Would you be able to boost beyond 2 power? Would you be able to elect to disband a unit (even if you didn't have to) in order to boost?

I could be wrong, but I think this might run afoul of the coding limitations of vDip. My understanding is that each map type only allows 2 different unit types.

Typically these are army and fleet. But we have clippers/frigates on a map and also knights/armies on another.

I think this would mean a third unit "type" since it's not an army or a fleet, it's a double strength army.

Anyone more knowledgeable about the coding limitations able to chime in?


Overall though, I am a fan of the idea, especially on big maps where people can setup stalemates long before anyone can break them typically.

Yes, we already have knights/armies and clippers/frigates and Octopus variants etc.

So a unit becomes a 'reinforced army/fleet'. Perhaps a marker on the unit symbol to indicate, or marked out in bold.

Even in games where units can only be raised in home centres, any unit could be 'reinforced' on any supply centre and its an excellent tactic where lines are facing off on each other. Can't do it at sea or a non-supply province.

No reason why a player cannot elect to disband, when given the option by a retreat, and use that capacity to reinforce a different unit. It becomes a bona-fide tactic.

But for sure, it would entail issues for coders... and I'm not one myself.

Even if it's not possible here on vDip, the idea of reinforced armies is a good one for PBEM games. It could make for an interesting game, especially if coupled with new maps, or other unique rules.

... any coders out there with a view on this?

reminds me somewhat of the garrison in Machiavelli

There is a variant extant called Multiplicity which Richard Walkerdine and I designed in 1975, which was subsequently tweaked by others. Here's a link to the current version:
http://www.dipwiki.com/index.php?title=Multiplicity

(Beware ascriptions to Stephen Agar in all variants - he had no compunction about making minor changes to variants then passing them off as his own, as with this and Mobtown.)

Thats very interesting Chumbles and I'm not surprised that the idea has been explored in various forms before. Multiplicity has more variation than I think practical for the purpose I propose here, ie, here a unit may be A2 or F2 and not more and may not divide its supports up. But its an idea in a simpler form that may have merit here on vDip, if the coding were not to present too many difficulties. I'd certainly be interested to playtest it...

I think this would work best on a map where any unit can move to any territory, like pirates or the cataclysm variant (not sure how the cataclysm variant is programed, but i think it would be best to modify the territories types all coastal, but adjacent to each other: gascony would be coastal, and border the coastal territories of MAO, and Burgundy. The stonger unit could be a fleet). The only problem i see would be telling the system that the fleet (reinforced army) costs 2 scs

Solid idea. It’s been brought up here before, and as mentioned above, from what I understand the coding is difficult for a 3rd unit type here.

Maybe the code could.be tricked by, instead of creating more unit types, allowing multiple units coexistence on the same spot. Then, the a 2A (or 3A, or an A/F) in a province would be ordered as if there were two (or three) units in the same place. A new trick would be necessary to convince the code the two units moving from the same place to the same other place work as summed strength, instead of.bouncing each other...the same regarding supports by the Multiple unit. Another difficulty is restricting possible orders to not allow the 2A unit doing two different orders not covered by the Multiplicity rules. I confess I'm not comfortable with the advanced Multiplicity Plus further rules because I believe self stand offs should still be allowed and two units of the same country moving to the same place should have the option of either standing then off or merging. I confess too that after three decades of reading those rules I don't read them to the satisfaction of really understanding them as a solid alternate view of game mechanics, despite Mr. Agar's favouring about them in several variants, many of them designed especially for A/F rules...

Still hoping for a comment from someone who codes...