Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Another Potential Can of Worms

 
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 >> Another Potential Can of Worms Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Another Potential Can of Worms - 6/8/2003 1:43:21 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		Five fleet counters from three MPs end their movement in the same area. No corps are being transported.

Two of the three MPs are allied. The third is neutral.

In the next month the allies go into combined movement.

In the naval phase, one of the allied fleet counters is picked up and returned to a friendly port (X areas away).

Three allied fleet counters move together to blockade an enemy (5 areas away).

The third MP's fleet (one counter) moves 7 areas away to some other location.

How far should the first (lone) counter be able to move?

Is a "stack" defined at the moment you pick it up and move it or at the beginning of the turn?

We always clarified this by house rule.

Any comments?
Post #: 1
- 6/8/2003 3:52:39 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		Well according to [B]12.2.3.1[/B] only fleets controlled by a single power or multiple powers using combined movement suffer form the movement penalty, so the thrid neutral fleet can be ignored.

[B]12.2.3.3[/B] says "Any fleet starting it's Naval Phase..."

This can be taken to mean:

a) the fleet counter's own phase of naval movement
or
b) the owning power's Naval Phase

We play (b) because the wording makes more sense and seems to be referring more to the Power's Naval Phase as a whole (the rules generally do not talk about units having their own "movement phase" so to speak). It also seems reasonable that that was the intent of the rule.

Stacks are created when fleets of the same power or combined major powers occupy the same space (sea area, prot, blockade box) stacks can move together and pick up or drop fleets as they go.

None of this has ever required clarification in our groups, but I can see how a problem could be created.

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 2
- 6/8/2003 4:00:47 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		Per 6.2.2.1:

"A player may pick up any or all of the fleets in a stack and begin moving them as one stack."

So -- accordingly, I would contend that the single allied fleet counter (though part of an allied "stack" at the outset), is "picked up" and moved as one stack -- with 7 movement points.

You're right, the extra one (neutral) is a red herring.

Just the way we played it.

Reknoy

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 3
- 6/8/2003 4:11:39 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		Well from your example:

The first fleet that gets "picked up" inherits the movement of the fleet that picked it up, unless it itself starts with less movement points than the fleet that is picking it up has remaining.

If there are four allied fleets in combined movement that start the naval phase in the same area, none of them could move more than four spaces by any means, although they are free to go their separate ways, or be picked up individually or in full by other fleets/stacks.

[B]6.2.2.5[/B] Says "so long as no fleet is moved twice or exceeds it's movement allowance..."

Note that the three allied fleets you mention would only be able to move 4 spaces as the started the naval phase as four fleets stacked together.

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 4
- 6/8/2003 4:12:21 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog
[B]None of this has ever required clarification in our groups, but I can see how a problem could be created. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think I am hearing that a lot these days...including from me! :)

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 5
- 6/8/2003 4:15:28 AM   
Reknoy

 

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

I believe you are making an assumption here. Movement allowance may be something that is determined "per stack" and if a fleet is picked up as a "stack" (why else would they use the term) then it could arguably have no penalties applied to it.

Alas, another case where we reasoned that a single ship in a single fleet counter could, at the start of the month, leave the area that is so cluttered and thereafter move more freely than a much larger stack.

Once the small stack leaves the cluttered SZ, what is continuing to hamper its movement? Whereas a larger stack has the impediment(s) traveling with it the whole way.

Again, not something I was ever certain of (though I'm sure Soapy is!) ;)

Reknoy

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 6
- 6/8/2003 4:32:29 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]I believe you are making an assumption here. Movement allowance may be something that is determined "per stack"[/B][/QUOTE]
Here I must respectfully disagree, there is no mention of stacks having movement points, only fleets.

For example [B]12.2.3.3[/B] refers to fleets that are part of a stack at the start of the Naval Phase suffering a movement penalty. The emphasis on the word starting shows it where the fleet ends up is unimportant, but where it started is the important thing for determining how far it can go.
[QUOTE][B]Once the small stack leaves the cluttered SZ, what is continuing to hamper its movement? Whereas a larger stack has the impediment(s) traveling with it the whole way.[/B][/QUOTE]
Sure, sounds logical, but then the intent of the rule would seem to be to penalize you for concentrating your fleet at any time (fleets of more than 30 ships were exceedingly rare), and as such it works just fine.

Otherwise you almost might not bother playing with the [B]12.2.3[/B] option at all since it's impact would be very slight indeed if it were so easy to get around.

But on the whole I think the rule is clear enough.

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 7
- 6/8/2003 6:07:06 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		Another sillism. You can avoid the entore problem by NOT using the 'OPTIONAL' fleet slow down rule. See now there is no problem =)

Otherwise use your heads!

What slows the fleet down? MOVING TOGETHER. If they are not moving together they are not slowed down.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 8
- 6/8/2003 6:18:36 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		You mean apart from the fact the rules say nothing about fleets moving together and losing movement because of it. It only says the lose movement if they started (emphasis in the rules) stacked with other fleets.

The rules are clear on that point. Moving fleets together never incurs a movement penalty, the relevant point is if the started the Naval Phase together.

Since the Naval Phase everything from movement to combat, it is unresonable to assume that each individual fleet counter performs it's own "Naval Phase" seperately, and therefore there is only one logical reading of the rule.

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 9
- 6/8/2003 6:48:01 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		It's all in where you look to determine when the phase starts.

Since each "stack" is moved separately, it stands to reason that the timing of the formation of the "stack" is the most relevant time imo. So any penalties are applied to THAT stack at the outset of the phase.

Again, the rule appears nonsensical as applied from your reading (which, coincidentally, was the way I played for most of my past).

Wait a while, I'm sure we'll find a few more differing opinions out there.

Reknoy

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 10
- 6/8/2003 6:53:15 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog
[B]You mean apart from the fact the rules say nothing about fleets moving together and losing movement because of it. It only says the lose movement if they started (emphasis in the rules) stacked with other fleets.

The rules are clear on that point. Moving fleets together never incurs a movement penalty, the relevant point is if the started the Naval Phase together.

Since the Naval Phase everything from movement to combat, it is unresonable to assume that each individual fleet counter performs it's own "Naval Phase" seperately, and therefore there is only one logical reading of the rule. [/B][/QUOTE]

Then if you cant seem to use LOGIC, then dont use the optional rule. It is quite simple.

If the Optional rule makes no sence, dont use it. I mean what exactly is being simulated by slowing the fleets down?
If you cant come to an agreement on that, then dont use the rule.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 11
- 6/8/2003 6:53:26 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		Isn't there an errata or something that discussed the situation where a stack started adding fleet counters during the movement process (from SZ to SZ) and the resulting penalty to the stack's movement?

I thought there was, which would negate Soapy's needlessly broad statement about there never being a penalty during movement.

Reknoy

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 12
- 6/8/2003 6:59:09 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		The Naval 'slow down' rule is intended to try and 'limit' what England can do. That is its sole purpose.

To not use it merely means you are going to allow England even more domination at sea.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 13
This is too easy - 6/8/2003 7:15:46 AM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		I must admit, I don't get it.
Rule 6.2.2 says:
Major powers ...in the same sea area....that have announced combined movement are treated as one stack. SO the allied fleets ARE ONE STACK. PERIOD. Now you move them.

6.2.2.1 says:
A player may pick up any or all of the fleets in a stack and BEGIN moving them as one stack. CLEARLY THEY ALREADY WERE A "STACK" AND MAY NOW BEGIN MOVING AS ONE OR MORE STACKS.

THEREFORE,
If you play 12.2.3.3 "ANY FLEET starting it's NAVAL PHASE in a stack loses......yada yada." CLEARLY STACKS ARE DETERMINED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NAVAL PHASE NOT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NAVAL MOVEMENT STEP OF THE NAVAL PHASE.

I once again, I assert that the FORMAT of the rules can answer many of these type questions. 6.0 comes BEFORE 6.1 BEFORE 6.1.2. So stacks are determined BEFORE the combined move segment.

So I say all the fleets in that stack START 6.1.2 Move sequence limited by 12.2.3.3 which limits movement allowance at the start of 6.0. Naval Phase

The neutral is a herring and has 7 movement allowance.

This one is easy to me.

Hmmm, according to CAPITAINES latest posts on land movement, I suppose a fleet can't enter a port for zero in the last area entered since it expends it's movement allowance entering the last area. I agree with that since the term movement allowance and not points or potential is used.
"Can't quite make it Sir!"
"Darn, break out the longboats and row man, ROW!"
Makes for an interesting pickle. Either it's true for both land AND sea or for neither.

LOL! I'm sure SOAPYFROG disagrees!

SNAKE

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 14
- 6/8/2003 7:28:20 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		Reknoy: There is no errata covering these rules... nor is one neccessary, since you cannot move a stack so as to exceed the movement allowance of any of it's component fleets.

gdpsnake: Then we are in agreement that all the fleets that started stacked together in Reknoy's example (with the exception of the neutral fleet which is not "stacked") have 4 movement points regardless of which way they move. i.e. they could each go their seperate ways but they would still each have only 4 movement points.

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 15
- 6/8/2003 8:10:17 AM   
Reknoy

 

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

First, please try and relax the "all knowing" way of making your point.

"...nor is one necessary..."

According to YOU.

As are each and every one of your points.

They are YOUR interpretation.

Second, there are a number of errata out there that supplement as well as "fix".

Suppose you have a fleet counter in a SZ -- all by itself.

That fleet then moves to another SZ and picks up another fleet.

They move to a third and pick up a third fleet, and then a fourth.

So the first fleet counter gets to move 7 SZs but ends its movement stacked with 6 other fleet counters.

Now there is another fleet counter in an adjacent SZ that starts the month in a SZ with numerous fleet counters of the same nationality.

That fleet then moves separately during its phase.

The result seems ridiculous if you employ the optional rule.

Anyway, therein lay the reasoning. I'll gladly admit that there probably is a majority out there that disagrees, but my group is happier with the method that makes more sense to us I guess.

Reknoy

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 16
- 6/8/2003 9:48:10 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		The "not neccessary" part is not becuase I am some all knowing God, that is clearly not true.

It is becuase the rules specify that you cannot exceed the movement allowance of any fleet during the Naval Phase.

This by itself prevents you from, say, having a single fleet pick up a stack of 6 fleets and move another 6 spaces with it... you could move no more than 4 after the pick up becuase that the most the fleets in the stack could move.

In your example of the fleet moving seven spaces and accumulating a stack of 6 fleets is perfectly legal because none of those fleets exceeded it's movement allowance.

I hope that clears up why I said it was not neccessary to have a separate rule penalizing fleets that pick up other fleets. Sorry if my tone was miscontrued as condescension.

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 17
- 6/8/2003 10:14:55 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]Soapy:

First, please try and relax the "all knowing" way of making your point.

"...nor is one necessary..."

According to YOU.

As are each and every one of your points.

They are YOUR interpretation.

Second, there are a number of errata out there that supplement as well as "fix".

Suppose you have a fleet counter in a SZ -- all by itself.

That fleet then moves to another SZ and picks up another fleet.

They move to a third and pick up a third fleet, and then a fourth.

So the first fleet counter gets to move 7 SZs but ends its movement stacked with 6 other fleet counters.

Now there is another fleet counter in an adjacent SZ that starts the month in a SZ with numerous fleet counters of the same nationality.

That fleet then moves separately during its phase.

The result seems ridiculous if you employ the optional rule.

Anyway, therein lay the reasoning. I'll gladly admit that there probably is a majority out there that disagrees, but my group is happier with the method that makes more sense to us I guess.

Reknoy [/B][/QUOTE]

You assume you will always win that faction fight. I would not count on that. Happily...its an optional tule.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 18
- 6/8/2003 10:10:10 PM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		SOAPYFROG,
Yes we do agree. The determination of movement allowance available to fleet counters alone OR in stacks is done at the beginning of a naval phase NOT as the naval phase progresses.

THE allies are X and Y

The political phase sees X and Y declare combined movement in 4.9.

Later, the NAVAL PHASE starts. Everybody stacks up the fleet counters in every area/box/port into "stacks" (CHANGES TO THE STACKING ALREADY EXISTING IN EACH PLACE IS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY DUE TO THE DECLARATION OF COMBINED MOVEMENT OR happened AS A RESULT OF 5.1.3 in the reinforcement phase)
SO X AND Y put their 3(X) and 1(Y) fleet counters in the same stack.

Next, Players, begin 6.1 who moves when.

The opportunity to move the stack arrives based on the order of 6.1. THE (X) player {assume last to move between X and Y} sees 4 fleet counters in the stack so each counter in the stack has an allowance of four movement points. He moves his stack of three four movement points somewhere and then his stack of one four movement points elsewhere.

IF either of those stacks moved by X picks up other fleet counters, the total move that the original fleet counters can move is still four. Any 'new addition' fleet counters have whatever movement point allowance they had AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NAVAL PHASE BEFORE ANY PLAYER MOVED ANY STACKS [but may lose some if picked up]!

Example. The three fleet counter stack of X moves one sea area (1) and into a port (2) and picks up a single fleet counter (Z) (with 7 mp's). The FOUR now move into the sea area (3) and into another blockade box (4) The move of the original three counters is over and so is the 'picked up' fleet.

The 'picked up' fleet loses it's remaining 5 MP's because it joined the X fleet.

You could have 'dropped off' the Z fleet in the previous area but Z STILL loses any more movement (6 in this case) since a 'dropped off' fleet can't move any further in that Naval Phase.

Hence the penalty of picking up a fleet as oppossed to the movement potential (independent move/use) of said 'picked up' fleet.

As in land movement, I turn counters 180 out to show they are done so as I drop off fleets, they are 'noted' as having finished their movement. Rule 6.2.2.4 prevents "Dropped off" fleets from being "Picked Up" by other stacks.

SNAKE

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 19
- 6/8/2003 10:43:34 PM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		My bad for bringing this up as a rules issue.

In re-reading my notes on the matter, it's clear that the groups I played with made an intentional ruling that interpreted the stack notion differently.

It's one of those areas that made little sense to me, and even less to the historical wonks in my group.

I am reminiscent of the movie "Time Bandits", when Robin Hood (played by Cleese) asked one of his henchmen who would pound on the poor peasants as they picked up the loot that Robin took for them, "Is that really necessary?" To which the henchman (through a translator, as he only grunted), "Yes, sir, he says it is."

Just 'cause it reads that way doesn't mean we gotta live with it. :)

Again -- wrong message heading on my part.

(in reply to Reknoy)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Another Potential Can of Worms Page: [1]
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

0.717