Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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 >> Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 6/8/2003 7:01:15 PM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		The rule could read,

"During a major power's Land Movement Step, any non-artillery, non-feudal or non-insurrection corps may, [B]during its respective movement[/B], detach factors as garrisons at, or..."

But it doesn't say that.

I agree 100% that corps move individually. This doesn't equate to treating each corps as an island. They act in unison at times and conduct supply (such as forage rolls) in concert (at least, accounting for each other in the process).

To draw a bright line is fine where it's more clear than this.

What principle would defend why a corps, during it's first or last moves, in expending zero additional move, could not drop or add a garrison?

Here's something else to rock everyone's world:

Under the rules as set forth above, why can't you have five corps meeting in an area and shuffling their respective infantry around -- particularly if it's in the middle of the "Land Movement Step"?

Reknoy

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 91
- 6/8/2003 7:18:52 PM   
Ragnar

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B]
FWIW, the interpretation MAKES SENSE: A corps with just enough points to enter an area hasn't much latitude remaining to do anything else upon arrival. However, if you have one point left, or are continuing on [I]through[/I] the subject area to another beyond, then you conceivably have the "logistical wherewithal" to pass by and detach troops to a city in that same area as you move through.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Capitaine,

Very, very interesting point. While I've never interpreted this rule as such, I agree that your reading is consistent enough with the text to have merit.

However, I find it strange that you would not be able to detach under these circumstances while you _would_ be able to detach after you've defeated an enemy depot garrison in that area (7.5.1.3). I'm not saying this invalidates your interpretation, just that I'm a bit sceptical because of it.

Also, what's the big deal? So a corps ends its movement upon expending its movement allowance. It doesn't say "_immediately_ upon expending its movement allowance". All you can be sure of is that after all mp have been expended, the corps must end its movement. Afaict, the sentense does not specifically exclude the corps from performing any other actions in between. Again, not saying you are wrong, just saying that I don't think your reasoning is airtight..

regards,
Ragnar

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 92
- 6/8/2003 7:24:50 PM   
Ragnar

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]I will however take exception to ANY player that thinks they have a 'lock' on determining who has 'been playing right' [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree to that..

However, you certainly must know that some people do NOT play the game "right". In the eight years I've been playing now, I've constantly had to adjust my sense of the rules because I'd missed this or that or read something wrongly.

The plain language of the EiA rules make them easy to read, but also easy to misinterpret while the sheer number of them and the odd places that some rules are in makes it easy to miss something completely.

Rqagnar

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 93
- 6/8/2003 7:44:43 PM   
Ragnar

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]The rule could read,

"During a major power's Land Movement Step, any non-artillery, non-feudal or non-insurrection corps may, [B]during its respective movement[/B], detach factors as garrisons at, or..."

But it doesn't say that.

[..]

Here's something else to rock everyone's world:

Under the rules as set forth above, why can't you have five corps meeting in an area and shuffling their respective infantry around -- particularly if it's in the middle of the "Land Movement Step"?

Reknoy [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, they can't do _that_ since they cannot actually exchange factors. But do it near a city or depot that has at least 1 free spot for a factor and you can do pretty much all you want, yes. I like the way you think :)

I must say that *this* is new to me, and I had to re-read 7.3.3. I'll have to agree though, that the fact that detaching "does not expend movement points" does not imply that movement points are relevant. In fact, if anything it implies that they are not.

In other words, a negative does not necessarily imply a positive in reverse.

And considering that there's a host of other rules that refer to rule 7.3.3 that have _nothing_ to do with the movement phase, I'd say that despite the opening of 7.3.3, detaching/moving into cities has nothing to do with movement. The movement phase is just ONE of the instances when you can enter a city or detach. I've already mentioned at least 3 others (excluding 7.5.1.1) in this thread: During reinforcements, during combats, during an opponents' supply step.

Ragnar

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 94
- 6/8/2003 7:54:43 PM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		Sorry -- I meant that the five would have to be in an area that had a city or depot that could hold at least one factor.

Thanks for clarifying what would work from what I wrote rather than trash it in its (as of then, inaccurate) form.

Cheers!

Reknoy

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 95
Right, can we get dowj to business again? - 6/8/2003 7:59:11 PM   
Ragnar

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		I still feel more of a need to get to the bottom of the "double duty" issue. I believe that the belief in double duty is inherently inconsistent, so it should not be a problem to show this to its followers.

I believe that the point that there is no "double duty" has sufficiently been proven to be workable, for even though some people don't like it they haven't said or shown that the rules _exclude_ that interpretation.

So _suppose_ rules 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 DO imply a "double duty" function for corps/cossacks/guerillas.

What does that do to the rest of the rules? By induction, such units would now be considered to be "garrisons" and "factors inside a city, right? Or wrong (if so why)?

I'd like one of the believers (Soapy?) to give me HIS definition of a garrison.

Is it: "Any counters placed on that depot or city plus any cossack, guerilla, freikorps or corps counters placed in the surrounding area (guerillas don't garrison depots)" ?

regards,
Ragnar

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 96
- 6/8/2003 9:40:30 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		[U]Replies to valid counterpoints[/U]

[B]Reknoy says...[/B] [QUOTE]The rule could read,

"During a major power's Land Movement Step, any non-artillery, non-feudal or non-insurrection corps may, during its respective movement, detach factors as garrisons at, or..."

But it doesn't say that.

I agree 100% that corps move individually. This doesn't equate to treating each corps as an island. They act in unison at times and conduct supply (such as forage rolls) in concert (at least, accounting for each other in the process).[/QUOTE] Okay, once again, the [B]basic[/B] "Land Movement Procedures" (7.3.2 and all subsections thereof) state that "each counter is moved [I]individually[/I]" and also state explicitly [I]when[/I] each counter's movement is deemed to "end", as a matter of "land movement". "End" or "cease" refers to all actions deemed to be "land movement" under the rules. Matters NOT deemed "land movement" or carved out by special exception (retirement into city during enemy combat phase, e.g.) are different matters entirely. Land movement is land movement, not a "move option" that is part of combat or another phase of the game.

As for [U]not saying[/U] "during its respective movement", why should it be redundant? General "land movement" was set forth and described in 7.3.2, and as part of 7.3 ("Land Movement Step"), 7.3.3 ("Moving into Cities etc.") simply describes another activity which may be done during a counter's "land movement", consistently with the immediately preceding section 7.3.2.

Now, your foraging issue is simply off base on the movement issue. Foraging comes under section 7.4 "The Supply Step" and is not a part of the "Land Movement Step". Hence, whatever foraging is done is outside of the rules pertaining to "land movement" [I]per se[/I] (7.3 vs. 7.4; technically the supply step, but occurs after the end of the move of each individually moved corps).

In fact, 7.4.1 states that foraging may be elected "[I]when [U]a[/U] corps (not two or more) ceases movement[/I]", clearly referencing the rule on "ceasing movement" in 7.3.2. Also, 7.4.1.1 states that the foraging roll is made [I]"for [U]each[/U] foraging corps [B]as it completes movement[/B][/I] (clearly indicating that forage is done for each corps individually, per 7.3.2, after it concludes its move; NOT in conjunction with other corps. It is done sequentially. Please tell me what rule provides that multiple corps "act in unison" on their forage rolls? :confused:
[QUOTE]Under the rules as set forth above, why can't you have five corps meeting in an area and shuffling their respective infantry around -- particularly if it's in the middle of the "Land Movement Step"?[/QUOTE] Simply because that is NOT how the rules set forth the play of the game. That activity (shuffling factors among corps in the same area) may only be done in 5.0, "The Reinforcement Phase". See rule 5.2.3. If corps could do this any time in their land movement phase, rule 5.2.3 would be superfluous AND there would also be a need for a similar rule in 7.3 ("Land Movement Step") to make that a valid "movement option. You may not, however, transfer directly among corps in the same area in the movement phase. (N.B. however that you could accomplish that to a lesser degree through the aforesaid "detachment" rules, where one corps validly detaches factors to a city in the area, and another corps moving afterward absorbs them legally under the movement rules).

[B]Ragnar says...[/B] [QUOTE]However, I find it strange that you would not be able to detach under these circumstances while you _would_ be able to detach after you've defeated an enemy depot garrison in that area (7.5.1.3). I'm not saying this invalidates your interpretation, just that I'm a bit sceptical because of it. [/QUOTE] Ragnar, like others, you're mixing up the "Land Movement Step" (7.3) with the "Land Combat Step" (7.5) which is faulty rules construction. Movement [I]qua[/I] movement is determined solely pursuant to 7.3. Other "moves" permitted in the game are special situations applicable to other game phases, such as the "retirement into city" rule (7.5.1.1). The moves into cities described in 7.5.1.3 are ordained [I]by virtue of [U]that[/U] rule[/I] and [U]not[/U] by virtue of the land movement restraints imposed under 7.3. Without 7.5.1.3, you would NOT be able to make that "move" during the combat step. There is no need for consistency between 7.3 and 7.5 since they are unrelated conceptually.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 97
- 6/8/2003 10:38:19 PM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		First, the comment about foraging should be taken in conjunction with the parenthetical reference thereafter.

Please re-read Capitaine and give me the quizzical look if you're still confused. I was actually trying to draw a comparable concept into play -- though poorly I must admit.

I am wholly unconvinced by your reasoning, however.

You keep referring to the notion that a corps stops everything when its individual movement ceases.

Where is that exactly?

I am referring to the rules on "detach/absorb". The specific rule on that topic.

In relation to those rules and the restriction laid out expressly therein, where is the beef?

I can cite and re-cite where it clearly states that, during the "Land Movement Step" a MP can detach and absorb factors.

I see where it says that each counter is MOVED individually.

That takes care of the obvious issues surrounding all sorts of results from movement (like insurrection corps popping up, for example).

Please show me where it says that each corps conducts its "Land Movement Step" individually?

To assume a consequence (like, because corps move individually, then once it ceases movement it cannot perform any actions in the land movement step) is hazardous in EiA, imo.

7.3.3 refers to "detaching" garrisons, not "moving into a city for zero move and detaching a garrison". The citation that there is no movement point cost simply clarifies that it costs no movement points to detach -- therefore, whether or not a force has movement points is not relevant.

Again, please cite something more specific. :confused: <-- Hey!

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 98
Re: Right, can we get dowj to business again? - 6/8/2003 11:20:27 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ragnar
[B]I'd like one of the believers (Soapy?) to give me HIS definition of a garrison.[/B][/QUOTE]
A Garrison is as defined in the glossary, with rules [B]7.3.3.3.1[/B] and [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] allowing corps/cossacks/freikorps/guerrillas to form all or part of a garrison with any of their factors at their discretion (i.e. when it matters).

So basically if a corps/cossacks/freikorps/guerrillas is in an otherwise empty area with a city, that city is considered to be under the control of the power controlling the corps/cossacks/freikorps/guerrillas for all purposes that require a garrison, including control for economic, political, and combat purposes (e.g. firing a ports guns).

As long as the unit has not been forced inside the city by way of [B]7.5.1.1[/B] or is not a corps which has just been created in the reinforcement step, then it is still considered "field forces".

That's pretty much it.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 99
- 6/8/2003 11:21:49 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		And as for the zero-movement cost thing, I'm out of that one.

Clearly my brain is too small to deal with the 7th dimensional mathematics being used to define Zero as an infinitessimally small number instead of the complete absence of any existing or required amount. :D

*Edit* BUT ... Just to throw a spanner in your works, since all corps but cavalry retain the possibility of force-marching, is their move ever really truly expended unless the have already force-marched?

Oh wait are you going to argue that conducting a zero-cost move at the end of your regular movement REQUIRES you to force-march? :D :D :D

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 100
Soapy's point is on the mark. - 6/8/2003 11:40:07 PM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		Imo that takes care of the issue.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 101
- 6/8/2003 11:45:36 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		Except for the Austrian Light Infantry :D

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 102
- 6/9/2003 12:02:58 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		[B]Reknoy says...[/B] [QUOTE]First, the comment about foraging should be taken in conjunction with the parenthetical reference thereafter.[/QUOTE] The only parenthetical references I noticed was to "(such as forage rolls)" -- nope, they don't -- and "(at least, accounting for each other in the process)". With respect to the latter case, it is ONLY as to other corps, of ALL nationalities, in the same area at the time THAT CORPS completes its [I]individual[/I] move. 7.4.1.1 and 7.4.1.2.1 ("A die is rolled for [I]each[/I] foraging corps as it completes movement", and "[f]or [I]each[/I] other unbesieged corps in the area it currently occupies...").
[QUOTE]Please re-read Capitaine and give me the quizzical look if you're still confused.[/QUOTE] Okay. :confused:
[QUOTE]I am wholly unconvinced by your reasoning, however.[/QUOTE] I am sad for you then. :(
[QUOTE]You keep referring to the notion that a corps stops everything when its individual movement ceases.

Where is that exactly?[/QUOTE] You haven't read a thing, have you? It ceases movement when its individual movement ceases. "Movement" is, by definition, all those activities listed in section 7.3 which include (after the "general rules on movement") 7.3.3 -- Moving into cities; 7.3.4 -- Movement from cities; 7.3.5 -- Landing from ships; 7.3.6 -- Moving into enemy depot area; 7.3.7 -- Moving into combat; and 7.3.8 -- Declaration of combat and combined movement. All such cases are matters subject to the general rule on cessation of a counter's "movement" (set forth in 7.3.2) during the Land Movement Step (7.3) of The Land Phase (7.0). Matters addressed outside of 7.3 are not subject to the limitations, nor must they be consistent with (nor may they be inferred as necessarily relating to) land movement rules and limits set forth in 7.3. The rules needn't say this. This is simple reading comprehension and rational interpretation of outline form.
[QUOTE]I am referring to the rules on "detach/absorb". The specific rule on that topic.[/QUOTE] Yes, indeed. And during movement, subject to the general rules in 7.3.2, this MAY be done during the land movement step. Do you contend 7.3.3 is NOT part of "land movement" and is a separate case unrelated to 7.3.2 regarding the cessation of movement? :confused: (For you :) ) What gives YOU the idea that a subcase under "land movement" is independent of general rules on land movement, when not stated as an "exception"? Each counter, individually, in its turn sequence, may take that action, as well as the actions in cases 7.3.4 thru 7.3.8, as [I]a part[/I] of its "land movement" as delimited in section 7.3.2. I'm sorry if you don't like rules, but that is exactly what they say.
[QUOTE]In relation to those rules and the restriction laid out expressly therein, where is the beef?[/QUOTE] You have it now. Tell me, if you believe otherwise, what does 7.3.2 mean to you? That it's restrictions apply ONLY as long as you are NOT doing an action in 7.3.3 thru 7.3.8? That is absurd. That is creating out of whole cloth. You cannot assert that as a rational matter. No, those activities ARE some of the things, besides moving from area to area (or in conjunction with such a move) that a counter may do IF IT IS DURING ITS MOVE. It's "move" is defined as the period specified in 7.3.2.
[QUOTE]I can cite and re-cite where it clearly states that, during the "Land Movement Step" a MP can detach and absorb factors.[/QUOTE] But you conveniently ignore 7.3.2 in reading 7.3.3. What permits that leap from logic? :confused:
[QUOTE]I see where it says that each counter is MOVED individually.[/QUOTE] Right, and so... :confused:
[QUOTE]That takes care of the obvious issues surrounding all sorts of results from movement (like insurrection corps popping up, for example).[/QUOTE] Not enough for you and others though, since you (or at least some posting) believe that corps may detach to garrison EVEN in the enemy naval phase!
[QUOTE]Please show me where it says that each corps conducts its "Land Movement Step" individually?[/QUOTE] For the millionth time, [B]7.3.2 LAND MOVEMENT PROCEDURES[/B] "Each counter is moved individually." Why do you require more? Additional actions during movement do NOT cancel out this basic rule.
[QUOTE]To assume a consequence (like, because corps move individually, then once it ceases movement it cannot perform any actions in the land movement step) is hazardous in EiA, imo.[/QUOTE] That's a fair bit of hubris, IMO, and particularly since your "version" is not supported by the rules. Look, do what you want with the board game in the sanctity of your own home. But don't insist that everyone play by your "house rules". My interpretation is not based on any "missing language", as is that you make and those of others. The rest of those who do not see this also have multiple problems arise that call for "house rules" to deal with because it is inconsistent with the entire game system as set forth in writing. My interpretation fits seamlessly with the rest of the rules and does not require additional assumptions not stated in the rules.

In fact, failing to construe 7.3.2 as the basic rule on counter movement will eviscerate the entire set of EIA rules. Why does Matrix believe that would be correct? There are many more players of EIA out there than are posting here. As Matrix, would I not be more comfortable following the rationale of the rules as written rather than a group of "squeeky wheels" on an internet forum who, via their own consciousness only, create an interpretation of the game from whole cloth? It's no wonder there are so many posts on "rules issues" when no one is following them to begin with!

Is that specific enough for you? I don't know how to state it any plainer...

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 103
- 6/9/2003 12:13:07 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B]Not enough for you and others though, since you (or at least some posting) believe that corps may detach to garrison EVEN in the enemy naval phase![/QUOTE][/B]
I don't think anyone has suggested that.
[QUOTE][B]My interpretation is not based on any "missing language"[/QUOTE][/B]
No it's just based on 100% flawed logic WRT to when movement "ceases" for an individual corps, and what the actual "cost" of a movement that requires no movement points is...
[QUOTE][B]The rest of those who do not see this also have multiple problems arise that call for "house rules" to deal with because it is inconsistent with the entire game system as set for in writing.[/QUOTE][/B]
I'm sorry, what problems have arisen that require house rules to cover? Which problems are these?
[QUOTE][B]In fact, failing to construe 7.3.2 as the basic rule on counter movement will eviscerate the entire set of EIA rules.[/QUOTE][/B]
Really? I don't follow. Explain how corps deatching factors in the last area they enter "eviscerates" the rules.
[QUOTE][B]rather than a group of "squeeky wheels" on an internet forum who, via their own consciousness only, create an interpretation of the game from whole cloth?[/QUOTE][/B]
Not surprisingly, I am quite sure you are the squeakiest wheel of all. I have not in a very long time heard such an outlandish suggestion that a unit may not execute zero-cost moves or actions that do not otherwise require movement points after it has expended it's full integer movement allowance.

Although I have said I am "out" of this discussion, I await patiently for your explanation of how the whole force-march thing fits into your scheme.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 104
- 6/9/2003 12:36:14 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		Me, too. Prior to that I thought it was going to stalemate, but how can you argue against that?

:confused:

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 105
DOUBLE DUTY DESTROYED READ ON! - 6/9/2003 12:44:45 AM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		FOR EVERYONE,
DOUBLE DUTY HITS (RAKNOY wanted specific examples),

Here's a few examples to discount double duty:

*****EX 1: SOAPYFROG moves his corp into the provence of Denmark containing Copenhagen and stops. (NO other units present)
According to him, he is IN the AREA AND garrisoning the city.
HOWEVER, 16.0 GLOSSARY states:
CONTROLLED (FRIENDLY) CITY/PORT: A controlled city/port is any VACANT city/port in that major power's territory , or any city/port in which that major power has FACTORS, whether besieged or not.

Soapy does NOT have any factors (as clearly defined in) 2.4.1 THE STRENGTH OF GARRISONS (USE GARRISON/STRENGTH COUNTERS) ...shown by the factor on the ACTUAL COUNTER...the strength of corps/fleets recorded off map.

2.4.2.1.2 mentions specifically "garrison detachments"

ONE MUST HAVE FACTORS (ACTUAL COUNTERS) IN THE CITY TO CONTROL THE CITY. Double duty does not EVER put counters in a city so double duty as you allow, could never control a city/port outside your home country because you don't put actual factors (counters) in the city!

Or do you argue that you can garrison a city you can't control?

*****EX 2: Soapy argues with EX 1 above and says my corps in the area can be all or part of a garrison, see 7.3.3.3.2. OK.

Soapy's corps is in Denmark. To garrison the city SOME or ALL of the factors of his corps counter MUST be in the city at some time per the definition of control. Soapy argues that a corps projects it's power throughout the area INCLUDING the city so it must be true that all or part of his corps strength is in the city at some time. He argues a month is a long time and 'invisible' detachments are in the city/rotating in/out in order to garrison. AFTER ALL, the actual bodies of SOME soldiers from his corps must man the guns and gates of the city to fire at fleets/garrison.

My corps enters the area. Soapy argues that his entire corps can fight so by definition, THE STRENGTH FACTORS OF THE CORPS IN THE CITY MUST RUSH OUT AND FIGHT IN THE FIELD BATTLE. Heck his whole corps strength COULD be in the city (7.3.3.3.2 says ALL or part) so the whole corps in the city must be allowed to rush out of the city to fight the field battle.

BUT THE COMBAT RULES 7.5.1.2 SPECIFICALLY FORBID UNITS IN CITIES FROM JOINING A FIELD BATTLE IN THE AREA! SO WHAT PART OF SOAPY'S CORPS IS IN THE CITY DOING GARRISON DUTY?!?! because that part MUST be excluded from field combat!

OR conversely, IF Soapy argues that the factors in the city CAN fight, then:

*****EX3: Soapy has a corps in the area and a strength factor in the city. BY HIS intrepretation of 7.3.3.3.2, ALL OR SOME of his corps may also be in the city! (LANGUAGE TEST: MAY does not mean MUST but doesn't exclude COULD!) SO WHAT DOES ONE DO SOAPY? DOES A PLAYER have to DECLARE WHAT PART of his corps, if any, is in the city in EX 2 or EX 3 everytime the situation arises?. I could say yes, part of my corp is in the city according to 7.3.3.3.2.

SOAPY says, "so what?" the part of my corps in the city can come out and fight because my corps can be in the city and in the area doing double duty.

THEREFORE: If strength from your corps in the city can come out and fight why not the garrison strength factor?!?! THEY are all soldiers after all and could be ordered into the field. Can't say your "Temporarily detached" soldiers can fight but the "Semi-permanent detached" {semi because they can always be absorbed at some other point in the game and are never permanent} can't fight?!

FRENCH SOLDIER ON GARRISON DUTY: "UH, sorry sir but we don't recognise Napoleon's authority over us to join the fight but we do acknowledege the 1st corps guys gotta go."

DOH! The combat rules SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS UNITS IN CITIES TO FIGHT IN FIELD BATTLES. BUT SOAPY wants it both ways with strength factors in his corps which he claims can be doing garrison duty AND field duty.

*****EX4: GLOSSARY DEFINITION OF A FIELD FORCE: Land forces excluding guerillas (unless attacking) NOT in a city or port. Obviously, units in areas are field forces NOT in a city!

GLOSSARY DEFINITION OF GARRISONS: REGULAR infantry, cossack, friedkorps, guerilla or militia FACTORS which ARE NOT PART OF A CORPS, and are placed in a city, port or on a depot. Obviously, units in cities are garrisons.

SO factors that do garrison CAN NOT BE PART OF A CORPS!!!!!!!!!
SO THE FACTORS MUST BE PLACED IN A CITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS DEFINITION SPECIFICALLY CONTRADICTS YOUR INTREPRETATION OF 7.3.3.3.1 where you say cossacks, friedcorps, and guerrila factors may also be used to form all or part of a city garrsion (Double duty) JUST LIKE 7.3.3.3.2 allows your corps to do double duty.

CLEARLY!! WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION!!! Cossacks, friedkorps and guerilla factors MUST BE IN THE CITY TO FORM ALL OR PART OF THAT CITY'S GARRISON. The definition of the glossary term is clear! THESE FACTORS MUST BE PLACED IN A CITY, PORT OR ON A DEPOT!

SO how can you say that that 7.3.3.3.2 allows your corps to do the garrsion double duty scam? REMEMBER YOU AGREED THAT THE OTHER UNITS OF 7.3.3.3.1 COULD DO SO AS WELL TO SUPPORT YOUR LOGICAL INTREPRETATION OF 7.3.3.3.2!!!!!!!!!!!!

AGAIN, the only LOGICAL intrepretation is that 7.3.3.3.2 allows corps to act as all or part of a garrison WHEN LOCATED IN THE CITY.

This also supports the reason this rule is even written! The GLOSSARY DEFINITION OF A GARRISON says REGULAR INFANTRY STRENGTH POINTS, NEVER GUARD!!!!!!! 7.3.3.3.2 allows an exclusively guard corps to garrison so one need not CONVERT factors from guard to regular!

*****EX5: A totally guard factor corps can not garrison a city because ONLY REGULAR INFANTRY, NOT GUARD INFANTRY can garrsion. So SOAPY YOU'D have to convert all your guard factors in this Guard corps to regular factors in your corp as they INVISIBLY detached to garrsion the cities!!! because only REGULARS CAN DO GARRISON!!!! Or as an extension, since ALL or part of the corps can be considered to garrison the city (rule 7.3.3.3.1) I'd say ANY corps with guard would need to be converted because ALL of the CORPS CAN BE CONSIDERED ON GARRSION IN THE CITY!!! That's just as logical as your intrepretation.

*****EX6: SOAPY says a TU fuedal corps CAN garrison from an area. YET, he argues that it's done through "detachments of factors" not represented in games terms that go into the city to man the guns. BUT RULE 10.1.3.4 SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS ANY "detachements" from Feudal corps.

*****EX7: SOAPY argues that the corps in the area is garrisoning a city as well according to 7.3.3.3.2 because of 'detachments' that can be considered in the city and that these detachments are 'moving about' so all can be considered in both places at a time (double duty) OK.
RULE 7.3.3 SPECIFICALLY SAYS DURING A LAND POWER'S MOVEMENT PHASE so detaching/absorbing occurs then (and also as a result of some combat rules.) BUT IT AIN"T HAPPENING DURING THE NAVAL PHASE so how can you be detaching/absorbing factors during the NAVAL PHASE in order to fulfill the requirements of a garrsion to man the guns?!

*****EX8: Rule 7.3.3.1.2 Detachments MAY NEVER EMPTY A CORPS!!!!!! So how under 7.3.3.3.2, could my corps in the area BE ALL inside of a city deployed in 'invisible detachments' from the corps counter IN THE AREA. SOAPY CAN'T DENY rule 7.3.3.3.2 as it is HIS BASIS for double duty. SO SOAPY, how does ALL of your corps garrison from the area since by definition ALL of the factors of the corps would be in the city and not in the counter (NOT ALLOWED BY 7.3.3.1.2!) AND DON'T YOU DARE SAY THAT THE CORPS COUNTER COULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE CITY!! YOU VEHEMENTLY STATE THAT CORPS CAN NOT ENTER CITIES DURING THE MOVEMENT PHASE!!!! AND COMBAT MAY NEVER HAPPEN TO PUT IT THERE!

SO PICK ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE EXAMPLES OR PICK THEM ALL. IF JUST ONE IS PROOF TO KILL THE DOUBLE DUTY SCAM THEN IT DOESN"T MATTER IF SOAPY ARGUES ALL THE REST AWAY.

CAN YOU DISPROVE ALL THE EX's?

Perhaps, but I doubt it will be convincing.

NO, IT'S OBVIOUS to me that 7.3.3.3.2 was written to avoid having to convert factors from regular to guard just to garrison with a corps, to allow for TU feudal corps to garrison (since they can't detach-even invisibly) and to avoid saying "you have a corps in the city but no factors, therefore you ain't garrisoned." OBVIOUSLY a corps counter could garrison a city but IT MUST BE IN THE CITY!



!*!*!*!*!*! NOW for the SOAPY conclusion that a corps counter (OR any other counter) can never move into a city in the movement phase. Substitute any unit/leaders you wish:

EX1: Napoloen, Empereur of the French, leader counter is stacked with the 1st corps and moves into the provence containing Paris.
NAPOLEON: "Commander, why have we stopped? I need to be in Paris tonight."
COMMANDER: "Sorry, Sir, but SOAPY says there's no rule that specifically says I can move my corps or any other unit into the city right now!"
NAPOLEON: "Well, when can we?"
COMMANDER: "Sir, we have to wait for our enemies to enter the Paris provence before the combat rules allow us to move in.
NAPOLEON: "That's absurd! What prevents the men from physically walking into the...wait a minute, where are those guys going?"
COMMANDER: "Oh, SOAPY says that ALL or Part of my corps strength can go into the city to act as a garrsion but you and I as leader and corps leader have to stay here until we are retired or an enemy enters the provence. Then we can go too!"
NAPOLEON: "WHAT about 7.3.4? Vice-versa?!?!
COMMANDER: "Oh, SOAPY says that only allows units to move out of cities. The vice-versa is just there for detach/absorb reasons."
NAPOLEON: "What about the rule that says leaders move into cities with their corps counter?"
COMMANDER: "Again, SOAPY says that's only in the combat phase."
NAPOLEON: "But all these references are in the movement section of the rules?!"
COMMANDER: "Sorry, Sir, we can't assume anything not written in black and white. But good news! I just saved a bunch of money on my horse insurance!"
NAPOLOEN: "But the naval rules 6.2.1.2 don't say the fleets are moving during the naval movement step, only how much it costs to make such a move just like the Land Movement rules 7.3.4 only mention the cost of moving in and out of a city and not when the move is happening.?!?!?!

DOH! OBVIOUSLY 6.2.1.2 is describing movement during the naval movement phase even though it never says "during the naval movement phase." LIKEWISE, 7.3.4 describes movement during the land phase WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY saying "During the land movement phase." So units may move IN OR OUT of cities during the movement phase!

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 106
- 6/9/2003 12:54:18 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		AFAIC, you two were never "in" the "discussion" in order to be "out" of it! LOL You have to have some skills to comprehend the written word.

The forced march "issue"? Now, just what imaginary problem have you cooked up there with forced marches? Let me guess, you can do it the opposition naval phase, according to your "home rules", right? :p

Oh, and just for a slight example of how the rules authors were thinking on detachment, check out the example on p. 17 of the AH rulebook under rule 7.4.1.3.2: "For example, a corps with three regular infantry factors detaches two of these factors into a city in an area passed through and then rolls a loss of two factors while foraging...". Funny how when they choose a detachment example, it is consistent with my interpretation that detachment can only be done in the land movement step while you still have a movement allowance (since the detachment was made in an area "passed through", not in its last, current area, which would've been just as valid for the example if your view was the correct interpretation).

There simply isn't anything to support your view that a unit still has movement capability AFTER its move has ceased. Detachment is UNDER the movement heading. How does a unit move when its move is OVER? (Term "move" used due to placement of detachment rule in the "land movement" rule section, and not as a separate part of the land phase, such as "detachment phase" or something.) Sheesh!

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 107
- 6/9/2003 1:00:41 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		BTW SNAKE, I agree totally with your view on this absurd "double duty" thing concocted by these yokels. Where in the WORLD do people come up with these things? :confused: :confused: :eek:

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 108
- 6/9/2003 1:01:55 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		[Edited to remove ad hominem]

What if Cappy were right?

Does it make sense?

I mean, are we *gasp* in a forum that the game developers might read and actually consider in designing the game?

If so (as I believe), then I suggest that the whole purpose of this post has been achieved.

Regardless of what's on paper, there is no justification for forbidding garrison detachment after a corps move is expended.

At least, I never read anything about Nappy having a particular disposition towards garrisoning cities at the beginning of a month...

Reknoy

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 109
- 6/9/2003 1:05:30 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		Cap - here is a perfect example of how careless I believe you have been acting in your posts.

I was and have been one of the most ardent opponents to the concept of "double duty" and you seemed to think that I was the one who commented about garrisoning during a naval phase (which I did not).

You are acting in a most reckless and careless manner. You can't even form a decent enough argument, so you resort to personal attack. Clearly the sign of one who has lost.

You noted that you were sad for me. I think there may be good reason for us to be sad for you. :(

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 110
- 6/9/2003 1:05:42 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		You've got your game in a little box, right? It's all right there, just go to the man on the mountain to learn how to play, eh? ;) God forbid that men be permitted to learn this knowledge of play by reading their own actual rulebook!

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 111
- 6/9/2003 1:07:08 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]I was and have been one of the most ardent opponents to the concept of "double duty" and you seemed to think that I was the one who commented about garrisoning during a naval phase (which I did not).[/QUOTE]

I was replying to soapy, obviously, on the double duty thing b/c he was arguing so vociferously w/ SNAKE on that issue on the other thread (Wynter). Why did you assume I had you in mind?? :confused:

I was not even arguing with you until your first post this a.m. I was posting to soapy since last p.m. In fact, my "replies" post looked upon your arguments as "valid" ones, which I clarified to show how there wasn't a problem. You took offense and lit into me, beginning your "little rant"... :rolleyes:

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 112
- 6/9/2003 1:09:17 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		You're kidding, right? You write a message in which you refer to "you two" (which followed my message that you respond to in detail, leading me to naturally believe I am one of "you two").

Followed by a message in which you refer to "these yokels".

How else does that follow?

***Btw, when you pen messages in a way that is designed to offend or push someone's buttons, you're not engaging in the kind of collaborative process (imho) that needs to happen here. It's not that tough to be a little more considerate. Obviously nobody is immune to their occasional "rant" as you put it, but there are better uses of our time imo.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 113
THE WHOLE DETACH AT ZERO - 6/9/2003 1:20:10 AM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		Both sides make a good argument.

I don't think you can dismiss CAPITAINE'S assertion out of hand. He makes some excellent points about the ability of a corps to perform actions after the expenditure of points. After all once you reach zero, the first moment in time that the unit's allowance reaches zero, by the rules YES the move is over - even zero moves.

I submit since the term movement allowance is used, that this argument is perfectly valid.

Ignore math and read the rule: 7.3.2.1 The moment you consumed the last bit of your allowance - the move ENDS! (REMEMBER FURTHER MOVES EVEN OF ZERO ARE NOT INSTANTAEOUS! DISTANCE MUST BE CROSSED, MEN MUST MOVE, AND TIME MUST PASS EVEN IF THE MOVE IS SO SHORT AS A ZERO MOVE!). The rule does not say you can keep moving after reaching zero "points." The rule says movement is over the instant the allowance is consumed (reaches zero). AND an allowance is an integer number of 3, 4, of 5. When the number 3, 4, or 5 first reaches zero the movement ends

FORCE MARCHING IS NOT AN ISSUE BECAUSE YOU DECLARE THE FORCE MARCH (thereby increasing the movement allowance) BEFORE YOU MOVE THE COUNTER! I assume everyone does that?!

CAPITAINE,
However, Soapy makes a good point that even after all the money is spent, one may technically still buy "free things." I don't think you can dismiss his argument out of hand either. Though I tend to lean to your intrepretation, I think it is a valid point.

I don't think your "Example in the rulebook" makes any headway either way. Just because the corps didn't detach in the last area doesn't mean that it couldn't but that the player may have decided not too. It doesn't even say the last area USED all the movement allowance available to the counter.

BOTTOM LINE: Though I like the challenge of your intrepretation and would enjoy playing that way, I have no problem playing the issue as Soapy argues either. Guess I'm BI on this one! LOL!

Another question for the convention.

A developer's greatest gift to the gaming community is a rulebook with MANY examples that cover dozens of rules. This book is decidely "not a gift"

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 114
- 6/9/2003 1:23:28 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		Rek, you'd already "crossed the Rubicon" by the time those comments arose. You started in on me a few before that one.

Also, for your "BTW", the same applies to you too, bucko, and I have no need to "collaborate" on something as plain as an existing set of rules. After all, I and others see no contradictions or "issues" in the rules that some of you believe are "rampant". We aren't "creating" a game in a "collaborative" process here. You all chose to start discussing rules as to which I was perplexed to learn you viewed the game in the manner you obviously do. I cannot be responsible for a couple of people's minds who do not, for whatever reason, see the written word and organization of same for what it is.

You're "late to the battle", and weren't even a belligerent until you posted this a.m. Soapy was going at me last night...

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 115
The ad hominem attacks! - 6/9/2003 1:23:28 AM   
Zen Mechanic

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 6/9/2003
Status: offline 		You people really should calm down. Calling each other names is not a good way to resolve rules ambiguities.

(1) Double Duty

Everyone agrees the rules are ambiguous: what is a good resolution of this problem? My group plays with the following: you must garrison port guns with a specific garrison, but you do not need to specifically garrison cities in order to control them. It's a house rule.

Think of this problem: the Turk attacks with pure feudals and wins a battle (I know, I know, far-fetched but bear with me). They now besiege the city, and take it in a seige battle.

If you argue against double-duty, they can't now CONTROL the city because they can't drop factors into it. And since movement is over, they can't MOVE into the city, as some people suggest you could do to solve the double-duty conundrum.

So this leads to an absurdity - Feudals can seige a city, kill troops IN the city, but can't control it (and capture the province) because they can't drop a factor into it. A cossack factor could, but a feudal corps cannot. Doesn't make sense. Same argument can be made for the Insurrection Corps trying to re-take Ofen from a Turkish garrison (regulars).

Double-duty fixes that problem, and is a simpler game mechanic.

(We play with specific garrisons for port guns for "reality-based" reasons which I won't go into here.)

Double-duty makes sense to me, and avoids highly unrealistic things like a cossack fighting its way through 8 Turkish feudal corps and capturing an ungarrisoned Constantinople.

(2) Can't drop factors after movement.

Capitaine attacks the "force-march" example in an [I]ad hominem[/I] manner because he doesn't understand it. Just for the record, I emailed Soapy the "force-march" example and have been unfortunately following this thread for far too long.

The force-march example is another absurdity: Take your average non-french infantry corps, full to the brim with militia. You move it three areas and forage. According to Cappy, you can't drop factors into a city in this area because its movement has ceased the moment its movement allowance has been used up. But wait - let's assume you want to force-march that infantry corps, and move it one further area. Now you CAN drop off militia in that city, with the same corps. Same corps, same movement allowance.

Of course, this then brings up the potential retort - you can do it with the forced-marched corps because its movement allowance is not yet complete.

Question: when do you declare when a corps is force-marching? (a) At the start of its move? (b) At the time you decide you want to move it the one extra movement point?

If (b), which I think is the correct answer, Capitaine's logic can be used to suggest that the infantry corps has ONE MORE POTENTIAL MOVEMENT POINT, and can then detach factors and say "I'm done", and garrison the city and not force-march.

Under Cappy's logic, his rule should read that cav corps (which can't garrison anyway) and force-marched infantry corps from garrisoning their last space (too bad for you, Light Infantry).

I disagree with it, because I think "ceasing" is a broad term which means many things, and not only "completely stop". I also think that being too literal in EiA is a mistake, as there are obvious rules contradictions which if you read them literally make no sense.

I think common-sense in this case should win out, but at any rate I put this to the masses for their entertainment.

ZM

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 116
- 6/9/2003 1:37:36 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]The force-march example is another absurdity: Take your average non-french infantry corps, full to the brim with militia. You move it three areas and forage.[/QUOTE] Hold it right there. You don't forage UNTIL your unit has CEASED its movement. (7.4.1 -- "When a corps ceases movement it may elect (or be forced) to 'forage'." You may only roll for forage AFTER you've ceased movement of that counter per 7.3.2.)
[QUOTE]According to Cappy, you can't drop factors into a city in this area because its movement has ceased the moment its movement allowance has been used up.[/QUOTE] That is exactly correct. [B]Please note that the ONLY example given in the rulebook is exactly consistent with my own interpretation. The example of foraging after detaching in case 7.4.1.3.2 correctly has that counter detaching factors in the [I]penultimate area[/I] it entered, not its last.[/B]
[QUOTE]But wait - let's assume you want to force-march that infantry corps, and move it one further area.[/QUOTE] Hold it right there again. You CAN'T decide to force march AFTER you've ceased movement and rolled for forage. Your counter's move is OVER whenever you stop moving it. Force march must be done in the land movment segment. See 7.3.1.2. Forage rolling accounts for forced marching. See 7.4.1.2.3. How in the world did you get the notion you can force march AFTER your counter has ceased its move? Once you've rolled for forage, your counter's move is OVER. DONE. FINISHED. No turning BACK. ;)
[QUOTE]Now you CAN drop off militia in that city, with the same corps. Same corps, same movement allowance.[/QUOTE] Nope. Because your movement was over once you stated the unit was done moving and rolled for forage.

Note also in this regard, too: Rule 7.3.2.4: "Movement [I]may[/I] be ended earlier -- there is no requirement to move any counter nor for any counter to expend its full movement allowance."

Implicitly, once you move on to another counter in the LMS, you have stopped moving the prior counter for that entire segment. You may NOT move it further, nor is it considered to still have "movement potential" as some have asserted (again, a point not mentioned anywhere within the rules; in actuality, each individual counter is either taking its move, has yet to move, or has ended its move. None of those conditions overlap in the LMS. Once a counter's move has ended, per the wording of 7.3.2, it can no longer perform ANY of the actions listed in the LMS provisions of 7.3).

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 117
Re: DOUBLE DUTY DESTROYED READ ON! - 6/9/2003 1:37:48 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by gdpsnake
[B]CONTROLLED (FRIENDLY) CITY/PORT: A controlled city/port is any VACANT city/port in that major power's territory , or any city/port in which that major power has FACTORS, whether besieged or not.[/QUOTE][/B]
[B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] states that any FACTORS in a corps may be used for garrison without being detached. This fct pretty much trumps your entire post IMHO, so I will only address that which is not covered by [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] and otherwise simply clarify where I see the neccessity.

BTW "factors" and "counters" are nowhere synonymous in the rules.
[QUOTE][B]BUT THE COMBAT RULES 7.5.1.2 SPECIFICALLY FORBID UNITS IN CITIES FROM JOINING A FIELD BATTLE IN THE AREA! SO WHAT PART OF SOAPY'S CORPS IS IN THE CITY DOING GARRISON DUTY?!?! because that part MUST be excluded from field combat![/QUOTE][/B]
Not so, since the corps is not entirely in the city (ie.. not beseiged) it is still considered "field forces" the city even though [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] allows factors of the corps to act as garrisons without detaching on an as-needed basis.
[QUOTE][B](LANGUAGE TEST: MAY does not mean MUST but doesn't exclude COULD!)![/QUOTE][/B]
Or AREN'T, if I so choose. So when you declare an attack I must then explicitly state whether my entire corps is withdrawing inside the city or fighting in the field. Should I fight in the field and lose, then if I neglected to DETACH a garrison previously you will gain control of the city after my retreat. SO you see, detaching a garrsion certainly does have it's benefits!

SOAPY says, "so what?" the part of my corps in the city can come out and fight because my corps can be in the city and in the area doing double duty.
[QUOTE][B]Can't say your "Temporarily detached" soldiers can fight but the "Semi-permanent detached" {semi because they can always be absorbed at some other point in the game and are never permanent} can't fight?!![/QUOTE][/B]
What is this "Temporarily detched" animal you have invented? If my corps needs to, it can garrison the city without detaching factors at all. Otherwise the rules are quite clear that a garrison (see glossary definition) may not participate in a field battle.
[QUOTE][B]FRENCH SOLDIER ON GARRISON DUTY: "UH, sorry sir but we don't recognise Napoleon's authority over us to join the fight but we do acknowledege the 1st corps guys gotta go."[/QUOTE][/B]
If there was a detached garrison in the city then there would never have been a need for the corps to constitute any part of the garrison.
[QUOTE][B]GLOSSARY DEFINITION OF A FIELD FORCE: Land forces excluding guerillas (unless attacking) NOT in a city or port. Obviously, units in areas are field forces NOT in a city![/QUOTE][/B] Except that depsite being not in the city, they can form a part or all of that city's garrison without detaching factors by the provision of [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B]. And once again I must reiterate this is where our interpretations really differ.
[QUOTE][B]SO factors that do garrison CAN NOT BE PART OF A CORPS!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE][/B]
Except that [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] says they can be...
[QUOTE][B]THIS DEFINITION SPECIFICALLY CONTRADICTS YOUR INTREPRETATION OF 7.3.3.3.1 where you say cossacks, friedcorps, and guerrila factors may also be used to form all or part of a city garrsion (Double duty) JUST LIKE 7.3.3.3.2 allows your corps to do double duty.[/QUOTE][/B]
Oh, and why is that? I see no contradiction.
[QUOTE][B]CLEARLY!! WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION!!! Cossacks, friedkorps and guerilla factors MUST BE IN THE CITY TO FORM ALL OR PART OF THAT CITY'S GARRISON. The definition of the glossary term is clear! THESE FACTORS MUST BE PLACED IN A CITY, PORT OR ON A DEPOT![/QUOTE][/B]
Not so, the rules do not differentiate between a Cossack/Freikorps in or out of a city unless it has been beseiged. Note [B]7.3.7.2[/B] does not mention whether the corps or freikorps is in a city or a part of a garrison or in the field... becuase it doesn't matter. Since you never need to specify (by dint of [B]7.3.3.3.1[/B]), the actual position of the Cossack or Freikorps is not relevant. Guerillas must specify whether they are in garrison or not when enemy corps end movement in their space, as the presence of those enemy corps could beseige them.
[QUOTE][B]A totally guard factor corps can not garrison a city because ONLY REGULAR INFANTRY, NOT GUARD INFANTRY can garrsion. So SOAPY YOU'D have to convert all your guard factors in this Guard corps to regular factors in your corp as they INVISIBLY detached to garrsion the cities!!! because only REGULARS CAN DO GARRISON!!!![/QUOTE][/B]
Incorrect [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] is quite clear on that point "any types of army factors in such corps could also be a garrison". So guard or cavalry may garrison without converting as long as they are not detached.
[QUOTE][B]SOAPY says a TU fuedal corps CAN garrison from an area. YET, he argues that it's done through "detachments of factors" not represented in games terms that go into the city to man the guns. BUT RULE 10.1.3.4 SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS ANY "detachements" from Feudal corps.[/QUOTE][/B]
I have not suggested that it's done through "detachment of factors" I have said it is done by NOT detaching factors... exactly as the rule says! Turkish feudals CAN ACT AS GARRISON by dint of [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] I REPEAT "any types of army factors in such corps could also be a garrison" and this is done as always without detaching, not detachment is neccessary.

Example 7 snipped becuase it's again taking about detaching factors when the rules are clear in not requiring it.

Example 8, same thing... a one factor corps need not detach any factors to garrison a city by dint of (agian) [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] and so is not being "emptied by detachment".
[QUOTE][B]NO, IT'S OBVIOUS to me that 7.3.3.3.2 was written to avoid having to convert factors from regular to guard just to garrison with a corps, to allow for TU feudal corps to garrison (since they can't detach-even invisibly) and to avoid saying "you have a corps in the city but no factors, therefore you ain't garrisoned." OBVIOUSLY a corps counter could garrison a city but IT MUST BE IN THE CITY![/QUOTE][/B]
Er, so if the city is too small to fit the Feudal corps then your just out of luck??? Or if the city is too small to fit the Guard corps then, tough, you'll just have to convert a factor to garrison??

Ridiculous. Again we go back to the French Guard sitting outside Metz, unable to garrison the 3 spire fortified city because it doesn't fit, and thus allowing your cossack to run in an occupy. This abuse would be impossible under by reading of the rules.

As for you last amusing interchange between Napoleon in the Commander (never mind that the full 1st corps wouldn't "fit" inside Paris so this exchange could be equally ridiculous with "your" interpretation), it would never happen under my interpretation becuase the 1st corps could simply act as a garrsion for Paris without detaching factors and so there is absolutely NO NEED for a rule for moving corps inside cities during movement, and NO NEED for any confusion rearding whether the city is friendly controlled or garrsioned or not.

But we've hashed this over again and again, and your arguments to disprove my interpretation are growing circular and self-referential (witness the whole "temporarily detached","invisibly detached" blahdeblah which is wholly your own invention)... and I don't think we'll get very far like that.

Not I have not attempted to disprove your interpretation once your case was made (I admit at the very start of this thread I thought you were wrong, but you convinced me otherwise). I just feel that it is overcomplicated and unneccessary, and that my interpretation is more elegant, logical, smoother, easier, faster, whatever... that's all.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 118
Turkish Control - 6/9/2003 1:50:49 AM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		MECHANIC,
THANKS FOR CHIMING IN. BLESS YOU.

I disagree with your Turk example because 7.5.4.1.3.5 does not say the besieging corps MUST return to the area. Heck, it doesn't even say where the corps may be after the combat!

I submit, the TU player may leave his corps in the city after winning the battle and thereby garrsion the city. If the TU player 'withdraws' from the city back into the area, then he has made the decision NOT to Garrison (and hence control the city).

I use the term "withdraw", because the rules use the terms "STORM" and "ASSAULT" the city which implies, at least to me, that the men of the beseiging force are "Forcing their way into the city" and are therefore (at least some are!) IN the city after assault combat resolution.

RULE: 7.5.4.2.3.2 allows the previously beseiged force to enter the area if victorious (MAY - not must) so why not a beseiging force after victory (MAY enter the area - not MUST)?

SO, I conclude that the forces performing and winning an assault (those that can fit into the city) may stay in the city or move into the area.
SO, the owner of such forces could, if able, leave some or all of the factors/corps behind depending on capacity and the rest by choice or by capacity withdraw into the area.
The Turk can't leave factors behind but a TU feudal corps WILL ALMOST ALWAYS BE SMALL ENOUGH [9 factors max] to be in a city {I only know of two "one spire" cities that come to mind} and maybe you only have five factors left anyway after such a great victory!!!).
SO, the Turk must do all or nothing in terms of leaving or withdrawing each of his corps but he can still garrison with one or more corps (that fit).
SO, one needn't allow a "DOUBLE DUTY" rule just to make it work for the Turks.

SO yes, of course, the Turks can control the city.

TU corps was one of my examples to squash the idea of double duty in my previous post.

Also note, your example occurs DURING THE LAND COMBAT STEP NOT THE LAND MOVEMENT PHASE so movement rules have nothing to do with the disposition of units after combat.

This disposition of forces after combat, at least, Soapy and I have never contested, yet LOL!!

MECHANIC,
If you are a double duty believer, please read the examples in my double duty post and tell me your opinion of them?

Thanks again for chiming in! All voices are heard and I'll reconsider any position if the argument fits! This one and all of Soapy's have yet to convince me but that doesn't mean one or both of us is 100% correct. Often the truth lies between interpretations.

CAPITAINE,
I value your opinion as much as ANY OTHER but if you digress (AS ARE OTHERS) into the realm of resent , name calling, or of a less than open mind, then your arguments may carry less weight. Keep punching in!! but punch with substantive examples!

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 119
- 6/9/2003 1:51:19 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B]Hold it right there again. You CAN'T decide to force march AFTER you've ceased movement and rolled for forage. Your counter's move is OVER whenever you stop moving it. Force march must be done in the land movment segment. See 7.3.1.2. Forage rolling accounts for forced marching. See 7.4.1.2.3. How in the world did you get the notion you can force march AFTER your counter has ceased its move? Once you've rolled for forage, your counter's move is OVER. DONE. FINISHED. No turning BACK. ;)[/B][/QUOTE]
OK so you're saying that movement is finished when you've rolled your forage roll (or stated you are paying supply I guess).

Cool, so I can drop factors after expending my last movement point :D

Whew this thread is fairly whipping along...!

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

3.344