Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule!

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/24/2008 3:03:22 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

Murat, the rule you are quoting is minor country control which is not relevant anyway since it's talking about uninterrupted OCCUPATION, to conquer a MINOR. No one disputes that rule.

Not sure why you are trying to derail this thread Murat but this is actually two important issues at stake in this thread:

1) There should absolutely not be a forced surrender requirement when your capital is occupied
2) Besieging units which have been involved in a field battle but not lost should return to sieging when the battle is complete


I am not trying to derail anything, I didn't bring the whole seige stuff up at all, I just responded to what was in the first post of the thread.
1) I agree, we should have Civil Disorder back. It is a RULE from EiA, not an option.
2) That's what I have been trying to say but then people went off on this tangent about a seige being uninterrupted. zaq actually opened the tangent and quoted the seiging rules NOT the rules for surrender and indicated that an attacking force breaking a seige was 'wrong' and against EiA and EiH which is not entirely correct, a seige can be interrupted just by battle under those very rules that were quoted.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 31
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/24/2008 5:14:41 AM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline 		I don't beleive that is so in any case Murat, battles do not "interrupt" sieges unless the sieging force is dislodged.

I am glad we agree on the important part, which is that EiANW is doing it wrong on two counts.

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 32
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/24/2008 5:15:48 AM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

1. We kept Civil Disorder out of the game. It was only coded with Civil Disorder Restrictions in place thus forcing the player to sue for peace in the diplomacy step and not allowing the elimination of the MP. Maybe we could add this as an option later on?


Can you speak to the fact that having your capital occupied requires you to sue for peace?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 33
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/24/2008 6:42:26 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

2) That's what I have been trying to say but then people went off on this tangent about a seige being uninterrupted. zaq actually opened the tangent and quoted the seiging rules NOT the rules for surrender and indicated that an attacking force breaking a seige was 'wrong' and against EiA and EiH which is not entirely correct, a seige can be interrupted just by battle under those very rules that were quoted.


First I never said anything about interrupted, you brought that up. What I did say was cancelled; there is a distinct difference.

I did quote the siege rules as the example includes a siege. 

If the siege is interrupted has no significance for say tax collection. It is only relevant if the siege is cancelled, even if the attempt to relieve the city fails. EiA clearly states that the siege is not cancelled. The EiANW rules states that if the garrison attack the besieging force and loses, the siege is resumed which is consistent with EiA.

This was brought up as an underlying problem of the description, even if not specifically stated as a problem by the OP, it was explained as the cause by Marshall.

If the siege was interrupted only matters for determination of conquest. The subject of conquest has relevance if the besieged city is a minor capital but this is not the case in the OP's example. There is still a suggestion that the consequence of his example also applies to EiANW's implementation of conquest, which then would be inconsistent with EiA.

EiA states that a month’s uninterrupted occupation of a minor capitol is a prerequisite for conquest. Even if the relieving attempt is successful the occupier has still not fulfilled the requirements for conquest the month the siege is lifted. This is a third possible problem highlighted by the example.

All discussion in this thread assumes that control of a major capitol city is determined the same way that control is determined for a minor capital and that the same conditions that are used for determining conquest applies to check for forced surrender. This is regardless if the current implementation should be changed or not. There is to my knowledge no rule in the EiANW rules that explains the conditions for forced surrender. It would in my opinion be reasonable to assume that its not the developers intention that it should be easier to force a surrender from a major power than to conquer a minor.

The identified possible issues would then be:

1)     Occupation of a major powers capital should not in itself force that major power to surrender.
2)     After an unsuccessful attempt to relieve a besieged city, the siege should resume.
3)     There is a suggestion that the condition requiring a month’s uninterrupted and unbesieged occupation of a minor’s capitol as per EiANW 10.7 is not implemented as stated.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 34
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/24/2008 6:11:25 PM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		Agreed. 1&2 need to be fixed, 3 is working according to the rules. I addressed this:
quote:

ORIGINAL:  zaquex
That an attacking force can cancel the siege by just attacking is wrong, especially if it can be done by a single 1 factor militia corp. EiA rules says about limited field combat cause thats in my oppinion what it is whether or not any forces from the beseiged force is used:

whether or not beseiged forces are used is irrelevant and there are cases where a 1 factor corp can disrupt a seige just by attacking, namely conquest. Your english (or american) is far from flawless and answering your questions often involves some guess work as to what your problem is and I try to cover all the bases.

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 35
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/24/2008 7:04:23 PM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

whether or not beseiged forces are used is irrelevant and there are cases where a 1 factor corp can disrupt a seige just by attacking, namely conquest. Your english (or american) is far from flawless and answering your questions often involves some guess work as to what your problem is and I try to cover all the bases.

This is not true though; there is no case where 1 factor attacking will "interrupt" a siege for any purpose within the game.

The rule you quote from minor country conquest is talking about uninterrupted and unbeseiged OCCUPATION. It's a different case.

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 36
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/24/2008 7:15:04 PM   
Grimrod42

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline 		I though the rule for that is the seige remains unless the seiging force is forced to leave the area...

(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 37
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/25/2008 1:10:32 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog
This is not true though; there is no case where 1 factor attacking will "interrupt" a siege for any purpose within the game.

The rule you quote from minor country conquest is talking about uninterrupted and unbeseiged OCCUPATION. It's a different case.


OK occupation then. A corp occupying a capital province that is attacked, even by a 1 factor corps that it beats, wil have to go another month before it can conquest.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 38
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/25/2008 7:21:00 AM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline 		I disagree with that too, since the occupation was not interrupted simply by a battle in the same area (unless the corp was sieged for part of that month, i.e. the 1 factor moved in, besieged, and then the occupying corp sorties and killed or drove off the beseiging corp).


(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 39
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/25/2008 12:59:29 PM   
Trin

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline 		This game circumstances that were outlined in the start of this thread seem to raise three issues and it feels like that might be getting a little lost in the discussion. The issues as I see them are:-

Issue #1
Should a MP be forced to surrender when they lose control of their capital?

but leaving aside the question of whether 'forced' surrender is the intended outcome or whether its good etc, the circumstances in which this MP did lose control of its capital raises the next issue

Issue #2
If a besieging force is attacked, and wins, shouldn't it 'resume the siege'? which I thought would have meant it was automatically, by the program, put right back in the position it was in, before the battle - besieging the capital. If it is back beseiging the capital, why is the game treating it as though there is now uncontested control of the city?

Perhaps there is an error in my understanding of the rules or perhaps the program doesn't put the corp/forces back into siege mode at the critical test point - whether this is an error or intentional is something that will no doubt be made clear eventually....BUT

It does give rise to one more interesting question..

Issue #3
However in this circumstance, EVEN IF the besieging forces do NOT actually resume the siege.....there has been a besieging force present during the current month. Why is it being treated as though the 'enemy' now has uncontested control?

The EIANW Rules clearly state that in order to conquer a Minor Power, it must have been occupied during the previous month and the conqueror must have maintained uninterrupted and unbesieged occupation for the entire current month. I can't actually find an exact rule in EIANW detailing criteria for successfully taking control of a national capital city (or for that matter, when a MP is forced to surrender) but I'd be surprised if the test for having uncontested control of a national capital city was less than that required for conquering a minor. I admit that I'd assumed it must be the same. It does not make sense that it is easier to force an MP into a 'must' surrender position, than it is to conquer a minor.


This is not an attempt to derail the discussion. Its an attempt to follow the logic and summarise what I've been reading here in the various comments.


(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 40
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/25/2008 7:07:27 PM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline 		The occupation of the capital is only important at the start of the economic phase; if a minor/provincial capital is occupied unbeseiged in the economic phase, no money or manpower can be collected from that minor/province. If the national capital is occupied unbeseiged in the economic phase, the manpower from the capital province is lost, and furthermore the major power gets no money from any source (except lending).

At no other point is the occupation/beseiged status of provincial or national capitals at all improtant or relevant, and there is no requirement for "uninterrupted" occupation or anything of this sort.

The uninterrupted occupation is for conquest/change of control of minors. That is a seperate issue.

(in reply to Trin)
Post #: 41
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/25/2008 10:52:01 PM   
dauphan129

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 12/12/2007
Status: offline 		My FTF group always played that you had to surrender if your Capital was occupied during an economic phase.

Also, if all your home province capitals were occupied you were disolved and your country was split up with each province going to the nation that occupied it's individual capital. The game was over for you and you should keep tabs to see when the next game began.

None of you played this way?

If you never had to surrender, some folks never would, just to be a pain. There has to be a mechanic whereby a player can force another to surrender.

< Message edited by dauphan129 -- 1/25/2008 10:53:19 PM >

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 42
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/25/2008 10:56:54 PM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dauphan129

My FTF group always played that you had to surrender if your Capital was occupied during an economic phase.

That's fine but it's not the rules.
quote:


Also, if all your home province capitals were occupied you were disolved and your country was split up with each province going to the nation that occupied it's individual capital. The game was over for you and you should keep tabs to see when the next game began.

That IS the rules. Civil Disorder.
quote:


None of you played this way?

If you never had to surrender some folks never would just to be a pain. There has to be a mechanic whereby a player can force another to surrender.

Gnerally most groups do not play that way as the game is long and its nice for everyone to be able to play to the end. Also the base rules do not adequately reflect the possibility of Prussia or Spain becoming resurgent, as they did historically.

And so the optional limits on territorial loss and player elimintation are commonly used; which state that Civil Disorder does not eliminate you, instead requires you to surrender unconditionally to all powers currently at war (as you can see, someone who "won't" surrender can still be forced to, so the mechanic you want is there in the optional as well). Also maximum territorial loss for any Power is 3 home nation, non-capital provinces.

That's been standard in all groups I have played with and most people I have discussed the game with over the years.

*Edited for atrocious typing


< Message edited by Soapy Frog -- 1/25/2008 10:59:53 PM >

(in reply to dauphan129)
Post #: 43
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/25/2008 11:47:47 PM   
Alex Gilbert

 

Posts: 140
Joined: 9/20/2002
From: New York City
Status: offline 		I, for one, would like a bit more info about this forced surrender. I know for a fact that having your capital occupied by unbesieged enemy units does NOT force you to surrender by itself. Murat knows this too, as he has held my capital for the last 3 months and I have not surrendered (yet)

So there must be something else going on here-- are the other provincial capitals held? Is Prussia in the instability/fiasco zone?

I agree with all who have said that simply capturing an enemy capital should not force surrender, but I do not think that is what has happened here.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 44
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/25/2008 11:50:09 PM   
Trin

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

The occupation of the capital is only important at the start of the economic phase;


Well apparently it also matters in EIANW rules, in the diplomacy phase. Here, during the diplomacy phase, the player was told he MUST surrender

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

if a minor/provincial capital is occupied unbeseiged in the economic phase, no money or manpower can be collected from that minor/province. If the national capital is occupied unbeseiged in the economic phase, the manpower from the capital province is lost, and furthermore the major power gets no money from any source (except lending).

At no other point is the occupation/beseiged status of provincial or national capitals at all improtant or relevant, and there is no requirement for "uninterrupted" occupation or anything of this sort.

The uninterrupted occupation is for conquest/change of control of minors. That is a seperate issue.


The 'must' surrender rule in EIANW makes it relevant, even if only as a standard to compare against. Conquering a minor is the equivalent of making him surrender to you. The prerequisites that must be satisfied for the control flag on a minor power to change, are clearly spelled out. If the current scenario is correct, the prerequisites for forcing a surrender of an MP are in fact, far less.


(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 45
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/26/2008 12:12:09 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert

I, for one, would like a bit more info about this forced surrender. I know for a fact that having your capital occupied by unbesieged enemy units does NOT force you to surrender by itself. Murat knows this too, as he has held my capital for the last 3 months and I have not surrendered (yet)

So there must be something else going on here-- are the other provincial capitals held? Is Prussia in the instability/fiasco zone?

I agree with all who have said that simply capturing an enemy capital should not force surrender, but I do not think that is what has happened here.


Actually I did not know. For all I know you have been forced to a conditional but since I have not offered it you have not been bound. Your screen never showed anything?

(in reply to Alex Gilbert)
Post #: 46
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/26/2008 2:25:18 AM   
Alex Gilbert

 

Posts: 140
Joined: 9/20/2002
From: New York City
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert

I, for one, would like a bit more info about this forced surrender. I know for a fact that having your capital occupied by unbesieged enemy units does NOT force you to surrender by itself. Murat knows this too, as he has held my capital for the last 3 months and I have not surrendered (yet)

So there must be something else going on here-- are the other provincial capitals held? Is Prussia in the instability/fiasco zone?

I agree with all who have said that simply capturing an enemy capital should not force surrender, but I do not think that is what has happened here.


Actually I did not know. For all I know you have been forced to a conditional but since I have not offered it you have not been bound. Your screen never showed anything?


No, I was never forced into anything.

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 47
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/26/2008 2:58:55 AM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline 		Trin: I agree, I was just pointing out how it SHOULD be! ;)

(in reply to Trin)
Post #: 48
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.922