Follow This Easy Process To Get Started Playing Alamaze
Step #1 - Register for Forum Account      Step #2 - Create New Player Account      Step #3 - Sign In  (to issue turn orders and join games)
ATTENTION: After Creating Player Account and Signing In, select the GAME QUEUE link in the Order System screen to Create or Join games.
Alamaze Website                 Search Forum              Contact

Player Aids             Rulebook             Spellbook             Help Guides             Kingdom Set-Ups             Kingdom Abbreviations             Valhalla             Discord

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Two Huge Seapower Issues
Based on the rules, a group shouldn't be able to attack a pop center if it was forced to retreat in group-to-group combat. I forced a group to retreat in group-to-group combat at sea. That group should not then be able to attack a pop center, correct?

Separate question, after enemy seapower losses and subsequent sabotage missions, my enemy only has one fleet left on the sea, and yet he has five brigades sitting at sea. That, too, doesn't seem right, correct?

My read of the rules is that the retreating kingdom would not be able to issue a 150, but man... it's been SO long since I've seen an actual sea battle. You have all the fun, Honcho!

On the second one, in one of my titan games, I lost troops due to a sabotage order taking my number of fleets below my number of brigades. I don't know your exact circumstances, but it would seem that he could only have a single brigade there. Unless the others were really good at treading water.
-The Deliverer

Thanks for your input. I agree, obviously. I wanted to get some additional perspective on this, however, both because I don't want to be wrong and incur a $5 fee, and also because my enemy here is the creator of the game, so it's probably a REALLY good idea to make sure that I'm right, and that all of my ducks are in order. Smile

I'd echo Kevin's comments...I was in the same game where his seapower was sabotaged (we were playing against the elusive Will Frankenhoff).

Rules are pretty clear; you can't have more brigades than seapower.
Having said that, not sure where the check for this occurs in the code.
Would be interesting to get Cipher's perspective on that.

Sounds like something you should formally enquire about.

Thanks, submitted. The more I think about it, the more I believe the first issue in particular is a (rarely occurring but) fundamental mechanic issue. Without it, there is no way to defend pop centers at sea from a determined enemy. It changes the tenor of the game. With defense already being hard in this game, it removes one of the only options to do so.

Postings in the forum don't trigger investigations, that's what the mailbox is for.

I will be reviewing the results, as a support ticket has been submitted. While I typically report findings and consult with Rick on all but the most clear cut support issues, in this case I've been instructed to assume 100% ownership and respond as I see fit as he has an impacted position.

The results of that review will be sent to the player requesting support (and any other directly affected positions in this game), and he/she is free to share the information as deemed appropriate.

Should a larger issue be discovered, the Known Issues thread will be updated.

A couple of notes:
1. We generally go by the code as written - this is the determinant of whether there was a 'error' or not, and typically controls changes to the results
2. If there was no 'error' in the result, but the results don't make sense, then a design change needs to be considered. Design changes rarely result in changes to the results

(03-25-2014, 02:24 AM)HeadHoncho Wrote: Thanks, submitted. The more I think about it, the more I believe the first issue in particular is a (rarely occurring but) fundamental mechanic issue. Without it, there is no way to defend pop centers at sea from a determined enemy. It changes the tenor of the game. With defense already being hard in this game, it removes one of the only options to do so.

Balderdash, I say:
1. You can't teleport to a PC at Sea
2. You can't end a Ship of Mist movement at a sea based PC
3. The Storms at Sea spell can prevent your group from landing on a PC at sea.
4. You have to survive (up to 14) hostile Sea Patrols to land a group on a PC at sea
5. You have to survive espionage against your Seapower to deliver enough brigades
6. Dragons cannot put a group at sea based PC
7. You are limited in size/strength of a group you can bring to bear against a sea based PC by fleet count limitations.
8. Your seapower builds/strength can be discovered in a number of ways, tipping your plans to move against a sea based PC

Sea areas remain the safest PC locations on the map.

Yes, I'm aware that you need to write support to trigger an adjudication, Thalion/Cipher. I was simply mustering outside viewpoints so that I could have greater confidence that my support request was potentially justified.

On your other point, Thalion/Cipher, there is no dispute that sea pop centers remain one of the most defensible pop centers in the game. But it still fundamentally changes the nature of the game on defense, and you can build up the most powerful fleet in the game (one of UN's only military strengths, by the way), only to lose your capital and all of your prisoners due to what is -- charitably -- an ambiguity in the rules-as-written.

You guys have made a lot of seapower changes in the last few months, and given the rarity attributed to sea battles which everyone (Rick included) seems to agree on, I don't think you've sufficiently playtested those changes, nor considered deeply the ramifications to the game by making them. Sea patrol is a lot less powerful now, after all -- I've missed finding the EL navy every single turn I've tried it -- and what ultimately matters is being able to defend your holdings. In the past, a strong enough group could defend a capital regardless. That is no longer the case with seapower.

To be clear to those who might be interested, I have been ruled against on this point, and although I understand the rules-as-coded argument Cipher has made, I still disagree with it strongly, and believe I have been totally shafted by this decision.

C'est la vie, and I will soldier on in this game since we're probably close to the end, even if my own chances of victory have been greatly diminished. But my own personal trend of experience in this game over the last few months has been that frustration is replacing fun.

I wish all of you well, and hope for wild success for Rick and great enjoyment for the rest of you, but my own participation in the forums and in the game will probably be adjusted accordingly. And although I won't pretend that my own experience is speaking for anyone other than myself, I'm pretty confident there are some common themes that I'd be happy to develop with Rick or Cipher privately, if they so desire.

Best wishes to all.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2023 Melroy van den Berg.