Kreistor wrote:This has to be a mechanism to allow battles in multiple places simultaneously. If Nation A fights B in the West and C in the East, under strict Turn Order rules, even though C and B are far apart, they'd be waiting for each other. With this rule, the two fronts do not affect each other, so combat is simultaneous. If the Turn order is B A C, then B moves first against A at the same time A moves against C, and when B ends Turn, A moves against B. Later, A ends Turn against C, and so A is moving against B while C is moving against A. That sounds bad, but just remember the two fronts are far apart, being lead by different commanders.
Further, there are caster limitations to other concepts. Localized freezing of time results in Lookamancers seeing frozen enemy units, unable to respond to them. You can also not contact other Sides except at night, unless you are in combat, because they would be frozen.
raphfrk wrote:Splitting a side into multiple sub-sides by battlespace each with its own turn doesn't seem to be what actually happens. Having said that, we have only seen one battlespace.
1) At dawn place all sides into Wait mode
2) Any waiting side which could interact with a moving side is placed in locked mode
3) Any locked side which cannot interact with a moving side is placed in waiting mode
4) If there are any waiting sides, place the global earliest of them into move mode and goto 2)
5) Wait for a moving side to end turn, place that side into finished mode and goto 2)
6) End day when all enter finished mode
You would get full view of any side that has units that can enter your zone of influence, so this isn't a big issue. However, at dawn, lookamancers would see units from far away sides jump due to what looks like instant movement.
Housellama wrote:As far as game terms go, I think we have to define some other terms before we get there. First is what I think of as "area of influence". This is the hexes a Side controls, or can influence (See, move to, attack, cast at, etc.) When two or more areas of influence overlap, you have a battlespace. And I would define that battlespace as the total area of influence of all overlapping sides. Now, how turn order is determined within that battlespace, I don't know. I believe that there is a mechanic governing that which is either hidden, or we just haven't seen yet.
Kreistor wrote:Housellama wrote:As far as game terms go, I think we have to define some other terms before we get there. First is what I think of as "area of influence". This is the hexes a Side controls, or can influence (See, move to, attack, cast at, etc.) When two or more areas of influence overlap, you have a battlespace. And I would define that battlespace as the total area of influence of all overlapping sides. Now, how turn order is determined within that battlespace, I don't know. I believe that there is a mechanic governing that which is either hidden, or we just haven't seen yet.
If you create terms, you're creating speculation, not game rules. Rob has the game rules, and we're trying to figure them out. We don't invent terms, we use the terms Rob gives us.
Battlespace actually was used earlier, back when Parson did his Mork bit. Charlescomm is a "Battlespace Solutions Provider", the same catch-phrase you talk about. We ignored it then, because we saw it used in the wrong context -- it was marketing lingo, not game rules.
Now we have a real effect tied to BAttlespace. When no enemies are in Battlespace, Turn starts at Dawn. Now we know Battlespace has some technical definition beyond the Marketspek of Charlescomm.
It is, fundamentally, a mistake to create terms for things the game rules may have no use for. Speculation is fun, but we're not creating game rules, we're trying to puzzle them out. There are degrees of speculation. Sometimes, we use speculation to support a second idea. THe more that we do that, the weaker the idea becomes, and the less likely it is to be true. Creating game terms based on speculation will only confuse the search for rules, stepping us back from the actual evidence of the comic.
doran wrote:Figuring out rules always relys on speculation, hypotheses. These are then confirmed or dropped as the story continues. Its easier to refer to theories by terms rather than explaining it every time.
I think Housellama is just trying to involve the whole my "definition is different from yours" problem (see Deus Ex Machine, Mary Sue etc.)
If everyone involved knows it's theorising, it's fine.
Kreistor wrote:Excessive speculation is just pointless right now.
doran wrote:But fun!
Unclever title wrote:As for determining order of turns when battlespaces "collide" the simplest solution would likely be determined by who enters whose battlespace first which might explain why the Coalition had the first turn of the day at Page 104. The difference being between the aggressor and the defender. In fact if turn order is decided dynamically on a day to day basis then the agressor might always have first turn of the day. However I don't think there's anything specific enough to confirm or deny a dynamic turn order.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests