Another way to get around the rules?

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Yes, but that's not the problem I am addressing (any more -- I dabbled in it a bit at the beginning of this thread). It's the opposite problem: A power can artificially go before their own land movement phase should allow them.

One can argue that using a last and first maneuver is gamey. I don't agree. But, the bigger problem is using a last and first when one is supposed to be last in the order.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
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?

I understand that part completely. That's why my proposal does not add combined movement at all.

All I am proposing is to change the movement order of the earlier-moving power. They would NOT be combined (that's too difficult).

In the example above (Russia and GB swapping loaned corps), they can be effectively combined by simply making Russia move number 4 in the order (GB is number 5, assuming France moves last). They wouldn't interact with each other at all (or, no more than they do presently). Russia would just move after Turkey, Austria, and Prussia instead of before them. GB can be left out of the picture completely, if you want to think of it that way.

Now, they won't get to move as a stack or anything like that. The only real change would be to have Russia drop 3 spots in the movement order.

However, this would prevent the backwards last-and-first maneuver that my current game has allowed (again -- for the people in that game: I'm NOT going to do this).

[MarshallEllis]

Jimmer:
 
The backwards and forwards progression that you mention is also possible in the boardgame is it not or am I reading you wrong?

[Jimmer]

You could only move later, not earlier. "Combined movement" (CM) had the two powers moving at the same time, always in the movement position of the power going last.
 
The current setup would allow my nation to move EARLIER in the movement order, not later.
 
RUSSIA could do an effective "last and first" against anybody but France, and then only if the power he was fighting was not allied with (and moving with) France.
 
So, Russia and GB could go last against Turkey. Russia could pull a last-and-first maneuver by teaming up with GB one round, and then going solo the next. But, GB could never move before Turkey unless Turkey chose to allow it (by allying with and combining movement with France, going last).

[pzgndr]

An option to consider would be to require loaned corps to attack only under the control of a leader of the country they are loaned to.  In the example given, did Russia have a leader in Algeria for Britain to loan corps to?  I can see where simply loaning corps to an ally to gain a movement order advantage may be gamey.  At least with an allied leader in the area, the defending player could at least consider the possibility of a loaned corps double move and prepare accordingly.  On the other hand, this could complicate things where you may want to loan a leader for that leader's superior rating.  In this case, having an allied leader present could be required to have loaned corps, with or without a loaned leader, be eligible to attack?  I'm thinking about the programming options here.  

[Jimmer]

That's a good idea, or even "with a corps of the owning player". But, that gets us a little further from combined movement even than we already are, doesn't it? I think so (maybe?)
 
What I'm proposing doesn't actually fix much of anything, except that a late-moving power can move some pieces earlier in the turn.

[MarshallEllis]

Yes, BUT my question still stands ... the last / first move combo could be done in the boardgame, correct?
 
 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Yes, BUT my question still stands ... the last / first move combo could be done in the boardgame, correct?

Absolutely. I really don't see why this is such a big deal since you could do this in the boardgame. I really don't have a problem with it.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Yes, BUT my question still stands ... the last / first move combo could be done in the boardgame, correct?

Yes, and if that was what I was referring to, there would be no need for further discussion. Someone ELSE brought up the last / first thing, not me. My issue is not directly related to that, although a variant last / first maneuver can come out the issue I'm highlighting (which is most likely why it is confusing).

My issue is that a power can go before he should be able to go in a turn. Even under combined movement, you could not move earlier in the turn than your power was allowed to. But, you CAN move earlier with loaned corps in EIANW. You could always move later in a turn if you had an ally to combine with. But, you could never move earlier unless you were France.

[Jimmer]

I thought of another benefit of the "change the movement order" idea I presented above: Ones enemy can't go between the two powers.
 
While they would still operate as two discreet phases, changing the order would prevent the enemy from placing corps between the allies.
 
This is still not the same as combined movement, but it gets a bit closer.

[MarshallEllis]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Yes, BUT my question still stands ... the last / first move combo could be done in the boardgame, correct?

Yes, and if that was what I was referring to, there would be no need for further discussion. Someone ELSE brought up the last / first thing, not me. My issue is not directly related to that, although a variant last / first maneuver can come out the issue I'm highlighting (which is most likely why it is confusing).

My issue is that a power can go before he should be able to go in a turn. Even under combined movement, you could not move earlier in the turn than your power was allowed to. But, you CAN move earlier with loaned corps in EIANW. You could always move later in a turn if you had an ally to combine with. But, you could never move earlier unless you were France.

I think I understand now. When you combine movement in EiA, you always move in place of the closest to last ally thus never allowing you to move earlier, correct?

Ok, I'm still confused as to what this actually does to the game?

Your move order option was the first way we implemented this a few years back and it did not allow combined attacks so it was not a good enough approximation.

[delatbabel]

I think that the loaned corps thing is actually more flexible than combined movement.  It allows some of your troops to move in your own turn and some to move in the turn of another player.  This isn't as restrictive as combined movement and I quite like it.  It does make you plan your turn a bit more as you have to set up the loan of corps in the reinforcement phase rather than defining it at the start of the movement phase, and with combined movement a corps could be supplied from any allies' depot not just your own, so that's a slight restriction.  Other than that I'm in favour of leaving things the way they are.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I'm in favour of leaving things the way they are.

Why not? It doesn't really matter since it's not EiA anyways, so you might as well leave it the way it is and spend the time working on more important issues, like speeding up PBEM.

[pzgndr]

I think that the loaned corps thing is actually more flexible than combined movement. It allows some of your troops to move in your own turn and some to move in the turn of another player. This isn't as restrictive as combined movement and I quite like it.

Jimmer didn't clarify his example or answer my question, but I can see the issue being movement and combat of loaned corps without actually being combined with your ally. It seems quite gamey for Britain to loan corps in Algeria to Russia if Russia has no troops anywhere near Algeria. That's just taking advantage of the loan feature to gain a double-move. Movement is not really the issue, but combat is. To have loaned corps participate in combined combat, one should actually be combined with your ally's corps and/or leaders, yes? That was the point I was making, and if that restriction were imposed in this game then the intent of the original boardgame should be satisfied.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
I think I understand now. When you combine movement in EiA, you always move in place of the closest to last ally thus never allowing you to move earlier, correct?

Yes, correct.

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Ok, I'm still confused as to what this actually does to the game?

Your move order option was the first way we implemented this a few years back and it did not allow combined attacks so it was not a good enough approximation.

Basically, it allows situations that shouldn't be allowed (or, WOULD not be allowed -- a little different emphasis). In the specific example that brought it to my attention, I, as GB, can loan my corps to Russia, and thus escape from the trap that Turkey currently has me in the jaws of. It's a pretty important thing to have 10% of your army about to die, and be able to simply run it away by going first instead.

GB and Spain goes close to last in the land phase for a good reason: Their armies were slow and stodgy. Turkey and Russia could almost dance around the battlefield (except when Russia met up with Napoleon). They usually didn't have anybody left when they got there, but "moving first" definitely applied to them (in game terms).

But, loaned corps, while a decent compromise, has allowed this loophole.

Perhaps I have not fully explained my proposal yet, because I can't see how what you just said would be a problem. Let me try again.

The movement order now is

1) Fr
2) Ru
3) Tu
4) Pr
5) Au
6) GB
7) Sp
8) Fr (optional)

(I may have Prussia and Austria reversed, but it's not important here.)

I'm not sure how you allowed France to change her movement order (i.e. how you implemented it). But, what I'm proposing is to make ONE very similar change to the game:

Allow the other powers to move later in the phase, at the game's choice.

"Loaned corps" remains. This is NOT a replacement for loaning corps or for trying to implement "combined movement".

So, let's say Russia combines with Spain. Everything else remains the same. But, Russia moves in position 6 1/2 (if you will). Just after Austria, and just before GB. GB still moves separately. Austria still moves separately. Just change the order whenever a corps is loaned (either direction, but that's another issue).

So, the new order is

1) Fr
2) Tu
3) Pr
4) Au
5) Ru
6) GB
7) Sp
8) Fr (optional)

They do NOT actually combine their movements. The Russian and British turns are still completely independent of each other. It's just that the Russians now follow Turkey, Prussia, and Austria.

This also does not replace loaning corps. In fact, the only time the game should choose to change the order like this is WHEN one power has another power's corps on loan. (Depending on how the loaned corps piece is implemented, this could be tricky, but it shouldn't be.)

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
Jimmer didn't clarify his example or answer my question, ...

I clarified my example (several times), and NeverMan answered your question. I didn't see any point in belaboring the point.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
...
, but I can see the issue being movement and combat of loaned corps without actually being combined with your ally. It seems quite gamey for Britain to loan corps in Algeria to Russia if Russia has no troops anywhere near Algeria. That's just taking advantage of the loan feature to gain a double-move. Movement is not really the issue, but combat is. To have loaned corps participate in combined combat, one should actually be combined with your ally's corps and/or leaders, yes? That was the point I was making, and if that restriction were imposed in this game then the intent of the original boardgame should be satisfied.

The intent was that any combination of forces, or even separate stacks, could move in the same place in the movement order. While making super-stacks was certainly one benefit, it was nowhere near the biggest one. The biggest advantage (by far) of combined movement was that another power (usually France) could not move between the allies and split their forces.

There was a very real cost to, for instance, Russia pulling a last-then-first maneuver: He was no longer moving with his ally.

Let's say Russia and GB are in a war with Turkey. Russia has her usual mountain of troops, and GB has two corps raising the morale of, say, the two Russian main armies, and providing Wellington to one of them.

Playing GB, what is my greatest fear in this situation? It is the possibility of having to face that Turkish hoard alone, without the Russian cannon-fodder. Forget about losing battles: That's nothing compared with having your army obliterated (which is what would happen in that case).

So, if Russia were to decide to pull a last-then-first maneuver, GB will demand that she be given a full month's warning before it happens, so she can get her miniscule force out of the way.

THAT is the real value of combined movement. Only in a distant second place does stacking together (super-sized stacks) show up on the radar.

IMO, anyhow.

[MarshallEllis]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
I think I understand now. When you combine movement in EiA, you always move in place of the closest to last ally thus never allowing you to move earlier, correct?

Yes, correct.

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Ok, I'm still confused as to what this actually does to the game?

Your move order option was the first way we implemented this a few years back and it did not allow combined attacks so it was not a good enough approximation.

Basically, it allows situations that shouldn't be allowed (or, WOULD not be allowed -- a little different emphasis). In the specific example that brought it to my attention, I, as GB, can loan my corps to Russia, and thus escape from the trap that Turkey currently has me in the jaws of. It's a pretty important thing to have 10% of your army about to die, and be able to simply run it away by going first instead.

GB and Spain goes close to last in the land phase for a good reason: Their armies were slow and stodgy. Turkey and Russia could almost dance around the battlefield (except when Russia met up with Napoleon). They usually didn't have anybody left when they got there, but "moving first" definitely applied to them (in game terms).

But, loaned corps, while a decent compromise, has allowed this loophole.

Perhaps I have not fully explained my proposal yet, because I can't see how what you just said would be a problem. Let me try again.

The movement order now is

1) Fr
2) Ru
3) Tu
4) Pr
5) Au
6) GB
7) Sp
8) Fr (optional)

(I may have Prussia and Austria reversed, but it's not important here.)

I'm not sure how you allowed France to change her movement order (i.e. how you implemented it). But, what I'm proposing is to make ONE very similar change to the game:

Allow the other powers to move later in the phase, at the game's choice.

"Loaned corps" remains. This is NOT a replacement for loaning corps or for trying to implement "combined movement".

So, let's say Russia combines with Spain. Everything else remains the same. But, Russia moves in position 6 1/2 (if you will). Just after Austria, and just before GB. GB still moves separately. Austria still moves separately. Just change the order whenever a corps is loaned (either direction, but that's another issue).

So, the new order is

1) Fr
2) Tu
3) Pr
4) Au
5) Ru
6) GB
7) Sp
8) Fr (optional)

They do NOT actually combine their movements. The Russian and British turns are still completely independent of each other. It's just that the Russians now follow Turkey, Prussia, and Austria.

This also does not replace loaning corps. In fact, the only time the game should choose to change the order like this is WHEN one power has another power's corps on loan. (Depending on how the loaned corps piece is implemented, this could be tricky, but it shouldn't be.)

HA! I understand now. You're not proposing a replacement but an in addition to, corrrect?
Appreciate your help here!

[Jimmer]

Correct!
 
Much more correct, in fact, than my example. I mentally swapped partners between Spain and GB. Replace all occurrences of "Spain" with "GB" in my example, and it's right.
 
Anyhow, yes, this is NOT a replacement to loaned corps. It is merely a way to have semi-combined armies play more closely together in the order.
 
As I've been thinking about this, I've come up with an idea to make it work, provided I am guessing correctly at your method of implementation for the France swap of movement order. In very high level terms, how do you make France (or GB) change positions in the order?

[MarshallEllis]

It's a rather simple list in each phase of the current order of which can be manipulated by France for land and Great Britain for sea.