Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am going over the changes to the sequence of play for PBEM and I am beginning to wonder if there are any places in the SOP where the non-phasing side has to choose which units are destroyed because of overstacking.

1 - In a discussion with the beta testers, the conclusion was that the attacker chooses the order in which units retreat from a land combat, so if overstacking prevents units from retreating and they are therefore destroyed, the decision as to which unit(s) are destroyed is made by the phasing side.

2 - If a change in the weather causes units in lakes to drown or be destroyed by freezing (boat planes), then all the units are destroyed, so no decision needs to be made.

3 - If a land atack destroys a unit in the defending hex that was provvidnig an air unit stacking bonus (e.g., an HQ or ENG), then the non-phasing player has to choose which air unit to destroy. If this happens to the attacking side, then the phasing player decides which of his air units to destroy.

Only #3 seems to require a decision by the non-phasing side.

Are there other times in the game when overstacking occurs? You can't overstack voluntarily, which removes a whole lot of possibilities.

- Perhaps there is a possiblity concerning foreign troop commitment?

- Overstacking doesn't apply to minor country units outside their home country, since the restriction is on 'moving' outside the home country. Once your passport has been stamped, they can't deport you.

If the only place where this decision is needed by the non-phasing side in #3 above, then I'll let the program decide which is the worst air unit and destroy that, rather than develop a Standing Order for dealing with such a miniscule issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am going over the changes to the sequence of play for PBEM and I am beginning to wonder if there are any places in the SOP where the non-phasing side has to choose which units are destroyed because of overstacking.

1 - In a discussion with the beta testers, the conclusion was that the attacker chooses the order in which units retreat from a land combat, so if overstacking prevents units from retreating and they are therefore destroyed, the decision as to which unit(s) are destroyed is made by the phasing side.

2 - If a change in the weather causes units in lakes to drown or be destroyed by freezing (boat planes), then all the units are destroyed, so no decision needs to be made.

3 - If a land atack destroys a unit in the defending hex that was provvidnig an air unit stacking bonus (e.g., an HQ or ENG), then the non-phasing player has to choose which air unit to destroy. If this happens to the attacking side, then the phasing player decides which of his air units to destroy.

Only #3 seems to require a decision by the non-phasing side.

Are there other times in the game when overstacking occurs? You can't overstack voluntarily, which removes a whole lot of possibilities.

- Perhaps there is a possiblity concerning foreign troop commitment?

- Overstacking doesn't apply to minor country units outside their home country, since the restriction is on 'moving' outside the home country. Once your passport has been stamped, they can't deport you.

If the only place where this decision is needed by the non-phasing side in #3 above, then I'll let the program decide which is the worst air unit and destroy that, rather than develop a Standing Order for dealing with such a miniscule issue.

If you have a forced rebase of a naval unit and the naval unit can only go to ports already fully stacked. I believe that last time my group was in that situation we allowed over stacking in the port, and then the owner had to choose which units to destroy.

-> Same can happen if you have to return to base and the port is full.

-> Another variation of the same: Say you abort a group of 3 units from a naval combat, now the rules say that all these have to go to the same port, but what if you abort through some Sea Areas and then end up to be forced to land in a Sea Area where no minor port have room for all three of them? I'd say this is another case of over stacking. (If there had been no possible interceptions then the owner should be able to undo though.)

Note: I didn't check the rules now, I just took this from memory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am going over the changes to the sequence of play for PBEM and I am beginning to wonder if there are any places in the SOP where the non-phasing side has to choose which units are destroyed because of overstacking.

1 - In a discussion with the beta testers, the conclusion was that the attacker chooses the order in which units retreat from a land combat, so if overstacking prevents units from retreating and they are therefore destroyed, the decision as to which unit(s) are destroyed is made by the phasing side.

2 - If a change in the weather causes units in lakes to drown or be destroyed by freezing (boat planes), then all the units are destroyed, so no decision needs to be made.

3 - If a land atack destroys a unit in the defending hex that was provvidnig an air unit stacking bonus (e.g., an HQ or ENG), then the non-phasing player has to choose which air unit to destroy. If this happens to the attacking side, then the phasing player decides which of his air units to destroy.

Only #3 seems to require a decision by the non-phasing side.

Are there other times in the game when overstacking occurs? You can't overstack voluntarily, which removes a whole lot of possibilities.

- Perhaps there is a possiblity concerning foreign troop commitment?

- Overstacking doesn't apply to minor country units outside their home country, since the restriction is on 'moving' outside the home country. Once your passport has been stamped, they can't deport you.

If the only place where this decision is needed by the non-phasing side in #3 above, then I'll let the program decide which is the worst air unit and destroy that, rather than develop a Standing Order for dealing with such a miniscule issue.

If you have a forced rebase of a naval unit and the naval unit can only go to ports already fully stacked. I believe that last time my group was in that situation we allowed over stacking in the port, and then the owner had to choose which units to destroy.

-> Same can happen if you have to return to base and the port is full.

-> Another variation of the same: Say you abort a group of 3 units from a naval combat, now the rules say that all these have to go to the same port, but what if you abort through some Sea Areas and then end up to be forced to land in a Sea Area where no minor port have room for all three of them? I'd say this is another case of over stacking. (If there had been no possible interceptions then the owner should be able to undo though.)

Note: I didn't check the rules now, I just took this from memory.

Also Air units?:
A1) When returning to base from a Naval Area (because of abort or because of RTB and end of turn) your opponent may have captured some or all air bases, so that you have not enough room to land every aircraft.

A2) When returning air units from any air missions, it is possible that you have a unit with very limited range that you should land, but your good ally has returned all his air craft from combat before you did, so all hexes within range are fully stacked. (This is usually resolved smoothly in my group. but how will such be resolved in the game, and also if there is late game competition between allies for the victory, one may be stubborn...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am going over the changes to the sequence of play for PBEM and I am beginning to wonder if there are any places in the SOP where the non-phasing side has to choose which units are destroyed because of overstacking.

1 - In a discussion with the beta testers, the conclusion was that the attacker chooses the order in which units retreat from a land combat, so if overstacking prevents units from retreating and they are therefore destroyed, the decision as to which unit(s) are destroyed is made by the phasing side.

2 - If a change in the weather causes units in lakes to drown or be destroyed by freezing (boat planes), then all the units are destroyed, so no decision needs to be made.

3 - If a land atack destroys a unit in the defending hex that was provvidnig an air unit stacking bonus (e.g., an HQ or ENG), then the non-phasing player has to choose which air unit to destroy. If this happens to the attacking side, then the phasing player decides which of his air units to destroy.

Only #3 seems to require a decision by the non-phasing side.

Are there other times in the game when overstacking occurs? You can't overstack voluntarily, which removes a whole lot of possibilities.

- Perhaps there is a possiblity concerning foreign troop commitment?

- Overstacking doesn't apply to minor country units outside their home country, since the restriction is on 'moving' outside the home country. Once your passport has been stamped, they can't deport you.

If the only place where this decision is needed by the non-phasing side in #3 above, then I'll let the program decide which is the worst air unit and destroy that, rather than develop a Standing Order for dealing with such a miniscule issue.

If you have a forced rebase of a naval unit and the naval unit can only go to ports already fully stacked. I believe that last time my group was in that situation we allowed over stacking in the port, and then the owner had to choose which units to destroy.

-> Same can happen if you have to return to base and the port is full.

-> Another variation of the same: Say you abort a group of 3 units from a naval combat, now the rules say that all these have to go to the same port, but what if you abort through some Sea Areas and then end up to be forced to land in a Sea Area where no minor port have room for all three of them? I'd say this is another case of over stacking. (If there had been no possible interceptions then the owner should be able to undo though.)

Note: I didn't check the rules now, I just took this from memory.

Also Air units?:
A1) When returning to base from a Naval Area (because of abort or because of RTB and end of turn) your opponent may have captured some or all air bases, so that you have not enough room to land every aircraft.

A2) When returning air units from any air missions, it is possible that you have a unit with very limited range that you should land, but your good ally has returned all his air craft from combat before you did, so all hexes within range are fully stacked. (This is usually resolved smoothly in my group. but how will such be resolved in the game, and also if there is late game competition between allies for the victory, one may be stubborn...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

As a side note, please note that this is the owner of the hex how decides what's dead in an overstack, and that this is the face-up units first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

As a side note, please note that this is the owner of the hex how decides what's dead in an overstack, and that this is the face-up units first.

Indeed. It is the owner of the hex that destroys overstacked units. But Harry ruled that the retreated units causing overstacking must be eliminated.

From FAQ:
Q11.16-10:
When reading retreat in 11.16.5 it seems
clear that if you have no place to retreat,
including a hex causing overstacking, that
the units die as indicated by "(or destroy it
if this is not possible)".
However, some people look at 2.3.1 that
says if you are overstacked that the owner
destroys his own units. What really causes
problems with this view is the wording in
2.3.1 that says you must destroy face-up
units before face down with the result that
you can retreat flipped units to a hex and
force the other face-up units to die. Is this
right?

Answer:
The retreating units are destroyed. Date
07/03/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am going over the changes to the sequence of play for PBEM and I am beginning to wonder if there are any places in the SOP where the non-phasing side has to choose which units are destroyed because of overstacking.

1 - In a discussion with the beta testers, the conclusion was that the attacker chooses the order in which units retreat from a land combat, so if overstacking prevents units from retreating and they are therefore destroyed, the decision as to which unit(s) are destroyed is made by the phasing side.

2 - If a change in the weather causes units in lakes to drown or be destroyed by freezing (boat planes), then all the units are destroyed, so no decision needs to be made.

3 - If a land atack destroys a unit in the defending hex that was provvidnig an air unit stacking bonus (e.g., an HQ or ENG), then the non-phasing player has to choose which air unit to destroy. If this happens to the attacking side, then the phasing player decides which of his air units to destroy.

Only #3 seems to require a decision by the non-phasing side.

Are there other times in the game when overstacking occurs? You can't overstack voluntarily, which removes a whole lot of possibilities.

- Perhaps there is a possiblity concerning foreign troop commitment?

- Overstacking doesn't apply to minor country units outside their home country, since the restriction is on 'moving' outside the home country. Once your passport has been stamped, they can't deport you.

If the only place where this decision is needed by the non-phasing side in #3 above, then I'll let the program decide which is the worst air unit and destroy that, rather than develop a Standing Order for dealing with such a miniscule issue.

If you have a forced rebase of a naval unit and the naval unit can only go to ports already fully stacked. I believe that last time my group was in that situation we allowed over stacking in the port, and then the owner had to choose which units to destroy.

-> Same can happen if you have to return to base and the port is full.

-> Another variation of the same: Say you abort a group of 3 units from a naval combat, now the rules say that all these have to go to the same port, but what if you abort through some Sea Areas and then end up to be forced to land in a Sea Area where no minor port have room for all three of them? I'd say this is another case of over stacking. (If there had been no possible interceptions then the owner should be able to undo though.)

Note: I didn't check the rules now, I just took this from memory.

Also Air units?:
A1) When returning to base from a Naval Area (because of abort or because of RTB and end of turn) your opponent may have captured some or all air bases, so that you have not enough room to land every aircraft.

A2) When returning air units from any air missions, it is possible that you have a unit with very limited range that you should land, but your good ally has returned all his air craft from combat before you did, so all hexes within range are fully stacked. (This is usually resolved smoothly in my group. but how will such be resolved in the game, and also if there is late game competition between allies for the victory, one may be stubborn...)

I believe that those cases where a naval unit or an air unit has to rebase, or to return to base, and have not base to return to IS NOT decided by stacking limits.

If an air unit can't return to base, or a naval unit can't rebase, it is destroyed, period.

You can't base it in a port or hex, and then declare there is an overstack, and then destroy another unit.


As a side note, please note that this is the owner of the hex how decides what's dead in an overstack, and that this is the face-up units first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The problem here is when there is some room available for the returning/rebasing units, but not enough room for all of them. If the British have 3 naval units and the US have 3, all of which are aborted from a naval combat, but there is only 1 minor port that they can reach, then which units are destroyed? I think this becomes an overstacking issue - and as you said, resolved by the major power that controls the hex. The same thing can happen with air units (more unlikely, but possible).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The problem here is when there is some room available for the returning/rebasing units, but not enough room for all of them. If the British have 3 naval units and the US have 3, all of which are aborted from a naval combat, but there is only 1 minor port that they can reach, then which units are destroyed? I think this becomes an overstacking issue - and as you said, resolved by the major power that controls the hex. The same thing can happen with air units (more unlikely, but possible).

No, no overstacking issue.

The owner of the units that need to return to base decide which unit return to base first. When the port is full, the rest of the units that need to return to base are destroyed without seeing the green & red buoys at the port's entry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
The owner of the units that need to return to base decide which unit return to base first. When the port is full, the rest of the units that need to return to base are destroyed without seeing the green & red buoys at the port's entry.

The problem is when there are two different owners both os whom want to use the base.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
The owner of the units that need to return to base decide which unit return to base first. When the port is full, the rest of the units that need to return to base are destroyed without seeing the green & red buoys at the port's entry.

The problem is when there are two different owners both os whom want to use the base.

Isn't it the role of the team leader at this moment (as when there are losses suffered during a land combat, to choose amongst multiple major powers) to choose who can rebase and who is destroyed ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
The owner of the units that need to return to base decide which unit return to base first. When the port is full, the rest of the units that need to return to base are destroyed without seeing the green & red buoys at the port's entry.

The problem is when there are two different owners both os whom want to use the base.

Isn't it the role of the team leader at this moment (as when there are losses suffered during a land combat, to choose amongst multiple major powers) to choose who can rebase and who is destroyed ?

I am not sure I agree with Froonp's reading of the rules, but I don't mind, it sounds good.
But the question is if this solves the problem?

Froonp say that the owner decides which unit to abort first, and that this will solve the problem. But I believe Froonp's solution is not yet good enough, because the owner does not need to abort the units individually, the units can be aborted as a group. Aborting as a group can be very sensible if you have to abort through multiple Sea Areas.

- The only restriction we can apply to the group is that the group must be able to stack together, so they must cooperate. But they can be controlled by different players
- Also I believe it will be hard to apply any sensible number limitation on the group.

Consider the following example:
Four SCS (two French and Two American) in the North Atlantic are aborted. They choose to abort as a group. And they really have a whole range of major ports and minor ports which they can go to because they can stack in any French or American controlled port. Now the player controlling the group aborts to Cape St Vincent, where Italy can intercept the units. Italy chooses not to. But the only legal port which they can reach from Cape St.Vincent is the minor port of Casablanca where there are already an American SCS. So the group are one unit too many, and they can't undo because Italy had a choice.

What I meant to illustrate is that to make sure that the game never ends up in an over stack situation there are a whole range of complicated issues to resolve. Much of the complexity is due to the fact that multiple players have a lot of choices to make before the abort moves are concluded. A much simpler solution is to have a window appear at the time the units enter the port.

I agree with Patrice that it makes sense to read the rule in a way that it's one of the aborting units that must be destroyed, and not a normal over stack case in the port. But my conclusion is that the restriction must be applied at the end of the abort move, and not at the beginning (unless no legal port exists).
_ I don't care if you call this an over stack case or an abort issue...

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

An immediate question -  will the opposing side be able to clck on and open the various areas for decisions such as claims allow or deny for example at any other time than when such a claim has just been made ?

Lars

quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

But if I don´t want to accept, say, the finnish boarder claim, does that mean that the SO can ignore that and accept it anyway (because of the randomness)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

But if I don´t want to accept, say, the finnish boarder claim, does that mean that the SO can ignore that and accept it anyway (because of the randomness)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

But if I don´t want to accept, say, the finnish boarder claim, does that mean that the SO can ignore that and accept it anyway (because of the randomness)?

Claims are a 1 time occurence eazch, so I don't think they will be random at all. The player will decide in advance for each.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

An immediate question -  will the opposing side be able to clck on and open the various areas for decisions such as claims allow or deny for example at any other time than when such a claim has just been made ?

Lars

Each side has its own set of standing orders. You will never be able to see your opponent's standing orders. For example, standing orders may use a random number to make decisions, so even if the SO was No last time it was executed it might be Yes the next time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: amwild

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

An immediate question -  will the opposing side be able to clck on and open the various areas for decisions such as claims allow or deny for example at any other time than when such a claim has just been made ?

Lars

Each side has its own set of standing orders. You will never be able to see your opponent's standing orders. For example, standing orders may use a random number to make decisions, so even if the SO was No last time it was executed it might be Yes the next time.

So, will a player be able to set the probability of a "Yes" as being 0-100%, or will it just be 50%?