House Rule that Eliminates "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.

Do we want to eliminate "via convoy" by way of a House Rule?

I like the rule as written in the OP
3
50%
I like the alternate rule taking out condition (b), equivalent to what NoPun cited
2
33%
I like the "via convoy" rule and actively want to keep it in place
1
17%
 
Total votes : 6

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

Postby Mr.E » 19 Jun 2019, 08:42

I'm with Ghost on this. As I've said before, although I acknowledge that a number of rules in Playdip aren't based on similar situations in real life, in this not allowing kidnapping is preferable to anything else.

A French general orders his army from Spain to Marseilles. An Italian admiral offers to convoy the French through the Gulf of Lyons, but the French say "Non, merci."

This is lost in translation and the helpful Italian, who has an fleet in Marseilles, orders the convoy anyway.

Would the French happily board the Italian ships? Or would they ignore them and traipse overland, as they prefer?

If a rule has a practical application and stops a ridiculous scenario from occuring, then that rule is sound. The implementation here could be improved by only applying the "by convoy" add on if a neighbouring fleet is foreign, but I'm really struggling to see what's wrong with it otherwise.

As for multiple convoy routes, if you'll forgive the divergence, if both sets of orders are correct, then either route is sound. Just because one fleet isn't able to implement the order doesn't mean the other can't.
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: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

Postby jay65536 » 19 Jun 2019, 13:14

GhostEcho wrote:I quite like PlayDip's current house rule. If there's a better way to implement it, that's great, but I'm not thrilled by the proposed rule. Here's why:

Principle: A unit is only given a single order.
Fact : Moving an army by convoy requires a different path than a move by land.

I'm even dubious about multiple-route convoy orders (e.g. if Edi-Nwy, Nth C Edi-Nwy, Nwg C Edi-Nwy, and Nth is dislodged, the convoy through Nwg still succeeds), but I don't see any practical way around them. But a player really should know whether he's trying to move a unit by convoy or not - even if that's not a requirement of the rules as published.


It sounds like you'd prefer the house rule that used to be the standard in online play: an army has to specify its convoy path by writing down a chain of adjacent sea spaces before writing it final destination.

Example:
F Nwg C Edi--StP
F Bar C Edi--StP

Instead of the rulebook order, A Edi--StP, in early online games you used to have to write:

A Edi--Nwg--Bar--StP

That seems like the rule for you.

It kills "via convoy" the opposite way that we have been discussing in this thread, and I think the rule as it exists in the 2000 rulebook is sort of a split-the-difference, worst-of-both-worlds scenario.
jay65536
 
Posts: 414
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 19 Jun 2019, 17:16

GhostEcho wrote:I'm even dubious about multiple-route convoy orders (e.g. if Edi-Nwy, Nth C Edi-Nwy, Nwg C Edi-Nwy, and Nth is dislodged, the convoy through Nwg still succeeds), but I don't see any practical way around them. But a player really should know whether he's trying to move a unit by convoy or not - even if that's not a requirement of the rules as published.

So that is another option, though it's kind of a pain for point-and-click interfaces: explicit convoy paths. That's the house rule DPJudge uses to bypass all of these issues, though they use text-based orders instead of click-based orders. The convoy path is only listed as part of the move order; support/convoy orders would still only list origin and destination.

So, for example, this move order wouldn't even be legal:
Code: Select all
A Edi - Nwy
F Nth C Edi - Nwy
F Nwg C Edi - Nwy

Instead, the orders would have to be written in one of the following ways:
Code: Select all
A Edi - Nth - Nwy
F Nth C Edi - Nwy
F Nwg C Edi - Nwy

Code: Select all
A Edi - Nwg - Nwy
F Nth C Edi - Nwy
F Nwg C Edi - Nwy

Code: Select all
A Edi - Nth - Nwg - Nwy
F Nth C Edi - Nwy
F Nwg C Edi - Nwy

Code: Select all
A Edi - Nwg - Nth - Nwy
F Nth C Edi - Nwy
F Nwg C Edi - Nwy

Nobody in their right mind should ever use one of the last two of those options, but they'd be legal options too. By requiring convoy paths to be explicitly listed, it removes all convoy ambiguity, but it does nix the ability to set up multiple optional convoys (which might be useful in some scenarios).
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

Previous

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest