how would this work? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message

borner -> how would this work? (9/8/2011 4:30:04 AM)

interesting situation:
France is at war with Prussia and Austria. Spain and Russia are at war with Austria only. Both sides with have an army with corps from each nation moving to engage the other. So, how does the system determine, which, if any, corps do not take part in the combat as all nations are not at war with all other, but are at war with at least part of the other stack?



pzgndr -> RE: how would this work? (9/8/2011 12:46:31 PM)

The only applicable rule I see is 10.4.7:
quote:

If during movement a corps moves into an area containing a depot garrison or enemy corps not in a city, the corps must cease movement and declare an attack.


So France would have to stop and attack Prussian and/or Austrian corps regardless of Spanish or Russian corps present. Spain and/or Russia would have to stop and attack Austrian (not Prussian) corps regardless of French or Prussian corps present. Corps not at war with each other should not be involved in a battle together. I don't see a conflict here. Should the rules say anything more?

A more complicated situation would involve loaned Prussian or Austrian corps subject to attack by Spain and/or Russia. Here rule 7.6 applies:
quote:

When a loaned corps is in a group that is attacked by a nation hostile to the corps controlling player BUT not hostile to the original owner of the corps then the corps is repatriated to the corps’s original territory and control is returned to the original player. When a player moves into an area with loaned corps and is at war with the original owner of the corps BUT NOT at war with current controlling player then the loan status is canceled and they are reverted back to original owner and a battle may be fought. Fleets are handled in a similar manner except that control is not automatically reverted when the area is entered BUT after an attack is setup by the moving player.


Again, I don't see a conflict here. Should the rules say anything more? Is anyone seeing different results that need to be addressed?



borner -> RE: how would this work? (9/9/2011 1:48:51 AM)

I am glad it is clear to you Pz, as for 3 of us in this game it is not so straight forweard. Plus, by reading this, I take it, (unless I am missing something) that the entire attacking stack takes part in the battle, while the defender has his stack split as all nations are not at war with all others, and the loaned corps are returned to the owning powers territory. Plus to quote the above rule -  When a player moves into an area with loaned corps and is at war with the original owner of the corps BUT NOT at war with current controlling player then the loan status is canceled and they are reverted back to original owner and a battle may be fought - this is the opposite of the situation here..... Spain is not at war, but the corps are french controlled and france is at war.  Can someone other than Pz please give thier input on this if they have seen this in a game and how the system deals with this? thanks. 



pzgndr -> RE: how would this work? (9/9/2011 12:31:33 PM)

I am trying to clarify if there is a bug with the way the game implements the rules as written, or if the rules need to be clarified and the game code revised. More input from others would be helpful. [:)]



Cunctator -> RE: how would this work? (9/9/2011 1:07:24 PM)

The situation should be described with more details in my opinion.

Let's assume that a french/russian/spanish stacking is attacking a prussian/austrian stacking and that the political combinations are those described by Borner (Fr at war with Pr/Au, Ru/Sp at war with Au only).
We have to assume also that Russia and Spain loaned their corps to France who moved the stack to attack.

Well Pzgndr evoked a rule (7.6) that can only be found in the in-game manual:  

7.6.1 Loaned Corps and Fleet Behavior
When a loaned corps is in a group that is attacked by a nation hostile to the corps controlling player BUT not hostile to the original owner of the corps then the corps is repatriated to the corps’s original territory and control is returned to the original player.  When a player moves into an area with loaned corps and is at war with the original owner of the corps BUT NOT at war with current controlling player then the loan status is canceled and they are reverted back to original owner and a battle may be fought.  Fleets are handled in a similar manner except that control is not automatically reverted when the area is entered BUT after an attack is setup by the moving player.
Example:  If Great Britain is at war with Spain but not at war with Russia and Great Britain moves fleets into an area that has Spanish fleets on loan to Russia then nothing happens until Great Britain attempts to attack the stack, at which point the fleets will be returned to Spanish control and a naval combat may be fought.

I don't know how the program applies this rule, but it is sure that 2 different situations are ruled by the manual.

1) Applying the first rule:

1.1) Prussian forces must be repatriated (Pr is not at war vs. Ru and Sp who are attacking under the control of Fr) or not ?
Literally the rule speaks about a defending  "loaned corp" whose original owner is not at war with the attacking "nation".

1.1.1) Let's assume that prussian forces are loaned to Au.
The attacking "nation" is Fr who is hostile to Pr, so the repatriation should not happen, but in this way we are allowing spanish and russian forces to fight against prussian forces while they all are in peace, violating a general rule (6.2: In order for a major power and its controlled minor countries to attack another major power or neutral minor country or their forces, a declaration of war must have been made between them).
I believe that the term "nation" must be related to all the forces composing an attacking stack (loaned or not).
So the repatriation should happen.

1.1.2) What does it happen if Prussian forces are not loaned to anybody?
I think that the repatriation should be applied also in this case, applying the same priciples explained above.

2) The second rule is not applicable in this case. 

In my opinion this is a classic case of a badly written, unclear and controversial rule.

In the Eia boardgame the corresponding rule (7.3.8) is completely unapplicable due to the fact that in the boardgame was implemented the combined movement mechanism that is absent in the pc version.

C.



borner -> RE: how would this work? (9/10/2011 4:27:40 AM)

yes, it appears to be a mess. However, if i understand correctly, the AI looks at it from a standpoint of the controlling nation at the time of combat. So, even though Prussia, Russia and Spain are not at war with each other, if all corps are loaned to Austria and Prussia, who are at war, then all corps take part in the combat. It seems silly that Spainsh or Russian corps get teleported back to home nation territory in the event of a conflict.   My worry here is that either stack Au/Pr or Fr/SP/RU moves to attack the other and due to some strange turn of the AI half of one of these armies gets moved half way across the map.



pzgndr -> RE: how would this work? (9/10/2011 2:58:30 PM)

OK so question here may be whether the rule repatriating a loaned corps back to original territory should be reconsidered. What would be the downside to returning control of loaned corps to original owner and just leaving the unit where it is, or retreating it from the combat area? Or not repatriating but just leaving the unit out of combat?

I don't know all the details that went into the loaned units idea way back when, but for lack of simultaneous movement/combat in the PC game it is what it is. For the most part it appears to work OK, just puts some more burden on players to figure out control and supply issues.

quote:

this is the opposite of the situation here


Marshall will have to verify the logic here but this is how I would summarize the rule, for either attack or defense. In a situation where the loaned corps' original owner is not at war with the opposing force(s), the loaned corps is repatriated and returned to original territory. Sort of a termination clause for the loan since your friendlies are caught up in someone else's hostile situation. In a situation where the loaned corps is at war with the opposing force(s) but the controlling host is not, then the host releases the loaned corps to fight its own battle. Again, sort of a termination clause where the host is now caught up in a hostile situation, but obviously the host force(s) stays in place and does not return to original territory. So, is there a bug in all this someplace or is the game doing what it's supposed to?

quote:

In my opinion this is a classic case of a badly written, unclear and controversial rule.


Probably so. Again, for lack of simultaneous movement/combat what changes should be considered to make the loaned unit feature better?



borner -> RE: how would this work? (9/10/2011 10:15:18 PM)

"Again, for lack of simultaneous movement/combat what changes should be considered to make the loaned unit feature better? "............PZ, please do not try to make this a thread to start yet another debate about the current shortcoming of the game. I am simply asking what exactly happens in this situation, as no one that has said anyting from out game is sure how this works. For example.... Russia is not at war with Prussia..... he could move first, attack the Au/Pr army, and all the Prussians teleport back to Prussia. Then, France moves second, and can smash the Austrians who are now alone. The exception here would be that Austria is at war with Russia, and as such, if the Prussian corps are loaned. what happens?  Now reverse it. The Fr/Sp/ru corps are stacked. Prussia is only at war with France. So, he moves a corps forward. From what I am reading here, the Spanish and Russian corps get teleported back to thier home nations, and the French are thus left alone. This seems to be what Cunctator is saying in the above post. Depending on exactly how this process works, it have huge implications. I am sure some game somewhere has seen this in practice, at least I hope so, and can give some insight on what actually happens.



Cunctator -> RE: how would this work? (9/10/2011 11:15:23 PM)

Yes Borner, I have never met a situation like that.
So I'm unable to say how the program will handle the situation.
I was only trying to intepret the rule as it is written in the manual (it is my profession more or less...).
The summarization of Pzgndr is correct and to be honest I cannot imagine at once a better solution.
Probably instead of the repatriation the system should be modified to a simple retreat in an adjacent area, but the exploitation of the rule imagined by Borner would remain in place.

Let's see what would happen in the original boardgame.
In Eia, Fr/Ru/Sp declares simultaneous movement.
Ru moves first entering an area occupied by Au/Pr armies.
Pr troops must dow Ru or they have to retreat in an adjacent area.
If Pr doesn't dow Ru (even if Pr is unable to dow Ru being in a period of enforced peace) the former has to abandon the field before the battle, leaving the austrians on their own.
As we can see also in the boardgame a simple russian corp can provoke the splitting of a Pr/Au stacking if the right conditions are met.
It can lead to an unsatisfactory exploitation of this rule, but I repeat that it is difficult to imagine an alternative solution.

I think that the current solution is the better, but I would welcome new ideas to be submitted to Marshall.

C.








borner -> RE: how would this work? (9/11/2011 4:31:29 AM)

thank you for your input. I am not looking for what the rules should be, simply what the system will do in this situation, and I think that has been explained. If this situation plays out in our game I will post what actually happened in case others run into this.



pzgndr -> RE: how would this work? (9/12/2011 12:09:25 PM)

quote:

Probably instead of the repatriation the system should be modified to a simple retreat in an adjacent area, but the exploitation of the rule imagined by Borner would remain in place.


As we proceed forward and players encounter actual situations suggested by borner, let's see how the game handles things. If retreat to an adjacent area in lieu of return to original territory would be an improvement, then that's something Marshall could consider down the road.



Murat -> RE: how would this work? (10/18/2011 12:32:47 AM)

What has happened before is nothing. We had a game where the British tried to attack a stack that had defenders from 2 nations, one at war with Britain and one not. Britain could not attack. In your example, as long as there were mixed defenders, an attacker could not declare an attack. We may soon get to recreate this for you in our game.



bongina -> RE: how would this work? (10/18/2011 4:22:41 PM)

Not to mention the loaned Turkish fleet in the channel that might or might not block french movement across.



pzgndr -> RE: how would this work? (10/19/2011 5:48:09 PM)

I've added this as Mantis issue #836 for Marshall to look at.



pzgndr -> RE: how would this work? (6/5/2018 6:29:26 PM)

I have been researching this old issue lately and I think I have a resolution path forward. I have found in the code where check_area_for_valid_move prevents an aggressor from moving into an area with neutrals, and I can make an exception for units loaned to a nation at war with the aggressor. So this should resolve the problem Murat reported. I can add a combat_retreat_neutral_defender function at the start of combat to implement original rule 7.3.8.4:

quote:

7.3.8.4 STEP FOUR: All major powers not at war with the attacker (except the attacker and his allies at war with the defender and factors in cities or on depots) must now leave the area, moving to any adjacent area that, if possible, is closer or at least as close to their source of supply as the area they leave.


Further, I can add that if the neutral defender(s) cannot be retreated then they can be repatriated to their home nation. I think this would adequately resolve the reported issues.

A question for the boardgame veterans. If a neutral unit loaned to a nation at war with the aggressor is not stacked with other units of the nation at war, how was this case treated? Was the aggressor allowed to enter the area or not, and if so was the neutral defender automatically retreated? I am inclined to say that the loaned neutral defender would not block entry but would halt the aggressor, forcing a "combat" and automatic retreat. If this is not correct, please let me know. Alternatively, the loaned unit with no allied units present could be forced to be repatriated instead of retreated. Just curious what veteran players would prefer.



pzgndr -> RE: how would this work? (6/10/2018 4:47:47 PM)

Not hearing anything, I continued to research more. The original boardgame rule 4.9 is insightful:

quote:

[ 4.9 ] THE DECLARATION OF COMBINED MOVEMENT STEP: Allies may declare that their Naval and Land Phases will be combined for the remainder of the Turn, with movement of all their forces being conducted in the order of the ally moving last in each phase. This enables allies to move and attack together..



So, the intent of "loaning" units in the computer version for the current turn is clearly to allow combined movement and attack. If for some reason a loaned unit cannot reach an intended battle area and does not stack with its allied aggressors, then it's pretty much on its own. In such as case, its "loaned" status is irrelevant and it can be attacked if at war or prevents an aggressor from entering its area if not at war. This may be a rare case but I'm trying to ensure the code logic correctly implements the original rule's intent.



pzgndr -> RE: how would this work? (6/26/2018 7:33:00 PM)

I would like to expand this loaned unit issue to include allied depot supply. The original boardgame rule reads:
quote:

7.4.2.2 ALLIED DEPOT SUPPLY: Major powers may have their forces live off the depots and/or supply chains of their allies, but those allies must pay the costs involved. Naturally, permission is required for this.

For loaned allied units, certainly the controlling major power should be able to use its depots and pay the costs during its land phase turn.

I see two related situations and offer modest suggestions for change:
1) Loaned allied units should be able to use either the controlling major power depot or its own national depot, whichever may be in range or closest, and the controlling major power should pay the costs.
2) Major power units should be able to use either its own national depot or an allied depot, whichever may be in range or closest, and the phasing major power should pay the costs.
In both cases, the non-phasing allies would not pay any costs for use of their depot during another major power's turn (despite the way the rule reads), the assumption here being that users should pay their supply costs themselves or that the payment is simply reimbursement for the allies "paying" the costs.

Codewise, I want to avoid having to create some new diplomatic permission checkbox or having major powers decrement their allies' funds by using their depots.

In summary, I plan to proceed as discussed regarding loaned units and allied depot supply in v1.23 development. If anyone has any burning objections or better ideas, please speak up.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875