Page 4 of 10

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 03:32
by Pedros
OK, heard from Frank again.

The original idea is that fleets in coastal provinces with bridge entrances can enter the bridge from there. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but still (so is the notion of bridges big enough to take a fleet!) Fleets in the water don't affect the bridges at all. But since fleets on the coast can't normally convoy, I don't think I'm going to allow convoys onto bridges, but the fleets enter from the coast rule I'm inclined to go with.

Which just leaves the map!

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 07:53
by AardvarkArmy
Pedros wrote:OK, heard from Frank again.

The original idea is that fleets in coastal provinces with bridge entrances can enter the bridge from there. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but still (so is the notion of bridges big enough to take a fleet!) Fleets in the water don't affect the bridges at all. But since fleets on the coast can't normally convoy, I don't think I'm going to allow convoys onto bridges, but the fleets enter from the coast rule I'm inclined to go with.

Which just leaves the map!


In any sort of "real world" sense, this seems 180 degrees counter-intuitive. I cannot visualize a ship sliding up a shoreline and then rolling out onto a bridge, but I can DEFINITELY visualize a ship under or next to a bridge offloading a shock force of marines onto the bridge (convoy) and/or providing cannon "support" for or against an approaching ground force. Hmmm...

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 08:08
by Netr0
AardvarkArmy wrote:
Pedros wrote:OK, heard from Frank again.

The original idea is that fleets in coastal provinces with bridge entrances can enter the bridge from there. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but still (so is the notion of bridges big enough to take a fleet!) Fleets in the water don't affect the bridges at all. But since fleets on the coast can't normally convoy, I don't think I'm going to allow convoys onto bridges, but the fleets enter from the coast rule I'm inclined to go with.

Which just leaves the map!


In any sort of "real world" sense, this seems 180 degrees counter-intuitive. I cannot visualize a ship sliding up a shoreline and then rolling out onto a bridge, but I can DEFINITELY visualize a ship under or next to a bridge offloading a shock force of marines onto the bridge (convoy) and/or providing cannon "support" for or against an approaching ground force. Hmmm...


Amphibious boats!

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 08:14
by WarSmith
It makes sense to me. Think of the bridges as the type that raise to allow boats to pass - like Tower bridge. If there is a boat in position - the bridge is impassable... Unles taken by force maybe? - could a 2 v 1 army attack on a bridge dislodge a fleet maybe?

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 10:18
by Pedros
But I think the rules are seeing fleets on the bridges as being just the same as armies. 2v1 would certainly shift them, but in the same way that fleets below the bridge don't affect the bridge, fleets on the bridge don't affect what's underneath. And the bridge and the spaces beneath it can both be occupied at the same time.

And I have another question - if there is a fleet on North Bridge of Hope, does North Bridge have a coastline? In other words, does the fleet affect the South Bridge? I think we have to say no coastline!

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 16:53
by VGhost
I'm thoroughly confused at this point, and in an attempt to clarify the rules (which actually seem mostly straight-forward to me, if awkwardly phrased and now clouded by "clarification), I'm going to restate them to show how I read them. I want to know which rules, if any, we are modifying.

1.a: Armies can move to a bridge space.
1.b: Armies can be convoyed to a bridge space.

2.a: Seas are not divided by bridges; a fleet therefore occupies the entire sea.
2.b: A fleet can move to a bridge space by moving "under" it. [This is the rule we're dropping/ignoring, right?]

3.a: The bridges mask some borders. The following are actually adjacent for both armies and fleets: Seagard and Northern Twins; White Harbor and Karhold, Drowned Lands and Tear; and all other territories at the ends of their respective bridge.
3.b: As a result, the following territories do not have coasts: Southern Twins; The Neck; Illian.

4. An army can only be moved on to a bridge (without convoy: see 1.b) from the end of a bridge. Armies cannot move to the respective bridge from Seagard, Karhold, or Drowned Lands.

5. Grey territories are impassible (cf. Switzerland in the regular game).

6. Stormy Island is impassable to fleets or convoys but its bridges (Bridge of Hope; North Bridge of Hope; South Bridge of Hope) are accessible to fleets [If 2.b is dropped, this would be for convoys only.].

7. The names of the starting locations are taken from George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire; Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time; and Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series.

8. The island territories are named for Alaskan mountain ranges.

Variant devised by Rene Krowkowski and Frank Bacher.


The only difficulty is caused by the rule I've labeled 2.b, where the creators tried to make a provision to let fleets move to the bridges. However, this creates a paradox: if a fleet can move to a bridge from a sea space, then how is the sea not divided by the bridge? Alternatively, if a fleet can only move to a bridge from the coast (as indicated by responses from the creators) that simply doesn't make sense.

Since this is the only rule that causes difficulty, it seems most sensible to simply ignore it, and say fleets cannot move to (but can convoy to) any bridges.

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 18:57
by WarSmith
Yes, but a fleet must therefore be able to move past a bride in a single move. I dont think the creators intended for such quick movement of fleets around the board (and therefore also convoys moving faster going 'under' bridges than if they went over and across to a desired territory).
One way to sove would be to have a 'on bridge' and 'under bridge' territory description, e.g. Two territories in one place?

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 19:06
by VGhost
But the bridges specifically cross seas - the seas are that big and a fleet controls the entire thing.

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 23:16
by Netr0
Pedros just have them act like Gilberta(from 1900 map) like I mentioned earlier.

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 00:16
by sinnybee
Netr0 wrote:Pedros just have them act like Gilberta(from 1900 map) like I mentioned earlier.

No, please don't have them act like Gilberta!
;)