From: Vastervik, Sweden
"18.104.22.168 FLEET SETUP: If the minor country has a fleet, it is set up in any port in that minor country or- in any sea area adjacent to such a port, at its current strength."
ok, pretty clear and from what we now been told, is to be applied, right. Now to the problem.
The game allows you to put the minors fleet in a sea area adjacent to a controlled port in the major power or any controlled minor power and is in all regards following 5.2. The problem is that the game will not allow you to add factors to any fleet at sea. The game also allows you to place the fleet in any blockade box of a power the controlling major power or the owning minor power is at war with. In effect the game forces you to either place the fleet in a controlled port or illegally in a blockade box of a power you or the fleets controlling minor is currently warring.
Example: I play Turkey, Russia DOW's Sweden and Turkey get unsupported control of Sweden. When I set up Sweden I can place the fleet in any of the minors ports like Stockholm or Åbo. I can place it in any sea area adjacent to such city but cant add any factors. I can place the fleet in any sea area adjacent to Turkey or its controlled minors (like Palestine) and also in ports in either of these. I cannot put the fleet in sea areas non-adjacent to a friendly port (including "Area701" which contains St Petersburg). I can however place it in a Russian or Spanish (because Turkey is at war with Spain) blockade box including St Petersburg and add the relevant ship factors.
I can see there is several issues here:
The current implementation does not practically allow all legal placement according to 22.214.171.124 or 5.2 due to not allowing you to add ships to a fleet at sea.
It allows you to place the fleet counters in accordance to 5.2 of the EiANW manual in situations that is not allowed per 126.96.36.199 which, according to Monadman, is the rule that should apply. For example in ports or in sea areas adjacent to ports (still cant add the ships in this case) of the controlling major power or its controlled minors.
It allows you to place fleets and add ships in the blockade box of countries at war with the minor or major controlling the minor in conflict with both 5.6 (edit: sorry typo should be 5.2), 188.8.131.52 and the stated intention of the developers, apparently following the adapted rule of EiA 184.108.40.206 which I sadly cant find at this time.
One of the consequenses of this is that unless the controlling player moves before the attacking player there is no practical way to use the fleets of a controlled minor as intended, giving what appears to be an unfair advantage to players moving early in the naval phase, unless the forces are placed illegally. In practical terms you can not avoid that the minors fleet is blockaded unless the controller move before the attacker or place the fleet illegally in a blockade box.
Why is this happening?
The implementation is following 5.2 when it comes to where your allowed to place your fleet counter, something i would say is very reasonable, even though it gives alot more freedom than 220.127.116.11. From a playability perspective there is no real problem with using any of these. The problem is that the second part of EiA 18.104.22.168, "at its current strength", is implemented to the letter. This works well in EiA, no minor has more than one fleet and the factors of the minor is "stored" in the "Fleet Counter" much like an off board insurrection or feudal corp. In EiANW the factors are separate from the fleet and "at current strenght" is 0. The code is working as per the last part of 22.214.171.124 which probably was intended so in that sense there is no bug but the result is not as expected or wanted since EiA and EiANW don´t treat "Fleet Counters" the same way.
That you are allowed to put the minor in the blockade box seems to be a result of a change allowing you to set-up in the blockade box of powers you are at war with and is probably caused by using the same code to place activated minors as is used at setup.
Combined these two issues seem to create a very messy result that is caused by the use of a combination of several different rule sets and interpretations. I don't know if this will help solve these problems but I hope it might help Marshall to Identify where to start looking.
< Message edited by zaquex -- 1/18/2008 12:54:13 AM >
I assume this post have relevance to this thread