Flow Chart Drafts

BOO2.jpg (73.89 KiB) Viewed 20840 times

BOO1.jpg (60.17 KiB) Viewed 20840 times

autoterritory5.jpg (51.86 KiB) Viewed 20840 times

Questions? Comments?

The first 2 have a difference in how it is worded for 1 vs 2 or more players... any comments or questions on that one?

The flowchart for the territory control I think is pretty solid and clear.

If no pushback occurs of the losing forces, will they fight again until one side loses, or is it a one and done attack per turn?

Ownership looks nice and easy!

I think Russ and I are leaning toward the push back method... try to keep combat running more slowly, and when something isn't successful, push back occurs. I think this keeps the game from getting too bogged down with units fighting to the death in a single territory and avoids retreating forces rules, etc.

Forts wouldn't count though - if you move into a territory with a fort but no enemy units, you can be there. You just don't control it until the fort is destroyed.

In addition - Friendly moves through territory are allowed. Two things to point out though:

1) The moving army simply states where they are moving to. They cannot specify only if they are allowed to move, they commit to the move.

2) The territory who is granting movement must specify in his orders each and every turn. If those orders fail to get down to your local commanders, they will act in good faith trying to defend their general and attack any entering troops.

Ok, so what if A attacks B and at the same time C moves into A, and then A doesn't kill ALL of B's units (which seems likely to happen if they are even close to evenly matched). A then gets pushed back to where he attacked from, and then does he fight C? If so, is he the attacker or defender in that scenario?

Presumably he'd be the defender, and if he has any surviving troops after that second battle, C gets pushed back. But if he is considered the attacker, and loses again, where does he get pushed to? Will all his units be destroyed?

Also, if there is a vacant territory, and both A and B give orders to move into it... who is the attacker/defender in that case?

Ok, so what if A attacks B and at the same time C moves into A, and then A doesn't kill ALL of B's units (which seems likely to happen if they are even close to evenly matched). A then gets pushed back to where he attacked from, and then does he fight C? If so, is he the attacker or defender in that scenario?

First, units never attack twice in the same turn.
Second, If (to be a little clearer) on a single turn:
1) Durango attacks Zacatecas leaving no forces in Durango.
2) Chihuahua moves into Durango.
3) Durango LOSES against Zacatecas (this is the most likely option since it will probably take several turns to soften up a territory)

Then, the original Durango units are pushed back to Durango. Chihuahua has since moved in without contest... therefore the original Durango units will be in a state called dislodged. In the next turn, both the Chihuahua units and the original-durango units will be in Durango and the Chihuahua units will have the defender status.

While dislodged, they cannot achieve defender status even though they remain in that territory. To end the status, they either need to reclaim the territory from the defenders (in this case the Chihuahua units) OR move to a friendly territory without conflict.

While in a dislodged status, if they move to a friendly territory without conflict there is no penalty for retreating provided nobody is attacking the friendly territory they are moving for.

---

Therefore, it is in your advantage to leave at least some defenders in a territory. If in the above example, Durango had left enough units to successfully push back the invading Chiuhuahua forces, when the defeated Durango forces returned from Zacatecas they would be able to be in defender status the very next turn.

Also, if there is a vacant territory, and both A and B give orders to move into it... who is the attacker/defender in that case?

Neither would have the defender status. Remember, defender is basically a first strike capability... if neither unit was there neither would have first strike and would attack each other as normal.

Russ/Brad This is my guess, but I want your buy-in... If there were no victor, both sides would be pushed back to their original territories. Do you agree?

A note about multiple attackers
When entering a non-owned territory, you will need to be clear if you are entering as an aggressor (i.e. attacking the current owner or defender of the territory) OR if you are entering as an ally of the defender. Your troops will act accordingly. As an example, if you move in to attack Guerrero and didn't anticipate another player also attacking, both your forces will attack the defending troops in Guerrero. If you are successful in defeating the defending player, only on subsequent turns will you attack with the option of how to handle the other players. The goal of the GMs is to avoid complex 4-5 sided battles and as much as possible boil down the combat in a territory down to allying with the status quo owner of the territory OR moving against them.

Ok, makes sense. So a little more clarification on multiple attackers, Countries A and C move into B at the same time and both declare intent to attack, but this is not coordinated before hand, it just turns out that way. Following the rules, they will be lumped into a single army for the purposes of combat. If they win, the next turn they choose to fight each other for control? Is that correct?

In the example where two players (A + C) are attacking B, I get that A+C attack as one unit and B attacks them as 1 unit. How is damage assessed to the A+C joint force?

Some more combat questions:

1) Matt, in response to this question, you said:

Also, if there is a vacant territory, and both A and B give orders to move into it... who is the attacker/defender in that case?

Neither would have the defender status. Remember, defender is basically a first strike capability... if neither unit was there neither would have first strike and would attack each other as normal.

What does "attach each other as normal" mean if neither one has the first strike? Is it up to a coin toss to who goes first?

2) A question that I asked Russ yesterday that bears repeating here: If A attacks B and B attacks A on the same turn, where does the battle take place? Who's the defender? (guess this might be the same answer as to the previous question).

3) Say I'm defending a territory with 5 inf and I know I will be attacked by 4 inf and a can. The flowchart indicates that my inf will always fire on the cav even though they'll be getting reamed by the cannon in the meantime. There's no option to "focus fire"? I assume this is covered by the "There are no unit orders beyond MOVE and ATTACK." rule, but just wanted to be sure.

4) If we run low on money after building an inf for 3 turns, does it stall in production civ-style until we have the money or does it disappear?

5) Under El Presidente, it says, "The Federalis are entirely a cavalry force". Does that mean inf get the +1 to cav bonus when they're in combat together?

ope, one more...

6) what is the structure of the fort's firing orders? maybe decreasing unit value? fed -> can -> cav -> inf?