C'est en anglais, mais vous êtes assez grands pour vous débrouiller.
1/ Tout d'abord le lien vers un post de David E. Cohen sur le forum de WebDip, dans lequel il résume les principaux changements apportés par Renegade. Je mets ce poste uniquement parce que Tomas Haver, qui a collaboré avec Renegade pour préparation de cette Edition, est intervenu dans la discussion et a confirmé que l'analyse de Cohen est correcte.
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4681
2/ Ensuite un copié-collé du même David E. Cohen sur le serveur Discord de la vWDC, où il détaille un peu plus son analyse.
https://discord.com/channels/768076008955707392/768076008955707396/1102276479263445216
Citation :
I have performed a comparative analysis of the Renegade's 6th Edition (2023) rule book and the previous 5th edition (2008) rule book.
Disregarding cosmetic and non-substantive changes (such as changing the colors of the example maps or dropping a reference the CD-Rom version of the game), there are a handful of substantive changes, as follows:
1. The rule book has added, to the traditional outcomes of solo and DIAS, possible results for time-limited or turn-limited games.
Citation :
** "A game of Diplomacy can end in one of four ways:
Control 18 Supply Centers: As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it’s considered to have gained control of Europe.
Draw Involving All Survivors: All players who still have supply centers agree to share equally in a draw.
Turn Limit: Game ends after a number of predetermined turns (e.g., after Fall 1907) and the winner is the player with the most centers. Tied players share in victory.
Time Limit: Game ends after a predetermined number of hours (e.g., 4 hours, 8 hours) and the winner is the player with the most centers. Tied
players share in victory."**
Leaving aside the question of whether a victory can be shared, this change does not really have a practical impact for other than "friendly" FTF games. Unless you are in a tournament, on line or otherwise, games are very rarely either time-limited or turn-limited. If you are in a tournament, those outcomes are too simplistic and will be superseded by the tournament scoring system.
2. Rather than a vague statement that units "farthest from the country are removed first", there is now a clear methodology:
Citation :
"In the event of a power going into civil disorder or when a power does not order a required removal, (a) No unit on a supply center is to be removed unless there are no viable options and (b) Unit precedence for removal starts with furthest from an owned supply center, by counting absolute adjacent provinces regardless of the ability of the unit to move into it, are removed first. Fleets are removed before armies, and then units are removed in alphabetic order of the name of the province on the map."
Perhaps not the most elegantly written the rule, but certainly serviceable and a since it is unambiguous, a big improvement over the previous rule. Most, if not all platforms will need to revise their code to comply with this rule.
3. The previous rule book clarification about impossible orders being hold orders if further, unequivocally clarified with capital letters, no less):
Citation :
"A unit given an impossible order results in the unit HOLDING so it can be supported in place. For example, “A Burgundy—Moon” or “A
Bohemia—Edinburgh” are impossible moves."
At least one platform is not compliant with this rule.
4. The next change is a clarification (and tightening up) of "matching" in support order for units with multiple coasts, so that a player may now specify support to a particular coast:
Citation :
**"The specification of Support to a specific coast in a split province such as Spain must match the
move of the piece ordered to that province. For instance:
France: F Portugal S F Mid-Atlantic - Spain (sc); F Mid-Atlantic - Spain (nc)
The movement is valid but the support order is invalid because it identified an incorrect coast. If the order was F Mid-Atlantic - Spain (sc), then the support order would be valid."**
The concept of "matching" was undefined in previous editions of the rule book, and while I can understand the opinion of those that wanted matching to be limited to a province, rather than a coast, I feel that this clarification aligns more with the overall spirit of the rule. I believe multiple platforms are not compliant with the rule.
5. The last change relates to a conflict between two rules in previous editions, with one rule forbidding a retreat by a unit to "the province from which its attacker came" and the rule which permits two units to switch places if one or both are convoyed, the issue coming up when a convoy from an adjacent province succeeds and dislodges a unit. The new edition resolves the conflict:
Citation :
**"A dislodged unit can retreat to the position of the attacker when there is a convoy to an adjacent province. For example:
England: A Edi-Yor; F Nth C A Edi-Yor; A Lon S A Edi-Yor
Germany: A Yor H
The German army is dislodged from Yorkshire. If the army in Edinburgh had attacked via land to Yorkshire, then the German army could not retreat to Edinburgh. Since the attack is coming from the convoy in the North Sea, the army in Yorkshire can legally retreat to Edinburgh."**
I have always been of the opinion that if a unit could have moved to a province successfully in the movement phase, the unit could be legally ordered to retreat to that province in the subsequent retreat phase. I think there are multiple platforms which are not compliant with this rule.
Si jamais quelqu'un a déjà fait ce travail de synthèse en francais, c'est le moment de le poster ici
