Double standoff


Armies who are ordered to advance but failed because of a standoff... Should they be allowed to hold and benefit from another standoff in the same round?
11 Sep, 2018 09:45

It seems the entire game is designed to allow double standoffs. Whether this is intentional or not, you will tell me.

Basically, if you have a level 1 army, you can stall two regions at once.

E.g. Red army in MIL Blue army in BER Blue army in AUS TYR is empty

Now, the orders are RED advances from MIL to TYR BLUE advances from BER to MIL BLUE advances from AUS to TYR

The result is standoff in TYR and standoff in MIL

So, basically, you have the red army going to TYR, fighting which result in a standoff... So the army stays in MIL... Army in BER arrives and it results in a standoff again.

Two battles won with one army.

My argument is that the Red army should retreat. 1. You have a position 2. You leave the position to fight in another region 3. You do not win the fight 4. When you come back, you find another army invading the region 5. You are caught from behind and immediately rout

This makes sense because no army should be able to fight more than one foe unless it is intentionally holding.

If you decide to move, you shouldn't be allowed to go back to your original province just to fight a defensive battle and get a standoff. You should be allowed to go back after a standoff only if nobody has entered the Province in the meantime.

Not sure if I explained myself.

11 Sep, 2018 09:48

It is the way the game is designed It is the way diplomacy works (thousands of people playing all over the world) I would keep it the way it is

11 Sep, 2018 10:51

gipsy. imagine this. swi, avi, mon, salz and como goes to TUR. nobody enters. TUR won 5 battles at one time. how do you explain that with your logic?

pd: you dont leave your area, you simply cant enter in the other place.

Edited 11 Sep, 2018 11:20
11 Sep, 2018 15:29

z666 in that case it is assumed that the armies face all against all. Turin wins because he plays at home and lets them kill each other. If they wanted to attack in coordination they would use mutual support orders, not attack. When you have an order to attack you start with artillery and it does not look where it falls, the rest is to respond to fire with fire.

What you propose Gypsy is a rule that I applied when playing at a table. If an army attacks and fails to win, it is eliminated if, when it withdraws, its province of origin has been occupied by an enemy unit.

11 Sep, 2018 16:06

pues para mi la unidad atacante no llega a salir de su territorio si no desplaza antes a la defensora. Es decir, no es que salga de casa y al volver derrotado la quiten la silla. En cada territorio solo puede haber una unidad, asi que si fuese como vosotros decis, lo que pasaría sería esto: PAV ataca MIL, ambas tienen fuerza uno. PAV no vence a MIL, asi que pavía tendria que retirarse DESDE MILAN, no desde PAV, porque segun vuestro modo de verlo, estaba en MIL cuando tuvo que retirarse de una batalla perdida (la batalla contra MIL).

Pero vamos, no le veo sentido a eso, porque sería afirmar que una unidad de fuerza 1 derrota a otra unidad de fuerza 1.