• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Why would I have to withdraw them? If you're on your way to attack their presence is legal. Only if you halt your attack do I have to withdraw them. Either way, you'll be fighting 40 divisions :)

Nono not if your troops get there first, even if mine are moving.

The rules are written are that if I have troops moving to attack, then you can move troops to reinforce but if yours arrive first regardless of my troops you have to withdraw them, I can either choose to keep moving and potentially get there before you can withdraw and thus make it legal or stop attacking and wait for you to withdraw.
If your using ships then obviously youll get there first however you also load troops faster then mine move making it so I can attack only the 20 until you move the divisions back.

Denying entrenchment bonus to the second or more stacks.
 
Nono not if your troops get there first, even if mine are moving.

The rules are written are that if I have troops moving to attack, then you can move troops to reinforce but if yours arrive first regardless of my troops you have to withdraw them, I can either choose to keep moving and potentially get there before you can withdraw and thus make it legal or stop attacking and wait for you to withdraw.
If your using ships then obviously youll get there first however you also load troops faster then mine move making it so I can attack only the 20 until you move the divisions back.

Denying entrenchment bonus to the second or more stacks.
We obviously need a GM ruling on this. KoM, I choose you! *tosses poké ball*
 
We obviously need a GM ruling on this. KoM, I choose you! *tosses poké ball*

I believe Sid is right on this. You can have 20 divisions in a province, and set up your reinforcements to arrive one day after the enemy, but if you arrive with more than 20 divisions without fighting the Chinese, even if they are on the move, you have to withdraw immediately.
 
The Rules said:
At most 20 divisions may occupy one province, except when attacking an enemy-held province or being attacked; in this case, up to 60 divisions may be used.
The heart of the matter is the definition of "being attacked". My argument is that if enemy troops are approaching a province (but have yet to reach it) the province is being attacked. Your argument, presumebly, is that a province isn't being attacked until the attacking forces have actually reached it.
 
The heart of the matter is the definition of "being attacked". My argument is that if enemy troops are approaching a province (but have yet to reach it) the province is being attacked. Your argument, presumebly, is that a province isn't being attacked until the attacking forces have actually reached it.

Thats Hearts of Iron not Victoria, in Victoria that is "movement" it is only attacked when it reaches it.
 
# Stacking limits

# Any time the rule is broken, the divisions breaking it will be deleted by edit; other sanctions may be imposed at the GM's discretion.

So China is going to have several hundred divisions deleted?
 
So China is going to have several hundred divisions deleted?

No, aside from their army not being that large, there have been nothing more then a few accusations. Even on those there has been no GM ruling on the matter.

From what I have seen it does seem like the stacking rule is working as intended. Without it the whole China-Georgia war would have been a couple of doomstacks throwing themselves at each other near the border until one side gives up. With it the war seems to have been very fluid. While I don't like China having used Finland as a doormat to invade Georgia that is a matter of diplomacy and fully within the rules.

It will be interesting how the stacking rule holds up in the up and coming Coalition versus China war but I do expect to see something to the same effect as with Georgia. A very fluid front requiring skilled players to move their forces responsibly.
 
No, aside from their army not being that large, there have been nothing more then a few accusations. Even on those there has been no GM ruling on the matter.

From what I have seen it does seem like the stacking rule is working as intended. Without it the whole China-Georgia war would have been a couple of doomstacks throwing themselves at each other near the border until one side gives up. With it the war seems to have been very fluid. While I don't like China having used Finland as a doormat to invade Georgia that is a matter of diplomacy and fully within the rules.

It will be interesting how the stacking rule holds up in the up and coming Coalition versus China war but I do expect to see something to the same effect as with Georgia. A very fluid front requiring skilled players to move their forces responsibly.

While in the looming crisis its one skilled player vs several unskilled players ^-^

I didn't use finland as doormat, he was at war with me so I took the oppurtunity, if he didn't want me to go through him to get around Georgia then he shouldn't have been at war with me. He dowed me and not vice versa.
 
No, aside from their army not being that large, there have been nothing more then a few accusations.

:confused:
I see screenshots, do you see screenshots?

I guess no deletions then though? Although the stacking rule certainly seems to have caused a mess, either way.
 
:confused:
I see screenshots, do you see screenshots?

I guess no deletions then though? Although the stacking rule certainly seems to have caused a mess, either way.

The stacking rule is work as designed.

Also, the accuser waiting until after the session is over seems more like an attempt to game the rules to his advantage to avert his defeat rather then to actually be an honest attempt at making sure the rules are followed.

If you see a rule breach report on it ingame right away pause if nessasary.
 
Why did you guys do a stack rule, by the way? To favor maneuver warfare? But it's not like WWI era warfare was known for being high-mobility :p The technology for blitzkrieg (proper bombers, properly militarized internal combustion engine, and military radios) didn't exist.
 
Why did you guys do a stack rule, by the way? To favor maneuver warfare? But it's not like WWI era warfare was known for being high-mobility :p The technology for blitzkrieg (proper bombers, properly militarized internal combustion engine, and military radios) didn't exist.

Because the alternative made even less sense.

Stalemade on the western front was because of A) the German attack bogged down giving the French time to entrench. and B) Because neither side was willing to violate swiss neutrality.

Both sides had sufficient troops to prevent any flanking of the front resulting in expensive offencives to push back the front and never achieve a breakthrough until the advent of armor.

The front with Georgia was for about 4 months this exact kind of stalemate until i realized Finland was not neutral afterall.

Wars from 1700's to WWI were wars of maneuever or at least the Napoleanic wars were a better example of this anyways of large armies constantly maneuvering for the best ground.
 
:confused:
I see screenshots, do you see screenshots?

I guess no deletions then though? Although the stacking rule certainly seems to have caused a mess, either way.

You gentlemen ought not to jump to conclusions. I am a busy man and, just because I do not make a decision two minutes after something is posted, that does not mean no decision will be made.

The stacking-rule discussion might be better suited for Ederon, perhaps.
 
Don't rush the norse god! Let him go at Baldur's Gait...

But anyways Secrets didn't say anything about me breaking any rules during the session but waited until after the war was lost to whine about anything, its his own damn fault. If you see someone making a mistake you dont just stand there and do nothing, especially when that mistake can and will harm you.
 
I should also point out the aforemened encirclements, the war at this point was already lost for Georgia regardless of my throwing everything into wiping out his stacks or not, actually study the situtation before making baseless assumptions.
Sid are you says it was ok for you to broke the rules because Georgia had lost the war? Because some of the screens i saw where you broken rules looks like they took place in Finland. I think if the other people had done this sid you would "crying a river".
 
Last edited:
Because the alternative made even less sense.

Stalemade on the western front was because of A) the German attack bogged down giving the French time to entrench. and B) Because neither side was willing to violate swiss neutrality.

Both sides had sufficient troops to prevent any flanking of the front resulting in expensive offencives to push back the front and never achieve a breakthrough until the advent of armor.

The front with Georgia was for about 4 months this exact kind of stalemate until i realized Finland was not neutral afterall.

Point granted on the Finnish front - if a front simply becomes too long for trench warfare, then it's too long. But I do disagree with your analysis of trench warfare.

In WWI, despite the name, the stalemate of trench warfare was not really due to trenches, literally. It was never impossible to break through the trench lines, it was impossible to exploit breakthroughs, because the defender (on whichever side) had a huge advantage in communications and logistics and so could move and concentrate troops much more effectively than the attacker. The massive trench lines were just a better way of defending that arose naturally once warfare had already become static due to the defenders natural mobility-and-concentration advantages on the Western Front. Note that in 1914, first the French stopped the German attacks, then the trenches started growing, not the other way around.

Armor didn't change this equation at all, nor did other breakthrough weapons such as stormtroopers or simply massed artillery. They just made it easier to do what was already possible, break the trench lines, but they didn't help with the real problem of the Western Front - that the attacker was unable to move and concentrate troops better than the defender irregardless of the trenches. That's why the war in the West ended literally when one side was too exhausted to continue, rather than on any of the many times when offensives temporarily broke the front lines, whether with tanks, artillery, stormtroopers, or just mass human waves.

I'm curious because the stack rule you've implemented would seem to give the mobility and concentration advantage to the attacker, when really, it was the defender that enjoyed these advantages (assuming relatively equal infrastructure, etc) up til the advent of motorized troops and the widespread military use of radio. But I guess it's a somewhat academic distinction for Vicky? :)
 
I happen to recall the Kaiser's Offencive and the subsequent Allied-American pushed making significant headway while either side had the munitions and manpower to keep it going.

Sid are you says it was ok for you to broke the rules because Georgia had lost the war? Because some of the screens i saw where you broken rules looks like they took place in Finland. I think if the other people had done this sid you would "crying a river".

Not what I am saying at all.

I am answering varyars baseless accusation that my error in anyway resulted in my victory but rather that my victory was already secure when the error occured.

Next, you make it sound like I did it on purpose when I clearly did not, I honestly believed that there was no maximum upper limit, just a limit based on the number of adjacent provinces.

And why does it matter if it takes place in finland or not?

Hyme, if other people had done this I would and did pause the game to make sure both the DM and the opposing party knows of this so they can stop they're breach of the rules.

And furthermore secrets did not do this he did not pause or make a single sound but deliberately it seems waited until the end of the session before making any noise.

Its not a breach in rules if the other player is unwilling to excersize their rights.
 
In short had Secrets paused the game and told me, and then gotten the subsequent correction from King of Men I would say "oops" and correct my mistake, I cannot correct a mistake if I do not know I am making such a mistake.

Your accusations are baseless.