Sons of the North - LateEra - SS6.4 [Full]

[CROPrasec]

@Peanut Religion doesn't define a nation, and the Order shall not strike at someone because their are pagan!!!
Norway up

[Dr Mac]

Denmark up!

[Peanut2bigforyou]

- Armies that are defeated in battle by a player that comes after them in the turn list may not move the following turn. This is to make it fair for people who are defeated by players that come before them in the turn list. Attacking defeated armies the following turn is allowed.

My friends, I have the eyes of a hawk, and I have seen that the navy of the Great King of Scotland has participated in some kind of arcane arts! This must be evaluated and reversed!

Prince Donnchad has moved prematurely from his defeat and therefore cannot leave the ships nor siege the castle.

[StOuFf]

My friends, I have the eyes of a hawk, and I have seen that the navy of the Great King of Scotland has participated in some kind of arcane arts! This must be evaluated and reversed!

Prince Donnchad has moved prematurely from his defeat and therefore cannot leave the ships nor siege the castle.

No you defeated the fleet and the fleet retreated right next to the shores of norway. i took advantage of that. the prince had all of his movementpoints and the fleet had none as it was defeated in your turn.
moving the army is legitimate BUT i was very lucky that the fleet retreated near to the shore

[Mithridate]

I agree with Stouff completely, The army can move

The rule makes it fair regardless of turn order, even when later in order you can still move out of a defeated fleet.
The army has not been defeated, only the fleet.

[Peanut2bigforyou]

I disagree, the army would have to be literally on the shore to be able to move without the Navy moving, both in the logistically and the game perspectives.

Firstly, logistically, the Navy could not have retreaded on (or even close) to the beach, unless it crash landed, meaning the navy would have been destroyed, which it was not. Ultimately, the Navy would have to send the soldiers on special ships for landing troops, which would have originated from the Navy, not the Army.

Secondly, according to the game engine, the army was not on a pixel it could have been if it was not on a ship (in other words, if the ships were to be removed, the game would crash due to an army being on a water pixel). Therefore, because the Navy is required to allow the army to move at all, the Navy is being used, and by the rules of this hotseat game, the Navy cannot.

I'm happy to argue about this, but I see no reason why the army could move at all, since the movement of the army is dependent on the ability to move by the Navy.
I say that there should be a neutral decider to this dispute.

[Mithridate]

I disagree, the army would have to be literally on the shore to be able to move without the Navy moving, both in the logistically and the game perspectives.

Indeed, but the entire turn based thing already breaks the realistic aspect and its not possible to make it accurate without a massive spreadsheet of rules

Firstly, logistically, the Navy could not have retreaded on (or even close) to the beach, unless it crash landed, meaning the navy would have been destroyed, which it was not. Ultimately, the Navy would have to send the soldiers on special ships for landing troops, which would have originated from the Navy, not the Army.

That it would crash is an assumption, that it would happen in reality is possible tho a fleeing captain running a fleet aground? Travel takes a long time Either way it cannot happen in the game, thus why are we even talking about it?

Secondly, according to the game engine, the army was not on a pixel it could have been if it was not on a ship (in other words, if the ships were to be removed, the game would crash due to an army being on a water pixel). Therefore, because the Navy is required to allow the army to move at all, the Navy is being used, and by the rules of this hotseat game, the Navy cannot.

The explenation for the argument goes over my head, but id agree to the navy being used. But still, the army has not been defeated and thus is not bound by the rules. Furthermore, a player comming later in turn would be able to do the exact same thing in the exact same situation thus, why do we need to prevent the army from moving?

I'm happy to argue about this, but I see no reason why the army could move at all, since the movement of the army is dependent on the ability to move by the Navy.

Please play on, we can discuss and argue as much as we want but please dont hold it up. Should we agree on a change we can replay Tho even if we agree on it not being allowed, we should only enforce it in the future.

About armies being dependant on fleet movement... yes and no. Limitiations!
Imagine a strait of 1 square, an army who needs to get to the other side and a fleet whom can barely reach the square.

You can move the ship there whom is now out of movement, move the army into the ship and then keep moving on land. The engine is limited, its impossible to fix without making it realtime and medieval 2 is not and never will be. See my meaning?


Lets bring in a neutral, but play on please. If needed we will roll back im sure!

[Peanut2bigforyou]

I shall continue the game, but I still do not understand why the army is able to move.

First off, I did not mean my argument to be looking at it with a real-life argument, because the game cannot work that way. I was just explaining what I meant when I explained the pixel thing.

For the argument I gave about the pixel, let me try to give an analogy to explain it better. Hypothetically, if you were doing a siege in this game, and wanted to send soldiers over the wall via a siege tower, then right off the start you need a siege tower. Let's say you have one, and move it to the wall, but (Again, this is hypothetical) the siege tower cannot move due to a rule. Although the soldiers still can get over the walls because the siege tower is right there, the soldiers will still need to use the tower to get over the walls. (continued below by italicized words)

Right here is where I think we essentially disagree. I say because the siege tower cannot be used, the soldiers cannot go over the wall. I believe you are saying that they can use it because the siege tower just happens to be there.

Lastly, the game engine cannot allow an army to be on water without a navy, therefore making the beach landing of an army entirely dependent on the navy.

[Mithridate]

For the argument I gave about the pixel, let me try to give an analogy to explain it better. Hypothetically, if you were doing a siege in this game, and wanted to send soldiers over the wall via a siege tower, then right off the start you need a siege tower. Let's say you have one, and move it to the wall, but (Again, this is hypothetical) the siege tower cannot move due to a rule. Although the soldiers still can get over the walls because the siege tower is right there, the soldiers will still need to use the tower to get over the walls. (continued below by italicized words)

Right here is where I think we essentially disagree. I say because the siege tower cannot be used, the soldiers cannot go over the wall. I believe you are saying that they can use it because the siege tower just happens to be there.

Ehm... If the tower cannot be used due to rules then it cannot be used regardless. But the fleet retreated there due to your actions, the army was undefeated, anyone would be able to do this and there is no rule stating that the army whom is undefeated cannot move.

What im trying to say is that if anyone can do action x in any situation, then anyone is allowed to do x UNLESS we have a rule against x. As we do not have one, it is allowed and should be allowed until a rule is made to prevent x.
Exceptions to this should rarely if ever be made, only for abuse basically imho.

Even though i agree that it should not be able to move, we have no rule against it and everyone can do it thus its not an advantage and not forbidden. The rule is pretty clear imho, mainly due to it stating that it is intended to make it fair for players regardless of turn order leaving little room for interpretation.

Keeping simple rules and keeping it watertight... Will it ever be possible? xD

Lastly, the game engine cannot allow an army to be on water without a navy, therefore making the beach landing of an army entirely dependent on the navy.

Indeed, but armies can walk over ships without movement points as i explained from my example. Make a bridge of ships with no movement points and you can cross that bridge. Again, anyone can do this so its senseless to make a rule against it imho.

Realistically it should not be possible, but by the restrictions set by the game it is for all of us.

[StOuFf]

it is legit. and there wont be any discussion about it im tired of always arguing with people over rules. the game mechanics allowed it therefore its legit.
end of story. If you dont like the decision feel free to leave the hotseat....

[CROPrasec]

I'm also with Stouff on this one!!!
If game allows you move the army without moving the fleet then it must be legit. If you want to look at it in real life, then the army had crossed the water on foot or swiming, cause it's shallow at the shores

[Peanut2bigforyou]

I can agree to Mithandrate's terms that either we all follow my idea or the default, which favors Stouff, and until we all decide that the problem will be solved a specific way, then we shall go by the default.

Scotland is up.

[KingRussell]

IMHO : check this : same senario but in reverse order to see if the defeated army wich are in the fleet can get off of the fleet and go to ground or not.
You may check this in narrow seaslike constantinopoly`s sea blockeing the way to retreat to mediterain or black sea. and see what happens,

I m gonig to try and will post the result here, today.
----------
I could`nt get the desired result,allways all fleet sink
I post the save here, more exprienced player can do it easily using consol.
I had to build fleet manulay bring them there.
Turk must defet byz , and see then the bys army in defeated fleet can get out or not.

The idea is: if the flet of the pnext player got defeated then retreat to shore, Will he be able to desembarque his army from fleet ,as the fleet it self lost all it`s movement point. if no,
then , the sprit of the rule is making the game fair an equel regardless of faction order. so it must be forbiden for pleayers that come before them, for same reason wich they must keep the fleet unmoved, they must keep their amy too.

[Vipman]

That was my thought too. If the factions late in turn have the defeated navy with 0 movement but army with 100% movement, the move is legit because everyone can do it. If not, it should be forbidden as just those earlier in turn can do it.

[Dr Mac]

Even though it is to my disadvantage I agree with Stouff, his army wasn't truly defeated therefore should be allowed to move. Just damned lucky the navy ended up next to my coast!

[StOuFf]

yeah i was indeed lucky
Bergen taken.
Lithuania up!

bring it on try to retake bergen

[KingRussell]

Then it is allowded, right?
Im asking as a reference for next time, if i`m lucky and it happens to me, when my fleet somehow had to retreat to enemy shore

[StOuFf]

there is no reason not to allow it.
btw poland was switched to AI as you may have noticed ;-)

[Mithridate]

next, poland falls next turn
Peace struck with Kiev at the edge of a sword

[CROPrasec]

Norway up