Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:59 pm
Sorry, I try to not let him in this category.
webdiplomacy.net
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/
Inconsistencies with coastal orders
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=514
Page 2 of 3
Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:07 am
Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders
Posted: 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.
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
Posted: 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.
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
Posted: 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.
F SPA nc-POR
F POR-SPA sc
Basically a coastal swap.
Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 2:24 pm
Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 2:43 pm
Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders
Posted: 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
Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 2:21 am
Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders
Posted: 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
Posted: 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.
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
Posted: 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
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
Posted: 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
Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 10:22 am
Well... How much would WofC sell the Diplomacy's IP ?
We have to change these rules!
We have to change these rules!
Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders
Posted: 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.
http://www.stabbeurfou.org/Regles.phpTwo 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.”
Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders
Posted: 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?
spring '07.
Why Const and Bulgaria couldnt exchange places, when Aegean was convoying?
Re: Inconsistencies with coastal orders
Posted: 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
Posted: 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.
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
Posted: 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
Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 1:22 pm
Thanks. It really wasnt the best ocassion to make that mistake.