I say they should be counted as defeated nunits, then. If they behave the same way, it will be the fairest option.
I say they should be counted as defeated nunits, then. If they behave the same way, it will be the fairest option.
Proudly under the patronage of General Brewster of the Imperial House of Hader
Proud patron of 4zumi, Akar, CommodusIV ,Swaeft and Peaman
Hang on, checking this. It's not in the rules
Default if not in rules should be allowed I'd say
When a unit is bribed, it usually has the same mps as it was left by an enemy when he finished his turn ( so none or full). If they have mps which they shouldnt have, then it shouldnt be allowed.
Also to your turn, dont forget your navy is blocked in Ebonheart port by my army
This is correct.
I don't think bribed units gain movementpoints. However if a faction first in turn order bribes units of a factions that comes last, the units always have full mp. While if it is the other way around, the units are usually without mp (but only if all mp were used by the faction first in turn order). Now, whether this requires a new rule, that is up to you to decide.
Agreed,
If a bribing faction comes after the bribee/original faction he is at a disadvantage, while a bribing faction that comes before the bribee/original faction in turn order does not suffer that disadvantage. In order to make sure everyone in this HS has the same level playing field, bribed units should be regarded as defeated units => bribed units cannot move for one turn.
Probably best if this is made a rule ~ good rules make good friends. Can it be put it in the first post?
Ventos, I assume this answers your enquiry?
That would mean i broke the rules in my turn. The best would be solve it samely as with defeated units i guess
Yes, this answers my inquiry. No rules breakage in the previous turn since it wasn't a rule until now (I'm surprised after 10 years the hotseat community hasn't shaken out all of these rules edge cases yet)
And also, Jadli, it appears you've made a major oversight of your own: an army that is laying siege cannot blockade a port at the same time, just as an army besieging one fort cannot participate in a battle at another fort, even if it is adjacent to both. As can be seen here:
https://gyazo.com/4ab19b8fe465150171b670b80bb7d6e6
1. An exposed and in the way ship disposed of
https://gyazo.com/2996a800fa6f1ea997c47697e18d7a42
2. Bypassing the perimeter forts to strike at the forces occupying the bridge from the sea.
https://gyazo.com/8eab8cf1bbabedd8cb686031e97440e6
3. The garrison of Vivec City then helps to relieve that of Ebonheart.
https://gyazo.com/8e902f61936bdb8896aa28e6b2b5e78a
4. And that of the fort to the south.
https://gyazo.com/c3a5294934cad5e6dc959812b7136630
5. The attackers of Ebonheart are caught as they flee, and turn back towards Oldrenthis
https://gyazo.com/31275333cdaf241892b7375de0b97bc2
6. The pursuit continues
https://gyazo.com/04447a336b6cb3df73a4d6be29e9b3ff
7. Forbidden Technique: Null Garrison
https://gyazo.com/9775fe5ef21eb1d9fa66d115e639ce04
https://gyazo.com/bea4e0683bfae9af5a63f001035d6b7c
https://gyazo.com/bca77292fe7a2b2d742550153dadb463
https://gyazo.com/68e26ca9e356fc0cf733f1b472c0e149
8. Oldrenthis captured
https://gyazo.com/a429a53982ea9e6aee409b6f808feaa4
9. A Redoran company caught out of position and chased off the field.
https://gyazo.com/f58cf1e1bd65aa7fd46a627e47d5fc6e
10. A new commander for the defeated forces, to help repel the counterattack.
https://gyazo.com/d2205aa01ecf75884269a812ecafdb09
Endussal and Ghostgate under siege.
All in all a couple of very sloppy, bloody turns for both of us. Bretons up
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Tamriel_18.sav
Wait wait
Who has ever said that the same army cant besiege the city and block the port in the same time?
And also I dont think it should be allowed to block the city in purpose to disallow my units retreat into the city. Because of this you managed to take the city.. with using other controversial techniques like 7)
And in 10) the army inside the fort was defeated right?
The game mechanics do, apparently. You can try it out yourself: move a unit to Ebonheart's port, and see the blockade graphic go up around it. Then have that unit besiege Ebonheart itself, and see the blockade graphic disappear. Or, for more confirmation, load up 2 factions, stand a besieging army on the port, and sea that the ship can still leave normally without using the bug that would be required to do so if the port was under blockade.
In 7, the technique in question was softening the garrison with losing battles (in order to prevent the army outside it from retreating in as it would as a defeat), such that the victory at the end of the chain would bring both the garrison and the army outside below the threshold at which they automatically disband. Whether or not controlling where a defeated army retreats to is allowed or not is one of the first things I check in every hotseat
In 10, the army adjacent to the fort was defeated, but the army inside the fort was not. I would not have been able to sally with them if they had been, as I come after you in the turn order.
Also, a note on the Null Garrison technique: Its only possible when the attacker has at least a 4:1 numerical advantage over the defender, and the army trapped outside the walls is at least 1/3 the strength of the garrison being drawn out. So its not like this kind of 1-turn capture will be a common event
Last edited by Ventos Mustel; April 08, 2016 at 10:20 AM.
Ok, let's divide this move up into two.
1) the Port & city siege
2) the siege of Oldrenthis & blocking units
N°2 is mudding the line here, but as far as I can see it's not against the rules installed for this HS.
As for number one: the rules are clear => "Ports can also be blockaded by ground forces. At least two units are required for each ship in port in order to hold the blockade"
The rule doesn't forbid the player of blocking both a port & a city/castle at the same time, no matter what the the game mechanics says. => i.e in a real combat situation a besieging force could use the port as the siege HQ to block both port and city.
I really must protest this ruling. The state of the game is very clearly that the army is NOT blockading the port. This is like saying that you can't bribe Lannister characters in a Westeros hotseat because in the 'real' setting they're already filthy rich.
This is not a real combat situation, this is a game with defined mechanical interactions. I do not think it is unreasonable of me to expect the mechanics to work as-given unless specifically stated otherwise beforehand. And I definitely would never have interpreted that rule as meaning that a blockade can be declared where it is unrecognized by the game itself. The only reason the rule exists even in the first place is because land-based blockades were recognized as being possible in HW4T, and it was called out in the rules due to a question of whether or not it was in that game.
Last edited by Ventos Mustel; April 08, 2016 at 05:42 PM.
If the game mechanics were waterproof (and would place the siege icon arond the city AND port), there would be no need for admins to referee. Even if an army would only besiege the port, the player could send his navy out of it (which is forbidden, of course).
The rules state:Ports can also be blockaded by ground forces. At least two units are required for each ship in port in order to hold the blockade, which the Morrowind player has fulfilled.I'm just enforcing the rules here, to respect your rights; I'll doublecheck with my co-admin for this ruling
Last edited by RockeZz_19; April 09, 2016 at 05:45 AM.
I believe what RockeZz_19 has said is correct
Proudly under the patronage of General Brewster of the Imperial House of Hader
Proud patron of 4zumi, Akar, CommodusIV ,Swaeft and Peaman
The ruling stands
To make sure I haven't overlooked anything and to respect your rights as a player to the fullest, I have doublechecked with my co-admin, who comes to the same conclusion. We have bothed reviewed the rules in this HS and the Morrowind player has fulfilled the requirements to block that port.
As admins, it's our jobs to enforce the rules as they are stated. Dura lex sed lex ~ the law is hard, but it is still the law
Since this can't be fixed otherwise, Ventos/Vivec will have to replay
Last edited by RockeZz_19; April 09, 2016 at 05:41 AM.
I really can't help but feel somewhat cheated by this ruling, though I'm aware that isn't the intention of the admins. There is no indication in the rule as written that it is anything but a restriction on the ability to blockade ports with ground troops, which could otherwise blockade with as little as a single unit regardless of the number of ships.
Edit: As evidence of my claim, note that this isnt a simple graphical issue of it not being able to render blockade graphics adjacent to siege graphics. Blockading with a separate army from the one laying siege puts both in play: https://gyazo.com/bb37271ddccb34d140e933539ea950d6
Double Edit: I suppose the most conclusive way to decide this would be to set up a map where theres a fort adjacent to the port, and see if having the unit standing on the port besiege the fort still cuts trade income from the city the port belongs to. It would need to be done in the campaign files though since the game disallows building forts adjacent to ports once play has begun
Triple Edit: Seems that one is a no-go. The game kicks me back to the main menu any time I try to start it with a fort modded in next to the port in Cornwall in the Britannia campaign
Quadruple Edit: The main reason this bothers me so much is that there was absolutely no reason for me to expect this move to be overturned on these grounds. When I play a major turn like this one, I pour my heart into it. Evaluating every position, all the possible moves, guessing at how my opponents will react, working out in my head the likely developments one, two, three turns ahead, checking the autoresolve of every battle, even the clearly one-sided ones, to see how just how close they really are. Its an all-day affair for me. I easily sunk 12 hours into this turn, and to have all of that effort have to be scrapped and redone on account of a to my mind frankly bizarre interpretation of the rules is a serious punch in the gut.
Last edited by Ventos Mustel; April 09, 2016 at 10:13 AM.
Hey Ventos,
It is indeed not our intention to ruin anyone's fun, and we realise the importance of this turn for you; and understand how frustrating this must be for you. I myself put a lot of time as well into turns in certain hotseats, so I get how you feel.
This is indeed a tricky case, because it's one of few city that has its port right near it. The conclusion remains the same however, the Morrowind player probably based his move on the rule that you can blockade the port (his surplus was that he could kill two birds with one stone by standing on that tile => block port and siege a city.)
As admins we are still obliged to respect the rules installed at the start. The ground forces of Morrowind were on the tile of the port and with sufficient troops to block it; regardless if he was besieging a city or not.
How does one army both blockade a port and block off a city at the same time? You would think it would be one or the other. To me it is like using one army to lay siege to a fort and a city at the same time.. which is not possible of course, how is this any different?
I am curious, when you lay siege to the city does the blockade on the port remain intact or is it removed? From the screens Ventos posted it does not look like a blockade is still being placed on the port, and therefore it would seem by attacking the city the blockade on the port was lifted.
Correct. When you first move onto the tile, the blockade is put into effect. When you then lay siege from that tile, the blockade disappears.
If you have a unit standing on the port tile, then besiege with a different army from a different tile, the blockade remains in place.
The little details are important. Failing to notice that there is no blockade in place after laying siege with the intended blockading army is no different than failing to notice a 1-tile gap in one's fort wall, or slightly underestimating an enemy army's movement range. Its a misplay.