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 input

 
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 input Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
another input - 6/5/2003 9:33:53 PM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		Please look at rule 7.3.4 last sentence which states: "Moving from a city into its area (or vice-versa) expends no movement points.
Again, clearly units can be moved into and out of cities. The units mentioned are corps, cossacks, friekorps and guerillas.

Movement points are not used in combat and this rule is listed under movement so clearly corps don't move into cities strictly as a result of combat.

I also refer to 16.0 Glossary which defines a garrison as support for the claim that 7.3.3.3.2 is only a rule to allow 'another type' of garrison and is not a definitive argument for corps 'double duty.'

I concur with Ragnar concerning 'double duty' under rule 7.3.3.3.1. If corps can then these units could be in an area And be in a garrison.

Maybe we can find out from one of the original developers (where
ever they are!?)

Just more fuel for the debate.
SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 31
- 6/5/2003 9:42:46 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		I suppose we could email Harry Rowland on the subject... although AH made many changes to the rules after they bought the game from ADG, and actually I beleive this to be one of the major reaosns why the rules are in many places confused, and the terminology is not clear and consistent throughout.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 32
- 6/5/2003 10:25:41 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ragnar
[B]Soapyfrog, you're an idiot.[/QUOTE][/B]
No doubt :D
[QUOTE][B]There is no rule stating that a corps can be in- and outside the city at the same time.[/QUOTE][/B]
Except I beleive [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] says it, your opinion notwithstanding.
[QUOTE][B]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)[/QUOTE][/B]
It does not say that. You are making an assumption about something which is not explicitly stated.
[QUOTE][B]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.[/QUOTE][/B]
These rules do not exclude the possibility of "double-duty"... there are many point in the rules where a corps is specified as being outside or inside (but not both). However whenever these particular and easily trackable conditions are not in effect, the corps can be pulling "double-duty".
[QUOTE][B]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?[/QUOTE][/B]
Control is actually EASIER to show and track (i.e. requires zero extra bookkeeping or tricky counter placement) "my" way, since a corps in an ungarrisoned enemy city area is automatically assumed to be controlling the city, and you therefore don't have to remember whether it is in or out ("Darn the board got bumped ever so slightly... was this corps in the city or out, I can't remember..." or "You never stated that your corps was in the city, ha ha you fail to conquer Mecklenberg!"). Thus you can take one look at the map and control is automatically evident.

In the case of guerillas, if the guerilla were in the city then they would be beseiged by the corps... the only way that guerillas can co-exist without combat in the same area as a corps is if they are NOT in the city, and if a guerilla were to move into or be created in the same area as an enemy corps they would not be able to be inside the city anyway, since the city is already garrisonned by the enemy corps! It's really just less complicated.
[QUOTE][B]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.[/QUOTE][/B]
[B]10.3.3.[/B] is quite clear in referring to garrisons (check the glossary) and not corps acting as garrisons by way of [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B], and in any case it does not matter because any neutral corps in an area where an attack has been declared must either withdraw or DoW, so the situation you describe would never arise. But nice fishing attempt. :D
[QUOTE][B]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...[/B][/QUOTE]
Well again I protest that adding an extra layer of rules and being required to track the state of every corps at all times WRT to in or out of a city does not in anyway make the game simpler.

*Edit: Wow, the board orginally censored "d*mn"... how puritanical! ;)

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 33
- 6/6/2003 2:05:36 AM   
Roads

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: massachusetts
Status: offline 		Personnally I'm with Soapy Frog on this - the logisitics are so much simpler if you don't have to worry about who is where. But it is very much an ambiguous issue.

Anyone have a copy of the ADG rules? It'd be interesting to know what was added by AH, for this issue in particular.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 34
- 6/6/2003 4:41:34 AM   
Ragnar

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Control is actually EASIER to show and track (i.e. requires zero extra bookkeeping or tricky counter placement) "my" way, since a corps in an ungarrisoned enemy city area is automatically assumed to be controlling the city, and you therefore don't have to remember whether it is in or out [/QUOTE]
?ungarrisoned?, ?enemy? city area; 7.3.3.3.2 does not mention these things at all, you've just added them. In fact, you've mentioned the _only_ instance when "your" way would be easier. As soon as there's more than that single corps in the area, things already get confused. And you'd _still_ have to remember if it is in or outside, for if it's inside, that will definately affect your opponents' movement.

[QUOTE]In the case of guerillas, if the guerilla were in the city then they would be beseiged by the corps... the only way that guerillas can co-exist without combat in the same area as a corps is if they are NOT in the city, and if a guerilla were to move into or be created in the same area as an enemy corps they would not be able to be inside the city anyway, since the city is already garrisonned by the enemy corps! It's really just less complicated.[/QUOTE]
There's no reason for a guerilla to be inside a city or for the corps to besiege it if they don't want to. Besides, the corps might not be allowed to besiege the city.

I don't think you're getting the problem. It's rather simple. Almost a joke: A Guerilla a Cossack and an Au corps are in the area of Barcelona, which is inside Catalonia which had been ceded to France. There's no garrison in the city. Now a Tu (not at war with any of these powers) fleet wants to enter the port. From whom does she need permission to enter if Tu already has access to Fr?

According to your interpretation of rule 7.3.3.3.2, all three units are now "acting" as garrison to the port. That gives them all control of it, so Tu would need permission of all three.

[QUOTE]10.3.3. is quite clear in referring to garrisons (check the glossary) and not corps acting as garrisons by way of 7.3.3.3.2, and in any case it does not matter because any neutral corps in an area where an attack has been declared must either withdraw or DoW, so the situation you describe would never arise. But nice fishing attempt.
[/QUOTE]
Well, since you took the bait. :D ...

Ok, I can accept THAT!

So... the same is true whenever any other rule mentions a garrison? Our argument is now moot. For the rules clearly do not give any powers to "Corps _acting_ as garrisons" anywhere, only to "garrisons". Are you starting to see my problem here? Either the corps is a garrison or it is not. You can't say it isn't when you don't like it. Off course, you could say the corps can _choose_ to act as a garrison, but that it doesn't have to.. Well, then we'd need a way to keep track of _that_, so that's where things get overcomplicated...

BTW: no attack was declared, just a siege.

[QUOTE]Well again I protest that adding an extra layer of rules and being required to track the state of every corps at all times WRT to in or out of a city does not in anyway make the game simpler.[/QUOTE]

Strangely, we agree on the goal here: the awnser to this must be the simplest solution. I believe the simplest solution is the one where the control of a city is always clearly descernable by the the nationality of the counters on it's mapsymbol. You believe the simplest solution to be the one where there is the least need for players to bother themselves with such trivial matters as leaving a garrison.

But let's stick with the rules...
7.3.3.3 GARRISON FACTORS says that garrisons are "represente by counters of the appropriate type on the city or depot concerned"

7.3.3.3.2 tells us that a corps counter can be uses as a garrison. It just says "corps", but a corps is a counter (and nothing else) by definition. *I* would naturally assume that such a corps would be placed opn to of the depot or city as well. You think differently. My problem is why do you assume that 7.3.3.3 does not apply?

regards,
Ragnar

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 35
- 6/6/2003 4:46:11 AM   
Ragnar

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog
[B]I suppose we could email Harry Rowland on the subject... although AH made many changes to the rules after they bought the game from ADG, and actually I beleive this to be one of the major reaosns why the rules are in many places confused, and the terminology is not clear and consistent throughout. [/B][/QUOTE]

Heck, I agree with that! Afaict, AH either did not play or understand the game a whole lot. If you systematically ignore everything AH ever added to the game, it becomes more logical. I've already come to the conclusion that the game is best played with only 50% of the optional rules and almost NONE of the errata (just those correcting the typos).

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 36
- 6/6/2003 4:53:12 AM   
Ragnar

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Road's
[B]Personnally I'm with Soapy Frog on this - the logisitics are so much simpler if you don't have to worry about who is where. But it is very much an ambiguous issue. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, that's true. And I see a lot of games that have a houserule that gives a corps control of a city in its area if that city is empty and if there's no other powers' forces in that area. Mostly to help the Turk that can't detach factors from 3/4 of his corps.

I guess it depends on what you like more: complicated or simpler logistics. I think though, that it's better not to use such a rule either way. The game _does_ have complicated logistical issues that will creep up on and severely hurt you if you don't pay attention. Simplifying the most common of all of these will only lead players into such mistakes blindly.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 37
one more thing - 6/6/2003 5:06:46 AM   
Ragnar

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		7.3.3 carries the title:
"Moving into cities-Detaching/Absorbing factors-Garrisons"

Yet all of 7.3.3..* does not mention actual movement at all, it only describes detaching and garrisons. Because of this, I've come to see detaching and moving into a city as synonymous. There isn't any real difference if the factor leaves the corps then enters the city or if the corps enters the city to drop a factor anyway. Neither does it seem usefull to descern if a cossack entered a city using 0 movement points or if it detached itself into it from the area outisde. So IMO detaching is essentially a form of moving and movement in and out of cities and depots is the same as detaching.

Off course, if you don't have the same take on 7.3.3.3.2 as I , the above won't really fit into your views..

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 38
- 6/6/2003 8:40:43 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		Could somone give a summary of what the question is?

How could you play the 1792 scenario if you DIDNT drop off
INF factors as you move? It is a crucial strategy.

But of course not feudal INF.

_____________________________

“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 gdpsnake)
Post #: 39
In or Out - 6/6/2003 11:37:17 AM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		Soapy,
The rule 7.3.4, last line, clearly says "Movement from a city into its area (or vice-versa) costs no movement points. The units mentioned are CORPS, cossacks, friedcorps, and guerillas.

VICE-VERSA MEANS the opposite!!!! What other possible intrepretation could it mean!?

So it means movement from the area into its city!!!!!!!

MOVEMENT not COMBAT and it costs zero movement points. Movement points (even zero) are only expended in the movement phase - never combat! Plus the rule is a MOVEMENT RULE. Why would the writers put that here if they meant that corps could only enter a city as a result/during the combat phase?

It all makes sense and doesn't add any headache:
Zero movement is used for detaching/absorbing so whether the corps is in or out of the city makes no difference in game terms because the city would be friendly anyway to detach/absorb.
A city in an area containing only your corps is controlled in game terms because you moved into it without cost since no one else is there - visit the brothels perhaps?! (no need to state the fact of ownership, it's obvious in game terms. Also TU corps can control cities but can't drop off factors.)
Also, in game terms, no one can slip into your city by land or sea if you have a corps in the area regardless of any city garrison because they debark/move into the area and must cease all movement and declare an attack. If you only have units other than corps in the area and no garrison, then the attacker could move right into the city because they don't have to stop!
That's the whole point of garrisons - garrison wisely as was the case of the time period or lose your cities.

Ragnar, you are incorrect on the rule 7.3.3 section on detaching/absorbing. The rule DOES state it costs zero movement points to perform this action. Movement points are expended ONLY during the movement phase (even zero). In game terms, though, you are correct since it costs zero movement points you simply 'reapportion' your factors between units outside and inside DURING YOUR MOVEMENT PHASE of course.

Ragnar, I agree an ungarrison city belongs to whoever has the uncontested corps in the area.
As for your example (cossaks in spain!?) I assume the area was ceded and neither Spain, Russia or Austria had a land phase move since the ceding because if they did and any were at war with France then whoever moved last of the three (and who was at war) has control of the port/area now. (Corps don't stop movement for guerillas or cossacks and they don't stop for corps so anyone could enter the city for zero movement without having to decalre combat. If not and it's still a French ceded provence - this is the naval phase so the TU fleet only needs French permission. Although, the following land phase could change everything.
SO yes, of course, there are times when players must know who controls a city but it's always pretty easy to track in my opinion.

I think 7.3.4 is the smoking gun in my opinion on the issue of whether units, specifically corps, are IN or OUT of a city and not both. It never makes a difference unless there are opposing forces involved anyway.

Chiteng,
The original question basically concerned: "Are corps IN or OUT of cities at the end of one's move. Some believe they can do "double duty" and be both. Others, like me, say at the end of your move, your corps are either IN or OUT of the city (delineated by being in the area OR on top of the city picture[perhaps a problem for guys with thick fingers - main requirement to be a proctologist....]) and not both. After all, one mustn't stop if enemy corps are IN a city 7.3.7.1 and this movement rule says nothing about whether they are already besieged or not. In fact, it says the player could now beseige the corps in the city (implying it may not already be under seige) or move as the player chooses!
I believe this originated the discussion especially as it concerned being able to operate ones port defenses. Some say the corps in the area is sufficient while others, like me, say you either garrison the city or suffer the lack of guns - a corps in an area is not sufficient to "man the guns' so to speak. The discussion revolved around 7.3.3.3 and it's parts. I say that 7.3.3.3.2 simply says a corps can be all or part of a garrison if it's in the city so one need not detach factors. (A bad deal for TU feudal corps that would not be able to detach or corps with guards because guards would have to become regular infantry. This rule allows for those types of corps to garrison BUT they still have to be IN THE CITY! Otherwise, 7.3.3.3.1 would allow 'double duty' for cossacks, guerillas and friedcorps too! See the previous posts for the full accounts of both arguments.

But heck, it's still only opinion. We need more folks to chime in. See how many 'hanging chads' we get!

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 40
Re: In or Out - 6/6/2003 12:35:58 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by gdpsnake
[B]Soapy,
The rule 7.3.4, last line, clearly says "Movement from a city into its area (or vice-versa) costs no movement points. The units mentioned are CORPS, cossacks, friedcorps, and guerillas.

VICE-VERSA MEANS the opposite!!!! What other possible intrepretation could it mean!?

So it means movement from the area into its city!!!!!!!

MOVEMENT not COMBAT and it costs zero movement points. Movement points (even zero) are only expended in the movement phase - never combat! Plus the rule is a MOVEMENT RULE. Why would the writers put that here if they meant that corps could only enter a city as a result/during the combat phase?

It all makes sense and doesn't add any headache:
Zero movement is used for detaching/absorbing so whether the corps is in or out of the city makes no difference in game terms because the city would be friendly anyway to detach/absorb.
A city in an area containing only your corps is controlled in game terms because you moved into it without cost since no one else is there - visit the brothels perhaps?! (no need to state the fact of ownership, it's obvious in game terms. Also TU corps can control cities but can't drop off factors.)
Also, in game terms, no one can slip into your city by land or sea if you have a corps in the area regardless of any city garrison because they debark/move into the area and must cease all movement and declare an attack. If you only have units other than corps in the area and no garrison, then the attacker could move right into the city because they don't have to stop!
That's the whole point of garrisons - garrison wisely as was the case of the time period or lose your cities.

Ragnar, you are incorrect on the rule 7.3.3 section on detaching/absorbing. The rule DOES state it costs zero movement points to perform this action. Movement points are expended ONLY during the movement phase (even zero). In game terms, though, you are correct since it costs zero movement points you simply 'reapportion' your factors between units outside and inside DURING YOUR MOVEMENT PHASE of course.

Ragnar, I agree an ungarrison city belongs to whoever has the uncontested corps in the area.
As for your example (cossaks in spain!?) I assume the area was ceded and neither Spain, Russia or Austria had a land phase move since the ceding because if they did and any were at war with France then whoever moved last of the three (and who was at war) has control of the port/area now. (Corps don't stop movement for guerillas or cossacks and they don't stop for corps so anyone could enter the city for zero movement without having to decalre combat. If not and it's still a French ceded provence - this is the naval phase so the TU fleet only needs French permission. Although, the following land phase could change everything.
SO yes, of course, there are times when players must know who controls a city but it's always pretty easy to track in my opinion.

I think 7.3.4 is the smoking gun in my opinion on the issue of whether units, specifically corps, are IN or OUT of a city and not both. It never makes a difference unless there are opposing forces involved anyway.

Chiteng,
The original question basically concerned: "Are corps IN or OUT of cities at the end of one's move. Some believe they can do "double duty" and be both. Others, like me, say at the end of your move, your corps are either IN or OUT of the city (delineated by being in the area OR on top of the city picture[perhaps a problem for guys with thick fingers - main requirement to be a proctologist....]) and not both. After all, one mustn't stop if enemy corps are IN a city 7.3.7.1 and this movement rule says nothing about whether they are already besieged or not. In fact, it says the player could now beseige the corps in the city (implying it may not already be under seige) or move as the player chooses!
I believe this originated the discussion especially as it concerned being able to operate ones port defenses. Some say the corps in the area is sufficient while others, like me, say you either garrison the city or suffer the lack of guns - a corps in an area is not sufficient to "man the guns' so to speak. The discussion revolved around 7.3.3.3 and it's parts. I say that 7.3.3.3.2 simply says a corps can be all or part of a garrison if it's in the city so one need not detach factors. (A bad deal for TU feudal corps that would not be able to detach or corps with guards because guards would have to become regular infantry. This rule allows for those types of corps to garrison BUT they still have to be IN THE CITY! Otherwise, 7.3.3.3.1 would allow 'double duty' for cossacks, guerillas and friedcorps too! See the previous posts for the full accounts of both arguments.

But heck, it's still only opinion. We need more folks to chime in. See how many 'hanging chads' we get!

SNAKE [/B][/QUOTE]

Seems to me the common usage is that a corp in the area protects the city. When an enemy corp moves into the area
you must decide at that time where you will be, either the city
or the area.

Of course that is FTF. I can see in a computer game that it isnt
quite so easily decided.

_____________________________

“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 gdpsnake)
Post #: 41
- 6/6/2003 4:22:52 PM   
Ragnar

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Ragnar, you are incorrect on the rule 7.3.3 section on detaching/absorbing. The rule DOES state it costs zero movement points to perform this action. Movement points are expended ONLY during the movement phase (even zero). [/QUOTE]

That conclusion is incorrect. There _is_ a remark about expending 0 mp in section 7.3.3, but this does not mean that movement into cities must therefore be limited to the movement phase. At least 2 other rules refer to section 7.3.3 on how to detach/absorb and they are both, without doubt, appliccable outside the movement phase (during combat, during reinforcements and even during the supply step of another power).

[QUOTE]Ragnar, I agree an ungarrison city belongs to whoever has the uncontested corps in the area.[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't. All ungarrisoned cities blong to whomever _owns_ the area, as per rule 10.3.2.2. and as per the glossary (ref: friendly controled city) In my opinion, any city that doesn't have a counter placed on it's location on the map, is ungarrisoned. It's a rather simple logic, but I see it as the best way to go on this.

[QUOTE]But heck, it's still only opinion. We need more folks to chime in. See how many 'hanging chads' we get![/QUOTE]

Well, I think it's a matter of reading the rules and not reading more into them than they say. If you really want more peole to chime in, though, take this to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/empiresinarms/
We've been over this issue a few times and there too the "believers" simply resufe to admit they don't have the rules to backup their claims. IMO it's pretty simple. Show me a rule that actually _says_ that a corps can pull double duty. There is no such rule. Granted, there's no rule claiming that it _cannot_ pull double duty, but then again, there's no rule that specifically states a corps can't be in two areas at once either. After all, Fr's corps are twice as big, so surely ... :D :D

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 42
- 6/6/2003 4:39:19 PM   
Ragnar

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Seems to me the common usage is that a corp in the area protects the city. [/QUOTE]

That's basically true. You cannot reach that city without going through that area.

[QUOTE]When an enemy corp moves into the area you must decide at that time where you will be, either the city or the area.[/QUOTE]

That's not what rule 7.5.1.1 says, though: "Any forces or portion of forces upon whom an attack is declared may immediately retire into any friendly controlled or vacant, and unbesieged city in that area" The "friendly controlled OR vacant" seems to be a rather obvious clue. It implies that a vacant city is not neccesarily friendly controlled.
The same phrase is used in rule 7.3.3: to garrison/detach/move into a city it must be (among other things) "friendly or vacant", again implying that your mere presence in that area does not make a vacant city friendly.
So if corps can pull double duties, no-one told this to whomever wrote 7.5.1.1 or 7.3.3.

(Another point of order is that rule 7.5.1.1 is not triggered by a corps entering an area but by the game progressing into the combat phase. Rule 1.3 is very specific about such matters: "The rules are written in sequence of play order." So the sequence of play must be maintained and therefore you cannot retire until the combat phase has started and rule 7.5.1.1 becomes applicable. Which IMO works out a lot better in practice than the movement-interrupt-interpretation that some people use, but that is another debate entirely.)

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 43
- 6/6/2003 9:51:31 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ragnar
[B]As soon as there's more than that single corps in the area, things already get confused. And you'd _still_ have to remember if it is in or outside, for if it's inside, that will definately affect your opponents' movement.[/QUOTE][/B]
How does it get confused?
[QUOTE][B]I don't think you're getting the problem. It's rather simple. Almost a joke: A Guerilla a Cossack and an Au corps are in the area of Barcelona, which is inside Catalonia which had been ceded to France. There's no garrison in the city. Now a Tu (not at war with any of these powers) fleet wants to enter the port. From whom does she need permission to enter if Tu already has access to Fr?[/QUOTE][/B]
If the cossack is at war with Austria it is not allowed to be there. If Austria is at war with Spain, the guerilla could only be in the city if it were being beseiged. If all three are at peace then any of the three may mkae the decision to fire the guns assuming Turkey is forcing access into the port to attack a fleet there.
[QUOTE][B]According to your interpretation of rule 7.3.3.3.2, all three units are now "acting" as garrison to the port. That gives them all control of it, so Tu would need permission of all three.[/QUOTE][/B]
That is correct, it is no different than having garrisons of multiple nationalities.
[QUOTE][B]So... the same is true whenever any other rule mentions a garrison? Our argument is now moot. For the rules clearly do not give any powers to "Corps _acting_ as garrisons" anywhere, only to "garrisons". Are you starting to see my problem here? Either the corps is a garrison or it is not. You can't say it isn't when you don't like it. Off course, you could say the corps can _choose_ to act as a garrison, but that it doesn't have to.. Well, then we'd need a way to keep track of _that_, so that's where things get overcomplicated....[/QUOTE][/B]
[B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] says that factors in a corps may act as a garrison without being detached... so that covers their ability to do all the things a glossary-defined garrison can do with being a garrison according to the strict definition therein. There is no real need to keep track of whether the corps is garrsioning the city or not, it is always immediately apparent (always, even in your guerilla example) whether a given corps is controlling a city or not. Always. there simply is no room whatsover for confusion.
[QUOTE][B]I believe the simplest solution is the one where the control of a city is always clearly descernable[/QUOTE][/B]
So do I... since under "my" system control is always clearly discernable at a glance (without having to examine the precise position of counters within a region, though stacking order retains some importance).
[QUOTE][B]*I* would naturally assume that such a corps would be placed opn to of the depot or city as well. You think differently. My problem is why do you assume that 7.3.3.3 does not apply?[/QUOTE][/B]
I do not assume anything. A corps in a region inherently protects the depot there since a corps has the ability to destroy that depot if neccessary to prevent it from falling into enemy hands. Wherein lie the difficulty here? There is no need even to specify that the depot is being "garrsioned" by the corps.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 44
- 6/6/2003 9:59:28 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE][B]Show me a rule that actually _says_ that a corps can pull double duty.[/B][/QUOTE]
[B]7.3.3.3.2[/B]. Sure it doesn't say "double-duty" but that's just a term we've invented here. The rules writer wouldn't consider double-duty anyway.
[QUOTE][B]So if corps can pull double duties, no-one told this to whomever wrote 7.5.1.1 or 7.3.3.[/B][/QUOTE]
Please. Considering the level of inconsistency within the rules, one has to wonder if ADG and AH communicated at ALL during the update of the rules.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 45
Continuing dialog - 6/6/2003 11:50:13 PM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		CHITENG's comment:
"Seems to me the common usage is that a corp in the area protects the city. When an enemy corp moves into the area you must decide at that time where you will be, either the city or the area."

CHITENG,
I don't agree that a corps necessarily protects the city else why have all the rules about garrisons? The game would be just like any other hex or area based game that doesn't distinguish between areas and cities. Why even put cities in the areas if they weren't meant to have special functions outside of areas.
I don't agree that it's common usage among players either. After all, a cossack doesn't have to stop for an enemy corps in an area and could conceiveably move into the area and then into the empty city and garrison the city! Hence the importance of garrisons!

As I said to RAGNAR, an uncontested corps in an area with an ungarrisoned city (should have said at the instant of that player's movement phase) controls the city for the moment because it can be assumed the corps moved through the city for zero movement points during it's move. 10.3.2.2 is pretty clear.

CHITENG,
I strongly disagree with the second half of your statement. You don't decide if your corps is in or out when another player enters your territory. That only happens IF combat is declared and hence gives you the option to retreat into the city in the combat phase! A cossack enemy could enter your area, ignore your corps and move right into the city! THAT'S ONE REASON WHY, AT THE END OF YOUR MOVEMENT PHASE, YOU NEED TO SHOW IF YOUR CORPS/UNITS ARE IN OR OUT OF A CITY BY PLACING THEM ON THE CITY PICTURE OR IN THE AREA! In my example, the cossack can garrison and thereby control the city perhaps for the RU fleet to move in the following turn naval phase and avoid the port's guns! OR WORSE, to force your fleets in port to move out, rule 6.2.6!!! OOPS! rule 6.2.6.1!!! Blockaded and now scuttled you say! Sure wish I had garrisoned! PERHAPS the city is a capitol city as well - look out Economics rule 8.2.1.1 NO TAXATION IF YOUR CAPITOL IS OCCUPIED BY ENEMY FACTORS!!!!!!!

A great move I like: Get into the empty city, garrison and then engage the enemy corps with your own corps now moved into the area. GOTCHA! The defending corps can't retreat into the city now to avoid field combat and as ARNIE says "I CRUSH YA!."
Works wonders for RU (cossacks), AU+PR (Friedcorps) and Spain (guerillas) play.

TO ALL,
I believe the rules intend cities to be "Areas" within areas that cost zero movement points to move into or out of. Rule 13.1.1.1 also supports this contention "...corps may be set up in any unoccupied city..." Clearly here and elsewhere, distinction is made for corps and units IN or OUT of a city. Must be a reason...

RAGNAR,
I point out that rule 7.3.3 IS under the section 7.3 Land Movement Phase so Yes, MOVEMENT into cities is done ONLY DURING THE LAND MOVEMENT PHASE!

Section 7.5 is Combat and has rules allowing for retreats into cities (never mentions movement points - is not MOVEMENT but retreat) and is how combat is handled! 5.0 Reinforcement says how reinforcements are handled (again NOT MOVEMENT but the PLACING of reinforcements). Seperate issues with seperate rule sections.

I couldn't find any reference to your comment of 'movement' during the supply step!?!?

As you correctly imply, ALL the rules are presented in order of use in OUTLINE FORMAT. ALL RULES OF 7.0 ARE LAND PHASE rules. 7.3 HEADS ALL RULES ON LAND MOVEMENT 7.3.3 are rules on MOVEMENT INTO CITIES 7.3.3.1 detaching/absorbing is STILL A MOVEMENT RULE of MOVEMENT INTO CITIES of LAND MOVEMENT of THE LAND PHASE in this format.

TO ALL,
I offer to everyone that perhaps rules format is part of the whole issue in this thread. Some are reading the rules as if each rule is a complete rule without taking into account Where and How the rule is listed. The format of the rules is just as important as the verbiage of the rules. So for SOAPYFROG to say that 7.3.3.3.2 is justification for corps to do double duty is partially ignoring that the rule is under 7.3.3.3 Garrison factors under 7.3.3 Moving into cities....Garrisons under 7.3 Land Movement Step under 7.0 The Land Phase.

Hence I argue the POSITION of the rule in the format IMPLIES a description of what can be a garrison AND A DESCRIPTION OF WHERE THE CORPS IS BECAUSE IT IS UNDER THE HEADING OF 7.33 GARRISON FACTORS which describes what IS INSIDE A CITY or on top of a depot acting as a garrison. Hence the sub rules 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 are talking only what units can comprise garrisons. Unfortunately, the rule doesn't specifically mention LOCATION BUT I intrepret the location as INSIDE of cities or ON top of depots and not IN areas because the entire sub rule is located under the heading of GARRISON FACTORS.
I agree it's not crystal clear but 7.3.3.3.1 specifically says "..city or depot garrison." While 7.3.3.3.2 says exclusively "city garrison."

HOWEVER,
The rules can still be poorly written. For example, 7.3.3.5 says depot garrisons are ARMY FACTORS and then says factors/corps in 7.3.3.5.1!!! (Where I believe corps IS a typo yet it's IN THE rules and causes confusion because 7.3.3.3.2 doesn't say that corps may form any or part of a depot garrison unlike 7.3.3.3.1). I believe the typo was missed because corps in areas obviously protect depots in areas regardless of depot garrisons. Otherwise 7.3.6.2 would see a "depot garrisoning" corps surrender all or part (that couldn't retreat into a freindly controlled city) if destroying the depot. I think we all agree a field battle ensues between opposing corps in an area.
So I don't believe corps garrison depots even though a rules lawyer (AND GOD AM I SOUNDING LIKE ONE AARRRGGG!) could argue 7.3.3.5.1.

TO ALL,
Back to the previous point, without taking FORMAT into account, one could argue rule 7.3.3.3.1 allows cossacks, guerillas and friedcorps to be in an area AND be a city garrison (double duty).

The rules can be misleading but I try to use the format to help account for inconsisitencies like 7.3.3.5.1 - by looking where the rule is LOCATED as well as What the rule says. Must be my military background since regulations, reports, etc. are written in this type of format.

Guess we'll just have to vote or get the developers to state "What will be will be!" Ah, nothing like the voice of the writers to tell you what they meant.

I hope everyone understands my strong intent to try and answer these issues since I want to playtest the game as closely to the model as the game was intended to be played!

GAME ON!!!
SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 46
- 6/7/2003 12:09:32 AM   
baboune

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/1/2003
Status: offline 		Sorry but I agree with soapyfrog:
"7.3.3.3.2: 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."

is clear enough for me...

When not under siege part of a corps can be inside and outside the city. After al a corps is a big entity.

When being attack, the corps can defend the area or retreat to the city to be besieged.

Outflanking with no leader is a bit tricky since some intrinsic leaders of corps are better than leader counters... Ah Jonh!

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 47
- 6/7/2003 12:14:20 AM   
baboune

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/1/2003
Status: offline 		Good post gdpsnake.

I posted my previous post without reading yours... Interesting perspective.

And I like the tricky cossack manoeuver!! oh yeah!

I need to read those rules again!

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 48
- 6/7/2003 12:15:09 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		Well if the corp doesnt protect the city by being in the area...
What good is it?

Why is it there?

_____________________________

“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 gdpsnake)
Post #: 49
- 6/7/2003 12:42:52 AM   
Ragnar

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		Corps being allowed to garrsion depots?.. Well, I think they can and I accept 7.3.5.1 as proof of that, however, I'm quite willing to ignore 7.3.5.1 because it causes a (pretty obscure) contradiction with another rule. That would mean, though, that if there's no factors visible on a depot, it cannot be destroyed prior to a battle. If corps cannot garrison a depot it cannot perform any of the benefits that a depot garrison gives either. Basically I treat depots and cities alike: immobile factor containers.

SNAKE:
"RAGNAR,
I point out that rule 7.3.3 IS under the section 7.3 Land Movement Phase so Yes, MOVEMENT into cities is done ONLY DURING THE LAND MOVEMENT PHASE!

Section 7.5 is Combat and has rules allowing for retreats
5.0 Reinforcement says how reinforcements are handled
I couldn't find any reference to your comment of 'movement' during the supply step!?!?"

Not movement, but detaching, actually:

(1)Detaching during the reinforcement phase:
5.2.3 "Army factors may also be exchanged with garrisons in the same area during this step, the same as in 7.3.3"

You can call it what you want, but if 5.2.3 say to do the same as 7.3.3 that would include entering cities. I agree that 7.3.3 is a sub of 7.3 with all the consequences that brings as to it's position in the sequence of play. However, if another rule specifically refers to it, I see that as that rule (7.3.3) being quoted in its entirety in that sectiom as well. Still, that interpretation would mean that while you can enter(7.3.3), you cannot _leave(7.3.4)_ a city during the reinforcement phase. Which is actually quite consistent with some other rules.

(2)Detaching during the combat step(I wasn't talking about 7.5.1.1):
7.5.1.3 "After a combat is completed, the phasing player's forces may immediately occupy and/or detach factors to occupy any friendly-controlled or vacant city in the area subject to usual restrictions (see 7.3.3)."

(3)Detaching during an opponents supply step (obscure, but definately there and quite essential):
7.4.5.2 "If all the besieged army factors are lost, any besieged leaders become the prisoners of the besiegers and the besieging forces may immediately detach factors to control the city. "

There may even be one or two more examples. IMO this establishes fairly well that 7.3.3 is not limited to being applied during the land movement phase alone. I think 7.3.3 also applies whenever the rules mention you can occupy a city or take it, or detach.

regards,
Ragnar Krempel

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 50
an answer - 6/7/2003 12:49:48 AM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		SOAPYFROG said concerning rule 7.3.4
"The vice-versa is clearly in reference only to the cost of such a move. Only place you are allowed to specifically move a corps entirely within a city is 7.5.1.1."

SOAPYFROG,
Then how do you explain 13.1.1.1? Corps set up in cities!!
Or 14.1.4.1.4?? Corps SET up in cities!!
OR,how can you say: "The vice-versa is clearly in reference only to the cost of such a move."
And then deny that such a MOVE is possible? Rule section 7.3 is MOVEMENT rules. Rule section 7.5 is COMBAT RULES both under the heading of 7.0 LAND PHASE.
7.3.4 is a movement rule and has NOTHING to do with combat so CLEARLY a player can move corps INTO cities during HIS MOVEMENT PHASE!

I strongly disagree with the idea that the only way a corps can get into a city is via combat. Heck, if it could go into a city during combat, why not during movement? AND there are good reasons to have corps in cities irrespective of combat (one reason - to act as a garrison without having to detach factors [important for TU feudal corps or any corps with just guards factors because guard factors would have to be converted]).

Why allow corps to set up in cities at the start of a game? Why even mention it since no one's even had a combat? Heck, they'd all be set up in areas to start! WHY IS IT MENTIONED IN THE SETUP IF THEY CAN ONLY BE IN A CITY AS A RESULT OF COMBAT RETREAT 7.5.1.1?

CHITENG said:
"Well if the corp doesnt protect the city by being in the area...
What good is it?"
The corps is a field army while garrisons are "city armies." If you want to protect your cities then one MUST garrison with either factors OR corps in the city because a corps in an area doesn't guarantee protection OR MAN PORT GUNS! ONLY units IN THE CITY guarantee protection or the use of port guns.

That's a critical factor of play in this game! Garrisons AND field armies. Why even have garrison rules if corps can do it all? Why not just a game with corps only and intrisinct garrisons (Then you have what I described before - an area based game where some areas have a city in them). No, you have a game where garrisons and cities are just as important to play as field armies (A game of city sub-areas within areas!)

That's why the rules like 7.3.4 describe movement OUT OF AND INTO cities.

I still submit cities are entirely seperate entities within areas and hence the rules are written with that in mind (like rule 7.2.2.1 and 7.2.2.2). Keep in mind that the areas represented are hundreds or thousands of square miles. A corp could be anywhere in that expanse. A city is only several square miles and it's location is precise.

I make this statement based on study of combats and maneuvers of the age. Garrisons protected LOC's and supply and served as "storehouses" for men. Field armies were used to bring that "decisive victory" by destroying the enemie's field armies.

If you really want to protect your cities, better garrison!!!
SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 51
- 6/7/2003 1:30:08 AM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		RAGNAR said:
"That would mean, though, that if there's no factors visible on a depot, it cannot be destroyed prior to a battle."

That's correct! Read 7.3.6.1 UNGARRISONED DEPOT AREA. A player COULD NOT destroy his depot when the enemy enters the area unless he had factors ON TOP OF THE DEPOT ACTING AS A DEPOT GARRISON! This rule is pretty clear as is 7.3.6.2.

Note that 7.3.6.2 says NOTHING about a corps present or not but ONLY if the depot is garrisoned! (as defined in 7.3.3.3)

HOWEVER, a player would have to stop and cease movement upon entering a depot area that also contained a corps so IN ESSENCE a corps in an area protects a depot but does not "garrison' said depot. A field combat occurs and case 7.5.2.14 Depots after field battles, applies.

I don't understand why everyone wants to ignore all the effort taken by the authors to define/describe garrisons as opposed to field forces and then say forget garrisons, corps can do it all anyway! That's my point, corps can't "do it all." A player must specifically pay attention to the details of garrisoning because it is so important!!!!

Did the "corps" in the Battle of the Bulge "area" destroy their depots or did Peiper almost get it? And this was a 19th century modern mechanized army 80 years after the time frame we are talking-much more mobile! Clearly there were thousands of men in the "Area" but not "at the depot!" Oh wait a minute, Peiper is close (how do we know?), let's destroy the depot (with who?)

RAGNAR,
I agree with all your examples, it only supports my position! Concerning your detach statements/examples, the factors are detaching and absorbing into and out of the corps, the corps is not moving but parts thereof and there is no movement point cost involved to do so.
Factors in a corps are men that can obviously be marched/moved independent of the corps in these situations. I never said a corps HAD to enter a city in order to detach/absorb factors. I said the rule supports the claim that corps CAN ENTER a city during the movement phase and therby become a garrison WITHOUT detaching factors ( and hence support my claim that corps are IN or OUT of cities). Men in a corps can be ordered by groups to perform these tasks BUT THEY MUST BE ORDERED TO DO SO! (i.e. factors are exchanged!)
If anything, this supports my statement that a player MUST garrison a city with units and that corps counters in an area can not garrison or man guns (i.e the men were not ordered to move out of the corps and into the city. If the order had been given, then the men would be removed from the corps organization and 'moved' into the garrison (i.e. factors exchanged!). OR the corps would be IN the city to garrison.


Garrison or lose is my motto.
SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 52
- 6/7/2003 2:02:50 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		So wait a second, gdpsnake, are you suggesting that you could move a cossack into an area that contained an enemy corps and then move it into a "vacant" city in that area, and you think that's REASONABLE? And that it makes SENSE?

As for your other comments regarding references with corps being in cities, none of them in any way conflict with my reading of the rules.

None of them.

It all... works... perfectly... under my interpretation.

There are clearly rules governing when corps might be inside a city... due to reinforcement, due to combat, or due to debarkation. I never once suggested that a corps could not be inside a city in it's entirety, or that sometimes it might not be allowed to enter a city in it's entirety, only that MOST of the time it is not relevant.

In fact it is only relevant during enemy movement, and at any other time a corps that is in a region with a city that it would normally be allowed to garrison, then it can be considered to be garrisoning that city with factors from itself without actually detaching them, as stated in [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B]. There is no reason to actually announce this becuase of the actual size of the garrison is never relevant until after a decision to retreat inside a city due to impending combat is made.

Therefore your cossack trick would quite naturally and sensibly not work.

As for depots, again, it is not relevant whether corps can specifically garrison depots. It just... doesn't... matter. this is becuase a corps in the same area as a friendly depot prevents enemy forces form doing anything to or with that depot before the corps could itself destroy it or fight of the impending attack.

You are still interpreting the rules "your" way when you talk about "my" interpretation and it's screwing you up. Free you mind. Realize that it's just not relevant most of the time to talk about the specific position of the corps within a region.

Imagine the corps to be an electron... it's position is only relevant when you want to observe it.

In one place you observe "why have garrison rules at all?" to which I would answer: try playing "my" way and NOT leaving garrisons and see how far that strategy gets you! You need rules for independent garrisons, they are as indispensible as field forces.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 53
- 6/7/2003 4:08:37 AM   
baboune

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/1/2003
Status: offline 		7.3.3.5.1: All army factors/corps used to garrison a depot must be of the same major power as the depot.

Indicates that corps do garrison a depot.

7.3.6.2 GARRISONED DEPOT AREA: If an enemy depot is garrisoned, the player controlling the garrison factors has the option of immediately destroying the depot before the moving force chooses whether to leave the area (if permissible) or to stay and fight. If the garrison does not elect to destroy the depot and the phasing force chooses to stop its movement and fight, the depot may be captured after land combat (see 7.3.6. 1) and destroyed or converted (but not used for supply this major power's sequence-also see 7.5.2.14). If the garrison destroys the depot, the garrison surrenders or all or part (if city cannot hold all-the part not moved to the city will surrender) can be moved to an unbesieged friendly controlled or vacant city in that same area, at the owning player's option.

Notice the can in the last phrase, after having destroyed the depot you can do wahtever you want with the garrisoning force. So if it is a corps it can stay in the area.

my 2c..

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 54
- 6/7/2003 4:21:05 AM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		SOAPYFROG,
But you said a corps could ONLY BE IN A CITY AS A result of 7.5.1.1.
Now you are saying differently?

You Said:
"In fact it is only relevant during enemy movement, and at any other time a corps that is in a region with a city that it would normally be allowed to garrison, then it can be considered to be garrisoning that city with factors from itself without actually detaching them, as stated in 7.3.3.3.2."

But, 7.3.3.3.2 does not say state that at all! It does not say "... a corps in the region..." 7.3.3.3.2 ONLY says that a corp need not detach factors to garrison. In other words, It need not detach factors while IN the city to fulfill the requirements of 7.3.3.3 (mainly for TU feudal corps and guard factor purposes). 7.3.3.3 SPECIFICALLY says a city garrison IS IN A CITY. 7.3.3.3.2 mearly allows corps to be garrisons INSIDE a city without detaching.
If your corps is in the area AND you don't detach garrison factors into the city then the city HAS NO GARRISON and yes, a cossack could move right past you and into the vacant city. If you don't put anybody in the city, the city is vacant! Soldiers are in the city or with the field army, not both. That's crazy. Joe's in the 5th company in the field and in the city? No! Joe is either in the 5th company or detached to garrison duty. Joe can't be both places.

As for making sense, Yes a cossack could march into a city right past a corps in a thousand square miles. Heck, whole armies marched right past each other all the time! The city is a specific small location in the area and if you don't have soldiers to protect it then it's vulnerable. A commander may not even know a cossack group is even in the area! Hence the rules allowing movement without stopping.

You said:
"this is becuase a corps in the same area as a friendly depot prevents enemy forces form doing anything to or with that depot before the corps could itself destroy it or fight of the impending attack"

NO! If the corps fight then 7.5.2.14 applies! Your corps must decide to destroy the depot in your depot creation removal phase OR garrison it with factors that can destroy it. If you chose not to garrison then you can't decide to have your corps destroy it before the battle. Where is that stated in the rules?!? 7.3.6.2 SPECIFICALLY SAYS GARRISON FACTORS have the option to destroy the depot. NOWHERE does it say a corps in the area. NOWHERE!

YES (rule 7.3.6.2), that also means that a cossack could enter an area with your corps AND DESTROY an ungarrisoned depot despite the presence of your corps in the area. Heck, raids like that are common all through history. If you don't put soldies at the ammo dump then anyone can come in and blow it up! A single soldier could!

A corps in an area DOES not garrison a depot ANY more than it garrisons a city. YOU MUST PUT FACTORS OR A CORPS in the city to garrison the city OR put factors on the depot to garrison it OR THEY ARE UNGARRISONED BY DEFINITION!

That's the whole issue again! You MANAGE your factors into corps or garrisons! FACTORS CAN'T DO DOUBLE DUTY! If you don't 'protect' your resources with factors then they are vulnerable.

The game becomes a lot more challenging as it should when a player can't just 'load' up the corps counters as a result of 'double duty' but becomes limited! Do I spend to garrison or spend to build a field army up!

More than any other reason, this is why Spain is so difficult to conquer when you consider the use of guerillas in light of my garrison interpretations. Isn't that what guerrillas do after all!?

True, it may not be relavant most of the time but it certainly is when the irregular units start poking around.

As with any rules intrepretation, I may not 'get it' but this is the way I like to play! This really makes the use of garrisons VERY IMPORTANT as they historically were and 'irregular units' the true pain in the butt that they should be!

I'm enjoying this - great discussion. Guess it depends on how you like to play!

GARRISON OR LOSE!
SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 55
- 6/7/2003 4:26:59 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		If the corp doesnt protect the city by being in the area...
What good is it?

Why is it there?


Sounds like this is someone trying to exploit an imagined
rules loophole.

A city is integral to the area, it isnt 'stand alone'

_____________________________

“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 gdpsnake)
Post #: 56
- 6/7/2003 4:55:39 AM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		SOAPYFROG reference your post elsewhere,
Good one! Yes the staff officer SHOULD BE SHOT because he didn't assign any soldiers to garrison duty!

Of course, they wouldn't find out until many days later after the cossacks raped, pillaged, burned and raped some more, burned the ships in port, raped the sailors, and then left or closed the gates and thumbed their noses at your assaulting army arriving too late to prevent more rape of course! LOL!

Also, only the fortress cities had walls the rest were 'open' and without soldiers to protect, the populace is certainly not going to resist (or they get raped!) And most fortress cities without a garrison would just open the gates anyway to avoid reprisals - they don't know how big the force is/ This could just be an advance guard!

Family in city: "Hurry hide the girls in the cellar the cossacks are coming!"
"Where the hell are our troops?"
"The **** general took all of them to be in his army and left us defenseless!"
"They're camped somewhere, let's send messengers!"
"They'll never get back with help in time! The cossacks are here!"
Cossack: "Who wants to be raped first?"
Family: "You'll be sorry when our army arrives!"
Cossack: "By that time I'll be finished raping, looting and burning and be long gone! So who's first again?"

SOAPYFROG and CHITENG,
You seem to assume (as I don't) that a corps in an area is camped by the city gates. They might, but I assume they could be anywhere in a thousand square miles away from the city or else they would be camped IN/NEXT to the city (represented in games terms as being IN the city) OR they are not in close proximity (more than a days march away and represented by being in the area! You choose which in your movement phase.

The player with the irregular unit then chooses his unit to be in close proximity of the city (ENTER the ungarrisonned city) in his movement phase by avoiding your forces more than a day's march away (Irregular units don't have to stop!)

If you say your corps is "EVERYWHERE" in the area and in the city then how could enemy irregular units pass right by?! What they have a pass?!

FINAL AND MY MOST IMPORTANT POINT:
These 'areas' can hold hundreds of thousands of troops let alone all the rest located in one area. What was the average 'frontage' of a column of men of the day (measured in yards!)? And you say a single corps can cover thousands of square miles? Something a modern ARMY can't do?
I think you greatly exaggerate the ability of an 1812 army corps to "protect" an area, city and depot all at the same time. Heck if that were true, you wouldn't need garrisons! Your corps would be spread out to do the job! True, one man per square mile.........

How did armies meet? They decided to meet usually after a random encounter by parts on both sides! Whole armies wandered around each other all the time (intellegence wasn't great either!)

Bottom line, garrison with factors or corps in a city or with factors on a depot or lose it!

GARRISON OR DIE!

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 57
- 6/7/2003 5:02:02 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		The abstraction is integral to the turn by turn play.

At Jena the Prussians set up to cover Dresden. Napoleon
didnt simply walk around them. In reality Napoleon was
'numericly' outnumbered. He COULD not walk around them.

The Prussians would have reacted to any such attempt.
that isnt possible in a turn by turn game.

You have to have the abstraction for the sake of sanity.

_____________________________

“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 gdpsnake)
Post #: 58
- 6/7/2003 5:29:13 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by gdpsnake
[B]SOAPYFROG,
But you said a corps could ONLY BE IN A CITY AS A result of 7.5.1.1.
Now you are saying differently?[/QUOTE][/B]
No I said the corps can only MOVE into the city as a result of [B]7.5.1.1[/B] corps can BE in a city due to placement and debarkation as the rules state, and from there they can MOVE OUT of the city for zero cost. If you find other rules which state that corps can move entirely into cities then they would apply too. I am not excluding any part of the written rules, I am only referring to the sections in dispute for clarity.
[QUOTE][B]If your corps is in the area AND you don't detach garrison factors into the city then the city HAS NO GARRISON and yes, a cossack could move right past you and into the vacant city. If you don't put anybody in the city, the city is vacant! Soldiers are in the city or with the field army, not both. That's crazy. Joe's in the 5th company in the field and in the city? No! Joe is either in the 5th company or detached to garrison duty. Joe can't be both places.[/QUOTE][/B]
I'll agree that our interpretations of [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] do differ on this point, and to counter your claim that my interpretation is somehow historically innacurrate, I will tell you a few things:

1) A corps in EiA is essentially an army organization, a very fluid grouping of divisional and brigade formations with of course attached regimental and battalion elements and varios other support units. It was quite normal in those times (and in modern times too) for many units to be detached temporarily for picket duty, reconnaissance, and to man or bolster the defence of any strongpoints or strategic points within the corps' (or army's) operational area.

2) The corps is not simply camped outside the city, nor is it specifically clustered at any other particular area. Divisions and Brigades (and even smaller formations) might be billetted or bivouaced over a huge area. Does this preclude the possibility of small enemy reconnaissance formations like Cossacks form moving through the area? No! But could those Cossacks snatch control of strategic fortresses or cities under the noses of such forces? No! That would just be silly.

3) It is silly to think that for some reason that cities are detached from the area... they are in the region and the population cities and fortifications are vital points that would not be ignored, or worse AVOIDED by corps in the area.
[QUOTE][B]SPECIFICALLY SAYS GARRISON FACTORS have the option to destroy the depot. NOWHERE does it say a corps in the area. NOWHERE![/QUOTE][/B]
Except that corps can garrison depots... see Baboune's post.
[QUOTE][B]YES (rule 7.3.6.2), that also means that a cossack could enter an area with your corps AND DESTROY an ungarrisoned depot despite the presence of your corps in the area. Heck, raids like that are common all through history. If you don't put soldies at the ammo dump then anyone can come in and blow it up! A single soldier could![/QUOTE][/B]
So you are syaing that the supply depot is completely devoid of personnel if you don't specifically detach a garrison, even if there are friendly corps in the area? Wow, have you actually convinced other humans of the validity of that point of view?
[QUOTE][B]The game becomes a lot more challenging as it should when a player can't just 'load' up the corps counters as a result of 'double duty' but becomes limited! Do I spend to garrison or spend to build a field army up![/QUOTE][/B]
So you REALLY think you won't need to garrison if corps can pull "double-duty" as you say? Well let me tell you garrisons are used extremely extensively in our games, becuase your corps a) can't be everywhere and b) have more important things to do. Garrisoning is a no-brainer.
[QUOTE][B]I'm enjoying this - great discussion. Guess it depends on how you like to play![/B][/QUOTE]
Or how you are USED to playing, anyway... I must say I have never encountered any group that would allow a cossack or guerilla to bypass a corps in an area and march into a supposedly "vacant" city...

Always interesting to get different perspectives though. :D

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 59
- 6/7/2003 9:30:02 AM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		SOAPYFROG,
THanks for the crossfire by the way, very enlightning!
You said:
1) A corps in EiA is essentially an army organization, a very fluid grouping of divisional and brigade formations with of course attached regimental and battalion elements and varios other support units. It was quite normal in those times (and in modern times too) for many units to be detached temporarily for picket duty, reconnaissance, and to man or bolster the defence of any strongpoints or strategic points within the corps' (or army's) operational area.

NO argument here but I 'suggest' the units detached temporarily for duty IS the idea that one should 'detach' factors to specifically perform garrison duty in a city or on a depot! Units are often detached BUT were then not often found fighting with the parent units in the major engagements (hence factors lost to a corps counter)! Lots of historical examples to support that.

2) The corps is not simply camped outside the city, nor is it specifically clustered at any other particular area. Divisions and Brigades (and even smaller formations) might be billetted or bivouaced over a huge area. Does this preclude the possibility of small enemy reconnaissance formations like Cossacks form moving through the area? No! But could those Cossacks snatch control of strategic fortresses or cities under the noses of such forces? No! That would just be silly.

Again, I agree 100% on how units of the time were billetted perhaps even into the city in question but perhaps they are elsewhere. Unless a player SPECIFICALLY 'billets' his men (read-detach factors or use the corps counter) into the specific city, can one say for certain they are there? That's my argument - you garrison the city (they are there) or you don't (billeted elsewhere.) As you say bivouaced over a huge area - just where are the men?

I'm curious, since feudal corps can't detach, do you say they can garrison a city from the area too (do double duty)?

Since you staunchly hold onto 7.3.3.3.2 as justification for corps to garrison a city while in the area do you agree that 7.3.3.3.1 allows those other units to do so as well? The rule verbiage IS the same for both rules.

A strength point is 1000-2000 men or essentially a large regiment for the period. Could a regiment of cavalry invest a town, burn ships in port, apply control until forcibly removed or departed? I think yes, quite easily if there is no garrison. Even a garrison with a some men, perhaps a few hundred won't stop 2000 horsemen for long.

And, of course, one cossack won't stick around or last very long against the reconstituted and assaulting corps but they would be there long enough to do the damage.
In game terms, it's a harder concept to grasp over a month. What day do the cossacks enter? Does the timing work out with the arrival of a fleet? I say yes, it's possible. There are many historic examples of small units investing lightly defended targets and disabling shore batteries for fleets irrespective of the "larger armies" billeted all over the place. (D-DAY ranger regiments, paratrooper drops in enemy territory, special forces etc.)
Perhaps the best example is Stuart in the US civil war. He commanded a cavalry corps and rode all over and around the much larger Union forces, destroying railroads, depots, capturing supplies etc. How big was the area he operated in compared to this game map? SO yes, I don't think it's outrageous to say an irregular unit can do what I described to either a city or a depot.

3) It is silly to think that for some reason that cities are detached from the area... they are in the region and the population cities and fortifications are vital points that would not be ignored, or worse AVOIDED by corps in the area.

Again, I agree but in game terms, I submit a player DOES IGNORE AND/OR AVOID them by not intentionally garrisoning with factors/counters! And the garrisoning should be sufficient (at least a regiment) or the irregular regiment of cavalry prowling the countryside OR the insurgent guerrillas "rise up" in the undefended or lightly controlled cities and wreck havoc!

SOAPYFROG said:
"Except that corps can garrison depots... see Baboune's post"

His post refererred to rule 7.3.3.5.1 which contradicts 7.3.3.3.2 and others and is one 'quirk' I mentioned as an example of problems with the rules. I don't believe corps can garrison depots by being in the area. Rule 7.3.6.2 specifically contradicts by saying "...the player controlling the garrison FACTORS..."

So if one argues he can garrison his depots with corps in the area (Or on top of the depot) then I say he must follow rule 7.3.6.2 and either the corps fights and the status of the depot is per 7.5.2.14 or the corps destroys the depot and MUST follow rule 7.3.6.2 and surrenders (or that part which does not retreat into a city surrenders and NO FIELD COMBAT can be fought. The player could not therefore, destroy the depot and fight! After all, if the commanders ordered the destruction of his supply depot, doesn't that sort of admit "I'm going to lose this battle so I must apply scortched earth policies!" Well, that policy doesn't work very well if you then fight and lose your standing army!!! No, you fight to protect or preserve your base of supply - you destroy only if you intend withdraw so I say 7.3.6.2 applies!

Also, standing armies of the period didn't 'waste' their time garrisoning depots. That was left to detached units to protect against irregular units and small forces while the corps "protected' the depot by meeting and defeating large enemy forces in field battles. No reason then an undefended depot could not be invested and destroyed by a regiment of cavalry or guerilla insurgents "despite" the presence of the corps billited in the area.

So ascribe to the logic and would rather stick with corps can't/don't garrison depots ( and hence destroy them before battle) but instead protect them by winning the field battle (7.5.2.14 applies) or, of course, destroy depots in his depot creation/removal step. Again, if you want the option of destroying the depot before battle (rule 7.3.6.2), then one should adhere to the rules and have a garrison factor on the depot. That's the way I enjoy playing (and the way I read the rules).

So spice it up and try playing the game with my intrepretations, but watch out for the irregular unit slipping into the ungarrisoned depot and destroying it! OR sneaking into your cities to scuttle blockaded fleets or damage your economy in capitols - after all, isn't that what raiding is all about? It's not about controlling the city but damaging the economy! I like to use irregulars this way - much more fun and challenges players to actually protect their depots/cities with garrisons.

None of that "Oh my corps is garrisoning that city- Oh AND I don't lose any strenght points for the field battle. I get the garrison strength AND my corps strength and I fight with ALL my guys. What happened to rule 7.5.1.2? Just blow that off did we?

FINALLY and the last part is the big one!!!!,
If one uses the 'double duty' concept then why are relieving force battles fought with different rules than a Field battle? Under your concept if a corps can garrison the city and area at the same time then why can't factors in a city garrison be with the corps for a full field battle. HEY, everyone is together in the area right! So a garrison should be part of the corps counter before battle, right?! BUT THEY AREN'T ARE THEY?! NO, and that is why corps can't be IN an AREA and be ALL OR PART OF A CITY GARRISON at the same time! They are TWO DIFFERENT FORCES, ONE INSIDE THE CITY AND ONE OUTSIDE.
READ 7.5.1.2 So what part of your corps counter can't fight according to 7.5.1.2 since that part is 'garrisoning' the city?

Ultimately, players can choose to play any way they agree beforehand but I hope my arguments show the faulty logic of double duty especially referring to 7.5.1.2. Men can't be two places at once. The rule CLEARLY states forces in the city are not involved in field combats in the area and double duty implies they are in BOTH places.!

However, these posts show that there exist different styles of play based on rules analysis. You and Chiteng seem to be of one mind concerning garrisons and corps doing 'double duty' while Ragnar and I seem to be of another. I simply find the play more challenging and depictive of the age the way I choose to intrepret these garrison rules. And yes, cities are seperate areas in my mind, And yes, why make it easy?!

Gadzooks, this is fun! Creating and holding onto your EMPIRE IN ARMS ain't no cake walk!

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> another input Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

5.016