Loaning Corps still not quite there

[Jimmer]

Marshall, we need turn-order mutability. This whole discussion has made that crystal clear. It's the only way to truly emulate combined movement.
 
Then, corps loaning could be used to offset the games "you can only use your own depots for supply" restriction. In other words, loaning would be used ONLY for the purposes of supply. You give a unit to the other ally so that he can pay for it.
 
It still comes up short, but it's the best we can do without changing depot supply, a task likely impossible. But, changing turn order is clearly not impossible, since it has already happened as a bug in at least one game. It's absolutely essential in order to preserve any sense of adhering to the original game concept.

[Ted1066]

2 points to note:
1) the active nation performs ALL actions during his movement phase, including supply, so I do not see the need for a combined supply phase
2) I agree that the phase order is very important, so altering turn order would be required. That means, in the case of a France/Turkey alliance and a Russia/Austria/Prussia alliance, if the R/A/P alliance chose combined movement, the land phase turn order would change to reflect this. It would become France move-combat, Turkey move-combat, Russia move, Austria move, Prussia move-combat. In that final Prussian combat phase, all the combats of Russia, Austria and Prussia would be fought. This would allow all allies to move into a battle situation and all combats to be fought only a single time per phase.

This would require more work on Marshalls part, and still doesn't address the supply issue (though allied supply should not be that difficult to implement), but is hopefully something reasonable to implement (ie NOT having to recode major portions of the land and combat archetecture).

Ted

[ndrose]

You need a combined supply phase if the movement phases are done separately because if the allies are supplying from a depot to be built by ally #2, it won't be there when ally #1 finishes land movement.

True combined movement avoids that problem, and so does lending, but just changing the phase order and supplying separately at the end of each phase as normal makes supply very difficult.

In fact, that would really give us just "combined combat" but not anything like combined movement.

[ndrose]

France and Spain are allied, Austria and Prussia are allied. France at war with A/P, Spain at war with Austria, Prussia not at war with Spain. A/P combine movement, and because they are fighting in Germany, Prussia provides supply. France provides supply for Spain. Spain moves into a blocking position. Austria needs to go through the Spanish force in order to join up with Prussia. She must be able to draw supply from Prussian depots just as she would if there were no Spanish corps in her way. The loaning system requires that Prussia actually execute this move, but it is simply an Austrian move, using allied supply--perfectly legit in EiA.

My example above reminds me: if the Austrian corps lent to Prussia are treated as Prussians and not allowed to engage the Spanish, that is really much more unfair to the Spanish than any concern over Prussia fighting a proxy war using Austrian forces. Because if they're Prussian corps and can't engage, they can *literally* go through the Spanish, i.e., move right past them without engaging. "Sorry, guys, we're Prussians today."

Or you could dodge Nappy's attacks by just lending your army to a neutral power every month.

Bottom line: I see little in the way of unfair advantage to be gained by treating loaned corps as belonging to their true owner, but much unfair advantage to be gained by not doing so.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: ndrose

You need a combined supply phase if the movement phases are done separately because if the allies are supplying from a depot to be built by ally #2, it won't be there when ally #1 finishes land movement.

True combined movement avoids that problem, and so does lending, but just changing the phase order and supplying separately at the end of each phase as normal makes supply very difficult.

In fact, that would really give us just "combined combat" but not anything like combined movement.

No reason why you can't change the move order AND still have loaned corps....

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: ndrose

France and Spain are allied, Austria and Prussia are allied. France at war with A/P, Spain at war with Austria, Prussia not at war with Spain. A/P combine movement, and because they are fighting in Germany, Prussia provides supply. France provides supply for Spain. Spain moves into a blocking position. Austria needs to go through the Spanish force in order to join up with Prussia. She must be able to draw supply from Prussian depots just as she would if there were no Spanish corps in her way. The loaning system requires that Prussia actually execute this move, but it is simply an Austrian move, using allied supply--perfectly legit in EiA.

My example above reminds me: if the Austrian corps lent to Prussia are treated as Prussians and not allowed to engage the Spanish, that is really much more unfair to the Spanish than any concern over Prussia fighting a proxy war using Austrian forces. Because if they're Prussian corps and can't engage, they can *literally* go through the Spanish, i.e., move right past them without engaging. "Sorry, guys, we're Prussians today."

Or you could dodge Nappy's attacks by just lending your army to a neutral power every month.

Bottom line: I see little in the way of unfair advantage to be gained by treating loaned corps as belonging to their true owner, but much unfair advantage to be gained by not doing so.

TWO excellent points!! There is just too much gameyness to be had in the current system.... essentially IT SUCKS and needs to be changed.

[ndrose]

No reason why you can't change the move order AND still have loaned corps....

That gets us part of the way there, but doesn't address everything, since you don't always know ahead of time (in the reinforcement phase) which way you're going.

Take the following (very common) scenario: Austria and Prussia allied, facing Nappy. France moves first, and can strike towards Berlin or Vienna. If the former, the combined allied army should be able to build a Prussian depot in the nearest city and supply from that. If the latter, an Austrian depot.

If we change the movement phase, but don't have a separate supply phase, then as Austria I don't know ahead of time whether I should lend my corps to Prussia so that they can be supplied if they have to go that way; I can only know that after I see France's move.

One way around this would be to allow allies to use each other's depots (something that should be possible anyway, but currently is not), and for Austria to lend to Prussia in either case. Then if Nappy heads to Vienna, Austria builds the depot in its land phase, and Prussia moves both armies subsequently, supplying from the Austrian depot.

But in that case we're really not very far from the idea of always lending everything to the ally who moves second, which I imagine would be less messy to code.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: ndrose

No reason why you can't change the move order AND still have loaned corps....

That gets us part of the way there, but doesn't address everything, since you don't always know ahead of time (in the reinforcement phase) which way you're going.

Take the following (very common) scenario: Austria and Prussia allied, facing Nappy. France moves first, and can strike towards Berlin or Vienna. If the former, the combined allied army should be able to build a Prussian depot in the nearest city and supply from that. If the latter, an Austrian depot.

If we change the movement phase, but don't have a separate supply phase, then as Austria I don't know ahead of time whether I should lend my corps to Prussia so that they can be supplied if they have to go that way; I can only know that after I see France's move.

One way around this would be to allow allies to use each other's depots (something that should be possible anyway, but currently is not), and for Austria to lend to Prussia in either case. Then if Nappy heads to Vienna, Austria builds the depot in its land phase, and Prussia moves both armies subsequently, supplying from the Austrian depot.

But in that case we're really not very far from the idea of always lending everything to the ally who moves second, which I imagine would be less messy to code.

Yes, you are right... but I think even just changing the move order is going to take some coaxing from us... adding a whole other phase?? Probably not going to happen.

Yes, I guess if we combined 1) lending ALL units and 2) change move order then everything would probably be ok; however, this takes us back to the "do I trust my ally to move my pieces"... and when I say that I don't just mean your ally "screwing" you over, I mean my ally just making smart moves (for supply and position, etc..).

[ndrose]

Yes, I guess if we combined 1) lending ALL units and 2) change move order then everything would probably be ok; however, this takes us back to the "do I trust my ally to move my pieces"... and when I say that I don't just mean your ally "screwing" you over, I mean my ally just making smart moves (for supply and position, etc..).

Yes, this is certainly a hurdle. I think in order to make it work it would have to be understood that ally #1 must be involved in planning the move, and I would also be in favor of an extra exchange of files to allow ally #1 to approve the move before it becomes official. (There might be some security issues involved here; I guess you'd have to do it so that the approval was conducted after corps had been moved, depots built, etc. but before any forage rolls, so that allies could not simply "reject" unlucky moves, and--perhaps a bigger problem--so that they would not feel constrained to accept mistaken moves that also contained unlucky forage rolls.)

[larrywrose]

I guess I am going to have to agree to disagree also. The only thing that needs to be fixed is to allow corps at war with a country under the control of another country to still move through enemy territory and attack. Right now they can be attacked if controlled by a neutral party, they can not attack.

I don't see the "Multiple Attack" option as practical. Yes, I can see where it could be done, but I totally believe this actually helps the defender more than the attacker. I would much rather get hit twice by 2 50 factor stacks than once by 1 100 factor stack. Even if the second stack finishes me off, I did more damage. You have doubled the chance I will out guess the attacker, my army lives longer, and I do more damage to the enemy overall. I probably get to avoid cavalary superiority and the pursuit will not be as devastating. I just can't see setting up a combat and holding a few corps in reserve "just in case" he survives. This is a game where you tend to concentrate your armies into single stacks as lone corps are targets to be destoryed. All of the examples that could happen are not practical. For example what if in the first attack it's Outflank vs. Defend? Now don't you really feel stupid you didn't bring the other half of your army? The outflank option alone is the reason to maximize your numbers. The reinforcement argument makes no sense because if the defender devastated your forces on the first move, it was because you made it possible by dividing up your army in the first place.

As I said before, each corps can only attack once per month. Everyone has the chance to ally with someone and divide up their army. I could see a house rule where you can only loan corps to an ally where you are both at war with at least one common player, but I don't really see the need.

Larry W. Rose

[pzgndr]

The only thing that needs to be fixed is to allow corps at war with a country under the control of another country to still move through enemy territory and attack. Right now they can be attacked if controlled by a neutral party, they can not attack.

I don't see the "Multiple Attack" option as practical. Yes, I can see where it could be done, but I totally believe this actually helps the defender more than the attacker.

I could see a house rule where you can only loan corps to an ally where you are both at war with at least one common player, but I don't really see the need.

I agree with these points. Fix the loaned corps problem so it retains its inherent diplomatic setting and can be used accordingly. The other issues can be addressed later.

[ndrose]

I could see a house rule where you can only loan corps to an ally where you are both at war with at least one common player, but I don't really see the need.

That would cut out too many legitimate uses of loaning, but NeverMan has persuaded me that there are situations in which multiple attacks would be unfairly advantageous. Even if it's a rare situation, it would be irritating to be the one it was done to.

A simple house rule, unless and until we get a rewrite that makes it unnecessary, would be: "Corps of the same nationality cannot attack the same stack in different land phases in the same month."

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: larrywrose


I don't see the "Multiple Attack" option as practical. Yes, I can see where it could be done, but I totally believe this actually helps the defender more than the attacker. I would much rather get hit twice by 2 50 factor stacks than once by 1 100 factor stack.
Larry W. Rose

Totally ignoring the multitude of other ways we've mentioned in this thread to abuse the current loaning system, you probably wouldn't be saying the above if you had 10 factors and a successful "withdraw" the first attack.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: ndrose
A simple house rule, unless and until we get a rewrite that makes it unnecessary, would be: "Corps of the same nationality cannot attack the same stack in different land phases in the same month."

Won't be good enough. The vast majority of situations where dual-moving would be advantageous are not necessarily battle moves. And, it totally ignores the problem of a nation going prior to it's normal turn in the rotation, which is even bigger that dual attacks.

[ndrose]

And, it totally ignores the problem of a nation going prior to it's normal turn in the rotation, which is even bigger that dual attacks.

Well, that's why I wrote "unless and until we get a rewrite that makes it unnecessary". Without a rewrite of the loaning system along the lines of some of the suggestions in this thread, the problem you cite isn't going away, and we'll just have to live with it. If you loan your corps to an ally who moves earlier (which the current system often requires), then you're going to be moving early.

[MarshallEllis]

I still do not think that the multuiple attack scenario can be prevented with a loaning system. There are too many items/conditions to track per corps. The most realistic option at this point to me would be eliminate the loaned corps system. I would listening to alternatives and if we find one...

[ndrose]

Woo-hoo! Switching to true combined movement would be the Holy Grail. This thread has already provided a good deal of discussion about what would be involved. I think basically these changes would need to be made:

1) Land movement phase of ally 1 is changed to immediately precede that of ally 2. (Not even France can move in between.)

2) Ally 1 moves all his corps, builds depots, etc. as normal.

3) Ally 2 ditto.

4) Combined supply. Allies can draw supply from each other's depots, charged to owner of the depot. This could be done as a separate phase or simply as the first step in the land combat phase.

5) Combined combat. The game would have to choose one of the allies to send the file to, I guess, unless you wanted to do separate combat phases for the battles under each player's command, but that would be an extra file exchange, and things like reinforcement would get tricky. Probably better just to have one combat phase, with one player designated to do it.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I still do not think that the multuiple attack scenario can be prevented with a loaning system. There are too many items/conditions to track per corps. The most realistic option at this point to me would be eliminate the loaned corps system. I would listening to alternatives and if we find one...

I think you are correct.

I imagine that changing movement order is going to be as easy as pulling teeth from a tiger, but I think it's got to be done. Nothing else is going to do the job. The problem is that even that is not a solution. It goes a long ways towards it, but not completely.

But, I suspect it would produce something we could get used to. Using loaning without turn order restrictions allows a game where turn order is only marginally relevant.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: ndrose
4) Combined supply. Allies can draw supply from each other's depots, charged to owner of the depot. This could be done as a separate phase or simply as the first step in the land combat phase.

This is an EXCELLENT idea: Create a separate phase for supply! I love it!

A separate phase might not be needed at all unles powers were combining. Alternately, always have one, but, for powers who aren't combined with anybody, it could just be a "sub phase", perhaps having the data subsumed into the main PBM file for that player's turn.

This would also help solve the other problem we were discussing, namely having to choose between auto-forage, forage, or supply at the end of the turn. Since the phase would be somewhat new in the grand scheme of things, Marshall could probably re-write the whole algorithm.

Some of the thorny issues Neverman came up with could simply be options or even in-phase end-of-turn checkboxes (present a table to the player with all corps, locations, sizes, nearest depot, etc). In this last option, you could present the user with a "fake" version of it at the end of the movement part of his phase (kind of a "for display only" version, or collect up the check marks, but don't execute yet sort of thing).

Now, what are the costs/drawbacks? Hmmm. I think I'll ponder that some more, but I can see one right off: What if the player doesn't have enough money after movement is over to pay for all of his stuff, but thought he did?

[ndrose]

What if the player doesn't have enough money after movement is over to pay for all of his stuff, but thought he did?

Yes, it would require some care. This does happen now, of course, but in a regular land phase if the numbers don't add up the way you thought you can undo some moves or build a new depot and so on before you have to click the "end phase" button. Separating supply would require you to know exactly where your corps are and what they're going to cost.

Also, of course (and this is the whole point of separate supply, but could get ugly without good communication) if you do everything right and then your ally doesn't build the depot you need, you're out of luck.

The short answer is that, if you don't have the cash, you forage.

Actually, it could still be done at the end of the land phase, as long as it's done for both countries after ally 2's land phase. (It just might be simpler to treat it as a separate phase; but tacking it onto ally 2's land phase would allow that player, at least, to correct mistakes before ending the phase.)