What do you think?

What do you think? (Full Version)

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

Message

Pippin -> What do you think? (7/15/2003 8:07:34 AM)
I've been scratching my head over rule 6.5.5.5 for a while. Do you really think this is realistic? I can understand a penalty needed here, or else it would be just too convenient for an ally to 'accidentaly' kill half an ally's army just before declaring war against them. But.... What im getting at here, is what do YOU think? 6.5.5.5 Failure to Disembark ....If Corps that are destroyed in this manner were being transported by Fleets controlled by an Major Power Ally, the Major Power Ally must immediately break the alliance, losing "-2" political points. In addition, the ships in the transporting fleets are captured by the Major Power who's Corps were destroyed, with the ships being placed in ordinary at a port of his choosing.

pasternakski -> (7/15/2003 8:12:35 AM)
I think that it is so opaquely written as to be incomprehensible.

Le Tondu -> Please post the entire rule. (7/15/2003 9:33:06 AM)
Hi Pippin, I think that it would be better for the complete "rule 6.5.5.5" be posted so that we can view it. Without the entire rule, it is too easy to take snippets out of context. For instance you posted: ----- "....If Corps that are destroyed in this manner were being transported by Fleets controlled by an Major Power Ally, the Major Power Ally must immediately break the alliance, losing "-2" political points. In addition, the ships in the transporting fleets are captured by the Major Power who's Corps were destroyed, with the ships being placed in ordinary at a port of his choosing. ----- Destroyed in what manner?

soapyfrog -> (7/15/2003 10:05:22 AM)
Sounds like its in reference to a corps destroyed due to failure to disembark... That rule is not in my rulebook... where does it come from? IMHO it would be better just to say that you are simply not allowed to place tranported corps in a position where they cannot disembark. That pretty much prevents any possible abuse and avoids any unpleasantness about fleets changing control and such. Although I assume the logic behind the rule is that the transported troops take control of the ships transporting them when they find out they are to be "deep-sixed"?

Pippin -> (7/16/2003 12:23:35 AM)
You are right soapy... 6.5.5.5 Failure to Disembark If a Corps does not disembark during the Land Phase it is destroyed. If all Corps are destroyed in this manner, any leaders with the Corps are removed from the map (they may be placed in a subsequent reinforcement phase). If Corps that are destroyed in this manner were being transported by Fleets controlled by an Major Power Ally, the Major Power Ally must immediately break the alliance, losing "-2" political points. In addition, the ships in the transporting fleets are captured by the Major Power who's Corps were destroyed, with the ships being placed in ordinary at a port of his choosing.

Supervisor -> (7/16/2003 6:41:13 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pippin [B] 6.5.5.5 Failure to Disembark If a Corps does not disembark during the Land Phase it is destroyed. If all Corps are destroyed in this manner, any leaders with the Corps are removed from the map (they may be placed in a subsequent reinforcement phase). If Corps that are destroyed in this manner were being transported by Fleets controlled by an Major Power Ally, the Major Power Ally must immediately break the alliance, losing "-2" political points. In addition, the ships in the transporting fleets are captured by the Major Power who's Corps were destroyed, with the ships being placed in ordinary at a port of his choosing. [/B][/QUOTE] I think maybe this is a little too harsh and serious unrealistic. If I was to change/modify the rule it would just be that the Major Power Ally just has to break the alliance. I think that capturing the fleets is just silly and makes no real sense. If the corps are destroyed, who captures the fleet? To really implement this rule it certainly takes a little faith. One thing to remember: Aus. Design Group designed the game with this in mind: For it to be difficult to switch alliances back and forth on a whim. This idea is more suited to Diplomacy than EiA, and I think that in order to implement this some of the rules had to be harsh and a little unrealistic. I mean failure to disembark isn't realistic either. And if my SOLDIERS were on my allies ships and the SAILORS attacked them, I think the SAILORS would lose. Historically, from my understanding, is that there were always soldiers aboard ships, correct me if I am wrong. So to be blunt: I think the rule is harsh and unrealistic but most likely necessary to maintain the historical aspect that countries at the time generally had slightly stable relationships or were, at least, not jumping back and forth: Im with the French, I hate the French, Im with the French, I hate the French. lol.

John Umber -> (7/16/2003 1:06:11 PM)
Changing sides In the game are several punishments for changing sides. This tends to make players think once or twice before changing sides. But it is possible and should be possible due to the historical point of view. The peace term, taking control over the defeated corps, is a very usful way of showing troops fighting with the french when their nation was defeated. When Napoleon attacked Russia were many soldiers in his army germans... My point of view is that the original game rules handles this in a good way...:cool: Destroying troops with the navy, has that ever happened in any of your games? I can imagine the Brittish player is the only one to get away with it, but it must damage his/her reputation very much indeed. Did anyone wish to ally with Brittain after this event? The summer is here! (Now just the game is missing...) And the ventilation system in the office is down... I know Sweden is supposed to be a cold place, but ...

Capitaine -> (7/17/2003 1:26:56 AM)
I agree that the rule is not after "realism", but after a severe punishment for a "set up" that would be entirely ahistorical were it not punished in that fashion. In fact, the bigger the "set up", the worse the punishment. There is no instance of such a thing happening, yet if an ally caused to be destroyed allied forces on purpose as a "secret ally" of the enemy, it would be incredibly profound and a quite easy way for, say, Spain to stick it to France in what surely would be a sincere "joint operation". I agree with the intent of the rule, even if the circumstances of the result would be difficult. To that, I simply say the circumstances of the NEED for this rule to arise would be more difficult by an order of magnitude. I'd vote FOR the rule (wherever it came from) as written.

soapyfrog -> (7/18/2003 4:12:14 AM)
It would be better IMHO to simply dissallow the act at all. This rule for example allow for some odd things to happen. Spain is fighting England. His ally Russia is in enforced peace with Spain and so cannot help. Russia sends 2 fleets to SPain, picks up two 1 militia factors corps, transports them out into the Atlantic, POOF Spain gets a whackload of new ships to fight GB with, at the cost of a couple of political points to Russia. OK, so it's unlikely, and yet it is an example of how such a rule could be abused. Why not just say "you can't", instead of creating penalties for people who do?

Capitaine -> (7/18/2003 4:35:39 AM)
Probably, soapy, in the spirit that "IF you want to do what [I]could possibly[/I] have been done, but wasn't...", they make the rule. And upon further thought, it's not that bad or unrealistic a rule: You have a bunch of transports loaded with troops of the allied nation. When the invasion fleet arrives on the scene, suddenly the allied officers are told there is to be no landing and guards start appearing around the gangways. I'd wager that the soldiers could overpower the sailors and marines (how many on transports?) and take them over and land. Now, how soldiers on transports then could fight/get away from/board warships escorting the invasion transports, I dunno. But I don't have a big problem with the rule. Like you say, you either have to have such a "punishment" rule, or an outright prohibition. Choose your poison, I'd think... :)

Supervisor -> (7/18/2003 6:55:31 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog [B]It would be better IMHO to simply dissallow the act at all. This rule for example allow for some odd things to happen. Spain is fighting England. His ally Russia is in enforced peace with Spain and so cannot help. Russia sends 2 fleets to SPain, picks up two 1 militia factors corps, transports them out into the Atlantic, POOF Spain gets a whackload of new ships to fight GB with, at the cost of a couple of political points to Russia. OK, so it's unlikely, and yet it is an example of how such a rule could be abused. Why not just say "you can't", instead of creating penalties for people who do? [/B][/QUOTE] Although I have never seen this abuse in the game, you bring up a very good point. Maybe some things should just be disallowed. But at the same time, who is to tell you that you can take your ships out to sea and leave them when no corps/or only your corps are on them, but can't do this when someone else's corps is on them. I think agreements should be made and kept. I think this doesn't come up in the game much do to the fact that who would trust you after that? No one. But yes, it is a very valid argument and problems like this should probably be addressed by the players at the table :)

Le Tondu -> (7/18/2003 7:14:16 AM)
What I don't understand is how all those land forces could vanish into thin air? I mean they are more in place to control what happens on a ship than the original crew is. (The transported land forces are in greater numbers.) The rule (as it is), is unrealistic. I say that the player with the land forces should get a portion of the fleet with the rest escaping to another nation. That many men do not just vanish! Still, how would the fleet know what had happened so quickly?? (There weren't radios back then.)

Forward_March -> (7/18/2003 10:14:25 AM)
I think such a act should be disallowed. Like Le Tondu says, they didn't have radios, so the fleet commander would have to follow his last orders. Only the presence of the enemy should cause something to alter the plan. ...And I don't think there would be such a treasonous act perpetrated, both for ethical as well as the possibilities that such an act could cause to happen. Ships and men weren't just cardboard chits...they were expensive assets of the nations. The whole thing just sounds "gamey".

Capitaine -> (7/18/2003 11:55:24 AM)
[QUOTE]Like Le Tondu says, they didn't have radios, so the fleet commander would have to follow his last orders.[/QUOTE] Well, this is the entire issue right here, no? The "last orders" would've presumably have been to betray the invasion. That begs the question. The question for the game rules is what to do about such a "plan"? I'm saying that if that rule has made it into some accredited supplement (it wasn't in EiA by AH), then it has had some use and experimentation. I prefer, in a wide open game like this (countries in EiA have NO obligation to pursue their historical path; it's much more like "Diplomacy". Had I made a Napoleonic game, countries would have to behave more in accord with their historical national interest than by whatever a player wanted to do), for consequences of actions to be imposed rather than prohibitions. If the game were more historically set up and carried out, I'd think prohibitions would be more appropriate. But that would be like saying Germany and Russia could never form an alliance for more than a turn in "Diplomacy". They were natural enemies at the time, and no way do they see anything in their mutual interest (save a carving of Poland), but that isn't the game...

Pippin -> (7/18/2003 3:37:53 PM)
I'm not a historic naval expert, but I am not so sure that the army men being transported were allowed to keep their guns & munitions with them while being transported? Surely they were safely stored & locked in certain cargo holds, for various reasons. In any case, if you KNOW you are going to betray an ally, then naturaly you would set up an excuse to keep the arms locked elsewhere. So what are the soldiers going to do now?

John Umber -> (7/18/2003 5:39:33 PM)
Considering in the same lines... The transport ships are rarely well equiped with guns and so forth. The escort ships would be ship of the line. One of those escort ships would possibly sink all the transports with the allied army without any problem at all. So the action is possible. But very unlikely. Remember that during naval battles the captain and crew put all their valuables in the little boat floating behind the ship in preparations of the battle. The enemy did the same and then you avoided fireing at these little boats. Another thing, punishment for raising the wrong flag was death. What would the punishment be for slaugthering your "allied" army? The possible political conceqence would be that nation is NOT allowed to ally for the reminder of the game... I guess the players would also make sure of this. At least never transporting troops by those ships...

Le Tondu -> Interesting thoughts, but....... (7/18/2003 9:18:33 PM)
WWII this is not. I think that is the mistake people are making. Many, many things that we consider normal today simply weren't practiced back then. I say that this was a different era altogether and they did things differently. If that doesn't help: Consider that the escort ships might not be homogenous in terms of nations. Wouldn't there be a good chance for the escort fleet to be mixed? Consider Officers and NCOs would need to keep their arms in order to keep control. Consider the disobeying of orders. That sort of thing happened all too regularly back then. Consider that suspicions would abound when boarding another nation's fleet. It would be foolhardy to "lock up" all weapons. Trying to get them locked "elswhere" as Pippin proposes would be viewed as a threatening act and at worst, the land forces would (if this could ever happen) keep the key. Besides, where would they lock them? Another ship? To do that would defeat the very purpose of the land forces being there. Quick and easy access to their weapons is essential to fulfill their role. Consider numbers. Consider sabers, pistols, and bayonets worn on the person. Consider crazy Hussars. French Hussars even captured enemy ships once (that were frozen in the ice.) So, a precidence of a sort exists for sea forces fighting land forces over the possession of a ship. I say again that it is a mistake to consider the past out of complete historical context. We have to think like they did and see the world through their eyes. Unfortunately, it is too easy to let more current events cloud our eyes. The rule is not a good one at all.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.78125