For those of you who know Diplomacy support and attack orders, you already know where this is going. For those of you who don't please proceed.

1. RAID orders are resolved at the same time as march orders.

As the game sits you can have 1 territory of equal unit strength hold off against 2 against it.

the definition of SUPPORT as intended.

An army lends its firepower or manpower to assist another army in its advance agains an enemy position.

ie: (3 footmen in Lannisport supports 1 knight in harrenhal to attack 2 footmen in riverrun) this results in a 5 on 2 initial combat value (surely a loss for the greyjoys)

However if riverrun places a RAID token there, he can break the support of the superior supporting force in Lannisport and be on level play (2 on 2).

since raid tokens are resolved LIKE march orders, then timing becomes more critical of WHAT and WHEN you raid.

I understand this isn't on par with how Diplomacy actually resolves breaking of support orders so here i will describe how diplomacy deals with it so you have a frame of reference:

In diplomacy, only one army/navy is allowed in each region. in order to take over (win battles) new territories other adjacent territories may SUPPORT the attack to the new region. It is ordered down on paper as such:

Lannisport supports Harrenhal -> Riverrun

Harrenhal -> Riverrun

Riverrun -> Lannisport

This becomes a situation where it is effectively 2 armies attacking Rivverrun and thusly riverrun cannot attack through a supporting Lannisport to break his support.

sorry for the double post but the intention of resolving march orders at the same time as raid would allow the Lannister force to be able to attack the defending position before he could raid the supporting force in Lannisport.

This would give turn position on the throne more emphasized importance for resolving combat.

Okay, so if I'm interpreting this correctly, you'd resolve raids and marches in the same phase.

So let's say the turn order is Lannister, Stark, Baratheon. After orders are placed and flipped:

1) Lannister goes first. He can choose to resolve either a raid, OR a march.

2) Then Stark goes after Lannister resolves either a raid OR a march.

3) Baratheon goes third, plays raid/march as before.

4) Play goes back to Lannister, who can resolve either raid or a march again, and so on until all marches and raids are gone?

If I'm interpreting it correctly, it certainly is a dramatic change that really changes the psychology of placing raids and makes the march order a lot more important.

Also, this is a really big blow to ships stuck in port. It essentially means blockading ships will almost always have their support get through. Generally a player who's being blockaded and has his fleet stuck in port is likely also doing poorly in terms of power generation and likely will not have a good Iron Throne position either, so I think it would make reversals a lot harder. Certainly I've been foiled before by a pesky ship raiding from port.

yes your interpretation is correct.

however the port raiding is in itself a weakness in the game design. as mentioned earlier in the forum, a retreating navy may retreat to a port. However ports may never be attacked. so there is no way to dislodge a fleet from a port unless you take the adjacent land territory. making the port raid order too powerful on its own.

But thats my opinion.

bump.

This post was no longer searchable after forum amalgamation with days of wonder.