Well now that it has been explained I am for the proposed change.
Perhaps with the caveat that you can’t totally vacate the contested territory. (ie you can’t empty Poland into Ukraine, one unit must stay behind at least)
Unfortunately thats where you can game the system.ï¿½ ï¿½ Now the germans can move to Ukraine, leave 1 unit behind in Poland and then all of a sudden the Russians are completely stuck in Poland and cant follow the germans which just effectively gave up the front, away from Ukraine.ï¿½ ï¿½ If you had to fight every round this wouldnt be a problem but since you can leave a unit behind to be slaughtered and stall the russians it is a move that forces the russians to retreat to Moscow or wherever and give up Poland and Ukraine, possibly just because of 1 or 2 german units (1 left in Poland and 1 already in Ukr).ï¿½ ï¿½ I guess thats where the actual playtesting and less theorycrafting comes in.ï¿½ ï¿½
Hi all, I was the one who proposed the change initially and I am sorry I did not join the conversation earlier to justify it; it was a long day of work and I just got back.
It seems like a lot of people are worried that “Oh no! if we do this change Germany (etc.) will be able to just move through enemy forces without having to stop!”
As I will show, that is already the case that they can do that, but it is even more ridiculous now than I think you might be worrying the change will do. I will quote some of the examples from the other thread I have posted.
For example, let’s say Austria takes switzerland turn 1. Germany moves in.
Turn 2, Germany moves into Burgundy, contesting it, leaving 1 unit behind in switzerland. Italy moves in and contests Switzerland, the German inf there survives.
Turn 3, Scenario 1: Austria does not attack in switzerland, it remains contested with 1 Germ inf, Germany can move from contested burgundy to switzerland because it is contested.
Turn 3, Scenario 2: Austria attacks in switzerland, and wipes out the Italians. Austria takes control since it was the attacker. Germany CANNOT move from contested Burgundy to Switzerland, even though they still have an inf there.
The above is an example where the rule makes it harder to retreat into an ally’s territory than a contested one. Paradoxically, clearing enemy units out to secure an ally’s retreat avenue (as would be the case logically), makes it harder for them to retreat.
Here’s an example from round 2 let’s say.
Austria’s turn, they move into Ukraine to contest it. Germany’s turn they move 1 unit in and don’t have to battle since it was already contested. At the same time, Germany moves into poland and contests that.
Turn 3: Austria attacks and wins in Ukraine. Germany cannot move in (from contested poland).
Turn 3: Ukraine remains contested (whether through failed Austrian attack or they don’t attack). Germany CAN move in.
This is the big one, above. The worry about making the change is can opening, but it turns out that by contesting like this can opening is already quite possible. To avoid this Russia would have to abandon the territory round 2 so that Austria controls it. In the rules now, Russia would make it harder for the enemy to move its units into the territory by moving its units out. To put it bluntly, this is messed up. This only encourages Russia and other powers in similar situations to contest less territory, which isn’t to hard to predict will turn into turtling or worse.
With the change, since the movement requires a unit of your power already be there, there still will not be situations where one power just takes a territory and then its ally can move in immediately from a contested, which would have been a problem IF I had proposed the rule to be ANY friendly territory instead of one that already had a unit of your power.
If we are worried about it getting “gamey” or whatever, don’t be. It will get BETTER with my rule change. ï¿½ Think of Russia’s position in the current game where they move out of the territory in question to make it no longer contested and therefore Germany would not be able to move in. Russia stops opposing the CP in a territory, and that makes it harder for the CP to move in? That’s what’s truly gamey and will lead to nonsensical gimmicks in-game.
Britain, France, and the CP contest Belgium.
Britain, France, and the CP contest Lorraine also.
CP controls Ruhr and Alsace, France controls Picardy.
France moves into Lorraine from Belgium.
Now, if they attack and win, Britain CANNOT move their forces in to Lorraine. But, if it remains contested, Britain could move in. Unless Britain has enough transports for all the units in Belgium or they somehow have units in another adjacent territory that is contested with the CP (Which in the above scenario they don’t), they are trapped in Belgium.
By clearing out Lorraine of enemy units, France actually traps its ally in an adjacent territory, even though logically it is doing the EXACT OPPOSITE.
However, if there are CP forces remaining in Lorraine to oppose the Allies, Britain has no problem moving in.
Now, you might say “well, just don’t trap your ally then.” Well, for me that’s not good enough. A bad rule is a bad rule, and avoiding its nonsensical-ness does not make it go away, it just makes the game bizarre.
It seems like the main worry is that it will allow can opening more than is already allowed, which is not the case as I have shown above.
Right now, it’s easier to move into a territory when there are enemy units there opposing you than when your ally has the whole thing locked down. The current rules encourage retreat and turtling. My solution provides a little bit of logic to a bizarre situation, and most importantly, still avoids the problem (can opening) that this current rule was established to prevent in the first place.
The real question to ask is what would get worse with the rule change? We already know for a fact that the change would make more sense logically, and it is quite probable that the change will make for a better game anyways (where powers won’t be giving TT’s to the enemy to avoid allowing an ally of that enemy to move in), so what is worse about it, if anything?