Move orders via convoy

This is the home for suggestions for site improvements, changes to house rules, and new variants.
Forum rules
It's okay to suggest new rules variants in this forum, but proposing new *maps* should be done in the linked "New Map Variant Proposals & Voting" subforum.

Re: Move orders via convoy

Postby Mr.E » 06 Jun 2019, 09:15

There isn't an issue with the coasts prompt.

There isn't an issue with the order history.

There isn't a need to change the way the via convoy option works except recognising that the fleet bordering the coast is of the same power, and that's simply to do with neatness, because it doesn't affect the adjudication.
Respect neither opinions nor beliefs; only respect the person and the right to express them.
Play by the rules but be ferocious.
User avatar
Mr.E
Premium Member
 
Posts: 201
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 09:27
Location: Yorkshire
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 966
All-game rating: 1134
Timezone: GMT

Re: Move orders via convoy

Postby jay65536 » 06 Jun 2019, 14:44

NoPunIn10Did wrote:I think we need to improve the interaction methodology required to set "via convoy" for moves where it is required to clarify, but I wouldn't want to show it all the time.

Either that or we do what Backstabbr does: we revert to the circa-1970s edition of the rules and Gamer's Guide, allowing kidnap convoys and using an older definition of "legal move" (which in practice allows a unit to stay in position while refusing unwanted support-to-hold).

I suspect that reverting to the 70s rules would be unpopular.


There's also a third option, which is to ignore the "via convoy" rule, so that armies are only ever ordered from one location to another, and institute a "house rule" that covers the rulebook contradictions that the "via convoy" rule was designed to solve, but in a better way. This is the option that I would FAR prefer (though I expect wouldn't get much traction). I think the "via convoy" rule is terrible and, in the name of solving problems that the rulebook couldn't resolve before, creates new scenarios that change the original rules in unintended ways.
jay65536
 
Posts: 414
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Move orders via convoy

Postby ColonelApricot » 06 Jun 2019, 23:15

The scope of my OP does not envisage changes to the rules and such discussion is entitled to its own thread.

Yes this is about neatness because untidiness IS an issue. Neatness includes a satisfying website experience for its users, by being economical and intuitive in ways that meet a wide range of expectations. We should be prepared to keep making improvements if we are to be the leading online diplomacy provider.

I feel that Nopun is on the right track here. It could work like this. When necessary a new command "Move via convoy" is added to the army command list, rendering the current prompt redundant. But ONLY when necessary.

Same kind of deal for coasts.

.. CA
Dog of War in ToS
GRU of the Despicables in TTT
User avatar
ColonelApricot
Premium Member
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:48
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1010
All-game rating: 1400
Timezone: GMT

Re: Move orders via convoy

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 06 Jun 2019, 23:44

What I envision is that instead of clicking a territory destination, then having a prompt, you can click an icon that appears in that destination. When a “via convoy” prompt would be relevant, two separate icons in the same location would be present.

In that way, the “via convoy” element would be baked into the destination UI rather than having either a new order type or having an additional prompt.
NoPunIn10Did
Lead Volunteer Developer

Forum Administrator

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2437
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1471
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Move orders via convoy

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 08 Jun 2019, 17:29

One thing I’m not so sure about:

Is there a scenario in which having a convoy kidnapped actually matters?

If it’s two armies trading places, then it’s arbitrary which army was the convoyed one.
NoPunIn10Did
Lead Volunteer Developer

Forum Administrator

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2437
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1471
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Move orders via convoy

Postby jay65536 » 08 Jun 2019, 17:55

Two armies trading places is not the situation that this rule was created for. There are other scenarios where it absolutely does matter.

I am on my phone and can't copy/paste the link but the article worth reading is on diplomacy-archive.com and it is called "Rulebook Contradiction" or something like that, by Mark Berch.
jay65536
 
Posts: 414
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Move orders via convoy

Postby ColonelApricot » 08 Jun 2019, 23:01

My understanding is that the implementation does not allow "kidnapping" (refer SD's up thread post). - more's the pity.
Dog of War in ToS
GRU of the Despicables in TTT
User avatar
ColonelApricot
Premium Member
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:48
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1010
All-game rating: 1400
Timezone: GMT

Re: Move orders via convoy

Postby jay65536 » 09 Jun 2019, 00:35

ColonelApricot wrote:My understanding is that the implementation does not allow "kidnapping" (refer SD's up thread post). - more's the pity.


I took NP's question to be more about the evolution of why the "land and convoy" rule exists. It did not exist at all in the 70s rules, evolved into a weird unenforceable rule in the 90s, and took its current form in 2000.

As an example of what the rule was NOT designed to prevent, let's say that we had:
England: A Wal-Lon
France: A Lon-Wal
Germany: F Eng C Lon-Wal

Without the German order, this is a bounce according to every version of the rules. According to the 2000 rules, unless France specifies "via convoy", this is still a bounce. What is interesting is that under the 2000 rules, if the German fleet were French instead, the armies would switch places.

Under the 1970s rules, the armies would always switch places. The nationality of the convoying fleet did not matter. This was a sub-case of the general principle that the orders are resolved without regard to nationality, with the only exception being the rule prohibiting self-dislodgment or self-support-cutting.

The 2000 rule changes this adjudication, but that is not why the rule exists--it's basically an accident that this was changed, and I don't believe it was ever supposed to be.

Here is one of the real reasons the rule exists. Let's keep the French and German orders the same, but imagine the English army is moving to Yorkshire instead. That means that the French move is unopposed. But now let's also say that two other fleets adjacent to the Channel have combined to dislodge the German fleet. Under the 1970s rules, this is now a contradiction! One rule says that the unopposed move to an adjacent province succeeds. But another rule says that since the convoy was disrupted, the army stays in place! The 1970s rules provide no guidance as to which takes precedence. The 2000 rules do--if France did not specify "via convoy", the convoy is ignored and the move is valid, but if she did, then the army actually holds.

The article I referenced above contains two more contradictions in the 1970s rules, one of which is taken care of by the same rule from the 2000 rulebook and the other of which is taken care of by a PD house rule.

So that is why the rule really exists--to settle contradictions between convoy rules and non-convoyed movement rules. As I said earlier, I think it creates more problems than it solves (like my first example above) and I think it could have been done better with a different rule change.
jay65536
 
Posts: 414
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Move orders via convoy

Postby ColonelApricot » 09 Jun 2019, 01:37

jay65536 wrote:The 2000 rule changes this adjudication, but that is not why the rule exists--it's basically an accident that this was changed, and I don't believe it was ever supposed to be..

So are you suggesting that the intention was that if a valid convoy order is available then it would be chosen rather than the non-convoy equivalent, regardless of the nationality of the fleet? (If it was a different nationality then that is what is meant by the silly kidnapping term).

jay65536 wrote:So that is why the rule really exists--to settle contradictions between convoy rules and non-convoyed movement rules. As I said earlier, I think it creates more problems than it solves (like my first example above) and I think it could have been done better with a different rule change.

How would you formulate it?

Though we we are discussing a different implementation of the rules (using a better clarification of the 1970 rules) it obviously has some bearing on the UI implementation because the "via convoy" variation would not be needed at all perhaps.
Dog of War in ToS
GRU of the Despicables in TTT
User avatar
ColonelApricot
Premium Member
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:48
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1010
All-game rating: 1400
Timezone: GMT

Re: Move orders via convoy

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 09 Jun 2019, 04:48

I tested out a scenario on Backstabbr, and I really think I prefer their implementation in this regard. Convoys are more-or-less like support orders in both these cases.

Like support, a convoy cannot be refused when granted, so kidnaps are legal.

Also like support, a nixed convoy order doesn’t automatically invalidate the original move. In jay’s scenario as described above, the dislodged convoy just means the move is adjudicated as a totally normal move order. This also fits nicely with the principle of not having to specify an exact convoy path: if more than one path exists, but one path is broken by a dislodge, then the convoy still succeeds.

It’s just in this case that the alternate path happens to be a normal move.

I wonder whether our players would like that change or not. I know I’ve met at least one person who thinks using the older 70’s rules is an abomination...
NoPunIn10Did
Lead Volunteer Developer

Forum Administrator

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2437
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1471
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wolf1234 and 1 guest