Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Order Clarification
On 2020-07-10 4:52 p.m., ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
On 7/10/2020 12:21 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
On 2020-07-10 4:19 p.m., Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
On 2020-07-10 3:58 p.m., ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
On 7/10/2020 11:54 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army
from an adjacent coastal province to another adjacent coastal
province.
This seems to be saying a fleet can only help convoy an army
between two coastal provinces that are adjacent to it, ruling out
convoys that require multiple steps.
I wasn't sure what exactly to do about that. I see and agree with your
interpretation, but I also felt like just removing the word "adjacent"
could imply that the unit being convoyed doesn't have to be adjacent at
all. I guess that common sense takes over there, though.
I think the key is that success for the convoy is a global property
depending on the set of undislodged fleets involved.
Here's an attempt to replace your last paragraph. Maybe it could be
made shorter.
{
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army
from one coastal province to another. All fleets that have convoy
orders listing the same source and destination provinces are
"participating" in that convoy, with the exception that if a fleet is
dislodged, it is not participating. A convoy is successful if the
army in question makes a move order consistent with that convoy, and
the fleets participating in the convoy form an unbroken chain
connecting the two coastal provinces. (Extra participating fleets /
multiple chains are okay.) When a convoy is successful, the army's
move order is interpreted as if the source and destination provinces
were adjacent: for example, if the destination province is empty and
no other unit is trying to move to it, then the army will move there.
Hm, maybe it should be clarified that support orders are interpreted
this way too...
When a convoy is successful, that army's move order, and any support
orders for that move, are interpreted as if the source and destination
provinces were adjacent: for example, if the destination province
holds one unsupported unit with a Hold order, and another army is
supporting the move into the destination, then the move succeeds and
dislodges that unsupported unit.
Seems good to me. Should I withdraw my original proposal or should I (or
you) submit another one fixing it?
I guess yours is an improvement so how about one of us submits a
proposal fixing yours? I don't know if I'll have time today so if you
have time feel free.
--
Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Order Clarification
On 7/10/2020 12:21 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
On 2020-07-10 4:19 p.m., Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
On 2020-07-10 3:58 p.m., ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
On 7/10/2020 11:54 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army
from an adjacent coastal province to another adjacent coastal
province.
This seems to be saying a fleet can only help convoy an army between
two coastal provinces that are adjacent to it, ruling out convoys
that require multiple steps.
I wasn't sure what exactly to do about that. I see and agree with your
interpretation, but I also felt like just removing the word "adjacent"
could imply that the unit being convoyed doesn't have to be adjacent at
all. I guess that common sense takes over there, though.
I think the key is that success for the convoy is a global property
depending on the set of undislodged fleets involved.
Here's an attempt to replace your last paragraph. Maybe it could be
made shorter.
{
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army from
one coastal province to another. All fleets that have convoy orders
listing the same source and destination provinces are "participating"
in that convoy, with the exception that if a fleet is dislodged, it is
not participating. A convoy is successful if the army in question
makes a move order consistent with that convoy, and the fleets
participating in the convoy form an unbroken chain connecting the two
coastal provinces. (Extra participating fleets / multiple chains are
okay.) When a convoy is successful, the army's move order is
interpreted as if the source and destination provinces were adjacent:
for example, if the destination province is empty and no other unit is
trying to move to it, then the army will move there.
Hm, maybe it should be clarified that support orders are interpreted
this way too...
When a convoy is successful, that army's move order, and any support
orders for that move, are interpreted as if the source and destination
provinces were adjacent: for example, if the destination province holds
one unsupported unit with a Hold order, and another army is supporting
the move into the destination, then the move succeeds and dislodges that
unsupported unit.
Seems good to me. Should I withdraw my original proposal or should I (or
you) submit another one fixing it?
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood russian notary here :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Order Clarification
On 2020-07-10 4:19 p.m., Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
On 2020-07-10 3:58 p.m., ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
On 7/10/2020 11:54 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army
from an adjacent coastal province to another adjacent coastal province.
This seems to be saying a fleet can only help convoy an army between
two coastal provinces that are adjacent to it, ruling out convoys
that require multiple steps.
I wasn't sure what exactly to do about that. I see and agree with your
interpretation, but I also felt like just removing the word "adjacent"
could imply that the unit being convoyed doesn't have to be adjacent at
all. I guess that common sense takes over there, though.
I think the key is that success for the convoy is a global property
depending on the set of undislodged fleets involved.
Here's an attempt to replace your last paragraph. Maybe it could be made
shorter.
{
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army from
one coastal province to another. All fleets that have convoy orders
listing the same source and destination provinces are "participating" in
that convoy, with the exception that if a fleet is dislodged, it is not
participating. A convoy is successful if the army in question makes a
move order consistent with that convoy, and the fleets participating in
the convoy form an unbroken chain connecting the two coastal provinces.
(Extra participating fleets / multiple chains are okay.) When a convoy
is successful, the army's move order is interpreted as if the source and
destination provinces were adjacent: for example, if the destination
province is empty and no other unit is trying to move to it, then the
army will move there.
Hm, maybe it should be clarified that support orders are interpreted
this way too...
When a convoy is successful, that army's move order, and any support
orders for that move, are interpreted as if the source and destination
provinces were adjacent: for example, if the destination province holds
one unsupported unit with a Hold order, and another army is supporting
the move into the destination, then the move succeeds and dislodges that
unsupported unit.
}
--
Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Order Clarification
On 2020-07-10 3:58 p.m., ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
On 7/10/2020 11:54 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army
from an adjacent coastal province to another adjacent coastal province.
This seems to be saying a fleet can only help convoy an army between
two coastal provinces that are adjacent to it, ruling out convoys that
require multiple steps.
I wasn't sure what exactly to do about that. I see and agree with your
interpretation, but I also felt like just removing the word "adjacent"
could imply that the unit being convoyed doesn't have to be adjacent at
all. I guess that common sense takes over there, though.
I think the key is that success for the convoy is a global property
depending on the set of undislodged fleets involved.
Here's an attempt to replace your last paragraph. Maybe it could be made
shorter.
{
A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army from
one coastal province to another. All fleets that have convoy orders
listing the same source and destination provinces are "participating" in
that convoy, with the exception that if a fleet is dislodged, it is not
participating. A convoy is successful if the army in question makes a
move order consistent with that convoy, and the fleets participating in
the convoy form an unbroken chain connecting the two coastal provinces.
(Extra participating fleets / multiple chains are okay.) When a convoy
is successful, the army's move order is interpreted as if the source and
destination provinces were adjacent: for example, if the destination
province is empty and no other unit is trying to move to it, then the
army will move there.
}
--
Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic Proposal] Order Clarification
On 7/10/2020 11:54 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: A Convoy order orders a fleet in a water province to move an army from an adjacent coastal province to another adjacent coastal province. This seems to be saying a fleet can only help convoy an army between two coastal provinces that are adjacent to it, ruling out convoys that require multiple steps. I wasn't sure what exactly to do about that. I see and agree with your interpretation, but I also felt like just removing the word "adjacent" could imply that the unit being convoyed doesn't have to be adjacent at all. I guess that common sense takes over there, though. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood russian notary here :)
