Just to be clear, if the players don't want this rule, I won't implement it. Period.
With that in mind - I asked for feedback, so thanks for all the replies - I still don't quite understand most of the objections. I'm going to continue with my England-Italy example for illustration.
The one controlling will always choose the outcome that's best for him, not exactly what the owner of the armies would do.
That's the whole point. England regards Italy as an ally, so it wants them to succeed in taking Spain and it just let's Italy decide, which way is more likely to be successful. If England doesn't want its fleet to do certain action, it just shouldn't offer Italy to choose that order.
I am opposed and if you implement it in this game I will resign.
Isn't that a bit overly dramatic? I can understand if you are reluctant to turn over even partial control of an army to an ally, but even if this rule were implemented you would never have to do it, if you don't want to.
So what's your problem with other people doing it? If you fear that some evil mastermind can then control the armies of several nations for his own nefarious purposes, well, he can already do that by convincing people to make moves that are in his interest. The new rule would change nothing.
Many potential issues. An controlling ally override preliminary orders from the country itself?
Italy can only choose between the orders predetermined by England. And of course England can take that power back, without even telling Italy, just by issuing new order for F Mat, that doesn't include that provision:
F Mat-Wes
It's exactly the same as asking Italy which course of action it would prefer and then acting on it. This happens all the time in the game.
What aboutcontrolling ally changing orders in the eleventh our to open his trusting friend to a stab?
England should of course never give Italy order options, that it wouldn't order itself, if Italy recommended them. If they follow that advice an Italian stab isn't easier or harder, than it would be without the rule.
What if one of the diplomats in the home country has a full inbox?
I fail to see a problem here. Please explain?
Btw, are you back now?
reis91 said:
It is based on conditions which allow for each player to decide what exactly can be done with that force.
Exactly.
The solution to this problem is not a complicated sovreignty order process...but giving the diplomats more time.
With a 48 hour turn cycle, Austria and I could hammer out exactly what our moves were going to be in advance and execute them in the last Diplomacy game.
I was on record as saying that the 24 hour turn cycle was a bad idea from the start (hence why I asked for an extension EVERY TIME). I am still of the opinion that 48 hours is a MINIMUM required to conduct all the business that goes on in this game.
Again...you need to give the diplomats more time.
As you might have noticed, we haven't had a single 24-hour turn yet. (Except build and retreat turns, but you don't want to extend those, do you?)
After the last game most people wanted to avoid another four month game, so the idea was to shorten the turns in order to speed up the game. Since I knew that 24 hours would often not be enough, I allowed for this extension rule. I was hoping that there would be at least a few turns, where there would not be a lot of diplomacy going on and we could save a day. We got very close a few times, but ultimately never managed that 24-hour turn.
As I mentioned earlier, the next game can experiment with longer turns, but I don't want to change the rules now, because maybe turns will be faster in the end game. And if they won't, players can always have the 48 hours if they need them.
Besides, it isn't like all people are clamoring for longer turns, I've had a few annoyed or impatient reactions, when I declared an extension of the deadline.
Your point that the rules might be overly complicated is the one objection, that convinces me most. I don't think they would be
that much more complicated then the normal diplomacy rules though.
I wouldn't have time for a full game, but glorious Turkey with it's two fleets hardly counts as a full game
Pretty much all I'd have to do is choose to go down fighting Italy, or go down fighting Austria.
Oh, but with your powers of logic and persuasion you could rise again and conquer all of Europe, muahaha. Ahem.
Do you want to join Turkey then, together with taii?