Spring 1911 Results

[attitudes]

Spring 1911 results are posted. A new Zombie appears in Trieste destroying the previous Saracen army.

No retreats but a second auto destroy in Sweden as Father Russia takes another casualty.

Fall 1911 deadline is Sunday, November 24th at 11:59 pm GMT (7:00 pm Eastern; 4:00 pm Pacific).

CityStates_Spring11.gif (83.49 KiB) Viewed 1171 times

blue: asudevil
eliminated Winter 1907

Lombards (brown): Zadaron
Ionian Sea -> Adriatic Sea ... resolved
Naples -> Ionian Sea ... bounce
Tunisia SUPPORT Naples -> Ionian Sea ... resolved
Rome -> Tyrrhenian Sea ... resolved
Venice SUPPORT Vienna -> Trieste ... resolved
Marseilles - Tuscany ... resolved
Munich - Bohemia ... bounce
Burgundy - Munich ... bounce

Benelux (gray): Shibabalo
eliminated Winter 1904

Father Russia (green dark): Xildur
Denmark Support Sweden Hold ... resolved
Sweden Support Denmark Hold ... cut ... DISLODGED ... AUTO DESTROY

Iberia (green light): Peanut
F(BAR) s A(Stp) Hold ... resolved
F(Nwy)-Swe ... resolved
A(Fin) s F(Nwy)-Swe ... resolved
F(SKA) s F(Nwy)-Swe ... resolved
F(HEL)-NTH ... resolved
A(Ber) s A(Bur)-Mun ... resolved
A(Kie) s A(Bur)-Mun ... resolved
A(Hol) hold ... resolved
F(GoL) c A(Mar)-Tus ... resolved
A(Pie) s A(Ven) Hold ... resolved

orange: bluecuillin
eliminated Winter 1903

Saracens (pink): Pedros
A Rumania - Galicia ... resolved
A Serbia hold ... resolved
A Trieste - Venice ... bounce ... DISLODGED ... AUTO DESTROY
A Silesia - Bohemia ... bounce
A Warsaw - Prussia ... resolved
A Ukraine - Warsaw ... resolved
A Livonia support A St Petersburg ... resolved
A Moscow support A St Petersburg ... resolved
F Bulgaria/sc - Constantinople ... resolved
F East Mediterranean - Ionian ... bounce
F Greece support F East Mediterranean - Ionian ... resolved
F Smyrna - Aegean ... resolved

purple: lecrae
eliminated Winter 1904

Knights of the Round Table (red): marsman57
STP hold ... resolved

yellow: Pharoah of Nerds
eliminated Winter 1908


Zombies
zombie Tyrolia - Trieste ... resolved
zombie Vienna - Trieste ... resolved ... moving

[Zadaron]

Venice SUPPORT Vienna -> Trieste ... does not correspond ... adjudicated HOLD

It didn't matter in this case, but i thought supporting like this would work since the zombie "participates in a joint attack" as opposed to supporting. Is that incorrect?

[Pedros]

I'm with Zadaron over this. It clearly DOES correspond!! (Rule 4: "Zombie moves can be supported by a unit;")

It may be that the confusion comes from the "Tyrolia moving" and the Rule 9 ("When determining the orders for each Zombie, if more than one Zombie is ordered to any space the GM will also determine which one will move if the attack succeeds.") attitudes has adopted the procedure which I used in the original Zombie Diplomacy, of naming the unit to move with the original Zombie orders. This was intended originally as a device to clarify the situation, but in conjunction with the wording of that rule actually confuses it slightly.

The original intention was that in a case like the Trieste/Tyrolia/Vienna triangle in this example, both Vienna and Tyrolia would be attacking with strength 2.2 (Rule 9 again: "If two or more zombies are ordered to move to the same space then they are considered to be assisting each other and moving with double (or more) strength") The question would then arise - if they were successful, which of them would actually be moving? In this case it doesn't matter, but if another unit were ordered say to Vienna then it becomes important. If Tyrolia has moved, no problem; a new Zombie appears in Tyrolia. But if Vienna is moving, there is no new Zombie because Vienna is occupied. This is why the GM has to decide which one is actually moving, and for transparency this is best done before other orders are known. But if, again in this case, Venice had supported Trieste to Tyrolia rather than the other way round then Tri-Tyrolia would have succeeded and Vienna would have moved to Trieste (the final part of Rule 9: "unless one of them is faced by a supported attack from the target unit. In that case the target’s attack succeeds but the other unit(s) orders remain in place against the target space.")

All that is reasonably clear. But in the case we have here, suppose that the GM had randomly determined (I note that the rule doesn't even say randomly at this point, which it certainly should do!) that Tyrolia was the Zombie to move, but Venice supported Vienna-Trieste. Then Vienna would be moving with strength 2.1 against Tyrolia's 1.1; the intention of the rule was that this would succeed and Vienna would in fact in the end move.

Now, firstly, I've no idea what attitudes would have done if this had arisen in fact, so I'm not criticising him over this. But the rule as written is at least confusing. It would be useful to know how attitudes intends to interpret this for future moves. I will certainly be redrafting Rule 9 for future games.

[attitudes]

I'm with Zadaron over this. It clearly DOES correspond!! (Rule 4: "Zombie moves can be supported by a unit;")

After reading Pedros' explanation, I concur.

But in the case we have here, suppose that the GM had randomly determined (I note that the rule doesn't even say randomly at this point, which it certainly should do!) that Tyrolia was the Zombie to move, but Venice supported Vienna-Trieste. Then Vienna would be moving with strength 2.1 against Tyrolia's 1.1; the intention of the rule was that this would succeed and Vienna would in fact in the end move.

Now, firstly, I've no idea what attitudes would have done if this had arisen in fact

Isn't that exactly what happened this season?

But the rule as written is at least confusing. It would be useful to know how attitudes intends to interpret this for future moves.

I will take into account support for Zombie movement and if necessary ignore my previously randomly determined Zombie movement. In this case, Vienna would have moved. I will correct the OP but since nothing moved to Vienna there is no change in the map and no change in the deadline.

[Pedros]

Not qjuite what happened - the support was for the move which was favourite anyway.

But still, thanks, and all clear.