|
Jimmer -> Naval movement (8/17/2009 7:49:04 PM)
|
Naval movement is a big problem in this game. Not specifically the movement, but the fact that it should be interrupted each time one passes an enemy fleet to find out if one got intercepted.
To be secure, the game should notify the other player every time a die is rolled during the phasing player's movement. However, in the early game, that amounts to a huge number of emails.
The "solution" implemented currently is to have the game "roll" the interceptions as the player moves his fleets. But, this is wide open to the "reload the game" security breach, as all of the calculations occur on the phasing player's computer, with no interaction at all with the other game.
Unfortunately, doing it securely means hundreds of extra emails, all for very little actual activity.
Is there a solution to this set of problems?
I was toying with the idea in my head that the phasing player would take all of his/her naval moves in advance. The game would record each space a fleet travels through (using Marshall's AAR-mode arrows, if possible). But, no actual movement would occur at this time. Just the recording of the steps.
Then, a table would be created. Down the left and across the top would be the fleet counters/stacks of counters. Each line would be a conditional movement statement. Each column would match the corresponding line. If the conditions are all met, the fleet would move. If not, it wouldn't.
The lines in the table would be in the order top-to-bottom that the phasing player wants to move the fleet counters. All of the fleet counters or stack lines would have the checkboxes greyed out for fleets/stacks moving later in the movement phase. The remaining boxes, therefore, would be a list of all fleets/stacks that are moving in advance of the current fleet counter.
The fleet/stack would only move if none of the checked fleets/stacks were successfully intercepted.
That's pretty complicated, so I'll use an example. Let's use a typical start of game scenario:
France has 5 groups of fleets in 5 ports. GB is blockading all of them. For simplicity, I'll make the movement order be the same as the fleet number, but that's not required. Let's also, for simplicity only, say that all of the fleet numbers for France match the port number. In other words, the 1st heavy fleet is stacked with the 1st light fleet, and both of them are in port #1. (etc.) I'll refer to each fleet pair as "the N's stack" ("the 1's stack" in the example in the previous sentence).
So, France wants to try to break out of port #1 with his 1st stack. Then, he wants to break out of port #2 with his 2nd stack. Etc. through stack #5 breaking out of port. In that order, too (for simplicity only).
BUT, he wants to make each breakout contingent on all the other ones succeeding. In other words, if any breakout fails, all of the fleets moving after that one abort their movement.
So, line 1 would have all greyed-out boxes. Line 2 would have one box available, the box corresponding to the 1st stack. Line 3 would have two boxes, for the 1st and 2nd stacks. Etc.
Now, recall that movement for all five fleets has already been entered, contingent upon that fleet making it out of port in the first place. In this example, we'll say that all 5 stacks are to go to the Channel, where Nelson awaits. The French player doesn't know whether Nelson has set himself up to intercept only in the Channel or also intercepts one space away.
Now, all of the moves are catalogued and sent out in a "preliminary movement" emailing. This mailing is binding, and serves to let the other players know that some movement is to be performed. Finally, the movement plays itself out:
Let's say fleets 1 breaks out successfully and is not intercepted by Nelson. Fleet 2 breaks out and goes to the channel, but Nelson intercepts. Let's say Nelson wins. At this point, the other three French stacks will abort their movement, having been conditioned upon the first two making it to their destination.
Would this work to solve the security issue I mentioned? Is it too much work?
|
|
|
|
