Rules interpretations

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Rules interpretations

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 >> Rules interpretations

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Rules interpretations - 6/3/2003 1:53:51 AM

gdpsnake

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline

I'm reading and referring to the Avalon Hill (1986) version of the rules plus General magazine errata changes..

As for corps in an area manning guns, the rules specifically say 'garrison' so I say no. Corps are specifically IN a city or OUTSIDE in an area. You should 'drop' off a factor in the city when you move your corp if you want your port guns used. Traditionally, during the period, such garrisons were the trained and dedicated troops to operate the weapons. In fact, for 1813, several companies of 'marine' gunners traditionally used in port garrisons fleshed out Napoleon's artillery forces in time for the Leipzeig campaign.
SO if a corps is in the 'area' then it's not in the city/port to man the guns (could be more than a days march away - the areas are big!) IF the corps is already in the city/port, then the guns could be manned since one could consider some men detached from the corps to do so.

I say leaderless armies (more than one corps) are not armies for the purpose of flanking since a corps leader by definition (supposedly) is only capable of commanding a corps sized organization and cannot 'communicate' with any authority to other corps to manage the flanking move. That's why you have leaders to represent the ability to perform such a move and to command organizations larger than a corps (not an easy task for most commanders of the age). Remember, these types of flanking moves are very complicated for the period (complex in terms of communication and execution).
Corps often performed flanking moves on a samller scale but not at the scale this game represents - hence the value of a 'leader' able to 'command' despite his 'ability.' Ney can't command as well as some corps commanders of the day but he was a Marshall and hence had the authority to give such orders.
Napoleon, for example, ignored the advice of his commanders at Borodino to outflank the Russians because he was afraid the time involved to perform the flank would allow the Russians to leave the field as they had been doing during the whole 1812 campaign to that point and he wanted to finally 'fix in place' and defeat them. This is the type of 'authority' to perform/deny such a move that I'm discussing here.
Consider Longstreet's flanking action during Gettysburg or Grouchy's lack of response during Waterloo. Here was a French Marshall who, by historical accounts, was ordered by Napoleon to a specific task and he absolutely refused to entertain any other interpretation of the orders because the Emperor (authority) had been very clear in describing Grouchy's task.
Longstreet was either unwilling or unable to cordinate his move to good effect. Would he have even done so without Lee's orders (authority) to even carry it out? I think not. I think Longstreet would have gone on the defensive and not attempted further assaults at Gettysburg.

The rules are quite clear that 'armies' being transported are debarked during the land movement phase NOT during the naval phase.

I think 'chaining' factors is counter to the intent of the rules. I mean, how far can men sitting in Paris march in a month? All the way across the board?! I think not. The rules do allow reinforcement directly into a corps as long as it's in a valid supply chain not more than 6 depots (12 areas) away from a home country supply but these have been in the 'reinforcement' cycle for several months (perhaps some local area recruitment as well as training and drilling and represent the 'continual' replenishment of forces).

How will the game represent these and other rules issues? I'll be looking! I also hope we can do more with the naval rules similar to tactical land combat.

Just my two cents.
Snake

Post #: 1

oops - 6/3/2003 1:57:57 AM

gdpsnake

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline

Sorry, meant this to go into beta testers thread - hit the wrong button in all the excitement of ordering the troops to form up!

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 2

- 6/3/2003 7:04:00 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

Oh just as a note some of this is WRONG. (I hope you beta-land guys covered this, but if not I will clarify here).

A Corps is NOT specifically in a city or outside it. It is in fact present in both in and out of the city at all times unless it chooses to retreat inside the city exclusively due to enemy forces moving into the area, or unless there is an enemy garrison present in the city.

You are however correct on the counts of requiring leaders to outflank (though still debateable) and disembarking corps.

On the subject of chaining factors (if I divine what you are talking about correctly), gamey but legal, and in any case tough to arrange.

**

WRT to the specific question Corps being able to fire the guns in port defense, I quote the following rule:

"[B]7.3.3.3.2:[/B] Corps may form all or part of a city garrison without detaching army factors, so that any types of army factors in such corps could also be in garrison."

**

WRT to outflanking, the rules state that only multiple corps commanded by a leader may outflank:

"[B]7.5.2.1 STEP ONE - SELECTION OF CHITS:[/B] An outflank chit may be chosen only if a force consists of at least two non-artillery corps and has a leader."

Although [B]12.3.7.1[/B] does muddy the waters somewhat the original rule's intent appears clear. However it is possible to validly argue the opposite sense.

**

Debarkation is covered in [B]7.3.5[/B] which I will not trouble to quote here. It is quite explicit about Corps debarking from either ships at sea or in port in the land phase, and that debarkation consueing their full movement allowance. Note that a major power that moves first could prevent the debarkation of a corps transported by a fleet sitting in port by occupying said port, resulting in the transported corps' destruction.

**

Last thing... I would kill to Beta test this game. Just tell me who it has to be... :D

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 3

- 6/3/2003 7:41:37 AM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

Glad to know there's at least someone who is certain about these rules! ;-)

Seriously, though, hopefully the game does a good job of eliminating the inconsistencies and areas lacking clarity.

Take the port gun/corps issue. The game mechanic can allow for easy designation (corps "in" city or "out" of city).

Regardless of your certainty, the rule is vague and as pointed out in this post, there is enough reason to question how it should be treated.

Reknoy

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 4

- 6/3/2003 8:34:55 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

"Corps may form all or part of a city garrison without detaching army factors" is pretty clear. I would say that it is actually indisputable.

The reason why it often gets missed in rules interpretations is because it is not referenced by the section covering use of guns in a port raid, and is in another section.

Sometimes (a lot actually) these things get missed and you grow used to playing a certain way... for example the first few groups I played with played that you must announce your retirement into the city during the enemy land movement step, and if you did retire the enemy force could continue it's move. We played like that for years until we read the rules a little more carefully and discovered that we were wrong. It completely changed EVERYTHING, and some people took some convincing to change over to the correct method. however the logic of the printed word in both these cases is very powerfull.

I could quote endless other rules we played wrong for a long long time, and I have no doubt there still are some...

There are indeed many ambiguities in the rules it is true (what constitutes a leader for outflanking, for example), it's just that that's not one of them ;)

As such having some mechanic in the game requiring you to state the location of your corps when it is not required would contrary to the rules as written. I hope that things like that are avoided assiduously by the designers.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 5

- 6/3/2003 9:27:32 AM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

I was going to leave this alone, but I just can't!! :)

So the leader/outflank issue is less clear than the issue of a corps simultaneously manning port guns AND blocking land movement? I would disagree but that's another page or two.

As to the "retire into the city" issue, you mean to say that you once thought people had to declare the presence of their corps before the enemy moved? I agree that is wrong -- it's at the point where the enemy corps enters a land area with a corps in it.

But that's where the rules are not so clear.

When is a corps in a land area? When is it in a city? Is it implied or is it express?

I, like you, have seen plenty of players and plenty of groups hash through all of this. Plenty who were 100% certain of their interpretation.

So the sum total of all of this is that we, the prospective customers, can hopefully chill out and live with some mechanics that may not smell 100% like the true blue EiA we grew to love. Because no matter where you go, you'll find someone with a differing opinion about a rule in EiA.

Reknoy

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 6

- 6/3/2003 10:03:45 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]I was going to leave this alone, but I just can't!! :)[/QUOTE][/B]
Well good! Better to discuss, and hopefully illuminate (for one or both of us).
[QUOTE][B]So the leader/outflank issue is more clear than the issue of a corps simultaneously manning port guns AND blocking land movement? I would disagree but that's another page or two.[/QUOTE][/B]
No the leader/outflank issue is distinctly less clear as I noted. In one place it says you must have a leader. In another it mentions you may use the base corps ratings as a leader, but there is a distinction that can be made between having two corps and a leader (in reference to a leader counter), and an ad hoc corps commander "leader" who does not possess a leader's full abilities. One could say the statement about requireing a leader for outflank would otherwise be superfluous if this distinction was not intended.
[QUOTE][B]As to the "retire into the city" issue, you mean to say that you once thought people had to declare the presence of their corps before the enemy moved? I agree that is wrong -- it's at the point where the enemy corps enters a land area with a corps in it.[/QUOTE][/B]
Declaration of retirement into the city takes place in the combat step, which occurs after ALL of the phasing player's movement is complete. This means that a corps entering a space containing an enemy corps must stop unless that corps is already beseiged by other forces. For example, I as France could on my movement phase surround, say, an Austrian stack with corps containing one factor each, and on the Austrain movement phase the Austrian player could only possibly move that stack one space... every space around him contains an unbeseiged enemy corps, if he moves into any one of those spaces, his stack must cease movement (as per [B]7.3.7.1[/B]). Then in the Austrian combat step (which is post-movement) I can then declare if my corps will fight in the field or retreat inside the city (as per [B]7.5.1.1[/B]).

This technique is called "screening" by our groups, and you would be astounded how much it transforms the game if you have not been playing this way previously.
[QUOTE][B]When is a corps in a land area? When is it in a city? Is it implied or is it express?[/QUOTE][/B]
It is implied until it needs to be expressed, and it only ever needs to be expressed in terms of "I retire into the city". If there is an enemy garrison, you cannot garrison the city with your corps. If you are beseiged, you must be inside the city with your corps. Otherwise you are assumed to be both garrsioning the city and occupying the area in general (for the purpose of obstructing mvoement for example).
[QUOTE][B]I, like you, have seen plenty of players and plenty of groups hash through all of this. Plenty who were 100% certain of their interpretation.[/QUOTE][/B]
Indeed ;)
[QUOTE][B]So the sum total of all of this is that we, the prospective customers, can hopefully chill out and live with some mechanics that may not smell 100% like the true blue EiA they grew to love. Because no matter where you go, you'll find someone with a differing opinion about a rule in EiA.[/QUOTE][/B]
Absolutely true, however some of the more obscure rules interactions always can bear with some public analysis such as you and I are doing to help the developers of the game to find the relevant rules sections so they can make the best detrmination... ;)

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 7

- 6/3/2003 10:19:47 AM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

I am familiar with screening and employ it myself. Screening is a totally separate issue than this.

As to the point on leaders -- first, "corps leaders" come from a miscellaneous option. Second, the option makes reference to "treat these best corps ratins the same as if the force were commanded by a leader..." --- in other words, "as if", meaning there is no leader. It's just an artifice rather than a means of actually creating new leaders than can outflank. I'm sure I'll get to see all the references that would appear to draw this into question but it seems pretty clear cut.

7.3.7.1 --- "If during movement a corps moves into an area containing enemy corps not in a city, the corps must cease movement and declare an attack (after which, as you noted, the defending corps may retire or choose to stand and fight). If enemy corps ... are in a city the phasing corps may continue movement or stop movment and besiege (see 7.5.4)."

How is it, then, that a corps can be in a city during land movement (and not at the end when it should be making a choice as to whether or not it will retire) and yet not under siege -- at least, according to the way you seem to describe it. 7.3.7.1 would seem to allow a corps to stop and lay siege -- meaning that the defender was already in the city and not previously under siege.

You make the reference to stopping movement "unless the corps is already besiged". Again, looking at 7.3.7.1, that is not clear (far from it - as it would allow for a third option, that being where the corps is NOT previously besieged but still in the city). Where does it say that a corps must be besieged to be considered solely in the city?

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 8

- 6/3/2003 11:56:30 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy [B]As to the point on leaders -- first, "corps leaders" come from a miscellaneous option. Second, the option makes reference to "treat these best corps ratins the same as if the force were commanded by a leader..." --- in other words, "as if", meaning there is no leader.[/QUOTE][/B]
"as if commanded by a leader" implies that all the things a leader can do, an intrinsic corps commander can also do... so that would tend to support the theory that intrinsic corps commanders CAN outflank. Not something I would agree with but it is certainly a valid interpretation.
[QUOTE][B]How is it, then, that a corps can be in a city during land movement (and not at the end when it should be making a choice as to whether or not it will retire) and yet not under siege[/QUOTE][/B]
A corps not under siege does not specify whether it is wholly in the city or not. It is assumed that it is occupying the area and forming all, part, or none of the city garrison should a city be present, at the owning player's discretion.
[QUOTE][B]7.3.7.1 would seem to allow a corps to stop and lay siege -- meaning that the defender was already in the city and not previously under siege.
[/QUOTE][/B]
[B]7.3.7.1[/B] Does not allow the corps to stop and siege, it requires the corps to stop if it moves into an area containing an unbeseiged enemy corps. That's all it says... if a beseiged enemy corps is present, then there is no requirement to stop.
[QUOTE][B]You make the reference to stopping movement "unless the corps is already besiged". Again, looking at 7.3.7.1, that is not clear (far from it - as it would allow for a third option, that being where the corps is NOT previously besieged but still in the city). Where does it say that a corps must be besieged to be considered solely in the city? [/B][/QUOTE]
Where does it say that a corps may be solely in the city UNLESS beseiged? Since the decision to retreat inside the city is executed solely in the combat step ([B]7.5.1.1[/B] - nowhere else are you offered this decision), the conclusion is that you may only abandon the area and retreat inside the city if enemy corps are in the province at the combat step. If later on you become unbeseiged (no enemy corps in your area beseiging you) you cannot calim to STILL be solely inside the city because you still are considered an "unbeseiged corps" for the purposes of [B]7.3.7.1[/B] and therefore enemy corps moving into your area must cease their movement and declare an attack in the combat step, at which point you are again given the choice in [B]7.5.1.1[/B] to retreat inside the city. Again this choice is post movement, so the enemy corps that forced you to make this decision could NOT continue it's movement.

Note this allows screening corps to stop entire armies dead in their tracks, and then avoid a field battle by retreating into the city (should there be one) in the area when the attack is declared.

Edit: By the way I *DO* agree that the lack of consistent terminology in the rules remains an annoying problem, and I think that this at least partly what this is about. The inconsistency is leading you to infer a decision point that is nowhere stated in the rules, and that is that you could conceivably withdraw a corps entirely into a city during an enemy's movement. I understand how this inference can be made (I made it myself and countless others before me no doubt).

But generally in strict rules interpretation you are not supposed to assume or infer anything that is not explicitly stated... you must simply follow the decision tree laid out by the rules. If the rule is "broken" i.e. there are outcomes that are not addressed, then you must infer (or insert) what is needed to correct the problem. In this case, the rule is not broken, no matter how badly worded it may be ;)

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 9

- 6/3/2003 6:40:48 PM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

As to the leader point, do you continue to cling to it because you originally noted that it's more ambiguous than the port gun point so you must defend the shred of interpretation? Beyond what has been written above, there is the point at the beginning of the paragraph that states that each corps must still withdraw separately -- meaning that there is no "leader" for withdrawal purposes. Honestly, this one's closed no matter how you twist it, Mr. Rules Lawyer :)

On the second point, this whole discussion ratifies the confusion that the rule lives in. You can state that you're right -- but I'm afraid that doesn't make it so. You state rules of interpretation like you just came out of legislative law class.

The funny part about the "rules of interpretation" is that so many of them can be readily turned on their head. It seemed (this takes me back 12 years so I forget) that there was always a counter rule to every rule.

I think I'll stop the merry-go-round and get off here. You've done a good job of proving that this is unclear.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 10

- 6/3/2003 7:10:24 PM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]As to the leader point, do you continue to cling to it because you originally noted that it's more ambiguous than the port gun point so you must defend the shred of interpretation? I mean, c'mon. "As if" there were a leader --- the corps "best rating" -- for THAT purpose??? And then there is the point at the beginning of the paragraph that states that each corps must still withdraw separately -- meaning that there is no "leader" for withdrawal purposes. Honestly, this one's closed no matter how you twist it, Mr. Rules Lawyer :)[/QUOTE][/B]
Actually having re-read the specific section I have concluded that reading the rules strictly will result in intrinsic corps commanders being allowed to outflank. There is no reason to beleive they can't... "as if" is pretty all inclusive, and the specific exceptions (withdrawal and reinforcement) are listed. It occurs to me now that I think hard about it that our groups have always houseruled this and it has been a very long time since we have had any discussion on it.

On the subject of the port guns, it's REALLY hard to argue any ambiguity regarding that rule. A corps clearly can form a garrison of a city with out detaching factors, the rules do not require a decalration for this to be so... therefore having a corps in the area is sufficient to fire the guns (assuming one controls the city).

Making the counter argument is difficult. I don't understand where you feel the ambiguity lies, but it does seem strange to me that you are willing to let corps be "in the city" in toto at other points in the turn at the owning player's discretion without any specific rule reference backing you up, but you are not willing to let them be "in the city" in order to fire the guns...
[QUOTE][B]On the second point, this whole discussion ratifies the confusion that the rule lives in. You can state that you're right -- but I'm afraid that doesn't make it so. You state rules of interpretation like you just came out of legislative law class.[/QUOTE][/B]
I am simply trying to interpret the rules in a logical fashion... it seems like the best approach.

At best I will grant you that if you assume that corps do have full control as to whether they are "in the city" or "not in the city" a player could volunteer that a corps is "in the city" during an enemy movement phase for the purposes of [B]7.3.7.1[/B], but I would argue that since if simply says he is "not in the city" then all enemy corps trying to move through the area will be forced to stop and he'll STILL be allowed to retreat inside the city when the combat step rolls around ([B]7.5.1.1[/B]).

So in the end what is the point of making the determination in the movement step?

Further in my defence the developers and every player I have ever played with agrees with me (the developers have mentioned that the non-phasing player is not required to make any decisions or interactions during the phasing player's movement).

Anyway I think it's an interesting discussion, and I understand where you are coming form. As to my style of argument I am attempting to be deliberately clinical in this matter becuase I think it is important to support one's rules interpretations with the the rules as written. I am not trying to cause consternation or exasperation, just trying to state my case in the strongest logical terms.

If you could show me that the rule does not work "my" way (the "correct" way :D :D :D ) then I would be more inclined to accept the additions and workarounds neccessary to play the rule "your" way... I am here to convinced, my eyes and ears are open...

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 11

- 6/3/2003 7:19:21 PM

Wynter

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/10/2003
From: Belgium
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
Mr. Rules Lawyer :)[/QUOTE]

... says one lawyer to the other ... :p

Anyway, we'll see how the Marshall has interpreted the ambiguous rules and we'll just have to live with it.
If you play in a game with a GM, you also have to live with the way the GM interprets the rules.
The issue of chaining factors does not need to be addressed because it is impossible to accomplish when using sim-move.
I'll join John in his statement that you need a 'real' leader to use outflanking, because of the separate withdrawal of corps without leader.
The 'can a corps man the guns' question is more difficult and can be interpreted in many ways, I'd say no, others would say yes. We'll see what the Marshall says.

Jeroen.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 12

- 6/3/2003 7:20:55 PM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

As to the leader point, I was just about to point out how your legislative rules interpretation would yield that result.

"To express the one is to exclude the rest". So, ergo, outflanking is ok because they only state that more than one corps may not be withdrawn.

But that totally misses the point, imo, and yields a ridiculous result.

It will get exasperating if you sincerely are clinging to the notion that a "corps leader" optional rule somehow springboards the intrinsic corps commanders to "leader" status for all purposes except the one example they added (heck, didn't they even write, "For example"). I think I'll leave you to your own opinion.

I never said that corps cannot be in the city for port gun purposes -- my point has been, all along, that they cannot be in a city, manning the guns, and concurrently outside the city blocking movement.

As to the developers agreeing with you -- you mean to say that you already know that corps will be able to pull double duty?

You asked why would a corps want to be "in" the city when it can always withdraw at the end of movement and just before combat.

Hmm...maybe for port gun purposes?!?!! :)

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 13

- 6/3/2003 7:25:25 PM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wynter
[B]... says one lawyer to the other ... :p

Anyway, we'll see how the Marshall has interpreted the ambiguous rules and we'll just have to live with it.
If you play in a game with a GM, you also have to live with the way the GM interprets the rules.
The issue of chaining factors does not need to be addressed because it is impossible to accomplish when using sim-move.
I'll join John in his statement that you need a 'real' leader to use outflanking, because of the separate withdrawal of corps without leader.
The 'can a corps man the guns' question is more difficult and can be interpreted in many ways, I'd say no, others would say yes. We'll see what the Marshall says.

Jeroen. [/B][/QUOTE]

You had to out me, didn't you Mr. Smarty. :p

Seriously, though, I agree 100%. I think that if the game mechanics figure out a way to let corps pull double duty -- well, heck, that would be splendid. Sure wouldn't spoil my fun. Likewise the other way around. Certainly not the rule that would take away the fun.

As to the corps leaders, I think I've seen one or two situations where a stack of corps was without a leader (except when an enemy force gets split by a MP at war with only one and there was only one leader on the stack) -- so I'm not sure it will get much play regardless. :)

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 14

- 6/3/2003 7:47:07 PM

Wynter

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/10/2003
From: Belgium
Status: offline

Since everyone is quoting rules to prove their point, I'll join the fun...
I will now 'prove' that a corps can only move into the city when an enemy corps moves into the area and that corps chooses to withdraw.
Rule 7.3.3 covers the 'moving into city' situation. Nowhere is there any mention that a corps can move _into_ a city. The rule says you can drop of a garrison, you can move out of a city and once you are in a city, the corps counts as a garrison. But how does the corps get into the city?
Well, rule 7.5.1.1 says that a corps can retire into the city when an attack is declared.

There it is, a corps can only move into a city when it is attacked, otherwise the corps is in the area.
Funny thing is, though, that rule 7.3.4 states that a corps _may_ move out of a city during movement. One would expect that, if a corps can't voluntary move into a city, it _must_ move out of it when the possibility arises... So my theorem could be completely wrong. ;)

Jeroen.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 15

My intrepretation on Corps in or out - 6/3/2003 9:57:01 PM

gdpsnake

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline

Soapyfrog,
I believe you are wrong and I hope to convince you. Please read and research this reasoning (NOTE: these are the updated AH rules and errata clarifications I refer too!):
The rule you quote 7.3.3.3.2 is UNDER the heading describing garrison factors. IF the corps counter IS IN the city IT need not detach factors to represent a garrison. This rule is mentioned to avoid the situations of players having to maintain garrison factors independent from a corp counter in the city to fulfill the definition of rule 7.3.3.3.
Read 7.3.3.3. It states WHAT a garrison is. Rule 7.3.3.3.2 (subheading) gives an alternative to the 7.3.3.3 description of "what is a garrison." Esentially, the factors in a corps in a city may be the garrison without leaving the corps counter to fulfill the intent of rule 7.3.3.3. (i.e. one NEED not remove factors from a corps just to represent a city is garrisoned). This rule, 7.3.3.3.2 is important because who wants to convert their guard factors into regular infantry 7.3.3.2 just to fulfill the requirement of 7.3.3.3 in case your that's all you got in the counter?
SO the argument seems to go back to "Corps IN the area or IN the city" because if you accept that a corps can only be IN an area OR IN a city and NOT both then my interpretation is correct. So am I correct?
I refer you to: 7.3.2 Movement into AREAS. 7.3.3 Movement into CITIES! Obviously movement into cities is separate from movement into areas even though it costs no movement points! AND that is when you detach/absorb factors into corps from cities or depots. Rule 7.3.3.1 says "....containing corps outside a city." AGAIN, there is a distinction between a corps being OUTSIDE a city. Rule 7.3.4 "...corps INSIDE a city may be moved directly out of that city......" AGAIN, corps are DISTINCTLY IN or OUT of a city. WHY state movement from a city into the surrounding area costs no movement points UNLESS the intent is to delineate between whether a corps is IN or OUT of a city.
The differences are also clear in rule 7.3.6 "...movement in areas..." Rule 7.3.7 Move into an area with an enemy corps in the area and you must stop and declare combat. IF the enemy corps is IN THE CITY the player may CONTINUE MOVEMENT or beseige! SO CLEARLY CORPS ARE EITHER IN OR OUT OF A CITY!!!! Also see rule section 7.5 LAND COMBAT. AGAIN clear delineation is made between the AREA combats and also "..If the defender RETIRES into a city.....the atttacker may be placed ON TOP of the defenders {IN THE CITY} and a seige occurs.
I think I've beaten this dead horse.

We agree on outflanks but I don't think 12.3.7.1 muddys the waters too much. It says that "For purposes of combat....must still attempt to withdraw or reinforce individually" implies to me that a player may select a corps leader as an army leader but THIS ACT DOES NOT CREATE A LEADER COUNTER which IS needed to outflank as you correctly pointed out.

We also agree completely on debarkation.

I believe you are incorrect about retirement into a city as well. If corps are IN OR OUT of a city, a fact which I believe is clear then ONE MUST STOP in an area with a corps outside a city or may continue if the enemy corps is in the city WHETHER IT IS BESEIGED OR NOT! READ 7.3.7.1!!! "IF DURING MOVEMENT A CORPS MOVES INTO AN AREA CONTAINING ENEMY CORPS NOT IN A CITY, THE CORPS MUST CEASE MOVEMENT AND DECLARE AN ATTACK.
THEN: In the combat phase the enemy forces or any portion of the forces may retire into the city. NOTE AGAIN RULE 7.5.1.1.4 says a city must be able to hold the factors of ENTIRE CORPS that wish to enter said city otherwise you have to detach factors into the city and leave the corps counter. ONE MAY NOT detach factors to remain in an area and move the 'reduced' corps counter into the city. FACTORS CAN ONLY BE IN CITIES unless it's a cossack, friedcorps, guerilla special. That's what makes these units so 'special.'
Yes, one can "screen" with one's corps and retreat into a city but then you will get besieged/assaulted and, yes, this can slow an enemy down but since only CORPS can screen (AND must be equal/smaller than the city capacity!), you are going to lose a lot of factors and corps not to mention loss of flexibility with trapped corps in cities and the one turn slowdown doesn't compensate in the next turn as I've found out when you don't have corps to prevent the "blitzkrieg" into your belly! Interestingly, in this discussion YOU even distinguish between whether your corps are IN OR OUT of a city?! You can't have it both ways my friend!

REKNOY is correct about this as well.

Soapyfrog, where does 7.3.7.1 say ANYTHING about whether a corps is besieged or not!?!?!

AGAIN, corps CAN NOT MAN GUNS UNLESS IN THE CITY ACTING AS A GARRISON. That point is clear, GARRISONS man the guns, not corps IN AN AREA! 6.3.3.3 says port guns MUST HAVE A GARRISON TO FIRE THE GUNS NOT FACTORS! NOT CORPS! BUT A GARRISON AS DEFINED IN RULE 7.3.3.3. AGAIN, rule 7.3.3.3.2 allows a corps IN A CITY to man guns WITHOUT detaching 'factors' to serve as the 'garrison' as defined in 7.3.3.3!

WHEW, In any case I firmly believe and I think the rules CLEARLY delineate between corps in and out of a city. I shall certainly playtest with that in mind. I hope I have provided some "food for thought" to Soapyfrog that may make you reconsider some of your, I believe, faulty intrepretations.

Either way, Any Hussar who isn't dead by thirty is goldbricking! General Lasalle

:eek:

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 16

- 6/3/2003 10:23:01 PM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wynter
[B]There it is, a corps can only move into a city when it is attacked, otherwise the corps is in the area. [/B][/QUOTE]
Correct as the rules say, however remember rule [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] which states that corps may form all or part of a city garrison without detaching factors. Thus the "double duty" that Reknoy refers to would seem to be implicit, though I would not begrudge anyone their opinions on the matter. I concede it could be otherwise interpreted... although those other interpretations seem to require a lot more "work".
[QUOTE][B]Funny thing is, though, that rule 7.3.4 states that a corps _may_ move out of a city during movement. One would expect that, if a corps can't voluntary move into a city, it _must_ move out of it when the possibility arises... So my theorem could be completely wrong. ;)[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes a corps may become unbeseiged during the enemy movement phase, and thus have the opportunity to leave the city during the friendly movement phase. Again note that this need to state whether the corps is in or out of the city cretaes additional "work" which in the end is simply not neccessary if you adhere to a simpler more literal reading of the rules.

Keep in mind there are no markers or notification methods as to whether a corps is in or out of a city at any given time, and in fact the only time it is ever really relevant is during the enemy naval or land movement phase... so what is the point of tracking the corps' status re: in or out of the city beyond when it is called for by the rules? Headaches? Eye-Strain? Bad blood between players?

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 17

Re: My intrepretation on Corps in or out - 6/3/2003 11:12:23 PM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gdpsnake
[B]I believe you are wrong and I hope to convince you. Please read and research this reasoning (NOTE: these are the updated AH rules and errata clarifications I refer too!):[/QUOTE][/B]
You have definitely convinced me that your line of reasoning is perfectly valid, but I will continue to dispute that it is "better", since there is no means of clearly indicating whether a corps is in the city or not unless a seige is under way, beyond memory (oog) or written notes (MORE bookkeeping!), and there is in anycase no rule that permits a corps to move INTO a city beyond [B]7.3.7.1[/B].
[QUOTE][B]The rule you quote 7.3.3.3.2 is UNDER the heading describing garrison factors. IF the corps counter IS IN the city IT need not detach factors to represent a garrison. This rule is mentioned to avoid the situations of players having to maintain garrison factors independent from a corp counter in the city to fulfill the definition of rule 7.3.3.3.[/QUOTE][/B]
I can see it. however you run into problems reading the rule in this direction, for example it would be possible to have a corps which too big to be a garrison and unwilling to drop factors to "officially garrison", for example the full French Guard corps guarding Cherbourg. Would you seriously say that the guns cannot be fired because the Guard does not fit in it's entirety into the city? I can just the Cherbourg city mayor trying to explain that one to the Imperial Tribunal.

A "better" (IMHO) reading of the rule would be to take it to say that any factor currently in a corps could also be garrisoning the city, without any need to specify. Solves many of the headaches that your interpretation causes.
[QUOTE][B]7.3.3 Movement into CITIES! Obviously movement into cities is separate from movement into areas even though it costs no movement points![/QUOTE][/B]
I protest [B]7.3.3[/B] covers ONLY the absorbing and detaching of factors and makes no reference to corps actually physically moving into the city. In fact the only rule that allows a corps to physically move into a city is [B]7.5.1.1[/B].
[QUOTE][B]Rule 7.3.3.1 says "....containing corps outside a city." AGAIN, there is a distinction between a corps being OUTSIDE a city.![/QUOTE][/B]
With all due respect it is talking about enemy corps, which of course must be outside the city if a garrison is there. Uneccessary verbiage.
[QUOTE][B]Rule 7.3.4 "...corps INSIDE a city may be moved directly out of that city......" AGAIN, corps are DISTINCTLY IN or OUT of a city.[/QUOTE][/B]
Since corps can become unbeseiged during enemy land movement (and you dont want those corps magically popping out of the city during the enemy land movement, this rule provides a mechanism by which freindly corps can re-occupy the area during their own movement, much like the movement of fleets form blockade boxes to ports that become friendly during a precedeing turn. Note that in the case of fleets you cannot voluntarily move to a friendly blockade box unless an enemy fleet occupies it. Similar sort of case.

I suppose the rule DOES allow you to NOT take advantage of moving out of the city, however it would be a headache to track the specific state in this case and of no advantage to the controlling player anyway, so we generally say that it is "assumed" for ease of play, although obviously you could require the statement.
[QUOTE][B]WHY state movement from a city into the surrounding area costs no movement points UNLESS the intent is to delineate between whether a corps is IN or OUT of a city.[/QUOTE][/B]
The delineation is neccessary for sieges and the lifting thereof. A corps which is "outside" the city can still form a garrison of the city by "my" reading of [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B]
[QUOTE][B]The differences are also clear in rule 7.3.6 "...movement in areas..." Rule 7.3.7 Move into an area with an enemy corps in the area and you must stop and declare combat. IF the enemy corps is IN THE CITY the player may CONTINUE MOVEMENT or beseige! SO CLEARLY CORPS ARE EITHER IN OR OUT OF A CITY!!!! Also see rule section 7.5 LAND COMBAT. AGAIN clear delineation is made between the AREA combats and also "..If the defender RETIRES into a city.....the atttacker may be placed ON TOP of the defenders {IN THE CITY} and a seige occurs.[/QUOTE][/B]
The "in the city" and "out of the city" is neccessary to cover situations wherein a corps moves off of a beseiged corps before a new beseigeing corps arrives, either in the same player's mvoement phase or in a later player's movement phase assuming that the beseiged corps has not had a chance to move "out" of the city in the interveneing steps (i.e. the beseiged player had his own movement phase). Otherwise corps must be "out" of a city unless they have been "kept in" unneccessarily by the controlling player.
[QUOTE][B]We agree on outflanks but I don't think 12.3.7.1 muddys the waters too much. It says that "For purposes of combat....must still attempt to withdraw or reinforce individually" implies to me that a player may select a corps leader as an army leader but THIS ACT DOES NOT CREATE A LEADER COUNTER which IS needed to outflank as you correctly pointed out.[/QUOTE][/B]
Well again [B]7.5.2.1[/B] specifies a "leader" not a "leader counter" but I believe that the intent is there so I agree. However I think it could be argued very strongly the other way (and to be honest it would not much bother me to play the other way, it does not break anything ot cause obscene problems... if anything is adds a little spice, especially to attacking those multi-corps minor countries! ;)

We also agree completely on debarkation.

[QUOTE][B]Yes, one can "screen" with one's corps and retreat into a city but then you will get besieged/assaulted and, yes, this can slow an enemy down but since only CORPS can screen (AND must be equal/smaller than the city capacity!), you are going to lose a lot of factors and corps not to mention loss of flexibility with trapped corps in cities and the one turn slowdown doesn't compensate in the next turn as I've found out when you don't have corps to prevent the "blitzkrieg" into your belly![/QUOTE][/B]
Agreed the tactic is not without it's sacrifices, however you do not lose those screening corps as often if they are able to retreat inside a city and hopefully not get successfully assaulted.

All that to say there is no point in the enemy movement phase where you must announce retirement into the city (as Reknoy proposed)... that comes only post-movement in [B]7.5.1.1[/B]
[QUOTE][B]Interestingly, in this discussion YOU even distinguish between whether your corps are IN OR OUT of a city?! You can't have it both ways my friend!![/QUOTE][/B]
Ahm, I have always made that distinction, becuase it is of course important, we are primarily disagreeing on WHEN it is important, and WHEN you actually GET to move in and out of cities.
[QUOTE][B]Soapyfrog, where does 7.3.7.1 say ANYTHING about whether a corps is besieged or not!?!?![/QUOTE][/B]
True it does not mention seigeing, but as I have mentioned the only way for a corps counter to get inside a city in the first place is as a result of retirement before combat, so it just doesn't matter... except in the aforementioned case of corps becoming unbesieged and not haveing the opportunity to move "out" of the city (on it's own movement phase) before another enemy force comes along.
[QUOTE][B]AGAIN, corps CAN NOT MAN GUNS UNLESS IN THE CITY ACTING AS A GARRISON.!![/QUOTE][/B]
Yes we covered that and it's all in how you interpret [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B]... since we interpret it differently (and I can see your end of things) I suppose that is a sticking point.
[QUOTE][B]WHEW, In any case I firmly believe and I think the rules CLEARLY delineate between corps in and out of a city. I shall certainly playtest with that in mind. I hope I have provided some "food for thought" to Soapyfrog that may make you reconsider some of your, I believe, faulty intrepretations.[/QUOTE][/B]
Well you have given me "food for though" WRT the interpretation of [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B]... though I protest that your interpretation is both unneccessary and much less elegant, as you have demonstrated it causes more problems than it solves.

You support your arguments very well! This discussion is quite interesting to me, and it wil be interesting to see what the devs finally do with the rule... I suspect since they are going for simultaneous movement they will see it my way becuase it requires considerabley less (none actually!) interaction from non-phasing players during the phasing player's movement step.

(and even for non-sim movement it would be better to have less required interactions, thus shorter turns, mechanically speaking)

Then again they might do something else completely that we haven't even thought of :D

*Edit... dyslexic rule numbers :D

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 18

- 6/4/2003 1:01:51 AM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

Again -- this demonstrates what I have learned about this rule -- SOMETHING IS MISSING! :)

Seriously, I think the rules designers had a subsection all laid out for "corps movement in and out of cities" and then someone spilled coffee all over it and this is what's left!! LOL.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 19

- 6/4/2003 1:03:45 AM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

Here is another wrinkle:

"A corps may form all or part of a garrison."

How does a corps do this when it's too big to fit into a city -- unless you accept *shudder* soapy's argument that it can pull double duty.

Yuck.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 20

- 6/4/2003 1:14:41 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]How does a corps do this when it's too big to fit into a city -- unless you accept *shudder* soapy's argument that it can pull double duty.[/B][/QUOTE]

You mean my interpretation that completely makes this not a problem and causes no other problems and fixes other "ambiguous" problems like corps acting as garrison for guns? :D

What problems are caused by corps being allowed to pull double duty? That I guess, is the key question. I can think of none, but I may be blinded by bias, so I will let other point them out.

*Edited for creative spelling techniques...

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 21

More thoughts - 6/4/2003 5:19:13 AM

gdpsnake

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline

"A corps can form all or part of a garrison"
Yes, IF the corps is capable of 'fitting' into the city. If not and in the case of soapyfrog's guard example, the player must detach factors in his movement phase to garrison the city. The word 'can' implies 'if able.' More strategic considerations to ponder. The game is much more fun and interesting when a player must make such choices. Double duty detracts from such considerations.

One can easily determine in or out. Either the corps is on the city image or it is not, hence "in or out" without the need of book keeping. I've never had a problem but I suppose it could become 'hard to see' so just put a blank over the ones inside.

Soapyfrog, your entire argument rests on 7.3.3.2 which I still contest is a sub heading of 7.3.3.3 describing a garrison. There are literally dozens of other examples everywhere delineating the difference between a corps in or out of a city that defy the logic of a corps doing double duty. That's the whole point - Where does a player put his resources? Into a corps or into garrisons? If you allow double duty then you remove much of that headache by saying that every area's city is protected with a corps.

But is that the case, is a city protected?! Let's just be logical and consider the tactics and situations of the age.

A ship is either At SEA or IN PORT and can't be both. A man can't be in a city and outside at the same time. When the 'move' is complete, one is either in or out, not both. An area is many hundreds of square miles so the corps could be anywhere in camp or strung out along a road or it's in a few square miles of city. It would be akin to saying my fleets at sea are also in the port in case of attack.

No, these are the specific decisions a player must make. Do I go in or stay out? Do I detach factors because the corps counter is too big or worry about the size of the enemy's nearby forces and try to "keep all my eggs in one basket."

Yes, turns are a month long but would word reach a corps in the countryside before an enemy naval attack attacked my fleet in port in a day? How far away is the corps? Can men from a corps possibly 30 miles away run into the city and man the guns in one day when the enemy sails into the harbor? Perhaps, but I find the situation much more tactically interesting when players must decide in their turn. Gotta garrison IN the city if you want the guns to operate over the month long period.

In terms of land combat, one can always retreat part or all of a corps (if it fits) into a city before combat so areas with corps are basically "protected" anyway.

After all, a ship has time and could certainly sail into a port in a month but it's not allowed. Same reasoning in game terms. A man could certainly get to the city in a month but it's not allowed.

This ultimately creates the big problem for a player in his move. Whether to aborb/detach!!! Such are the choices a player must make which is why the sequence of play becomes much more important! I should've garrisoned to prevent that easy fleet attack!!! I shouldn't have detached those strength points, my corps could have won with 6 more factors in it!

Finally, in the period of the day, there were 'field armies' and garrisons. Field armies 'fought' and garrisons protected LOC's and supply. How one apportions his men between the two is a key element of the game and I believe the 'concept of double duty' detracts from play. That is the problem I see with double duty other than the rules as stated (Which we can't seem to agree completely on.....)

In any case, we need a few more players to chime in with their thoughts. We need a poll! Where are the other players!

It just might go your way unless one is given the option to move corps into areas OR cities on the game map (and in the computer code!) Perhaps cities should be their own "areas with factor limits" within an area as that is how I intrepret the rules and play the game.

In any case, soapyfrog, who is your favorite power? Should we assume "frog?" LOL!

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 22

Re: More thoughts - 6/4/2003 10:07:08 PM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gdpsnake
[B]More strategic considerations to ponder. The game is much more fun and interesting when a player must make such choices. Double duty detracts from such considerations.[/B][/QUOTE]
IMHO it's logistical minutiae, prone to be missed by absent-minded players, and a cause of unneccessary consternation and conflict. It's also inelegant and awkward, and again IMHO has no real place in a Strategic/operational boardgame.

[QUOTE][B]One can easily determine in or out. Either the corps is on the city image or it is not, hence "in or out" without the need of book keeping. I've never had a problem but I suppose it could become 'hard to see' so just put a blank over the ones inside.[/B][/QUOTE]
Ouch. You are a patient man...
[QUOTE][B]Soapyfrog, your entire argument rests on 7.3.3.2 which I still contest is a sub heading of 7.3.3.3 describing a garrison. There are literally dozens of other examples everywhere delineating the difference between a corps in or out of a city that defy the logic of a corps doing double duty. That's the whole point - Where does a player put his resources? Into a corps or into garrisons? If you allow double duty then you remove much of that headache by saying that every area's city is protected with a corps.[/B][/QUOTE]
Interpretation of [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] is indeed the whole issue between us. And you are spot on about removing the headache (not even much of it; all of it ;) ). I like not having headaches, especially when they are not required by the rules! :D
[QUOTE][B]But is that the case, is a city protected?! Let's just be logical and consider the tactics and situations of the age.[/B][/QUOTE]
You don't think that a army "corps" billetted in an area would detach a battalion to man some fortifications vital to Imperial policy?

Anyway interesting discussion but I have to run will post more later.

P.S. Interestingly I am currently playing France (though it's not my favorite power!)

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 23

City Areas? - 6/4/2003 11:31:02 PM

gdpsnake

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline

Soapyfrog,
I was pondering last night. I suppose the disagreement rests on this issue: Is the gameboard covered with areas, some of which contain cities (Much like other games that have hexes with cities in them) OR is the gameboard covered with areas, some of which contain sub-areas that are cities.

When I read the rules, I consider cities to be 'seperate areas' within an area. Hence rules for moving in and out or determining if units are in or out of the 'city areas.' To agree to 'double duty' would imply (like many other wargames) that each area is just a hex and some have cities.

Perhaps the 'process' developed by the programers will answer this question. Until then, I shall continue to play with cities as seperate areas that just happen to lie in larger areas and hope the programming reflects that.

Good luck with the French!
SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 24

- 6/4/2003 11:35:17 PM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

I love playing the French. Or the Prussians.

This is nice now that I am no longer actively participating in the discussion. :)

I am currently enjoying a modest amount of success in my game where Wynter is GMing. Right, Jeroen? ;)

Ran into another old EiA buddy -- told him about this.

Another fanatic awaiting its arrival is born. :)

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 25

Re: City Areas? - 6/5/2003 7:27:04 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gdpsnake
[B]rules, I consider cities to be 'seperate areas' within an area. Hence rules for moving in and out or determining if units are in or out of the 'city areas.' To agree to 'double duty' would imply (like many other wargames) that each area is just a hex and some have cities.[/B][/QUOTE]
I agree we seem to have a certain philosophical differences about rules interpretation! Although I see what you are saying I don't see it (myself) supported in the rules as written.

I guess the main difficulty for me lies that it takes a lot of extra effort to play your way as well as createing extra rules to patch the holes (like the fact that you are not allowed to move into cities except in the enemy combat step).

I do prefer the "cleaner" interpretation our groups use (and it is definitely is easier for the computer game!)

No big deal; on the whole I think it unlikely that any two groups play precisely the same way!
[QUOTE][B]Good luck with the French![/B][/QUOTE]
I'm going to need it. I face a coalition of 5 players right from the start (all but Turkey, and Turkey's got his own problems...).

My favorite country is Prussia...

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 26

Re: City Areas? - 6/5/2003 7:29:32 AM

Le Tondu

Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gdpsnake
[B]Soapyfrog,
I was pondering last night. I suppose the disagreement rests on this issue: Is the gameboard.................
SNAKE [/B][/QUOTE]

Nothing against what you said Soapyfrog. :)

The whole issue is that ALL of these fights over the rules are really nothing until the game comes out or one of the beta testers breaks their secrecy oath. (No, I'm not suggesting that someone does.)

Can't we all wait and see how the game goes when it is released OR (hopefully) when more information is released by Matrix?

PS. I am suggesting that they release more information, btw. Wouldn't that be nice?

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 27

- 6/5/2003 4:39:21 PM

Ragnar

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog
[B]Oh just as a note some of this is WRONG. (I hope you beta-land guys covered this, but if not I will clarify here).

A Corps is NOT specifically in a city or outside it. It is in fact present in both in and out of the city at all times unless it chooses to retreat inside the city exclusively due to enemy forces moving into the area, or unless there is an enemy garrison present in the city.

WRT to the specific question Corps being able to fire the guns in port defense, I quote the following rule:

"[B]7.3.3.3.2:[/B] Corps may form all or part of a city garrison without detaching army factors, so that any types of army factors in such corps could also be in garrison."
[/B][/QUOTE]

Soapyfrog, you're an idiot. There is no rule stating that a corps can be in- and outside the city at the same time. Rule 7.3.3.3.2 is a continuance of rule 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3. All of these together form a summation of what types of _counters_ can act as a garrison. 7.3.3.3 is explicit that garrisons are placed on top of the city (or depot ) symbol. So all that 7.3.3.3.2 says is that you can move a corps inside a city during your land move (and during reinforcements as well, as section 5 refers to section 7.3.3)

Now, I know this might not be very convincing to you, as you're already convinced of it's opposite, but there's a lot of corroborating evidence. Whenever the rules mention garrisons at all, they refer to them as factors inside the city. There are alkso several rules that exclude the possibility of a corps being both in- and outside the city.

-New corps must be placed _inside_ a city.
-When moving through any area you have access throug, you're usually prohibited from Garrisoning certain cities. If a corps can auto-garrison a city, that means all areas containing cities would be exempt from such access.

And finally, if a corps can do this, we have a very big clarity problem about control. IMO in a boardgame the board should show the state of the game. At least, EiA has no instuctions about keeping additional notes on who controls what, so I'll presume to say none are needed. Yet if a corps can do as you say, we run into problems. Look closely at rule 7.3.3.3.1. It uses the same syntax that 7.3.3.3.2 uses for corps to describe Cossacks and Guerillas. So, if you're correct about your interpretation of 7.3.3.3.2, the same conclusion must be applied to those. At least, I see no reason why it should not be. So, why do the rules not say what takes precedence, a Corps, or a Guerrilla factor in that area?

Then there's a lot of problems during sieges and conquest. Without your interpretation, it's pretty simple: if anyone is inside the city you want, you can siege it and it will be gone (10.3.3). So, according to you, your corps is in the cityarea, so it garrisons the city. According to 10.3.3 that garrison must surrender immediately if the city is besieged. So, are you willing to put your Guard in any enemy city area now? Anyone at war with that enemy could use your interpretation to destroy the corps. All they do is enter and lay siege. By your interpretation, that means all corps in that area must surrender. With the counters gone, how are you going to place your guards/cavalry? Right, as infantry.

Really, leave this concept of a corps being in 2 places at once and the game becomes a lot simpler and makes a lot more sense. I now apologize about the idiot remark, you're certainly not the first I meet to share that opinion, and you wouldn't be the first to be merely mistaken...

Ragnar

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 28

- 6/5/2003 5:00:52 PM

Ragnar

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

And as for general philosophy about EiA rules, it's best not to have one. I find it to be the primary cause of rules misinterpretations. I'll happily admit I've been wrong many times about many things in the past, and all because I assumed there to be a general principle or philosophy behind the rules.

The thing is: Maybe there was once, but even if so, you cannot assume that that philosophy was per se logical or rational. Surely it must have occured to any one that people and their ideas rarely are.

When finally considering Empires in Arms, it seems to me that there's a rule to cover every specific situation. A lot of times, slightly different circumstances lead to another (usually surprising) outcome.

Here's the most recent "thingy" I noticed:
When victorious in battle, you may convert the enemy depot to your own. Is that right? No it's not. You may only do this if there's no enemy forces left in the area. That seems a rather bogus demand, as you've just won a battle, so they've all been retreated or eliminated. However, guerillas don't have to fight, and if they don't fight they don't retreat... which is pretty interesting considering that guerillas cannot garrison depots..

IMO. there is no real "grand sceme". every rule was written for a very specific purpose and should never be taken as a sign towards some greater intent.

Ragnar Krempel

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 29

- 6/5/2003 7:12:40 PM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

Ragnar:

Just my two cents, but I would consider using the "edit" function to delete the whole "idiot" reference from your last message.

From what I have read that you have written and messages that refer to you, you clearly have a presence in this space. As exasperated as I get from this game I try to always leave the personal attack stuff at home. I'm sure you do, too.

Ah, the wonders of editing. :)

Cheers!

Reknoy

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 30