It's a code. If you break it, you'll learn what the other players have ordered.

I think that it is a leftover from a last phase. They appear to show up where there was a bounce in the previous one.

Should have read ATC's whole post. He's right, they show up where a stand off was.

Yes, you're right. They are the previous phase's stand-offs.

A_Tin_Can:
"Could you say how the stand-offs are not accurate? I've never seen them be inaccurate." Really? Just in your only publically active game, which is still in 1905, I count 4:

Gre here:
http://webdiplomacy.net/map.php?gameID=147466&largemap=on&turn=1
Ser here:
http://webdiplomacy.net/map.php?gameID=147466&largemap=on&turn=2
Bel and Rum here:
http://webdiplomacy.net/map.php?gameID=147466&largemap=on&turn=6

bump

Not sure what you are getting at JECE:

Gre here:
http://webdiplomacy.net/map.php?gameID=147466&largemap=on&turn=1
Bulgaria didn't succeed in gaining Greece - hence the standoff cross

Ser here:
http://webdiplomacy.net/map.php?gameID=147466&largemap=on&turn=2
Again Bulgaria didn't succeed in gaining Serbia - hence the standoff cross

Bel and Rum here:
http://webdiplomacy.net/map.php?gameID=147466&largemap=on&turn=6
Ruhr didn't succeed in gaining Belgium and Bulgaria didn't succeed in gaining Rumania - hence the standoff crosses.

kaner406:
"The following common situations involve forces of equal strength trying to occupy the same province at the same time. These situations are called standoffs." – pg. 8

There were certainly not "forces of equal strength" involved in any of those four examples. It was 2:1 in Gre, 2:1 in Ser, 2:1 in Bel and 3:1 in Rum.

The Rum example is particularly poignant. Suppose A-H hadn't moved Gal-Rum and instead ordered A Gal to hold without any support from Vienna. Now assume that Russia had ordered a supported attack from War and Ukr and dislodged the Austro-Hungarian army from Gal. Given this scenario, would A-H have been allowed to retreat to Rum with A Gal? You claim there was a standoff in Rum. According to pg. 18 of the rulebook, "A unit can’t retreat to a province that was left vacant by a standoff during the same turn." If you were right, A Gal would not have been able to retreat to Rum in this scenario. But clearly that can't be true. Given that scenario, A Gal could have retreated to Rum; in fact, it was actually ordered to move to Rum and that move succeeded.

JECE: I think kaner is right. I think the crosses are drawn when a move to an unoccupied territory is defeated by another move. As in Kestas' original response to you, the adjudication engine isn't really designed to show the moves on the map, so the "standoff" crosses are perhaps better thought of as "bounce" crosses. Only they don't show when a unit is defended.

It's an interesting edge case, but since the fix is complex, I think it'll be a very low priority.

However, we should look at removing the crosses during the preview. They're useful in retreats, though, as they show spaces that you cannot retreat to.

A_Tin_Can: None of those examples can be properly categorized as bounces either. It's a minor mistake, yes, like the support move I pointed out back in 2009, but that doesn't make it correct.

So while you say it's useful to have the X's in the Retreat and Disbanding Phase, which is true, it's also true that these X's show up where retreats are in fact possible. I don't have the time to find a successful retreat into one of these X's, so you'll just have to take me at my word.

In any case, I wasn't bringing up incorrect depictions of the Order Resolution Phase in the big map to get these fixed. I brought them up to discuss the Preview feature.

Alright, thanks JECE. If you haven't emailed all this to [email protected] please do so. In the future that is also the best spot to submit possible bugs. It's easy for threads to be missed. Thanks.

A_Tin_Can: I guess you have a point about bounces, though. We're really looking at a subset of stand-offs since technically A Vie-Tyl and A Tyl holds is a stand-off per the rules. We maybe don't want every stand-off to have an X.

jmo1121109: Okay. I honestly though the errors with the X's were common knowledge, though. It's a bit hard to go back and find every error I pointed out, though, with these not updating in half a year:
http://webdiplomacy.net/profile.php?detail=threads&userID=17421
http://webdiplomacy.net/profile.php?detail=replies&userID=17421

'honestly thought the', not "honestly though the"