Rules

Played with a different set of Wing rules. GM: Pedros; Winner: Diadem (Turkey)

Re: Rules

Postby kevinsmith4 » 18 Oct 2013, 05:10

Diadem wrote:
ALSO (man, I keep thinking up new problems). The rules say a wing can support its own base. But what does this matter? Change the above example
English W Bel Support Bel
German A Hol - Bel.
The attack on Bel should cut the support given by the unit in Bel, so the Wing's support is cut. And then the unsupported Wing has strength 0 and is thus dislodged and destroyed automatically, just as if it had given no support. A wing self-supporting does exactly nothing.



I was thinking about the same thing. When would self-support differ from a hold?
KS4



Happy Stabbing and remember...

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. - Bertrand Russell
User avatar
kevinsmith4
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 10 May 2011, 07:30
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1064)
All-game rating: (1161)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Rules

Postby Pedros » 18 Oct 2013, 10:12

kevinsmith4 wrote: When would self-support differ from a hold?

They are simply different. "W X hold" simply holds; "W X support X" provides support and gives the Wing defensive strength of 1. Now granted, there doesn't seem much point ordering the hold (though sometime I guess there could be a tactical reason) but that's the difference. They are never the same thing.

Diadem wrote:man, I keep thinking up new problems

Yes, you do. But only for yourself it seems!

1. "A wing which is not itself moving" means the base isn't moving, so the Wing is free to attack. Another Wing can support it. Granted the word "ground" confuses it, and I'll remove it, but in the trials nobody found a problem with that (and there were multiple Wing supports) Wings can support the base of another Wing which is making an aerial attack. I'll amend the wording to make this clearer (and also to include support for movement by another Wing, which should also have been covered.)

2. The beleagured garrison question - I don't see the problem. The first example is simply a 2v2 standoff and Munich is safe for the moment.

3. And the Wing supporting itself. Attacks by ground forces can't cut support given by Wings; only other Wings do that by interception. The army's attack is on the Base, and only affects the Wing in the air if it's successful, and then only because the Wing has no base to return to and is destroyed. The Wing's mission for that turn carries on as ordered.
"Sooner or later, one of us will stab the other. But for now we're both better off as allies" (kininvie)
User avatar
Pedros
 
Posts: 12465
Joined: 25 Jan 2009, 12:59
Location: Somewhere full of gorse and brambles, West Cornwall
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1085)
All-game rating: (1314)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Rules

Postby Aeilko » 18 Oct 2013, 13:39

Pedros wrote:
Image power A uses unit a to support unit b. Power B uses a wing to attack a to cut its support. Power C also uses a wing to attack a to cut its support. Am I correct in understanding that the two wings cancel eachother, regardless of other support involved? So that the support of a to b would in fact be valid.

For this kind of thing I need to imagine a set of actual orders. Do I have it right that this is the situation? (Based on Regular, because we're all familiar with it):-

A (England): F ECH supports A Brest
B (France): W Paris attacks ECH via Brest
C (Germany): W Holland attacks ECG via NTH

Yes, the two wings don't exactly cancel; they have to fight each other over ECH so their attack doesn't get through. A's support of Brest would stand.


Wouldn't this cause a problem by having people attack themself.
Regard this:

Spain A Navarra
Spain A Bar
Spain W Seville
France A Auv
France W Lyon

Now let's say this are the only troops.
Spain moves Navarra -> Auv with support from Bar. At the same time France uses his Wings to attack Bar to cut the support and Auv Holds.
This would mean it becomes 1 v 1, so they will stay in place. But when Spain attacks himself from Seville, note, Seville can't support the attack on Auv since it's to far away.
In this way, attacking himself in Bar would make the situation 2 v 1 again, because the Wing attack on Bar is cut by the attack from Seville.

I know this isn't a perfect example, why wouldn't France just support himself, but when 3 or 4 people are close to each other something like this could happen. And this would lead to people attacking themself to prefend there support from being cut by wings.
Silver member of the Classicist
User avatar
Aeilko
 
Posts: 51
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 12:59
Location: Netherlands
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1213)
All-game rating: (1378)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Rules

Postby Pedros » 18 Oct 2013, 15:01

Not clear what you mean Aeilko - what order are you suggesting the Seville Wing would have?

But it might not matter, because as long as it's a valid order there's nothing wrong with ordering a Wing to fly simply to intercept another Wing - that's one of the things planes are for!
"Sooner or later, one of us will stab the other. But for now we're both better off as allies" (kininvie)
User avatar
Pedros
 
Posts: 12465
Joined: 25 Jan 2009, 12:59
Location: Somewhere full of gorse and brambles, West Cornwall
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1085)
All-game rating: (1314)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Rules

Postby Aeilko » 19 Oct 2013, 12:17

What i was trying to say was that, normally, when a country gets attacked it's support is cut, if he has support or not. When you Attack yourself with a wing unit, instead of supporting yourself, you prefend any support cutting from happening.
This seems rather strange to me.
Silver member of the Classicist
User avatar
Aeilko
 
Posts: 51
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 12:59
Location: Netherlands
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1213)
All-game rating: (1378)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Rules

Postby Diadem » 19 Oct 2013, 12:59

Pedros wrote:
Diadem wrote:man, I keep thinking up new problems

Yes, you do. But only for yourself it seems!

I have to admit that this answer annoyed me a bit.

You put a lot of time into this variant, and I appreciate that. I also get the impression that in your head you have a pretty clear picture of how wings work and what things are and aren't possible with that, and that's good. But the rules as written simply are not very clear. So don't blame me for having questions about them!

And you still haven't responded to the paradox situation I gave, or my question about disrupting convoys!

Pedros wrote:1. "A wing which is not itself moving" means the base isn't moving, so the Wing is free to attack. Another Wing can support it. Granted the word "ground" confuses it, and I'll remove it, but in the trials nobody found a problem with that (and there were multiple Wing supports)

The word 'ground' is not just confusing, it directly contradicts what you just said. Also, the rule explicitly say you can support convoy orders for wings, which doesn't make sense. So the rules clearly are wrong. Now, from your reply I take it you that you consider a wing that is attacking to not be moving, which is fine, but things like that should be in the rules!

Pedros wrote:2. The beleagured garrison question - I don't see the problem. The first example is simply a 2v2 standoff and Munich is safe for the moment.

The problem is that this is not in the rules! All that is in the rules is that wings can attack to cut support. It says nothing about attacking to take over a province, or to stop a unit from moving into it, or to disrupt a convoy, or the dozen other things that attacks can be for. All of that is outside the rules as written, and we only know it's possible because of people asking questions in this thread.

So a wing attack is just like any other attack, really, except that they can't dislodge units. Fine. I actually think that's a lot better rule anyway. But please update the rules to say that.

Pedros wrote:3. And the Wing supporting itself. Attacks by ground forces can't cut support given by Wings; only other Wings do that by interception. The army's attack is on the Base, and only affects the Wing in the air if it's successful, and then only because the Wing has no base to return to and is destroyed. The Wing's mission for that turn carries on as ordered.

Ok. Thanks. That makes sense.

Pedros wrote:But it might not matter, because as long as it's a valid order there's nothing wrong with ordering a Wing to fly simply to intercept another Wing - that's one of the things planes are for!

So you can order wings to make an intercept move, where the only affect is to intercept other wings, without attacking or supporting the ground? That isn't in the rules either!
Draw in Diplomacy Stew 2, playing Italy
Winner Four Seasons, playing England
Draw in Layered, playing Yellow (Russia + Turkey)
Winner Shuffle, playing Turkey
Winner Vain Rats 4, playing France

... but first you must learn how to smile as you kill.
Diadem
 
Posts: 679
Joined: 17 Jan 2011, 01:18
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1001)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Rules

Postby Diadem » 19 Oct 2013, 13:03

By the way, I realize that just shooting holes in the rules as you wrote them is probably not the most constructive approach. If you want, I can try to rewrite the rules to be more clear and precise, with fewer ambiguities? Unfortunately I really have to go now, but I can do it tonight or tomorrow.
Draw in Diplomacy Stew 2, playing Italy
Winner Four Seasons, playing England
Draw in Layered, playing Yellow (Russia + Turkey)
Winner Shuffle, playing Turkey
Winner Vain Rats 4, playing France

... but first you must learn how to smile as you kill.
Diadem
 
Posts: 679
Joined: 17 Jan 2011, 01:18
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1001)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Rules

Postby Pedros » 19 Oct 2013, 13:28

Awfully sorry to annoy you Diadem. It was meant as a very mild joke, although I do think that quite a few of the problems you've raised are in fact already covered by the rules..

I take it you that you consider a wing that is attacking to not be moving, which is fine, but things like that should be in the rules!

It is in the rules:-

Wings have three possible orders apart from Hold; They can "Move", "Attack" and "Support".

Moving is different from attacking.

The problem is that this is not in the rules! All that is in the rules is that wings can attack to cut support.

Personally I don't think that the wording of the rules restricts the effects of an attack in the way you interpret it; but clarity is all and I will reword it.

re the beleagured garrison in Munich - the problem may have been that if wasn't clearly in the rules at the time you asked the question, but it will be now. The French Wings can attack and support the attack on Munich; this makes it 2v2 so Munich is not dislodged. And Wings can dislodge units by attacking (and also of course by movng) if they have enough support, so they can break a convoy.

So you can order wings to make an intercept move, where the only affect is to intercept other wings

"Intercept" isn't a valid order for a Wing. But you can order a Wing to attack another square (within reach) to or support a unit there when you aren't really interested in that square but in being up in the air to intercept an enemy. It wouldn't be possible anyway to frame a rule which disallowed that (how would the GM know what the intention was?)

And thanks for your offer to rewrite the rules, but No thanks!
"Sooner or later, one of us will stab the other. But for now we're both better off as allies" (kininvie)
User avatar
Pedros
 
Posts: 12465
Joined: 25 Jan 2009, 12:59
Location: Somewhere full of gorse and brambles, West Cornwall
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1085)
All-game rating: (1314)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Rules

Postby Diadem » 20 Oct 2013, 05:44

Pedros wrote:Awfully sorry to annoy you Diadem. It was meant as a very mild joke

No problem, it was only a little bit, and I'm probably too easily annoyed anyway :)

although I do think that quite a few of the problems you've raised are in fact already covered by the rules..

The thing is that while you know what you meant when writing those rules. I don't. Writing precise rules is not easy. For example you may think it's self-evident that attacking is not a form of moving, but I clearly didn't, so yeah... Was it covered by the rules? Well, perhaps, depending on how you read them. My experience from Vain Rats is that people often disagree over what is the obviously correct interpretation of a rule, so it's always better to just ask, have the GM decide, and then explicitly put it in the rules.

Pedros wrote:And Wings can dislodge units by attacking (and also of course by movng) if they have enough support, so they can break a convoy.

Huh, earlier in this thread you said they can't: viewtopic.php?p=717883#p717883

Pedros wrote:"Intercept" isn't a valid order for a Wing. But you can order a Wing to attack another square (within reach) to or support a unit there when you aren't really interested in that square but in being up in the air to intercept an enemy. It wouldn't be possible anyway to frame a rule which disallowed that (how would the GM know what the intention was?)

Yeah, ok, I get what you mean now. Those two options (support or attack) might not always be available though. You can only support the unit if it's not moving, and attacking might not be desirable. This happens for example if you're trying to move in there yourself, so that attacking there with a wing as well might cause a self-bounce. You could support your own attack of course, but the other guy is your ally and you only want to take the territory if he successfully moves out.

I don't actually expect it to come up in the game, but I'm just pointing out that this means it is possible that sometimes you want to intercept a plane but have no good way of doing it. Of course perhaps this is not a problem. Sometimes you can't do something.
Draw in Diplomacy Stew 2, playing Italy
Winner Four Seasons, playing England
Draw in Layered, playing Yellow (Russia + Turkey)
Winner Shuffle, playing Turkey
Winner Vain Rats 4, playing France

... but first you must learn how to smile as you kill.
Diadem
 
Posts: 679
Joined: 17 Jan 2011, 01:18
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1001)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Rules

Postby Pedros » 20 Oct 2013, 10:49

OK - you're right. I did say earlier that you can't dislodge an enemy unit, so I guess I'm stuck with it. I did say then that I thought the rule was a poor one! I'll try to remember, but I suspect that sometime I'll forget.

So far as the interception goes, firstly you can order support for a unit holding and it's perfectly legal even if it doesn't correspond to the unit's actual order; the interception will still work. But even if there's no unit anywhere near, you can order an attack on an empty space which would have the effect of intercepting an interloper.

Hell - why am I giving these examples? Part of the test with new rules is to see whether you can devise ways to use them to the best.
"Sooner or later, one of us will stab the other. But for now we're both better off as allies" (kininvie)
User avatar
Pedros
 
Posts: 12465
Joined: 25 Jan 2009, 12:59
Location: Somewhere full of gorse and brambles, West Cornwall
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1085)
All-game rating: (1314)
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Game 5

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests