Re: New Press Variant?

Nothing is as silly as the shift rule. 
 
I see where the central powers like Austria and Germany are going to get hammered.  So, good name for the rule.

Mark


--- On Tue, 1/27/09, Manus Hand <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Manus Hand <[email protected]>
> Subject: [dpjudge] New Press Variant?
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 1:16 PM
> So hey, I was thinking, and that's never good, because
> it usually
> leads to coding.  My thought process got around
> meanderingly to the
> existing TOUCH_PRESS rule, in which people can only
> communicate if
> their units can support each other, and something made me
> think about
> a possible polar opposite....  Anyway, as long as I
> didn't make any
> mistakes, it means that a new press-variant is now
> available in the
> test (but not yet the production) DPjudge.  So get a load
> of this and
> tell me what you DPjudgesters think.
> 
> RULE HAMMER_PRESS -- players may not communicate with one
> another
> whenever they have adjacent units, or when either player
> has a unit
> adjacent to a supply center owned by the other.
> 
> So at game-start, Italy and Austria can't send press to
> each other,
> for example.  And probably a lot of other avenues get shut
> down after
> Spring 1901.
> 
> I think it might strengthen alliances like England-Turkey
> v. Russia,
> Russia-France v. Germany, etc.  Or it might lead to a lot
> of "hey, can
> you tell Austria this for me?" and thus a lot of
> "hey, Turkey told me
> to tell you this" lies.
> 
> Maybe it's a dumb idea, and maybe it really handicaps
> Austria (who
> doesn't realy need the handicap).  John Woolley was
> kind enough to
> criticize it thus:
> 
> "...seems like one of those arbitrary silly-rules that
> has no POSSIBLE
> interpretation in terms of the real-life situation.  If
> anything, it
> should be easier to communicate when you're close.  But
> given the
> six-month game turns, a government would have to be
> SUPERNATURALLY
> ineffective to be unable to get messages around."
> 
> I responded saying that it is realistic in an unrealistic
> way:  "We
> will break off all diplomatic relations with you if you are
> ever in
> any position that could threaten or endanger our troops or
> cities."
> 
> Anyway, arbitrarily silly or not, if you guys don't
> laugh it back out
> of the code, I'd be thinking of starting a new standard
> game (on the
> test judge, obviously) if there is interest from seven of
> you in
> wanting to try it out?
> 
> Stab you soon,
> Manus


      

------------------------------------