Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

John Company» Forums » Rules

Subject: Disrupted orders with multiple regions with ships and goods exhausted rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David Lara
Spain
Alcobendas
Madrid
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi,

From the rulebook:
Quote:
Disrupted Orders. Whenever a region becomes closed, any orders on it are disrupted. The President (or former President if vacant) associated with the order immediately removes as many ships as the demand of each filled order (if possible) from either the Presidency’s holdings or those ships it has exhausted, and returns them to the stock. Ships without captains must be removed before those with captains.

Suppose the presidency sailed successfully to two regions, filling one 2-demand order in each region using 1 ship + 1 good, making a total of 2 ships and 2 goods exhausted. Then disrupted orders happen in one of those regions. My understanding was that the only ship used for that order was lost but after re-reading the rules, since the demand is two, two ships are lost from the presidency (instead of 1).

How many ships are lost in this example?


Thanks in advance!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gunther Schmidl
Austria
Linz
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
For one moment I thought this was about ShipNaked again. Sorry I don't have any actual useful advice!
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Toby Yasutake
United States
Bridgeport
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that a strict reading means that both ships are lost. Heck, according to a strict reading says that if, in your example, you instead shipped to only one of the two regions, still with 1 ship and 1 good, both ships are still lost.

I also agree that this doesn't make intuitive sense to me. I thought that the whole strategy behind goods (seeing how they can be quite expensive and only last for one turn) was to mitigate shipping risk.
2 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rex Gator
United States
Apopka
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The rule seems clear to me. You lose two ships. There is no mention about what was used to fill the order that is now disrupted.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Wasserman
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rexgator wrote:
The rule seems clear to me. You lose two ships. There is no mention about what was used to fill the order that is now disrupted.
I agree with this. In fact, the rule specifically says that the ships may come from the Presidency's holdings, so it is clear that it is irrelevant which ships or goods were exhausted in order to fulfill the order.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will H.
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would only add that you must lose ships without captains first.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Lara
Spain
Alcobendas
Madrid
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
y-bot wrote:
I agree that a strict reading means that both ships are lost. Heck, according to a strict reading says that if, in your example, you instead shipped to only one of the two regions, still with 1 ship and 1 good, both ships are still lost.

I also agree that this doesn't make intuitive sense to me. I thought that the whole strategy behind goods (seeing how they can be quite expensive and only last for one turn) was to mitigate shipping risk.

This is exactly my thought and that's why I'm curious to know Mr Wehrle's feedback about this
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Wasserman
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not sure about the thematic reasoning, but from a game play perspective, it makes sense. Although good are sometimes expensive, goods from player factories can be very cheap--a quarter or less than the cost of ships. Also, they have no upkeep. Finally, the threat of losing ships deters trade with prosperous regions about to be visited by the elephant and encourages expansion of open regions, notwithstanding the costs. It is one more factor pushing the players into potential conflict and cooperation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cole Wehrle
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
"Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mfwesq wrote:
I'm not sure about the thematic reasoning, but from a game play perspective, it makes sense. Although good are sometimes expensive, goods from player factories can be very cheap--a quarter or less than the cost of ships. Also, they have no upkeep. Finally, the threat of losing ships deters trade with prosperous regions about to be visited by the elephant and encourages expansion of open regions, notwithstanding the costs. It is one more factor pushing the players into potential conflict and cooperation.


This is more-or-less why that change was made. In earlier iterations goods could shield the company from risky trades, but the shield was a little too forgiving and could exploited.

Thematically, major disruptions wrecked havoc on the companies operation and took many years to recover from. Since goods get exhausted, damage to ships was the critical way to show this damage over time.

(Note that it is still possible to minimize risk by transferring the ships to a different presidency. That's an oft-overlooked power of the Director of Trade that is also a useful bargaining chip.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Lara
Spain
Alcobendas
Madrid
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cole Wehrle wrote:
(Note that it is still possible to minimize risk by transferring the ships to a different presidency. That's an oft-overlooked power of the Director of Trade that is also a useful bargaining chip.

DoT can do that but on the next turn, right? Their Logistic action takes places before Presidencies act, so if the event in India causes disrupted orders before moving the ships, they are lost anyways, correct?

Thanks a lot, Cole!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Wasserman
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cartesius wrote:
Cole Wehrle wrote:
(Note that it is still possible to minimize risk by transferring the ships to a different presidency. That's an oft-overlooked power of the Director of Trade that is also a useful bargaining chip.

DoT can do that but on the next turn, right? Their Logistic action takes places before Presidencies act, so if the event in India causes disrupted orders before moving the ships, they are lost anyways, correct?

Thanks a lot, Cole!
I think the point is to move ships (or possibly ships with captains) to presidencies with regions that are not likely to flip to depressed, so that orders are filled there with less risk.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cole Wehrle
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
"Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mfwesq wrote:
cartesius wrote:
Cole Wehrle wrote:
(Note that it is still possible to minimize risk by transferring the ships to a different presidency. That's an oft-overlooked power of the Director of Trade that is also a useful bargaining chip.

DoT can do that but on the next turn, right? Their Logistic action takes places before Presidencies act, so if the event in India causes disrupted orders before moving the ships, they are lost anyways, correct?

Thanks a lot, Cole!
I think the point is to move ships (or possibly ships with captains) to presidencies with regions that are not likely to flip to depressed, so that orders are filled there with less risk.


Yup. Because of the way the equilibrium system works, you can usually know with some certainty if a depression is coming, though it takes a bit of practice to get familiar with the rock and roll of the events.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.