will usually establish order during the moderation.

### Mexican standoffs

The current RTS rules have usually resulted in fair games with infrequent issues. However, in theory there are cases where whoever calls "NO RTS" first would get a game winning advantage. Obviously we don't want our games decided like a simple children's game where the first person to call something wins. These cases are called Mexican Standoff and the GM is expected to help explain these rules and link to https://www.freecivweb.org/rules . In such cases where nothing else works, it's likely best for the GM to be a supervising referee to an arrangement where, for 5-10 minutes, each side moves one unit, reports the move, then the other alternates. While in theory this is fair and should be used more often, it also encourages expectations for users to call it all the time and start demanding it ever more frequently, with ever more bickering about when it's appropriate, and more frequent incidents created from it. Therefore, be judicious and careful in how often you allow Mexican standoffs.

## Psycho-aggression complaints

The community always has a small minority of players who are "psycho-aggressive" and also a minority of players who are sensitive to it. Sometimes, it's the same player! So, from time to time, in every few games or so, you'll be the lucky GM facing an issue like this.

It is recommended to tell the complaining user to use their Discord "Block" command (right-click user >> Block) and the in-game command:

`**/ignore player\_name**`

Being a nanny and moral judge over people of different nationality, culture, race, religion, politics, dietary faith, personality, "identity", and social caste, is difficult and likely to upset one or both parties. Thus encouraging them to block each other if they can't resolve it, is often the laziest but also best choice to handle these issues. However, sometimes you may have to go deeper into it and make judgments, warnings, threats, and penalties.

Even so, please notify the GM community of ALL such complaints WITHOUT EXCEPTION. (Players don't get much chance to notify the community, under the non-impugnment rules.) The greater GM community must therefore ***make itself always alert*** of players who engage in toxic behaviors, and how often they do so, across different games with different GMs. Reports in GM channels start developing a larger picture. The larger picture is needed to eventually take action on a player, or to understand that new rules are needed to regulate certain behaviors in the future.