  |
|
| Author |
Topic |
Douglas E Fresh
Dignitary
 |
 Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:32 pm     |
| blaubohne wrote: |
3.a.2.Second all draw orders are resolved simultaneously. If two or more submitted draw orders would result in those lines crossing each other, the orders are disregarded without effect.
3.a.3. Third all erase orders are resolved simultaneously. If an erase order erases a border that have been split by a draw order, the erase order is disregarded. If two or more erase orders would result in an area containing more than one supply center, the orders are disregarded without effect. |
Cool - that all seems pretty straight forward.
Two points:
So, as an example: If in Spring 1901, England orders DRAW Wal - Bre, and France orders ERASE Wal - MAO:
The DRAW order is resolved first - it succeeds - and the ERASE order is ignored - correct?
(Also - if more than one power proposes identical orders, I am assuming it succeeds, but would this win out over an alternative proposal? What happens if Turkey and Russia both order: DRAW Sil - Bud, and Austria orders DRAW War - Bud? Does Sil-Bud win 2 v 1? or do both fail?)
I was assuming that both orders would fail, but I think you are right: Although the fact that DRAW orders taking precedence over ERASE, must generally favour the defender, it stands to reason that it is easier to blow bridges up than it is to build them. (Something about floating mines in bodies of water being easier to do than supplying your infantry with adequate winter equipment is also probably applicable :/ - but then I am a bleeding-heart humanist  )
I re-read the comments above (re: the problems with democracy in games making it easier to stop the leader), and I concur that the advanced rules you have proposed deal with that very well. (I had intended that the "n/3 special orders per year" should apply - but only in the Spring turn, but your advanced proposal is much better for the player and it should be down to the GM to accommodate this )
So - with your permission pending, I shall now submit a hosting request and we can see how many people sign up in the New Games forum.
I am assuming that you will want to play 1 turn per week (1 game year per fortnight)?
Let me know asap if not.
If there are any amends to the rules I will certainly incorporate them before the game begins.
_________________
 |
|
| posts: 454 | location: Kingdom of Loathing (GMT) | joined: 25 Jan 2007 |
blaubohne
Dignitary
|
Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:38 pm |
1. If you mean Erase MAO-ECH then I agree 
2. There is nothing to stop you to allow n/3 special orders in spring turns. it could actually be a good way to keep the game on track, as it will take some extra time to GM whereas on fall turns you'll have winter adjustments to deal with as well.
Submit away. I want to play! Weekly deadline sounds good.
/Vidar
_________________
OIW
 |
|
| posts: 391 | location: Nyköping, Sweden | joined: 17 Oct 2002 |
Douglas E Fresh
Dignitary
|
Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:45 pm |
| blaubohne wrote: |
| 1. If you mean Erase MAO-ECH then I agree |
Hah! - there is no border between MAO and ECH! ...ahem... anyway - I shall adjudicate with a 'common sense' approach to orders and ask players for clarification if I am unsure ;P
| blaubohne wrote: |
| 2. There is nothing to stop you to allow n/3 special orders in spring turns. it could actually be a good way to keep the game on track, as it will take some extra time to GM whereas on fall turns you'll have winter adjustments to deal with as well. |
That was my thinking exactly - I shall submit the hosting request with the n/3 orders in Spring as our test
| blaubohne wrote: |
Submit away. I want to play! Weekly deadline sounds good.
/Vidar |
On it.
|
|
| posts: 454 | location: Kingdom of Loathing (GMT) | joined: 25 Jan 2007 |
blaubohne
Dignitary
|
Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:46 pm |
re the comment in parenthesis.
I figure 2 drawing orders vs 1 should not be a success. If two or more special ops units show up they all detroy each other. However, I just realized I need to rework that paradox rule. Sil-Bud and War-Bud could result in those lines not crossing (splitting Gal in 3 parts). Or in them crossing. If we are to stick with your way of ordering draw orders (which I think is good), then the orders don't tell us if 3.a.2 is applicable or not.
So reworking it in the rules paragraph now.
|
|
| posts: 391 | location: Nyköping, Sweden | joined: 17 Oct 2002 |
Douglas E Fresh
Dignitary
|
Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:51 pm |
OK - I'll check back in a bit to see the changes, then I think it would be useful to view them 'in action' on the map again, in case we find any other issues come up. I must now go and give my baby girl her nighttime bottle - no - that is not a code. but I'll see if I can get another map done in the next hour or so, once the rules are edited
|
|
| posts: 454 | location: Kingdom of Loathing (GMT) | joined: 25 Jan 2007 |
blaubohne
Dignitary
|
Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:55 pm |
Added a Switzerland rule as well.
Good luck with the bottle. My girl (now almost 18 months) still takes the occasional night bottle, but quite often I get to sleep whole nights now (knocks on wood...)
|
|
| posts: 391 | location: Nyköping, Sweden | joined: 17 Oct 2002 |
Douglas E Fresh
Dignitary
|
Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:13 pm |
SPRING 1901 - ORDERS
AUSTRIA
A Vie - Gal FAILS 1 v 1
A Bud - Ser SUCCEEDS
F Tri - Ven FAILS 1 v 1
DRAW War - Rum SUCCEEDS
ENGLAND
F Lon - Nth SUCCEEDS
F Edi - Nwg SUCCEEDS
A Lvp - Yor SUCCEEDS
DRAW Wal - Pic SUCCEEDS
FRANCE
F Bre - Eng SUCCEEDS
A Par - Pic SUCCEEDS
A Mar - Spa SSUCCEEDS
ERASE Eng / Iri (I would accept an order of ERASE Wal to MAO, as this also describes the borderline between the English Channel and Irish Sea) - FAILS (English Channel has already been partitioned by England!)
GERMANY
F Kie - Den SUCCEEDS
A Ber - Kie SUCCEEDS
A Mun HOLD SUCCEEDS
ERASE Par / Bur
(An order of ERASE Pic to Gas would fail without further clarification, as the border between Par & Bre also fits the same description - it is really up to the player to make themselves clear no matter how they choose to phrase their order, while I can ask for clarification, players should be advised that any unclear orders will automatically fail if clarification is not submitted in time) SUCCEEDS
ITALY
A Ven - Tri FAILS 1 v 1
A Rom - Apu SUCCEEDS
F Nap - Ion SUCCEEDS
ERASE Ven / Tus SUCCEEDS
RUSSIA
F Stp(sc) - Bot SUCCEEDS
A Mos - StP SSUCCEEDS
A War - Gal FAILS 1 v 1
F Sev - Rum SUCCEEDS
DRAW Bla - OTB through Arm
(This order requires the 'through Arm' as clarification, because 'DRAW Bla - OTB' on its own could reasonably be achieved through either Sev or Arm and would fail unless made clear by the player) SUCCEEDS
TURKEY
A Con - Bul SUCCEEDS
A Smy - Con SUCCEEDS
F Ank HOLD SUCCEEDS
DRAW Con - Con move SC in Western part of Bulgaria. Unit moves to the same area as SC
(Without mention of Bulgaria in the order this would fail, as "DRAW Con - Con" on its own could be applied to any one of Bul, Bla, Ank, Smy or Aeg. The conditional comment about the unit is useful to the GM, but the Unit would be placed with the SC by default) SUCCEEDS
The Map below shows the movement results for Spring 1901 and the new borders.
There is one retreat due:
French Fleet may move to either ECH or WCH
Par is now adjacent to four other SCs! - whether this order ends up helping Germany or France would remain to be seen 
Ven now has two coasts - Fleet builds in Ven would have to be specified as either Build F Ven (ec) or Build F Ven (wc) - or they would fail.
The partitioning of Galicia and Armenia are self-explanatory, but whether they signal alliance or suspicion between the relevant players would be up to the board to deduce.
Greater Bulgaria now contains the SC and Lesser Bulgaria borders only Constantinople and its larger Sister. It could be regarded as a massive defensive structure (poorly?) conceived by the Turks, perhaps to help defend their 'automatic build'...
...once they get another army in there of course
NOTES:
Regarding the addition of multiple borders to a region - I shall endeavour to include sub-maps of regions which become unreadable on the main map: HOWEVER, I think we should bear in mind that the game may become unplayable - or at least, un-finish-able if Europe is divided into too many tiny portions. I therefore propose that the game will end in the Fall of 1912. (probably some time in September if all goes to schedule - to be honest I don't know if I can play much into October anyway) Is this ok? would it put anyone off playing? Anyone have any other thoughts?
|
|
| posts: 454 | location: Kingdom of Loathing (GMT) | joined: 25 Jan 2007 |
Douglas E Fresh
Dignitary
|
Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:22 pm |
Hosting request submitted to Tom
|
|
| posts: 454 | location: Kingdom of Loathing (GMT) | joined: 25 Jan 2007 |
blaubohne
Dignitary
|
Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:47 am |
Following changes need to be worked in I think.
1. The combination between draw and erase needs to be further clarified. My thinking was that the orders submitted by France and England actually would succeed, (there is no paradox, first ECH is split into west and east channel, then west channel is merged with MAO). What I meant with the border being is split is that if you divide ECH into north-south ECH, then erase MAO-ECH would be a paradox. Do you follow? If we keep the rule as you interpreted it the wording would need to change.
2. Terminology, I'd suggest draw orders need to be written BLA-Arm-OTB to make sure there are no mistakes. A lot of places open up for possible draws through different areas.
3. Rules for Den and Con and the Swedish coastline probably need to be explicitly clarified, and perhaps for coasts as well.
4. Paradox of erase needs to be expanded to stop an area containing several units to be created.
I'll fix these later today. If you have a thought on which way to go in point 1 let me know.
|
|
| posts: 391 | location: Nyköping, Sweden | joined: 17 Oct 2002 |
Douglas E Fresh
Dignitary
|
Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:34 am |
| blaubohne wrote: |
Following changes need to be worked in I think.
1. The combination between draw and erase needs to be further clarified. My thinking was that the orders submitted by France and England actually would succeed, (there is no paradox, first ECH is split into west and east channel, then west channel is merged with MAO). What I meant with the border being is split is that if you divide ECH into north-south ECH, then erase MAO-ECH would be a paradox. Do you follow? If we keep the rule as you interpreted it the wording would need to change.
|
I agree with your thinking. Let us rule that both would succeed then (although in my example WCH would have actually been merged with Irish Sea!) I see what you mean though and agree with your ruling on this. I submitted the hosting request with the orders as they stood last night - We should have a while to refine the rules and can present them to the players in the new game thread/ before the game begins.
I like your proposal for annotating the DRAW orders: eg. DRAW Pic - Bur - Mar, or DRAW Con - Bul - Con leaves less room for misinterpretation and I think we should stick with this.
As far as annotation of ERASE is concerned. I guess that we keep it as simple as possible: eg. ERASE Nth - Nwg or ERASE Nth - Ska indicates quite clearly which border the player wishes to remove. As you also mentioned, an ERASE order would succeed in a province where a DRAW order had already occurred just as long as it was still logically possible.
|
|
| posts: 454 | location: Kingdom of Loathing (GMT) | joined: 25 Jan 2007 |
Douglas E Fresh
Dignitary
|
Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:19 am |
|
|
| posts: 454 | location: Kingdom of Loathing (GMT) | joined: 25 Jan 2007 |
blaubohne
Dignitary
|
Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:57 am |
All discussed changes/clarifications worked into the rules. If someone finds any holes, shout!
|
|
| posts: 391 | location: Nyköping, Sweden | joined: 17 Oct 2002 |
blaubohne
Dignitary
|
Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:33 pm |
One thought from when I discussed this with my brother, and also re: Tom:s comment.
Drawing to the same border will create new areas with few neighbours. Con-Ank-Con for example will create a sc that borders only Con and Ank, a Portugal-like territory. That is not a big problem. A worse one is for example OTB-Mos-OTB. The new sc can only be reached from Moscow. It won't be impossible to kick a unit out of there since you can erase again, but the option to play boring is there. One way to deal with it would be disallowing draw between OTB and OTB, another to disallow all draws to the same border. What do you think?
|
|
| posts: 391 | location: Nyköping, Sweden | joined: 17 Oct 2002 |
Snake IV
Emissary
|
Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:53 am    |
Portugal-like territories are bad. The main reason Portugal isn't a bigger issue than it is is because it is on the periphery. Portugal is one of the last SCs to deal with when carving France, making it less defended because France is so weak once you get there. If Portugal had been on a front section, it'd been disastrous. I'd support ban on drawing Portugals (except Portugal then).
If you draw OTB-OTB you can also create yet another province within your isolated province, so that you have buffers.
_________________
Having an avatar with a vase as headware. |
|
| posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007 |
Douglas E Fresh
Dignitary
|
Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:03 pm |
This is preciesly why I was suprised that DRAW orders superceded ERASE orders (it is also why I chose a 1912 auto-endgame) - but I am still up for giving the game a go as it stands. I think that drawing OTB-provincename-OTB is worth banning though I will include it in our final rule-set to confirmed players. Speaking of which we have four sign-ups - please anyone who is borderline up for this - think about giving it a go. True - it could be a crazy head****, but it WILL be lots of fun
|
|
| posts: 454 | location: Kingdom of Loathing (GMT) | joined: 25 Jan 2007 |
You cannot post new topics
You cannot reply to topics
You cannot edit your posts
You cannot delete your posts
You cannot vote in polls
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
- 1 Registered
- GoogleBot
- Faxmonkey
- 0 Hidden and 7 Guests
Site redesign in progress...
Please excuse the mess!
|
