Here are the numbers for the rule change debate

One problem James. Austria has to attack Serbia not the Ottomans. It is stated in the rulebook.

@GoSanchez6:

One problem James. Austria has to attack Serbia not the Ottomans. It is stated in the rulebook.

Looks like he addressed that.

Sorry read it wrong

I think a lot of the posts on this topic come from not knowing why the rules are as they are in the first place regarding movement from contested TT’s to friendly one.

Not sure if you are in a position to answer this one, but what was the rationale behind not allowing Germany to move from a contested territory to an Austrian-controlled territory but allowing them to move from a contested territory to another contested territory that happens to have 1 (or more) German(s) there?

The reason for this rule is unfortunately very fiddly.  It’s there to prevent can openers, which were way too effective against Russia in playtesting.

It needs to be understood that the rule is as it is now because of the can opener worry. It also needs to be understood that the change does not allow that can opener, since an infantry of the moving power would already need to be there at the start of the turn.

A power would have been allowed to move into a friendly if not for the can opener worry. This particular rule change provides a means for allowing such movement without allowing the can opener. Thus, the obstacle to allowing it is gone, and there is not nearly sufficient reason to maintain the illogical rule as it stands.

By the way, there are more examples of this rule in action than just Russia. Refer to the FAQ thread and the rule change thread for some of them. Russia is the example I used most often since it was easy to imagine as it could happen quite early in the game relative to the other examples.

Not sure if you are in a position to answer this one, but what was the rationale behind not allowing Germany to move from a contested territory to an Austrian-controlled territory but allowing them to move from a contested territory to another contested territory that happens to have 1 (or more) German(s) there?

The reason for this rule is unfortunately very fiddly.  It’s there to prevent can openers, which were way too effective against Russia in playtesting.

Funny. This was not posted in this thread. Perhaps you might address a repost in the thread it came from?

@Krieghund:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Not sure if you are in a position to answer this one, but what was the rationale behind not allowing Germany to move from a contested territory to an Austrian-controlled territory but allowing them to move from a contested territory to another contested territory that happens to have 1 (or more) German(s) there?

The reason for this rule is unfortunately very fiddly.  It’s there to prevent can openers, which were way too effective against Russia in playtesting.

But this is not in this thread. Post in the correct “original” thread so others can follow.

Do you mean so people can see the original post in its thread?

I’ll teach you a trick: Click on where it says “Quote from…” and it will take you right to that post.

Let me teach you. Goto that thread and post that response. Only quote and reply in this thread to something they said in it.

Very basic. That way people in that thread can read about how your reply works in context to what already was written.

KH has moved discussion out of that thread. That post is relevant to the discussion here. Add something to the discussion other than criticizing me for procedural “violations” because of your vendetta.

Actually how bout just post a reply in the same thread so the people in that thread can follow. This is not as war across the “ocean” either.

Common knowledge and basic.

Which same thread? This thread? The FAQ thread? Krieghund has said he does not want discussion about this in the FAQ thread, so I am not going to post any more about it there.

I am quoting what was said in another thread, because it applies to this thread. I asked a question, Krieghund answered it. I quoted it.

Here is the post saying that he wanted to move the movement rule discussion out of the FAQ thread.
@Krieghund:

I would like to move the discussion of the proposed change in land unit movement rules to this new thread, to keep this thread focused on Q&A.  Thanks.

Look, I did it again! Oh no!

Which same thread? This thread? The FAQ thread? Krieghund has said he does not want discussion about this in the FAQ thread, so I am not going to post any more about it there.

I am quoting what was said in another thread, because it applies to this thread. I asked a question, Krieghund answered it. I quoted it.

Here is the post saying that he wanted to move the movement rule discussion out of the FAQ thread.
Quote from: Krieghund on March 26, 2013, 09:11:22 am
I would like to move the discussion of the proposed change in land unit movement rules to this new thread, to keep this thread focused on Q&A.  Thanks.

Look, I did it again! Oh no!

Let me give you an example:

Razor you have a point as far as the map goes between Berlin and Moscow there are 3 territories (about 1150 miles), and between Berlin and Paris there are 4 territories (about 650 miles).

St Petersburg should be the new capital but it is still only 3 spaces away.

You see Razor can’t follow this because usually people look for a reply in threads that actually interest them. If you reply to somebody in another thread say here, it does not help anybody.

Thats why you should only reply to a person in the SAME thread in that SAME thread, or not at all. In case it wasn’t clear– THAT thread would be the one where you quoted the original poster.

I am quoting what was said in another thread, because it applies to this thread

Discussions are different like having two or three threads based on Russian Revolution and just picking a thread to answer in. Just because they are similar? not.

Except I wasn’t replying to Krieghund. I was quoting his post as evidence to back up my statements as I was replying to this thread.

Reply to his thread in that thread.

THIS THREAD IS FOR HOW THE POSSIBLE MOVEMENTS IN TERMS OF NUMBERS WOULD LOOK UNDER THE NEW RULE

Like below:

Turn 1: (Maximum units, not optimal play)

Austria can stack in Galicia with 36 inf, 8 artillery
Russia can stack in Poland with 21 inf, 8 artillery (will they let Austria hit them or stack elsewhere?)
Germany can stack in Silesia with 35 inf, 9 artillery, 1 fighter

Turn 2: (if they stack, if they don’t stack in Poland, move in anyway, then choose the empty zone next to Moscow next round)
Austria hits Poland 17 times, Poland hits Austria 15 times: Austria 21 inf,8 artillery: Poland 14 inf,8 artillery
Russia can stack 12 inf, 5 artillery bringing there force to: 26 inf,13 artillery (this required Russia to move at least 6 inf, 3art into Ukraine next to Galicia turn 1)
Germany hits Poland 20 times, Poland hits Germany 20 times: Germany 15inf, 9 art, ftr: Poland 6 inf, 13 art

NOT SOME REPLY TO SOMEBODY ELSE IN ANOTHER THREAD.

Back them up in that thread, not here.

I was not replying to Krieghund. I was suggesting that James’ purpose for posting this thread might be without the knowledge of why the rule exists as it does: to prevent can opening.

I was using a quote from Krieghund in a reply to James. These statistics he provides are to an argument as to why the rule change should not be done. The posting of statistics, etc., are not terribly important to the discussion because the whole reason the rule does not exist more like my proposal is that there was worry of can opening. Since my proposal allows logical movement without allowing the can opener, all that’s left before it is made official is waiting to see if anyone finds any disastrous results of the change.

Krieghund does not want the FAQ thread to have any more discussion on this. So no. I. will. not. post. in. that. thread. about. this.

It seems like what this thread has become is you looking for an avenue to attack me. Once again you failed. Funny how when you start to get a hint that you’re wrong you start posting whole sentences in caps. It was evidence for my point. I was not replying to it, I was citing it. Get over it.

Look Mantlefan:

Since you are incapable of following the rules, i re-posted what you originally posted in it’s proper thread. The war that was never fought across the “Ocean” is now defeated, and as any argument regarding some subs which never triggered the war.

IL does not want this thread to have any more discussion on this. So no. you. will. not. post. in. this. thread. about. that.

Here is where that post goes so get over it.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30573.60

My quoting of that post was to show why this statistical endeavor misses the point of the discussion of the rule change. Therefore it applies to this thread.