Another way to get around the rules?

[Jimmer]

Is it possible that a nation's forces can move prior to its own place in the movement order, using "loaned corps" (the substitute for "combined movement")? I think it may be.

I was thinking of the situation I am in now, where there is a corps in Algeria's capital and a cavalry corps besieging Tunis (Tunisia's capital, 4 spaces east of Algiers). I won't do this in the game, but I would like to know if anybody has tried it:

If I loan both corps to the Russians, then they could move them for me. In fact, they could move them prior to the Turkish land movement phase.

In the old combined movement process, the forces of both sides moved at the same time, during the naval or land phase of the power who is latest in the movement order. But, this would seem to allow moving PRIOR to one's movement position. In theory, GB or France could cause any MP to move first in naval or land movement simply by letting that power give control of the fleets/corps to GB/France.

As I say, I haven't tried this. But, I would like to know if anybody has. I think it would have to be in a PBEM or hotseat game, since you can't loan corps to an AI player (that I know of).

[DCWhitworth]

I guess it is possible to manipulate things using this method. But it was possible to manipulate things using the old combined movement method e.g. If Russia was at war with Turkey and allied iwth Austria, they could combine movement one turn and not the next and allow Russia to get a double move over Turkey, this is *regardless* of whether Austria is at war with Turkey

[gwheelock]

This would be pretty easy to fix.  Just move the "loan-a-corp" option to the land MOVEMENT phase.  That way you can only loan corp to those who come after you.

[sw30]

Doesn't help in the example that DCWhitworth mentioned.  RU could still do a double move.  (you're going to allow AU to return the corps somehow, right? )

[Jimmer]

I'm not so concerned about the possible last-and-first scenarios, as those could happen in the old game as well. But, the scenario I outline above allows GB to pull her forces out of harms way with the help of an ally, moving earlier in the order than otherwise would be possible.

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

This would be pretty easy to fix.  Just move the "loan-a-corp" option to the land MOVEMENT phase.  That way you can only loan corp to those who come after you.

Well that would counter the movement issue I think, however it wouldn't work because loaning is the only way you can supply a foreign corps. e.g Austria can lend corps to Prussia but not vice-versa so having a combined army in Austria would be much more difficult.

[MarshallEllis]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Is it possible that a nation's forces can move prior to its own place in the movement order, using "loaned corps" (the substitute for "combined movement")? I think it may be.

I was thinking of the situation I am in now, where there is a corps in Algeria's capital and a cavalry corps besieging Tunis (Tunisia's capital, 4 spaces east of Algiers). I won't do this in the game, but I would like to know if anybody has tried it:

If I loan both corps to the Russians, then they could move them for me. In fact, they could move them prior to the Turkish land movement phase.

In the old combined movement process, the forces of both sides moved at the same time, during the naval or land phase of the power who is latest in the movement order. But, this would seem to allow moving PRIOR to one's movement position. In theory, GB or France could cause any MP to move first in naval or land movement simply by letting that power give control of the fleets/corps to GB/France.

As I say, I haven't tried this. But, I would like to know if anybody has. I think it would have to be in a PBEM or hotseat game, since you can't loan corps to an AI player (that I know of).

I don't think you could do this since the loaned corps are not returned to the original owner until the end of ALL land phases so it would always be shown as the the renter's corps until the next diplomacy phase.

[Jimmer]

So, all he has to do is click the button to give it back earlier in the turn. Then, at the end of the land phases, it will revert to his ownership.
 
What has to happen is that he has to give up "control" of the corps in the interim land phases (the phases of the other players following his land phase). Unfortunately, that leaves a different loophole to fill: Who pays for supply?
 
So, to correct for that, we have to define control as "ability to attack or defend with", not simply full control. He has to pay for it and can move it (out of harms way, most likely), but he can't be allowed to attack with it the same turn he has decided to turn it back to the other player.
 
If you think through the permutations of this, it gets ugly fast.

[MarshallEllis]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

So, all he has to do is click the button to give it back earlier in the turn. Then, at the end of the land phases, it will revert to his ownership.

What has to happen is that he has to give up "control" of the corps in the interim land phases (the phases of the other players following his land phase). Unfortunately, that leaves a different loophole to fill: Who pays for supply?

So, to correct for that, we have to define control as "ability to attack or defend with", not simply full control. He has to pay for it and can move it (out of harms way, most likely), but he can't be allowed to attack with it the same turn he has decided to turn it back to the other player.

If you think through the permutations of this, it gets ugly fast.

Huh? Click what button to give it back earlier?
Supply is paid for by the renter.

[Jimmer]

Sorry, I wasn't clear.
 
When one gives a corps back to the MP who owns it, there is a point in time at which this occurs. I'm not sure what point in time that is. Please enlighten me on that, and I'll explain more clearly.
 
Thanks.

[MarshallEllis]

The corps are returned right before the diplomacy phase begins.

[Jimmer]

Yes, but when does the renter tell the game that he is going to return it? Or, if it's the owner, when does THAT player tell the game?

[MarshallEllis]

Actually, they should be returned automatically at the beginning of the diplomacy phase so there is no option of when to return. The "lease" needs to be renewed each month.
 
 

[Jimmer]

So, let's say I rent my 3-corps army in North Africa to the Russians (I'm playing GB). They take control, and move them during their land movement phase. Since he's Russia, he moves my corps BEFORE Turkey, my enemy in Africa. So, effectively, my army in Africa gets to go first, even though I should be moving nearly last.
 
Whether I can do a last-and-first is a different issue, but related. If I did this, I would indeed be using a last-and-first.
 
By the way, this is not merely theoretical. While I am not going to do it (because it violates the spirit of the rules), it is clear that I would have a functional "last-and-first" maneuver with respect to my enemy, the Turks. I could do it this very turn, in fact, and it would have a devastating effect on his ability to fight in North Africa. Wellington should be able to trash his army pretty thoroughly, going first. But, as it is, it's going to take me at least two turns to get at his army (because he's going to move before me, and away from my main army, most likely). By then, he may have broken into Algiers, thus taking away my ability to use Wellington in the combat (because it will be a siege combat).
 
Anyhow, Gwheelock's suggestion would work to correct this, but only partially, as pointed out above by several others.
 
I suggest a more radical approach (which will require significant rework): Alter the movement order. Now, I understand that true combined movement is not practical (as a programmer, I understand how tough this would be). However, a change to movement order should be fairly easy to implement, since it's already implemented for France, if each power still maintains a completely discreet movement phase. In other words, change the movement order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.), but do not actually combine powers.
 
Whenever a corps is rented, the relative movement order of the two powers must be looked at. Let's use the current example I gave above, and further assume France is moving 7th (for simplicity).
 
First, let's have Russia loan a corps to GB. This isn't a problem, because that corps will move with the British, who move 5th.
 
But, now let's consider the British loaning a corps to Russia. That corps will move first, unless a change is made. So, when this loan occurs, the Russian land movement phase (naval phase for fleets) should change positions from 1st to 4th (just before GB).
 
Now, both powers should have independent land moves, to satisfy the requirements of the programming model. But, the actual land movement order would be semi-fluid. To do this, you would have to extend the French model of phase order to all of the powers. However, the other powers would not be allowed to CHOOSE their order, but rather would have it chosen for them by the game (depending totally on the loaning of corps).
 
This shouldn't be that difficult a change to make (but, don't forget the naval phase -- it also has to change for loaned fleets).
 
Furthermore, such a change would much more closely resemble the old EiA "combined movement" (CM). While still missing some key components, it would prevent an enemy nation from moving between the two powers, which was a major consideration of the old CM.
 
If three powers traded corps, all three would move in the phase "together" (more or less). They would retain their natural movement order as related to the other two powers, but would move "combined" as relates to the other four powers.
 
Bottom line: You have to implement the "French change of movement order" for all powers, but only allow the game to make changes, and then only if one or more corps are loaned.
 
Is this feasible?

[Jimmer]

And, if it IS feasible, what other ramifications are there? (This is a question for everybody, assuming Marshall says the idea is feasible, or at least worth looking at feasibility).

[delatbabel]

This has always been the case in the board game (sort of) using combined movement, because combined movement happens in the phase of the player who moves last.  So, for example, if Russia wants a double move he combines move with Spain and moves last in the phase, then on the next turn does not combine move with Spain and moves first.  It's a bit gamey but it can be used to get the jump on another player in a war.

[pzgndr]

And, if it IS feasible, what other ramifications are there?

This a game feature that players need to deal with. Already, France and Britain can easily manipulate double moves on land and sea, respectively, to their benefit and perhaps to devastating effect. The loaned corps "option" here essentially allows any country to manipulate a double move, but it is more complicated to set up and execute - must be allied, must have corps in position, must negotiate the loan each turn, etc. The ramifications are clear, and players should anticipate them and deal with them. A counter-argument could be: why should only France and Britain have double moves but nobody else??

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

A counter-argument could be: why should only France and Britain have double moves but nobody else??

France and GB are dominate that's why, so I'm not sure if that's a good counter-argument or not.

[MarshallEllis]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

And, if it IS feasible, what other ramifications are there? (This is a question for everybody, assuming Marshall says the idea is feasible, or at least worth looking at feasibility).

Here is the problem with what you're talking about:

Combined movement also allows combined combat! Combined attacks could not happen with your change move order method giving everybody still independent move phases. One of the largest advantages of combined movement is the combined attack. Taking this away would kill Prussia and Austria even quicker.

The loaned corps function allows players to change their move order by selecting who loans to who. The renter becaomes the phasing player for the loaned corps. The player who loans the corps cannot move those lent units that mont so there is no double move.

Does this make sense?

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Does this make sense?

It does make sense.

I think part of the issue here is that unit loaning has been implemented instead of combined movement, but the ramifications and issues have not been entirely thought through.

One issue that hasn't been mentioned here (but I have logged at least a partial issue on Mantis) is the issue of who is at war with who when untis are loaned. e.g. Prussia is at war with France but Austria isn't. Prussia loans corps to Austria, can Austria attack France with these corps ? Can France attack them ? What if Austria loans corps to Prussia ? And this is before the possible complexities of combined stacks.

I'd rather see issues like this resolved before worrying about potential combined move deviations (which were possible in the board game anyway)