ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear
Hi Bresh, I think it could work and be pretty easy to do. Hopefully I can explain my logic clearly enough.
First to your point about the DB maybe not being designed for different phases out of order. I’m going to guess that this is not a problem because as the Marshall has often said when we submit files for him for correction, that he can correct any mistake from any phase as long as he has a turn from the phasing players turn. The limitation for the Marshall to change the database is who is phasing, not what phase the game is in. This implies that phase order is not that important to the database.
(It also highlights the real roadblock to simultaneous phases, in that, even the Marshall can only manipulate the database with the phasing players turn, so changes to the DB made by non-phasing players, a requirement for simultaneous phases, is difficult).
For the second point about non-sequential land phases won’t be a problem either. I am suggesting that the player who wants to combine his reinforcement and naval and land phases (let’s call him player A), simply do the naval and land phase right away, i.e. any moves he makes/depots he places, changes the database immediately, so that the next player who is next, loads player A’s reinforcement, naval and land phases, prior to placing any reinforcements himself. So if player A has placed a depot in an area already, the normal rules would not allow player B to also place a depot there, and it would be impossible to place several depots in the same area.
The same applies to forage calculations. Player A would have already used up the forage allowance (or placed a depot), so player B would be operating at a very slight and easily neutralised disadvantage. There are two circumstances where this might affect forage rolls as you point out. First, two players with access to the same MP controlled area, both with corps wanted to forage in the same space. This is a) not likely to happen, b) Player B can see what player A did and deal with it, and C) in the rare circumstance Player B can not compensate, can be worked out between the allies with a cash transfer. I can’t see this rare circumstance being a real problem. Second a player might jump into minor neutral ahead of another player just to use up the forage allowance for the minor. This can happen already without combined phases in very rare cases, and is not new or unique to combined phases, so I can’t see this being critical.
Some players might try for instance to forstall a British invasion of France by placing a line of fleets with depots on them off the coast of France, so GB could not do so. But GB would just wait a turn, wipe out the offenders fleets, and then do the invasion. The threat of subsequent annihilation would be enough of a deterrent to prevent this (placing depots like this is also somthng that can be done without combined phases as well, so not unique to this situation).
I remain a big supporter of simultaneous phases, but as the Marshall has repeated pointed out, getting around the issue of having a non-phasing player change the database is a very difficult problem. The advantage of the above approach is that it is the phasing player that does all the interacting with the database, so it delivers real advances in game speed and neatly side steps the major difficulty of simultaneous phasing.
I say no.
There is no reason to uneven who gets what forage rolls in areas, yours suggestion can be abused, say depot placement/forage rolls/supply lines.
Your anti Invasion is flawed, what if GB has peace-restrictions against those who set the depots at sea ?
What if its GB who deploys the strategy ?
Btw, it doesnt have to be GB, thats thats involved in the naval-depots.. A nation could prevent other nations placing depot-supply for a invasion vs a minor, in some cases 1 sea-area is all it takes.
< Message edited by bresh -- 5/19/2009 7:26:36 AM >