Page 5 of 10

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 01:09
by EuropeDomination
I think he meant Gibraltar

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 02:07
by sinnybee
EuropeDomination wrote:I think he meant Gibraltar

Ya think?

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 02:51
by AardvarkArmy
I am in total agreement with GhostEcho on this. The only thing that makes any sense to me here is:

Fleet controls entire sea - it is thus under and on both sides of the bridge (remember, visualize a fleet is actually many vessels, so they are swarming all around and under the bridge)

Fleet CANNOT move onto bridge -- bridge is 50 feet above the water, so fleet can't levitate up there

(A corollary here, according to standard dip logic - the fleet hence cannot support actions on the bridge)

Fleet CAN convoy armies onto the bridge - perfectly reasonable that marines could offload and climb onto brifge

I think this leaves fleets with a perfectly balanced pair of advantage-disadvantage:

Advantage - they control large spaces and hence, as noted, "move fast"

Disadvantage - cannot move to or support on bridges

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 04:23
by Netr0
If fleets cannot go onto the bridge but can convoy. Then the rules would need to be changed so fleets can support armies into the bridge. Since at the moment they say they can support any unit go into a region that they themselves could enter.

Rules for this game

PostPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 15:02
by Pedros
Sorry, but all of this last discussion misses the key point which Frank made: the rules didn't intend to make fleets move to the bridges from the sea spaces, but from the coastal spaces with entrances to the bridges. The rules are in fact very poorly drafted in all of their references to fleets and the notion that fleets can get onto the bridges via coastal spaces is so far from what we expect in Dip that for this game at least I don't want it (it's like a fleet in Brest being able to enter Paris because Brest is a coastal space and movement Paris-Brest is possible for armies! I am going to follow the precedent of the first game and not allow fleets onto the bridges at all, nor to be able to attack them, support units on them, nor convoy to them. I could redraft the rules (as Echo has done, but very differently) to allow fleets on bridges, but I don't want to! Once the game is over there will be active experience to base this; I don;t think any of the original players are still around.

0. Apart from the rules below, normal Diplomacy rules apply. In particular, the game will be home builds only.

1.Bridges: Armies are able to occupy all bridges; fleets cannot occupy bridge spaces and have no direct effect on any bridges.

2. Armies enter bridges via one of the two spaces adjoining each end of each bridge, and not from elsewhere.

3. Bridges do not divide the surrounding waterspaces.

4. Both fleets and armies can move below a bridge that is dividing two landspaces, in order to reach adjacent territories e.g. F Karhold - White Harbor; in cases like this, a terriroty like The Neck which is not shown to have a sea coast does not have such a coast! This movement is limited to travel in each direction between the following pairs of spaces: Seagard/Northern Twins; Tumblestone/Kingswood; Southern Wrangell Mountains/Richardson Mountains; Karhold/White Harbor; Tanimura/Southern D'Hara; Southern Frontier/Rang Shada Coast; Northern Coast Mountains.Pelly Mountains; Aringill/Tar Valon; Northern Chugach Mountains/Endicott Mountains; Drowned Lands/Tear.

5.Grey spaces: The grey spaces resemble impassable territories like high mountain ranges, swamps, dangerous coasts etc and are completely impassable. This means that Stormy Island cannot be reached by a fleet due to the impassable surrounding terrain.

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 16:25
by Zack L1ghtman
WOO! I proposed the original map, Waterice Man GM'd it, me and Deanchuk won it (I was Retard.In.Denial back then!)

Was a great map, so glad to see it being worked on and coming back :D

Penguin.

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 16:32
by Netr0
Pedros can we allow fleets to support armies into the bridge? Otherwise you only need 1 unit to hold a bridge without support. You could imagine that fleets could support armies by using ranged weaponary. Otherwise the game would be static(nonmoving) around the bridges.

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 16:40
by Zack L1ghtman
glacier777 wrote:Quick link guys: http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/B ... estart.png

This map looks insane Pedros. I probably don't want to play but wow, such an amazing map!

The territory names look legible to me.


WOW. My old BRITISHKID account still exists?! Flipping heck.

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 19:10
by VGhost
Netr0 wrote:Pedros can we allow fleets to support armies into the bridge? Otherwise you only need 1 unit to hold a bridge without support. You could imagine that fleets could support armies by using ranged weaponary. Otherwise the game would be static(nonmoving) around the bridges.


Actually you need two units (unit + support unit) to hold a bridge, as each bridge has two "entrance" territories at either end.

Pedros - thanks for the clarification. That's perfectly reasonable, and (most importantly!) clear.

Re: Battle Isle : a serious map variant.

PostPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 21:39
by SaltySailor
Are there only 2 entrances to each end of bridges? Aren't Seagard, Drowned Lands, and Karhold also entrances to bridges? They are land territories that touch bridges.