Mine damage allocation to fleets

is there a particular order that the ships go thru as 'the fleet'.
say I have a fleet of 10 PT boats, a BB, and a CAL.
So should I make the PT boats the lower numbered
ships in the fleet when building the fleet, or the BB and CAL?
(because ideally I'd want the PT boats to 'remove' some mines
before the BB and CAL get checked, for less hitchance)

-Bungy



"Markus Armbruster" <armbru.RemoveThis@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:877j3uw536.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org...
> foresterjamie.RemoveThis@yahoo.com.au writes:
>
>> If more than one ship enters a minefield at the same time, are
>> individual ships hit, or is damage spread over the entire fleet?
>
> Each ship makes a separate mine check, one after the other.
 >> Stay informed about: Mine damage allocation to fleets 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Mine damage allocation to fleets 

Thanks Markus, interesting!

A couple of new ideas occured to me today.

"assault" when used against an allied sector would just turn those
forces over to the ally. Or the mil could go over to the ally and the
units remain your own.

"assault" when used against a friendly would have to turn over both
units and mil to the friendly.

Same as above for "attack"

"paradrop" against a friend or ally would just be dropping the stuff to
the friend or ally.

Any other commands I have forgotten?

That seems a more natural interpretation of what those commands should
do. When you assault your own sector, for example, that just means your
forces move into the sector. It would seem natural for the same to be
the case for friends and allies, its just a way of moving forces in to
help them.

A consequence would be that one would have to reduce declarations to a
least neutral in order to attack someone.

Just a thought that crossed my mind today after assaulting my own
sectors to move stuff in ...
 >> Stay informed about: Mine damage allocation to fleets 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Mine damage allocation to fleets 

Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Akorps@aol.com" <Akorps.DeleteThis@aol.com> writes:
>
> > A couple of new ideas occured to me today.
> >
> > "assault" when used against an allied sector would just turn those
> > forces over to the ally. Or the mil could go over to the ally and the
> > units remain your own.
> >
> > "assault" when used against a friendly would have to turn over both
> > units and mil to the friendly.

I like your idea of a separate "reinforce" command better. That way if
you are evil (unlike me) and want to attack your friend or ally, there
is still the ability to do this.

> There's currently no way to reinforce a friendly sector from the sea.
> If a ship can ferry mil to an own sector, why not to friendly foreign?
>
> Rules governing giving away stuff should match unloading.
>
> If a ship can ferry mil ashore, why not civs?

Good point ... again the "reinforce" command.

> > Just a thought that crossed my mind today after assaulting my own
> > sectors to move stuff in ...
>
> It's a logical extension of the precedent set by assault. But is it a
> good user interface? Is the assault precedent a good user interface?

I dont think so, I think there should be a separate command for a
seperate intention to
keep everything nice and clean.

Another example is unloading units/planes into an allies harbor.
Currently they automatically revert to the ownership of the ally. What
if I dont want this to happen?? Why can I march units onto an allys
land and keep ownership, but not unload them by ship and keep
ownership... makes no sense.

Bring back the cede command! ... and have it so you can choose to not
only cede sectors, but also units, planes and ships. Why was it
removed anyway? Was it being abused in some way? Can any problems be
rectified? Worth discussing?
 >> Stay informed about: Mine damage allocation to fleets 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Mine damage allocation to fleets 

"Markus Armbruster" <armbru.RemoveThis@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:87wtbbhc04.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org...
> foresterjamie.RemoveThis@yahoo.com.au writes:
>
> [...]
>> Another example is unloading units/planes into an allies harbor.
>> Currently they automatically revert to the ownership of the ally. What
>> if I dont want this to happen?? Why can I march units onto an allys
>> land and keep ownership, but not unload them by ship and keep
>> ownership... makes no sense.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Bring back the cede command! ... and have it so you can choose to not
>> only cede sectors, but also units, planes and ships. Why was it
>> removed anyway? Was it being abused in some way? Can any problems be
>> rectified? Worth discussing?
>
> If I read Empire history correctly, it was disabled because you could
> give away all your country in an instant. That was rightly regarded
> as an abuse.
>
> It's fixable, and I think it's worth discussing and fixing.
>
> Here's a sketch of possible rules. Basic idea: allow cede only when
> the recipient could take it by force. Don't attempt to cover all `can
> take' scenarios.
>
> * Sectors
>
> Conditions: ceded sector is old-owned, recipient has an adjacent
> sector with mobility.
>
> Option: civilians in ceded sectors remain loyal, sector becomes
> occupied. Rationale: you can't normally give away civilians (there
> are tricks, but I consider them loopholes).
>

Is this same as when a sector is 'collected'? It becomes occupied
with a single mil with full loyalty so that it reverts at next update.
Does the sector mob go to zero?

>
> Create che or not?
>
> * Ships
>
> Conditions: ceded ship is either in recipient's sector, which has
> mobility, or on the high seas together with a ship of the
> recipient's, which has mobility.
>
> * Planes, land units, nukes
>
> Conditions: ceded unit is in recipient's sector, which has mobility.
>
> Note that pboard doesn't require mobility, but damages the plane.
>
> * Land units
>
> Conditions: ceded land unit is in recipient's sector, which has
> mobility.

The restrictions on the units/ships/planes make sense.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Mine damage allocation to fleets 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Mine damage allocation to fleets 

"Markus Armbruster" <armbru RemoveThis @pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:87wtbbhc04.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org...
> foresterjamie RemoveThis @yahoo.com.au writes:

>
> Here's a sketch of possible rules. Basic idea: allow cede only when
> the recipient could take it by force. Don't attempt to cover all `can
> take' scenarios.
>
> * Sectors
>
> Conditions: ceded sector is old-owned, recipient has an adjacent
> sector with mobility.
>

This still allows a way for someone to cede their entire country (more
or less) over a single update. The quitter gives up scattered sectors
just before the update by either allowing them to be taken or moving
everything out and allowing the taker to para/att/ass/exp/whatever
them, and then he can cede all the adjacent sectors immediately
after the update. I would prefer a hard limit on ceded sectors to
prevent this. E.g.; keep track of the number of ceded sectors by
country and never allow them to cede more than x% of their
current sector count, where x is some appropriately small number.

> * Ships
>
> * Planes, land units, nukes
>
> * Land units
>

Here I think you need to avoid having an 'ally' deliberately or
inadvertently screwing you over by ceding you a bunch of
expensive stuff that may cause you to go broke. Maybe by
not allowing them to change owner before the new guy
explicitly accepts them. This makes more sense using the 'offer'
and 'accept' commands as examples. The ceder 'offer's plane/
ship/land/nuke by #, and the new owner has to 'accept' them.
 >> Stay informed about: Mine damage allocation to fleets 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Mine damage allocation to fleets 

"Markus Armbruster" <armbru.DeleteThis@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:87mzc4sau2.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org...
>
> Is that still necessary when cede behaves like attack?
>

Given the example of the latest South Pacific game where che
has been reduced by a factor of 10 and the fact that che are
a mere micromanagement annoyance in a large takeover anyway,
I would say no. You are relying on a single aspect of the game to
account for and control disjoint behaviors, and the existing
aspect doesn't even control what it is supposed to. Current che
behavior does absolutely nothing to curb massive expansion by prepared
countries against their unprepared neighbors. Given the scenario
where the neighbor could make his country deliberately unprepared
I don't think it will work any better.

Then we have to consider the actual situations where 'cede' has
been used and abused (at least in the eyes of enough so that it
hasn't been used in years): That is when a quitter quits and
gives away his entire country because he can't/won't/ is too
much of a loser to/ actually fight. This behavior is bad enough
that it should be made impossible. I realize that it cannot be
made completely impossible, I have even deliberately
quit in games myself because it was the only way I had left
to help my allies, but any new capabilities should be very leery
of offering any new avenues to make it easy to quit.

Any enhanced capability of ceding sectors/ships/planes/units/nukes
should only be done if it makes it easier for countries to actually
coordinate and kill their enemies without engaging in odd and
unintuitive micromanagement. As it is now is basically a pain in the
ass: If you want to merely trade a few sectors with a neighbor
you have to go through this elaborate song and dance of removing
all defenses and hoping nobody notices until you complete
the transfer. But any new aspect which helps losers quit should
be avoided like the plague.
 >> Stay informed about: Mine damage allocation to fleets 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Mine damage allocation to fleets 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Mine damage allocation to fleets