Inconsistencies with coastal orders

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by JECE » Mon May 14, 2018 3:51 pm

It could be clearer, to be honest. After all, 'via convoy' actually means 'via land or convoy'. Wouldn't it make more sense for the Orders Archive to list 'via land' when this is specified? I think that it also may make more sense to flip the default from 'via land' to 'via convoy'.

A close reading of the DATC may be in order:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/#4.A.3
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/#6.G

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by Nikola Maric Eto » Mon May 14, 2018 1:22 pm

Thanks. It really wasnt the best ocassion to make that mistake.

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by Claesar » Mon May 14, 2018 7:32 am

Mercy and 2WL are correct. I checked a game of mine where I convoyed. The order log mentions it specifically if you order to move via convoy.

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by Mercy » Mon May 14, 2018 2:36 am

That won't be necessary, as the orders received by the server are available to everyone.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameI ... s#index122

You indeed didn't specify that you wanted to move your army via convoy. That is why the moves failed.

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by 2ndWhiteLine » Sun May 13, 2018 8:48 pm

Orders look correct, may need to have a mod pull the orders received by the server to ensure you specified Con-Bul via convoy instead of via land? Just a thought.

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by Nikola Maric Eto » Sun May 13, 2018 6:29 pm

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameI ... #gamePanel

spring '07.

Why Const and Bulgaria couldnt exchange places, when Aegean was convoying?

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by JECE » Thu May 10, 2018 3:35 pm

Bulgaria, Spain, and St. Petersburg: These are the only coastal provinces that have two separately identified coasts. A Fleet entering one of these provinces enters along one coast and can then move to a province adjacent to that coast only. The Fleet, nevertheless, is considered to be occupying the entire province. Such a Fleet should be placed on the coastline rather than completely inland. For example, a Fleet at Spain’s North Coast can’t be ordered to move to the Western Mediterranean or to the Gulf of Lyon or to Marseilles. It is, however, considered to be occupying all of Spain.
Units can’t trade places without the use of a convoy. If two units are each ordered to the province that the other occupies, neither can move.
Three or more units can rotate provinces during a turn provided none directly trade places.
Two units can exchange places if either or both are convoyed. This is the exception to the earlier rule that stated, “Units can’t trade places without the use of a convoy.”
http://www.stabbeurfou.org/Regles.php

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by CptMike » Thu May 10, 2018 10:22 am

Well... How much would WofC sell the Diplomacy's IP ?
We have to change these rules!

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by Claesar » Thu May 10, 2018 8:38 am

Until Wizards of the Coasts changes the rules on that, our hands are tied. We try to adhere to the game rules as close as we can.

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by thisisntme » Wed May 09, 2018 11:31 pm

Especially infuriating is that you can't do the coast swap even if it makes a ton of sense geographically in the world map:
here is an order that really shouldn't fail in theory but according to game logic fails.
The fleet at Quebec (North Coast) move to Newfoundland. (fail)
The fleet at Newfoundland move to Quebec (South Coast).

http://webdiplomacy.net/map.php?gameID= ... on&turn=12

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by A_Tin_Can » Tue May 08, 2018 11:39 pm

As others have pointed out:

You can support a move to any territory that you can move to.

StP(nc) and StP(sc) are both part of the StP territory.

A fleet in Finland can move to StP (sc). So it can support any move to a StP - including by army, or by fleet to either coast.

The rules are available on the wizards of the coast website, should you want to check.

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by A_Tin_Can » Tue May 08, 2018 11:37 pm

Another peterwiggin trick worth remembering is to solo using only armies if you find the fleet rules too much.

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by Enriador » Tue May 08, 2018 2:21 am

RoganJosh wrote: ↑
Mon May 07, 2018 2:43 pm
Enriador wrote: ↑
Mon May 07, 2018 2:15 pm
 If coasts only concern movement, not support, can France order:

F SPA nc-POR
F POR-SPA sc

Basically a coastal swap.
That is not allowed.
What a shame. Back to convoy paradoxes then!

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by dargorygel » Mon May 07, 2018 2:48 pm

While we like to 'lawyer' it and make it complicated... it is simply an exchange. Not legal.

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by RoganJosh » Mon May 07, 2018 2:43 pm

Enriador wrote: ↑
Mon May 07, 2018 2:15 pm
 If coasts only concern movement, not support, can France order:

F SPA nc-POR
F POR-SPA sc

Basically a coastal swap.
That is not allowed.

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by Claesar » Mon May 07, 2018 2:24 pm

Enriador wrote: ↑
Mon May 07, 2018 2:15 pm
 If coasts only concern movement, not support, can France order:

F SPA nc-POR
F POR-SPA sc

Basically a coastal swap.
It feels like that should work, but I don't think it does.

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by Enriador » Mon May 07, 2018 2:15 pm

If coasts only concern movement, not support, can France order:

F SPA nc-POR
F POR-SPA sc

Basically a coastal swap.

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by BismarckAlive » Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:33 am

Well,
Overall I think the decision what to build when would be made more important if coast became crucial for orders.
I think the spirit of the rules would have been:
Hey! A fleet in GAS can't get to SPA (sc) so how can it support F GOL to SPA (sc)?? Or Hey! A fleet in FIN can't get to STP (nc) unless carried there by truck, so how can it support F BAR to STP (nc)??
But I am only one and you all have me beat.
😊

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by vixol » Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:11 am

Actually, in the rules it doesnt even say you have to write to wich coast you support. That means Gas S MAO-SPA is valid.

At least when playing FTF the normal interpretation is that IF you specify coast it has to be right. So if I write Gas S MAO-SPA/sc and the move is ordered to Spa/nc then it's an invalid support.

Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders

by jmo1121109 » Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:07 am

bo_sox48 wrote: ↑
Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:19 pm
 Really, we allow that? Damn, I'm learning new things every day.
Sorry, I try to not let him in this category.

Top