Bralan3
Posts: 5
Joined: 12/17/2002
Status: offline
|
I'm trying to discuss the rule. You implied the player was foolish for failing to garrison, when clearly the player attempted to do so, I think that made it personal.
Please help me to understand. Rule on Nuetral Major Powers garrisoning Cities. Any Nuetral garrison or Corps in a city upon which a siege is declared must surrender as soon as the seige is declared.
Rule on movement into areas with a corps. Corps must stop movement into any area that has a corps not in a city.
Rule on seige retirement, Corps must move once an attack is declared.
Rule 7.3.4 - Corps may move (or vice versa) out of an unbeseiged city, at zero movement cost during their movement.
Given these:
First, a Neutral Corps COULD NOT retire into a city when a corps moves into the area because an attack could not be declared on it, so that Corps could not surrender once a seige is declared, so the rule is meaningless unless the corps already was in the city.
Second, the rule states, not in a city, it does not state, an unbesieged corps, retirement into a city comes after the movement into an area, so the rule is meaningless unless the corps may exist in the city, prior to movement. If they had meant unbesieged corps, they probably would have said so, as they did in many other areas.
Third, the rules do NOT state anywhere, that Corps may only be a garrison when besieged, this interpretation offers far more problems than simply tracking corps location, listed above and below.
While the FAQ may not be AH's it's certainly quoted many places. As well, and perhaps I'm wrong, I thought it was posted by Craig Taylor, the person whom AH and Harry Roland very recently, assigned to arbitrate such things. While I dont agree that corps should pull double-dute, clearly the FAQ says they may fire the guns, and clearly, that was in relation to Corps in area not in city.
The only reason I have reacted to the personal jabs, is that you brought up I was likely the player. Whether I was or not is meaningless. Beyond that, the VAST bulk of my post was in regards to the rules. As is what is stated below.
I am interested in seeing this correctly implemented, your characterizations regarding my play certainly go could undermine my comments. You did not reflect the situation accurately in my opinion, and I've clarified, that's not jabbing at you personally, its clarifying. This was presented as fact at that session when it's obvioulsy not fact. The player did not 'fail to garrison' the player used Corps as city garrison pursuiant to rule 7.3.3.3.2, as you know. My contention was and is, before then acting on your interpretation, the discussion needed to have been made with equal opportunity to correct the misunderstanding before negative effect. Again, that's hardly personal, its a discussion about how to fairly adjudicate disputes. You've agreed, enough said on it.
But, back to the rules, how do you reconsile voluntary movement into and out of unbeseiged cities during your movement phase? While you have interpreted 7.3.3.3.2 to mean that Corps may ONLY be garrisons in sieges, why is that valid beyond avoiding double-duty, it is just a contrivance. The rules say this nowhere, and it offers multiple other major problems.
Clearly this is not a set in stone ruling, clearly there are many conflicts with your position that are not easily or at least realistically argued away (for example, you could infer that they meant that a Nuetral Corps forced into Garrison by ANOTHER MP, would have to surrender to a third MP, if the third MP declared a siege) - but they did not say this, and the more easily understood and obvious ruling is that the Corps was sitting in Garrison guarding the city on the former's behalf.
They refer to city garrisons very clearly. Equally, in Land Movement into an ungarrisoned area, they say any depot which does not have a garrison may be captured, would you argue that it can be captured w/o contesting with the Corps itself? Clearly they use Garrison to mean a couple of different things.
If you did not want to engage in a personal discourse, I'm completely in agreement. Let's agree to leave the derisive commentary aside.
If you can convince me that voluntary movement into and out of cities - optional movment btw - does not mean this, if you can convince me that Nuetral Corps garrisoning cities does not mean this, if you can convince me that Corps are not repeatedly referred to as garrisons thoughout the rules, I'll buy your line of thinking. Howwever, at this point, you've introduced ONLY the fact that there is a problem with corps pulling double duty as the reason to infer 7.3.3.3.2 means this exists ONLY during a seige, you have not argued WHY 7.3.3.3.2 in fact is limited.
The clear solution to me is, you mark, or announce your corps position. We write control situations on the map, we distinguish the difference between garrison factors in cities and those in depot garrison by placing the city factors on the city. The ONLY problem with corps would be that you may not have a depot factor to rest them on, but that's hardly a compelling reason to obviate a fairly significant section of the game. The double duty inference I think is very clearly dealt with by 7.3.7.1 which says that corp NOT IN CITY stop movement. Asking before you move solves that question.
Adding your interpretation however, adds serious programming complexity unecessarily, and add little to nothing to the game outside of an opportunity to catch someone in a goof. NO ONE is arguing that corp in areas should be allowed to fire guns of cities, certainly not I. Yet the effect of what you advocate merely means that they have to assign ONE and only one militia or infantry point to the city. This point can be picked up during movement, and can be guarded by the corps from invasion. Clearly, if the corps moves away during movement, its no longer protecting the point which it could absorb before movement. The only relevant impacts are: A Corp with a single strength point could not on its move detach a garrison, of course, it could do so during reinforcement unless I misunderstand - and the more relevant, the single strength point could not be used in a field combat, however of course, the corps COULD simply retreat once an attack was declared, and so, that really is meaningless as well. So the real effect is strictly this, you have to have a point to fire guns during naval movement. Its certainly easy to do, but equally easily forgotten. It does then obviate several rules unecessarily and really adds nothing by doing so.
I do concur that we need to resolve it internally, but this is the forum for advising how to implement the computer game, and I think that obviating, or nearly so, a bunch of rules simply to restrict corps to areas only, so that the only effect is to allow someone to attack fleets that don't have a strength point in port, if the person forgets, is not a good implementation. The rules seem clearly to imply that Corps must be defined as either in city or not. The rules state very clearly that they may move into cities during movement, their own movement, not just by forced/voluntarily retirement. The rules state clearly that they may function as city garrison without restriction. I see no good reason to insert a contrivance. Its not an interpretation, its a contrivance to avoid something the rules already say is not allowed, or to avoid having to specify where a corps is at, which is not a difficult thing - and even if it were a difficult thing, is still what the rules call for.
Bral.
_____________________________
pbl
|
Printable Version
A few comments about the rules - 
Re: Re: A few comments about the rules - 
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