Capitaine -> (7/12/2003 5:54:32 PM)
|
[QUOTE]In movement you always move forces to or through areas or cities, with never a mention of "field". Ditto combat... the combat either takes place ouside the city or inside the city.[/QUOTE] Here's the issue right here: You AREN'T moving through cities. As we argued so thoroughly, the move [I]into[/I] a city is a "zero cost" move. Also, there is no reason for a force moving through an area also to move "through" a city (although it may wish to detach factors, at zero cost, for a garrison). Think of the "area" as the generic "square" or "hex" of another game. If you have certain "locations" within a square in another game, you typically have no room to place the counter on that location, as it takes up the entire square. In EiA, you CAN place counters in different places w/in the area (square). A counter placed in the city/port of an area is in the "city/port". A counter placed outside the city/port of an area is "in the field", and is a field force. The best analogy I can show you is "Squad Leader". In that game, although not area movement, there are numerous locations within each hex. A unit on the second story of a building is "in the hex", but is not on the ground. Likewise, the "area" in EiA is the "square" that measures movement. You can call the noncity part of the area just the area if you like, but since a counter that is not in the city/port is called a "field force", it makes more sense to say that the force is in the "field" part of the area. If anyone has "War and Peace" handy, which also has city "locations" w/in a hex, I'm sure a similar distinction is made. Personally, I think most of the misconceptions in EiA have to do with the fact that some areas are so big that you can place counters at different places in an area; not just stack them and treat location "theoretically". soapy, if you really have the bee in your bonnet to deny that a "field force" has nothing to do with "the field", and has no connection with the location it has in the area, fine. I'm just not that keen on continuing on this current tack when I'm just trying to make something a little bit more "clear" for game purposes. (I think SNAKE has felt compelled to argue that the city and area are totally "separate" b/c you maintained they were one and the same -- not even different locations for any practical purpose. Unless you paid additional MP's to enter a city, and cities were not entirely within the the "square" by which movement in the game is measured, I don't see how anyone can say a city is NOT "in" an area. Whatever...)
|
|
|
|