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 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 6/9/2003 2:00:40 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

Just for clarification, the "example" point I made was based on it being the only example in the rulebook, and it was consistent with my view and could just as easily, as you note SNAKE, have been with a detachment in the last area IF THAT WERE LEGAL.

Since I contend it is illegal to detach w/o at least one integer of movement left (and that means a corps may not "detach itself" into a city in the last area -- an act of movement), then to me the example was the only scenario that could be drawn! Is it conclusive? Nope. Is it supportive of my position? Yep. After all, everyone knows you can detach during a move, why not make the example one where there is a dispute? Why? Because the author(s) believed it clear that you could not detach after your full allowance was expended (or you just decided to end that counter's move, even with points left -- that still conclusively "ceases" a counter's movement for the land segment; see 7.3.2.4).

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 121

- 6/9/2003 2:14:48 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B]Yep. After all, everyone knows you can detach during a move, why not make the example one where there is a dispute?[/B][/QUOTE]
Because the dispute you have come up with is almost unthinkable. I am quite sure you are the first person I have encountered in 20 years of gaming that contends what you contend.

Seriously, it is pretty much axiomatic that you require no remaining movement points to conduct a zero-cost movement or action, and that your move is not complete until you say it is, especially if you have such zero-cost moves or actions available to be performed.

The theory that a 'zero-cost move" is actually "a very small cost move" holds no water with me.

As I have said before we shall have to agree to disagree, and there will be some kind of vote if we ever play together!!!

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 122

- 6/9/2003 2:45:05 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

Well,

I hope nobody other than the "EIA Rules Bar Association" is reading this thread, because I find it a bit scary.

Clarification of rules is one thing, but making a computer game that does a good job modeling the strategic and operational concerns of the Napoleonic era BASED on EiA in a consistent way should be the goal of the programming and beta-test group.

I doubt in its final form that the manual for the game will idenfiy the administrative minituae that is the heart of this discussion.

And I am sure that by having the computer administer the moves, that a great deal of the details that are required for a table top version "administration" of moves will become transparent.

I like PBEM computer games because they avoid the rules interpretation arguements that plague many tabletop and miniature games. I certainly hope that the game runs in a consitent and logical fashion, but seriously doubt it will PERFECTLY mirror EiA.

SO if the discussion would turn from quoting EiA rules into what would a reasonable solution THAT MAKES SENSE in the context of the computer game, I beleive it would be far more productive.

:)
Have a nice EiA Day

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 123

- 6/9/2003 2:58:36 AM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

I go away for a few hours and look at all the posts! :)

Glad to see others chiming in.

On the "double duty" issue, I will make one final comment:

A player in a recent game I was in hotly contested this issue (to the point of strong debates over the table with other members).

In the end, he wasn't arguing "double duty" at all -- merely that a corps COULD occupy a city and thereby garrison it for port gun purposes.

I had to admit I was dead wrong on that one. A corps can be in a city and can garrison it for port gun purposes.

None of this is black or white.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 124

- 6/9/2003 3:00:11 AM

gdpsnake

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline

GOTCHA SOAPY!
You say that you aren't detaching any strength factors.

"If my corps needs to, it can garrison the city without detaching factors at all."

BUT then you say:

(my rule comment) SO factors that do garrison CAN NOT BE PART OF A CORPS!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except that 7.3.3.3.2 says they can be...

SO now you say you do have factors and they can be doing garrison work?!

NEXT:
I cited this:

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.

Now you say that these units don't have to be in the city!?

(my comment) 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Oh, and why is that? I see no contradiction."

YOU DON"T SEE A CONTRADITION!? THE DEFINITION CLEARLY SAYS these units (factors, cossacks, friedkorps, guerillas) are not part of a corps and ARE PLACED IN THE CITY to be defined as a garrison!

BUT you say these units don't have to be placed in the city?!?! NO contradiction?!?! Dude, you better re-read the definition. This may not solve the issue of CORPS doing double duty but it certainly KILLS any possible interpretation that other units can!
Heck, according to you, my garrsion factors don't even have to be in the city to be a garrison! Maybe they are on the depot AND garrisoning the city HEH!?

HOWEVER, you use this insane logic that 7.3.3.3.1 says they can be doing double duty. Where does 7.3.3.3.1 say that. IT ONLY SAYS THESE UNITS MAY BE GARRISON UNITS - NOT, I say AGAIN NOT, where they are located.

7.3.3.3.2 does NOT SAY {CORPS OUTSIDE A CITY} MAY, ONLY THAT CORPS MAY..... THE RULE NEVER SAYS WHERE THE CORP IS LOCATED!

Hence our whole argument. You say the rule implies the corps can be in the area. Where do you get that implication?!

I say the rule implies the corps is in the city! Where do I get that interpretation. BECAUSE rule 7.3.3.3.1 AND 7.3.3.3.2 ARE SUB RULES OF RULE 7.3.3.3 which specifically talks about GARRISONS INSIDE A CITY and are exceptions to the notion that only strength factors of certain types) may garrison.

I have rational. What is yours other than taking the rule out of context of 7.3.3.3 to fit your needs? What is your proof? Where, if anywhere in the rules book is your position supported except by your constant 'proof' of 7.3.3.3.2.

That's the only rule you ever quote. I have quoted many that contradict your ONE.

READ THE GLOSSARY DEFINITION AGAIN! HOW CAN YOU THEN SAY 7.3.3.3.1 allows those units (factors, guerillas, cossacks, and friedkorps) to garrison from an area?! And hence support your assertion that 7.3.3.3.2 allows it as well.

BOTH 7.3.3.3.1 AND 7.3.3.3.2 are INSEPERABLE. BOTH OR NEITHER! AND I THINK I'VE PROVEN 7.3.3.3.1 is DEFINITELY NOT PROOF OF double duty (SEE THE DEFINITION OF THOSE UNITS AS GARRISONS!)

YOU SAY:
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."

This is a bad statement for you because you can garrison by detaching factors (and must do so in order to garrison!). If you leave the corps in the area (without detaching any men) then who is in the city to stop me?! I say you made a conscience decision NOT TO GARRISON with any men from your corps because YOU didn't detach any men to perform just that duty!

TELL ME THIS, IF your corps is outside the city and you "Don't need" to detach any factors to garrison then how can men be in the city?! THAT MAKES SENSE- NO!

Which makes more sense when you consider the ACTUAL LOCATION of the men in your corps?

RULE 7.3.3.3.2 makes sense when you read it like this?: Corps may form all ....... When located in an area

OR

RULE 7.3.3.3.2 makes more sense when read like this?: Corps may form all ...... When located in a city.

The second reading of course AND don't forget the MAIN RULE USING THESE SUB RULES, 7.3.3 IS SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSING UNITS IN CITIES. I want to know, where do you get the rational that the rules 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 mean for units outside a city?!

I've shown lots of rational (not convinced you though LOL!) that it's talking of units IN THE CITY. You've shown no other supporting documentation or I missed it, please restate the rules.

Your men are already in the city so they don't NEED to detach to garrison. If you weren't IN THE CITY already then men in your corps WOULD HAVE TO MOVE INTO THE CITY. SOMEONE HAS TO PHYSICALLY OCCUPY THE CITY yet you say YOUR troops don't have too!

THAT WAS YOUR ARGUMENT SEVERAL POSTS BACK (Which is where I coined the phase "invisible detachments" Your logic - not mine!)! NOW you are back peddling saying that the men from the corps don't have to be in the city to garrison!

Which is it? and provide documentation other than just restating 7.3.3.3.2.

SHOW ME THE MONEY! 7.3.3.3.2 alone isn't enough since I believe it's for corps in a city as I've pointed out with rational.

AND SURE, not all corps can fit into all cities - that's why FACTORS and CORPS small enough to fit in the city can garrison AND CORPS TOO BIG TOO FIT CAN"T!!! THAT CORPS would have to detach.

Besides all of this, you didn't refute EX1 very well?

You didn't answer the issue of control!? By your definition (and remember - you said factors from your corps are not in the city!) how does a corps alone in an area with a vacant city [outside home country] control that city? (READ THE DEFINITION OF CONTROL- NEEDS FACTORS PRESENT IN THE CITY!!!!!)

You said: 7.3.3.3.2 say "corps may garrison without detaching factors." Even if I agree, what factors are detached for CONTROL, not GARRSION! You can garrsion IF YOU HAVE CONTROL! WHERE ARE THE FACTORS PRESENT IN THE CITY THAT GIVE YOU CONTROL AND HENCE THE ABILITY TO GARRISON WITH YOUR CORPS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE CONTROL TO GARRSION! AND CONTROL IS ONLY WITH FACTORS (HAS factors in the city - read the definition again - HAS FACTORS in the city!).

REMEMBER AGAIN, YOU SAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO DETACH FACTORS TO GARRISON SO HOW DO YOU GET CONTROL without them?!!!!!!

NO!!! A corps alone in an area MUST detach factors to control the city - period! FACTORS MUST BE IN THE CITY - THE CITY HAS FACTORS! No other interpretation of the definition is possible - READ IT AGAIN!

SO, for your interpretation of 7.3.3.3.2 to work, one MUST DETACH FACTORS TO GET CONTROL of the city and clearly this contradicts "without detaching factors" in the verbiage of the rule.
A DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH THE RULE.

HOWEVER, There is no such contradiction with my interpretations of 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 meaning Units/corps are IN THE CITY. No conflict with any of the other definitions, issues of control, none.

It's only you trying to argue 7.3.3.3.2 and 7.3.3.3.1 and double duty that issues with definitions, control, factors, detaching etc. even arise. Doesn't that say something!?

READ THE GLOSSARY DEFINITION AGAIN "CITY HAS FACTORS"
If you don't have to detach to garrison [7.3.3.3.2]......Where are the factors for control? You can't have some ghostly garrison control of the city without PUTTING factors in the city.

FINALLY,
Nowhere in the rules does it say a units/corps alone in an area control the city. But the rules do say you only control a city WITH FACTORS. Cities inside the home country don't need factors and are controlled (not garrisoned - there is a difference!) as long as someone else does not have factors in the city.

Show me where the rules SPECIFICALLY say units/corps outside a city control the city.

I already showed you a rule that SPECIFICALLY says control is ONLY WITH FACTORS - the city HAS FACTORS!

BUT there may be another rule that ALSO gives control to corps/units outside a city. Please show me the rule and convince me.

That's another reason why I say rule 7.3.3.3.2 is about CORPS IN A CITY. Because a player MUST CONTROL A CITY WITH FACTORS IN THE CITY.

How do troops garrison a city they don't control? A garrison of no factors (REMEMBER AGAIN YOU DON"T DETACH FACTORS IN 7.3.3.3.2) does not get control. So 7.3.3.3.2 is a worthless rule unless read in conjunction with "in the city!"
7.3.3.3.2 would also be saying that the corps DID control the city without factors detached in the city (AND YOU STATE THAT FACTORS ARE NOT DETACHED!!!!!!) and directly contradicts the definition of control saying FACTORS MUST BE PRESENT.

SO TO CONTROL THE CITY by definition, SOME FACTORS OF YOUR CORP MUST BE PRESENT IN THE CITY AND EVEN YOU AGREE THAT THEY ARE NOT DETACHED AND PRESENT "IN THE CITY!" HENCE NO CONTROL AND NO GARRISON! HENCE CORPS CAN NOT DO DOUBLE DUTY!

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 125

Re: Right, can we get down to business again? - 6/9/2003 3:41:19 AM

Ragnar

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog A Garrison is as defined in the glossary, with rules 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 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). [/QUOTE]

Please clarify "any of their factors at their discretion" I do not see that in 7.3.3.3.2 or 7.3.3.3.2. I especially object to the suggestion that if a corps is able to do this, it does not have to use all of its factors. The rule clearly states that the corps may form part of the garrison, not that part of the corps may form part of the garrison.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog So basically if a corps/cossacks/freikorps/guerrillas is in an otherwise empty area with a city, [/QUOTE]

Likewise, clarify where you got "otherwise empty area" from. I do not see that in 7.3.3.3.2 or 7.3.3.3.2 either. In fact, the phrase "all or part of a city garrison", rather implies that the coprs need not be the only garrison present.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog ..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). [/QUOTE]

That would be the consequence, I agree. I must object to the "is considered to be". It either is or isn't a garrison and all other things will then flow from that, I'd say.

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

This would seem to be either a redundant statement or an admission that your view isn't clear. In any case, rules 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 do not make a specific reference as to where the corps/etc actually is when it is doing what those rules describe. So the above is an assumption. And one that does not matter, since I'm not interested in the properties of those forces as field forces, but in the properties of those forces as garrisons.

But it is, off course, essential to your view that certain troops can be both field forces and garrison forces at the same time.

Now, some additional questions.

1) Is it possible for me to be outside an otherwise empty city with a corps and chose NOT to control it. If not, why? If so, how do I show this when placing my corps on the map. Not wanting control can be an essential ploy in manipulating the PSD, or in intentionally preventing an enemy from going into civil disorder, so this is quite relevant.

2)What happens if a city that is being controlled by troops pulling double duty comes under siege by a power not at war with those troops? There is no rule that allows you to "ungarrison" a city during your opponents move at will. In fact, the only way to leave a city is by rule 7.3.4 (your movement phase). Do the rules that apply to all other neutral garrison forces (10.3.3) also apply to troops that are pulling double duty? If not why?

I think these two questions will do for now. Please remember that whenever I ask "why" I'm asking for an actual rules quote. Even if you feel that something is obvious, please treat me as a child and quote the sentense of the rule that you feel applies anyway.

Regards,
Ragnar

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 126

- 6/9/2003 3:48:36 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

Yes, facors WITHIN A CORPS can be acting AS A GARRISON for any city in the area WITHOUT BEING DETACHED.

That is the center of my contention.

Therefore you can assume that an otehriwse vacant city in an area with a corps in it can be considered "garrisonned" and "controlled" for whatever purposes are required by the rules.

The rest of what you are saying is unneccessary verbiage, brought about largely it seems by trying to poke holes in MY interpretation using YOUR interpretation.

WRT to Cossacks, the rules say they may be in a city for garrison purposes. Since the rules do not distinguish between a cossack in or out of a city at any other time it doesn't really matter if you specify one way or the other... since according to [B]7.3.3.3.1[/B] the cossack can be acting as a garrison for the city for any purposes that require it, and when enemy corps show up the cossack may either withdraw or fight/retire inside the city in accordance with [B]7.3.7.2[/B] and [B]7.5.1.1[/B].

Note you seem to be equating "factors" with "counters on the map that are not part of corps" when in fact there is nothing that supports this equation and many things that go against it... in several places it is mentioned "factors that are a part of a corps".

In short you can "place the cossacks in the city" if you like, since it doesn't really matter.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 127

- 6/9/2003 3:54:41 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

[B]Soapyfrog says...[/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).[/QUOTE] No. I'm saying that you cannot roll for forage UNTIL your counter's move has ceased. Therefore, IF you've rolled for forage, your counter's move has, necessarily, CEASED prior to rolling for forage (technically part of the supply step, but by exception in the LMS it is handled right after each individual unit's move; see 7.4.1 for the supply rule and 7.3.1.4 for the allowance made to do this while a player moves his corps in the LMS, 7.3).

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 128

Re: The ad hominem attacks! - 6/9/2003 4:00:23 AM

Ragnar

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zen Mechanic 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.[/QUOTE]

This is incorrect. The general rules of land combat allow you to detach factors into an empty city after a combat. So the Feudal corps can detach to take the city. Detaching is governed by rule 7.3.3 which includes rule 7.3.3.3.2, which allows "any types of army factors" to "be in a garrison".

Problem solved. Unless, off course, the corps cannot fit inside the city (7.3.3.4). Well, in that case: Though. Plan better next time and bring a regular infantry corps that _can_ detach, instead of just Feudals, Insurrectiae, Guard, Cavalry and Artillery corps that cannot detach normally nor can fit inside.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 129

Re: Re: Right, can we get down to business again? - 6/9/2003 4:07:39 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ragnar
[B]Please clarify "any of their factors at their discretion" I do not see that in 7.3.3.3.2 or 7.3.3.3.2. I especially object to the suggestion that if a corps is able to do this, it does not have to use all of its factors. The rule clearly states that the corps may form part of the garrison, not that part of the corps may form part of the garrison.[/QUOTE][/B]
The corps is a collection of factors, not a single indivisible entity, so the wording does not exclude the possibility that part of the corps could be in garrison for any purpose required by the rules.

Your reading of [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] is findamental, it seems, to which camp you ascribe to in this matter.
[QUOTE][B]Likewise, clarify where you got "otherwise empty area" from. I do not see that in 7.3.3.3.2 or 7.3.3.3.2 either. In fact, the phrase "all or part of a city garrison", rather implies that the coprs need not be the only garrison present.[/QUOTE][/B]
Certainly they need not be the only garrison present, for example in the event of a siege. But more importantly there need not be any detached factors present in order for the corps to act as a garrison.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'where you got "otherwise empty area" from', as clearly I use this phrase to indicate an are which contains only the unit that precedes the "otherwise", as an example of what is possible under the rules.
[QUOTE][B]1) Is it possible for me to be outside an otherwise empty city with a corps and chose NOT to control it. If not, why? If so, how do I show this when placing my corps on the map. Not wanting control can be an essential ploy in manipulating the PSD, or in intentionally preventing an enemy from going into civil disorder, so this is quite relevant.[/QUOTE][/B]
I see no problems with choosing NOT to control a city in an area with a corps, although I can't see the clever PSD manipulation that might be used via this mechanism. Certainly under YOUR reading of the rules, you could do the same thing by choosing not to drop a garrison... so there is no fundamental difference bewteen either mode of play.
[QUOTE][B]2)What happens if a city that is being controlled by troops pulling double duty comes under siege by a power not at war with those troops? There is no rule that allows you to "ungarrison" a city during your opponents move at will. In fact, the only way to leave a city is by rule 7.3.4 (your movement phase). Do the rules that apply to all other neutral garrison forces (10.3.3) also apply to troops that are pulling double duty? If not why?[/QUOTE][/B]
A corps that is pulling so-called "double-duty" would have to evacuate the area before a siege was declared in any case according to the provisions of [B]7.3.8.3[/B]. So the event you are talking about cannot arise. Keep in mind a corps that COULD BE acting as a garrison using rule [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] is not "inside" the city (and is therefore still "field forces" for all purposes), unless it had been previously besieged there by enemy forces.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 130

Re: Re: The ad hominem attacks! - 6/9/2003 4:14:25 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ragnar
[B]This is incorrect. The general rules of land combat allow you to detach factors into an empty city after a combat. So the Feudal corps can detach to take the city. Detaching is governed by rule 7.3.3 which includes rule 7.3.3.3.2, which allows "any types of army factors" to "be in a garrison".[/B][/QUOTE]
Eh what? [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] says specifically "without detaching factors" and [B]10.1.3.4[/B] says specifically that Feudal corps can't detach factors. Detaching is simply out of the question. nor can the Feudal Corps "move in" to the city post combat (it's not allowed).

*Edit: My bad, he could "occupy" the city which we can take to mean "moving in".

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 131

- 6/9/2003 4:47:02 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

[B]Ragnar says...[/B] [QUOTE]This is incorrect. The general rules of land combat allow you to detach factors into an empty city after a combat. So the Feudal corps can detach to take the city. Detaching is governed by rule 7.3.3 which includes rule 7.3.3.3.2, which allows "any types of army factors" to "be in a garrison".[/QUOTE] You are right it is incorrect, but for the wrong reason.

As we know, 7.3.3 only concerns detachment in the LMS, not the post combat segement. Your reference to the detachment rules for the LMS are patently off base.

For detachments during the combat phase, the ONLY pertinent rule is 7.5.1.3, which expressly and exclusively authorizes (meaning there is no other basis in the rules OTHER THAN this case) that "[a]fter 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)."

Regarding a siege situation, the besieging force is also deemed at the city by being placed on top of the forces in the city (suggested in case 7.5.1.1 but not really necessary b/c the besieged force in the city will be the only enemy in the area as sieges cannot occur if there are still unbesieged enemy forces in the area). Since all of the besieger's forces in an area must be in the siege (see 7.3.7.1 "If any friendly forces in an area besiege enemy forces then all friendly forces in that area (except depot garrisons) must besiege the enemy forces), there is no confusion as to who is, and who is not, "at the city".

The result of all successful sieges is the capture of the city. See 7.5.4. Because "siege" is also combat (7.5.4.1.3 "Assault Combat Resolution), you may immediately occupy, by virtue of 7.5.1.3, and/or detach factors to the resultant "vacant city".

------------------------

And to reply to soapy's [again erroneous] post above, while feudal corps may not detach factors, "detaching" an entire corps is permissible per 7.3.3.3.2 (soapy, how do you construe THAT rule to preclude a feudal corps to occupy a successfully besieged city?), so that as long as a feudal corps can fit inside in its entirety, it may do so. If it is too big, then yes, it cannot garrison the city although the city is still "captured" per the siege rules (but not garrisoned for subsequent naval phase port guns purposes).

Note that all besieger victory cases -- 7.5.4.1.3.5, 7.5.4.2.1.4 and 7.5.4.2.3.1.1 -- provide that the result is that the city is "captured". Possession changes whether garrisoned immediately or not.

[B]Zen[/B], I hope you can now see how the game's existing and clear rules provide for control after a siege even if ungarrisoned. "Capture" means control. If you've besieged, you don't really have a choice not to control it if you win.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 132

- 6/9/2003 5:04:44 AM

Ragnar

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
In fact, 7.4.1 states that foraging may be elected "when a corps (not two or more) ceases movement", clearly referencing the rule on "ceasing movement" in 7.3.2. Also, 7.4.1.1 states that the foraging roll is made "for each foraging corps as it completes movement (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? [/QUOTE]

Ah, the most common misconception of them all: For corps DO effectively roll for forage all at once and not one by one. The rules are very misleading about this and all I my evidence is by deduction, but I do feel it is solid, so bear with me on this:

7.4.1.1 "A die is rolled for each foraging corps as it completes movement (but after resolving any 7.3.8 procedures that may be caused by its movement)." Now, you should already be suspicious and indeed, for when I look at these 7.3.8 procedures, we find:
"7.3.8.2 STEP TWO The phasing major power (the first ally in the case of combined movement) moves all his forces normally.."
and
"7.3.8.5 STEP FIVE: Now the second combined movement ally (if there is one) follows the procedures outlined in Steps 2-4"
So not oly does "after resolving any 7.3.8 procedures" imply that you have to move all your forces before rolling for supply, but also that all your combined allies must finish moving all their forces before you can roll for supply.

Therefore, the presumption that a die is rolled after each individual corps finishes its individual movement actions must be wrong. QED.

Also: 7.4.1 "..If it has force marched, or is four or more areas from the nearest depot in a friendly valid supply chain, not adjacent to an invasion supply depot and/or supply source or no money is available for depot supply then it must forage for supply."

The supply step, when depot supply is actually payed and when legal supply routes are checked, is definately after all movement. However, it is impossible to determine that a corps is not going to be in reach of a supply source during its movement. For instance, it is possible that a corps moves in the presumption that an allied depot will be availible for supply while that ally has no intention of giving its permission or simply does not have the money. After all, that ally might have miscalculated the total cost or she might find a greater need for the money elsewhere after completing its own move (in case of combined movement).

Since, in such a case, it is impossible to determine if a corps will need to forage until after all (combined) movement has been completed and the supply step has also been completed, it follows that such a forageroll _cannot_ be made during the land phase. And since a player cannot, in fact, legally pay for supply during the land phase and since this is true for all his corps it follows that all foragerolls that are made cannot be made before starting the supply step. QED.

(Well, it's either that or allowing a player to roll for all corps and let him decide afterwards which he will pay for..)

I'll admit that the phrase in 7.4.1 is somewhat misleading, but upon closer examination, it seems rather clear: you roll for forage during the supply step.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B]Ragnar says...[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]

I feel you have misread me, for nothing in the above contradicts my view or actually supports what differences you have with it. I certainly do not deny that [U]all[/U] instances of detaching are "ordained [I]by virtue of some rule[/I]" I simply say that when such a rule says to apply 7.3.3, I must apply all of it. So I do. This changes my interpretation of 7.3.3, since it now not only describes detachments during the land phase, but all detachments whenever they are allowed. In fact, I apply all of 7.3.3.*.*'s limitations with the sole exception of the sentence "During a Major Powers Land Movement Step" to such occasions.

Now, I don't really care what you call "moving" and what not, but the way I read 7.3.3.*.* is that the only requirement for it being applicable is that you must be doing your "Land Movement step" (or by virtue of some other rule). There is no reason to assume there is any additional ummentioned requirement, like having unused movement points, that applies to forces that wish to detach that would apply solely to the movement phase.
So the only requirement needed to detach or move into a city is is a rule that says you can at that time in your sequence of events. The first sentence of 7.3.3 is one such rule, but not the only one. In any case the requirement for a corps to have unused movement points or to be "moving" to be able to detach is completely omitted from 7.3.3.*.* and I dare you to quote it.

regards,
Ragnar Krempel

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 133

- 6/9/2003 5:22:51 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B]And to reply to soapy's [again erroneous] post above, while feudal corps may not detach factors, "detaching" an entire corps is permissible per 7.3.3.3.2 (soapy, how do you construe THAT rule to preclude a feudal corps to occupy a successfully besieged city?), so that as long as a feudal corps can fit inside in its entirety, it may do so. If it is too big, then yes, it cannot garrison the city although the city is still "captured" per the siege rules (but not garrisoned for subsequent naval phase port guns purposes).[/QUOTE][/B]
So even though [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] specifically says "without detaching" you STILL think there is some detaching going on?

And I was wrong only becuase the rules sate the corps may occupy AND/OR detach factors into the city after combat, which we can easily take to mean the corps may "move entirely in" at that point. It has nothing to do with [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] except as far as that rule permits feudal factors to be in garrison WITHOUT DETACHING (see no detaching!) form their parent corps.

And what are you taking about, I am precluding nothing, I fully recognize and endorse the ability of a Feudal corps to control a city which has been successfully beseiged and captured. Go Feudals! Again this presents no conflicts or problems with my reading of the rules.

It is YOU who precludes the possibility of Feudal corps (or innurrection or whatever) from taking control of a city they don't "fit" into, which both from a rules standpoint and a SHEER COMMONSENSE perspective is absolutely ludicrous.

TRIPOLI TOWN FATHERS: "Sorry you can't come in you rotten Turks, you don't fit through the gates! HAHAHAHA! *Throws rotting turnip at Turkish commander*
TURKISH FEUDAL CORPS: "Oh YEAH? Well we'll just have to march around in circles in the desert until we've taken sufficent casualties and THEN YOU'LL BE SORRY!!!"

Yeah. That's not a problem! :D

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 134

- 6/9/2003 5:24:29 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

Ragnar, you are patently WRONG about 7.3.8, "one of the most common misconceptions of the game" I have seen. The fact that nonbelligerent forces may have to vacate the pertinent forage area (7.3.8.4 -- the point 7.4.1.1 had in mind) in the midst of a counter's move doesn't change the basic rule I have stated. Those STEP FOUR "forces" are simply moved to an adjacent areas automatically, not as movement. Once those forces are vacated, the original movement is concluded with forage based on the corps situation AFTER the STEP FOUR forces have left. THEN, if 7.3.8 is applicable, movement continues and forage FOR THAT CORPS is determined after the nonbelligerents have left the area. All subsequent counters of all combined allies handle the forage roll normally (the nonbelligerents are already gone and the allies may not enter an area containing an attack against a power against whom they aren't at war -- STEP FIVE).

Going waaaaaay out on a tangent to find the nonexistent chink in the armor, aren't you? ;)

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 135

- 6/9/2003 5:35:02 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

[B]soapy says...[/B] [QUOTE]So even though 7.3.3.3.2 specifically says "without detaching" you STILL think there is some detaching going on?[/QUOTE] 7.3.3.3.2 states "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 a garrison".

Now, slow down...

First, I used the term "detach" in quotes above, to suggest I was NOT using the term in its "legal" context as a term of art, but in a different sense. What it says is that "corps may form all or part of a city garrison without detaching army factors" (meaning the entire corps may move into a city [I]en masse[/I] per the 7.3.3 procedures). That means that the feudal corps can garrison the city ONLY if the entire corps can fit into it. If not, since it cannot "legally" detach factors (only move into cities whole), it must stay outside and the city remains ungarrisoned.

[B]soapy[/B], I told my younger brother (who is 41) to read this, and he asked how old you were, noting that he also finds himself in such disputes with posters who are actually kids of, say, 13. How old are you, because I admit you do seem to be having some serious trouble integrating the rulebook into your understanding?

Did you learn the game from someone else? Or did you pick it up and hammer out the terms for yourself?

I'm honestly very curious about this. :)

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 136

- 6/9/2003 5:46:51 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

[B]Ragnar, Ragnar, Ragnar...[/B] [QUOTE]Therefore, the presumption that a die is rolled after each individual corps finishes its individual movement actions must be wrong. QED. [/QUOTE] Not "a presumption" my friend, but a hard and fast RULE of the GAME. See 7.4.1.1 "FORAGING PROCEDURE: A die is rolled for [I]each[/I] foraging corps [I]as it completes its movement...[/I]"

Also pertinent is 7.3.1.4 "FORAGING WHILE MOVING: Although the rules are covered in the Supply Step, foraging (7.4.1) is performed while corps [I]are being moved[/I]." Corps is singular here because 7.3.2 states that all corps are moved [I]individually[/I].

Presumption? I think not. Try concrete. Next? :cool:

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 137

- 6/9/2003 5:53:42 AM

gdpsnake

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline

RAGNAR,

1) Is it possible for me to be outside an otherwise empty city with a corps and chose NOT to control it. If not, why? If so, how do I show this when placing my corps on the map. Not wanting control can be an essential ploy in manipulating the PSD, or in intentionally preventing an enemy from going into civil disorder, so this is quite relevant.

I don't know if others would agree, LOL! But I think that the mechnism to show control is the use of the little control/free flags to mark which districts are yours in most cases. Otherwise, I would agree a player would have to continually be stating "dis , dat , or de udder ding" {Quote from Gilligan's Island} for areas/cities under Soapy's interpretation.

Under my interpretation, there is no issue as to control since, rules quote 16.0 glossary: Definition of CONTROLLED (FRIENDLY) CITY/PORT states: "......or any city/port outside the home country in which that major power HAS FACTORS, whether besieged or not."

SOAPY says HE DOES NOT DETACH FACTORS to garrison because (AND I AGREE the rule says this) 7.3.3.3.2 "A corps may form all or part of a city garrison without detaching army factors..."

Again, how can you CONTROL a city [control lets you garrison!]
without the city having factors OR being a home country provence?

Factors are either IN the city OR in the corps counter! Even 7.3.3.3.2 doesn't allow both! Says FACTORS are NOT DETACHED so they must still be with the corps counter!!

2)What happens if a city that is being controlled by troops pulling double duty comes under siege by a power not at war with those troops? There is no rule that allows you to "ungarrison" a city during your opponents move at will. In fact, the only way to leave a city is by rule 7.3.4 (your movement phase). Do the rules that apply to all other neutral garrison forces (10.3.3) also apply to troops that are pulling double duty? If not why?

A good question! If units that forces don't have to stop for are outside a city doing double duty (SOAPY interpretation of 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2) then what prevents the seige?
I say there never will be a seige because no one's in the city!:
I.E cossacks doing double duty wouldn't prevent a corps from moving into the area AND doing the ZERO move detach/absorb into the city because after all, he states these factorss are part of his corps and move instantaneously into the city so they don't have to stop. (See his posts concerning the end of a unit's move , these moves are zero, nothing, take no time, etc. zero use of move allowance)
I.E. A corps outside the city doesn't stop cossacks because NO FACTORS are detached from his corps counter so the cossack can move right into the city, take control, whatever.
HIS interpretaion of 7.3.3.3.2: SOAPY has continually stated the factors are not in both the city and corps counter because they are never detached from the corps counter so they must be with the counter. Where else can they be according to 2.4.1, 2.4.2.1.1 and 2.4.2.1.2?

Clearly no one controls the city per 16.0 So it's yours, take it.

I disagree and restate that I believe 7.3.4 "vice-versa" DOES allow units and corps counters to move into a city during their movement phase avoiding the whole need to double duty. A player deliberately garrison/controls a city with units/corps/factors in his movement phase or does not by DELIBERATELY not putting said units into the city. It is therefore UNCONTROLLED outside of the home country, OR controlled but not garrisoned IN the home country.

THAT'S WHY SOAPY and others NEED double duty because they somehow believe that a player can't move his units into cities in the movement phase! A totally absurd intrepretation when 7.3.4 SPECIFICALLY SAYS THEY CAN! The argument that it only allows movement out!? THEN WHY SAY VICE VERSA! I ASK AGAIN ! WHY STATE "AND VICE-VERSA." That means the opposite, right. The opposite of move out of the city in the movement phase is move into the city in the movement phase, right!?

How can anyone blow that rule off?! Because they have to to justify needing double duty.

10.3.3 is a nice touch to kill double duty though I can't say how much.

That's my twist on your post.
Please, I hope no one considers my 'enthusiam' for anything but what it is, IF so, sincere apologies. I'd play any game with any folks anytime I can (we may need a lot of rules rolls LOL!)

I am just exasperated. Both SOAPY and I can't be right and while I've peppered this forum with copious amounts of my reasons, rules quotes, examples, All I get back is the same story "7.3.3.3.2 says...."
I DON'T dispute what it says but just to the location it applies to: IN a city OR IN an area (can't be both - both can't be right!)
WHICH IS IT? Just saying so don't make it so. I think I've produced at least SOME argument as too why it's IN THE CITY! No one has provided any argument as to why it's IN THE AREA other than "the rule says......."
WHERE IS THE DOUBLE DUTY'S camp followers supporting material. The other side has given a lot of compelling arguments (none compelling enough so far for some apparantly)

AN EXAMPLE: 16.0 control definition is quite clear " ....FACTORS IN A CITY = CONTROL..." 7.3.3.3.2 says does not answer this question. Where is your rule to prove control other than 16.0?

For instance, ANYBODY GOT A RULE PROVING A CORPS in an AREA CONTROLS A PROVINCE WITH A CITY without needing to put factors into the city per 16.0 AND NO, a province in a home country doesn't need a corps or anything JUST THE LACK OF OPPOSITION FORCES IN THE CITY. That doesn't support corps control of cities?
Perhaps there are other rules that support double duty. If so, SOAPY and others have not produced any verbage to that effect.

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 138

Re: Re: Re: Right, can we get down to business again? - 6/9/2003 6:01:10 AM

Ragnar

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog
The corps is a collection of factors, not a single indivisible entity, so the wording does not exclude the possibility that part of the corps could be in garrison for any purpose required by the rules.
[/QUOTE]
A corps is a "large land unit counter" that "must contain at least 1 army factor". There is no specification that a corps is anything more (or less). If you believe it to be divisible, please quote me the rule that allows you to do so, preferrably complete with the procedure used to show the division.

The rules do not explicitly forbid your idea, but then again they should not be required to specify everything that's not allowed. (There is no rule dissalowing the possibility that I airlift a corps into your capital either, Soapy. Please stick to actual _rules quotations_ You can interpret if you like, but at least show me something. ;-)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog
I'm not sure what you mean by 'where you got "otherwise empty area" from', as clearly I use this phrase to indicate an are which contains only the unit that precedes the "otherwise", as an example of what is possible under the rules.
[/QUOTE]
It was not clear to me that you intended single duty garrisons not to exclude double duty garrisons in the same city, so I had to ask.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog .
I see no problems with choosing NOT to control a city in an area with a corps, although I can't see the clever PSD manipulation that might be used via this mechanism.[/QUOTE]

When manipulating for +1PP you really don't want to be at N10 (You'd end up at N9). So if you are at N9 and about to conquer a minor, you delay conquest and PP gain until after the Eco phase. Stuff similar to this is in section 15.8 (general hints) of the rules.
But you did not adress the 2 most important issues:
1a) What part of the rules can you quote that alows this choice? (usually, your religion points at the word "may" in 7.3.3.3.1&2)
1b) How do you make this status of "non-controllong" visible on the board?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog
A corps that is pulling so-called "double-duty" would have to evacuate the area before a siege was declared in any case according to the provisions of [B]7.3.8.3[/B]. So the event you are talking about cannot arise.[/QUOTE]

You are either misreading 7.3.8.3. or confusing siege declaration with combat declaration. 7.3.8.4 only requires other forces to leave an area if a combat was actually declared. Declaring a siege is not the same as declaring a combat. In fact, the decision to roll for a breach or not has not yet been made..

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog
Keep in mind a corps that COULD BE acting as a garrison using rule [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] is not "inside" the city (and is therefore still "field forces" for all purposes), unless it had been previously besieged there by enemy forces. [/QUOTE]

Well, as I said before, I don't care that they are also still "field forces". As rule 7.3.3.3.2 states, any such factors are "also a garrison" and rule 10.3.3 requires "neutral garrisons" to surrender as soon as the siege is announced. Rule 10.3.3 does not care if your garrison force is _also_ in the field. It simply requires that it surrenders. We are assuming your corps is both a garrison and in the field. Because it is in the field, it can stop enemy corps from passing through, but because it is a garrison, it must now surrender. You can't have it both ways and gain the benefits but not suffer the disadvantages of your actions.

Which brings us back to the earlier issue of exactly what part of your corps is inside the city and how you are going to show this on the map. I'd certainly understand it if you'd rather not want your corps to act as a garrison when the above is happening, but afaict, there is no rule that allows you to chose the role of your corps (field or double duty) in reaction to the declaration of the siege. So you must make the choice in advance and since anothers' moves may be influenced by what corps are pulling which duties, it must be shown on the map.

So what will it be?

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 139

- 6/9/2003 6:01:36 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE][B] If not, since it cannot "legally" detach factors (only move into cities whole), it must stay outside and the city remains ungarrisoned.[/B][/QUOTE]
And in fact uncontrolled, right? And this is reasonable to you?

[QUOTE][B] I told my younger brother (who is 41) to read this, and he asked how old you were, noting that he also finds himself in such disputes with posters who are actually kids of, say, 13. How old are you, because I admit you do seem to be having some serious trouble integrating the rulebook into your understanding?[/B][/QUOTE]
Oh that's rich. And the backhanded insults start to fly. Very nice. I have been playing EiA pretty well continually for almost 13 years, and complex wargames for about 20 in all. All the rules interpretations that have been decided on in that time have been collaborative efforts, and indeed in the early years we made frequent mistakes and played incorrectly.

I must say, as I have said before, that you view on zero-cost moves baffles me. You are... unique... no doubt about it, and frankly I am astonished myself that you are not a teenager!

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 140

- 6/9/2003 6:05:44 AM

gdpsnake

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline

REKNOY,

You said:

"A corps can be in a city and can garrison it for port gun purposes."

And for other purposes too, like control and economics.

Thus you hit on the whole reason for 7.3.3.3.2 being in the rules!
16.0 requires FACTORS in a city for control. 16.0 defines a garrison in a city as well. 7.3.3.3.2 again just allows corps to garrison without the need to present factors!

Otherwise, without 7.3.3.3.2 corps could not garrison a city while inside the city considering the definition and rules of garrison- obviously faulty logic!

SO BY DEFINITION a corps can control/garrison a city because the factors of the corps ARE IN THE CITY!

SO TURK feudal corps can garrison!

SO Corps with guard factors only need not convert to regular factors!

For the camp followers of double duty, how in the world they can intrepret 7.3.3.3.2 to mean corps in an area? It never mentions location but 7.3.3 DOES MENTION LOCATION SPECIFICALLY IN A CITY! and 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 are SUB rules of this rule. They take the rules out of context of being in the city.

At least thats what I read. Double duty followers just keep citing the rule as if it stands alnoe and isn't UNDER 7.3.3.

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 141

- 6/9/2003 6:13:53 AM

Ragnar

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

[QUOTE]As we know, 7.3.3 only concerns detachment in the LMS, not the post combat segement. Your reference to the detachment rules for the LMS are patently off base.[/QUOTE]

Capitaine,

Ok, to be [I]exact [/I] one could say that 7.3.3 is more or less specific to the LMS and that 7.3.3.1 - 7.3.3.5.3 are more general, but that hardly means I'm "patently off base".

This is the only section describing detachments and it is referrred to by number (7.3.3) or name (detaching) in several other (distinct) places in the rules. I agree you can't detach any ol'time you like, but the statement that 7.3.3 [B]only[/B] refers to the LMS would seem to be somewhat presumptous.

regards,
Ragnar

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 142

- 6/9/2003 6:14:03 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gdpsnake
[B]AN EXAMPLE: 16.0 control definition is quite clear " ....FACTORS IN A CITY = CONTROL..." 7.3.3.3.2 says does not answer this question. Where is your rule to prove control other than 16.0? [/B][/QUOTE]
I disagree [B]7.3.3.3.2[/B] says that factors that are a part of a corps may act as a garrison without detaching. There is no mention of what position the corps is meant to be in WRT "in" or "out" of the city (probably because it doesn't matter).

So therefore forn the purposes of control, having a corps in the area is enough because factors form that corps can be acting as a garrison without being detached.

If you can find a reason why my way of interpreting somehow doesn't work (i.e. is broken) then by all means point it out. Everything you have brought up I have shot down.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 143

- 6/9/2003 6:19:17 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gdpsnake
[B]7.3.3.3.2 again just allows corps to garrison without the need to present factors![/QUOTE][/B]
You are still unreasonable equating "factors" with "garrison counters"
[QUOTE][B]SO TURK feudal corps can garrison![/QUOTE][/B]
Just not if the city is too small right? It has to move in the city, right? How does it fit? And we have to assume your "vice-versa" thing is valid in the rule concerning moveing FROM cities.

If it can't fit, what's the common sense explanation?

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 144

WHAT ?! - 6/9/2003 6:29:21 AM

gdpsnake

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline

SOAPY SAYS:

"Therefore you can assume that an otehriwse vacant city in an area with a corps in it can be considered "garrisonned" and "controlled" for whatever purposes are required by the rules."

That's exactly what I mean "ASSUME?!" When the rules clearly state what constitutes control (read the definition AGAIN in 16.0 SOAPY! [city has factors] I didn't find ANY OTHER DEFINITION OF CONTROL!)

No assumption there about control. Precise and obvious. Now please quote a rule that actually says a corps in an area controls the city?!? Don't use 7.3.3.3.2 either because that says garrison and NO DETACHED FACTORS. And you have to control in order to garrison. It also didn't say detached TO a city OR from a city! Again no location on 7.3.3.3.2. Find me a rule to support your IN THE AREA assumption.
I found a rule to support my IN THE CITY assumption in 7.3.3 which is SPECIFICALLY talking about units in a city! AND 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 are SUB RULES. IF they meant a corps in an area, why put the rule here and not somewhere else to support location in an area like 7.3.3.4.

SORRY that contains that movement rule about leaders that you say can't happen in the movement phase because units can't move into cities - they only end up there as a result of other rules and not 'movement' related. "Leaders MAY only be moved into a city with the corps counter."

SOAPY SAID: "WRT to Cossacks, the rules say they may be in a city for garrison purposes."

I'm sorry, where do the rules state that? The only thing I see is 7.3.3.3.1 which says they may also be used to form all or part of a city garrison. Where does it state their location MAY be in the city?!
The only location assume for this rule comes from 7.3.3 which is talking about UNITS IN CITES.
SO a cossack ALREADY IN THE CITY may form all or part of a garrison.

And if you DO mean this, than you must mean that 7.3.3.3.2 means a corps MAY be in a city too?!

Please show me they rule that says "Cossacks may be in a city for garrison purposes." I can't find it.

SOAPY SAYS: "In short you can "place the cossacks in the city" if you like, since it doesn't really matter.

WHAT? When? You say units CAN'T move into cities in the movement phase so when can I "place him in the city IF I WANT?!?! During another player's movement turn?!?!

Please clarify this statement!!

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 145

- 6/9/2003 6:32:08 AM

Ragnar

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B]Ragnar, you are patently WRONG about 7.3.8, "one of the most common misconceptions of the game" I have seen. The fact that nonbelligerent forces may have to vacate the pertinent forage area (7.3.8.4 -- the point 7.4.1.1 had in mind) in the midst of a counter's move doesn't change the basic rule I have stated. Those STEP FOUR "forces" are simply moved to an adjacent areas automatically, not as movement. Once those forces are vacated, the original movement is concluded with forage based on the corps situation AFTER the STEP FOUR forces have left. THEN, if 7.3.8 is applicable, movement continues and forage FOR THAT CORPS is determined after the nonbelligerents have left the area.

Going waaaaaay out on a tangent to find the nonexistent chink in the armor, aren't you? ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

Wow...
I'm sorry, but I don't comprehend the basis of your objections. Your interdiction does not seem to indicate that you have read what you are objecting to. :cool:

Nonbelligerent do NOT have to leave the area "in the midst of a counter's move". 7.3.8.3 and 7.3.8.4 come AFTER all of a Major Power's forces have already moved (7.2.8.2). This is (I presume) to allow any allies of the power attacked to assess the battle they might be about to be in.

So you agree that rule 7.4.1.1 requires you to finish any 7.3.8.4 reactions, but you somehow fail to see that 7.3.8.4 is preceded by 7.3.8.2 which requires that you "move all your forces"? I am lost in the endless maze of your logic. :confused:

What you percieve as being the correct procedure may be an excellent way to do it, but it's not as it was written.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 146

- 6/9/2003 6:37:16 AM

gdpsnake

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline

Ragnar,

"So the Feudal corps can detach to take the city."

Is this a mistatement? 10.1.3.4 does not allow this.

As I described earlier, the feudal corp can garrison the city by being in the city (Very few one spire cities) after combat OR choose to withdraw into the area and therby make a deliberate decision NOT to garrison. See my previous post to MECHANIC.

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 147

- 6/9/2003 6:40:47 AM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

I am definitely regretting my part in all of this -- what a waste of the time of people who clearly are competent gamers.

Capitaine, for any of my "closet" references, etc. I am sorry.

PLEASE, however, refrain from the insults. It's so belittling of this process.

I will grant you that myself and others have all made comments and used tones that, in electronic format, came off poorly.

I would simply ask for an end.

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 148

- 6/9/2003 6:45:26 AM

gdpsnake

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline

SOAPY, SOAPY, SOAPY,

"The corps is a collection of factors, not a single indivisible entity, so the wording does not exclude the possibility that part of the corps could be in garrison for any purpose required by the rules."

BUT you've already VEHEMENTLY SAID that you don't have to detach any factors and "That part of your corps IS NOT in the city." MANY MANY times in this forum.

IF part of your corps was "IN garrison" then that part MUST be detached from the whole since it's a part?!
AND that part in garrison would not be available for field battles in the area BECAUSE factors in cities CAN NOT PARTICIPATE in field combat.

Please be consistent and not change your position so much.

Is part of the corps in the city for garrison purposes or not?! And when is it in the city? Corps can't move into cities in the movement phase according to you and if you're not detaching factors, when is the part in there?

Perhaps you mean that "part of the whole" is like a corner of the corps counter is in the city?! But you said corps can't move into cities in the movement phase so when is that part of the corps counter in the city?

Or are you saying that you can garrison with a part of a corps that doesn't have factors? Which part would that be?

You said you don't detach factors (7.3.3.3.2) and can still garrison. So what part (men/factors/mechanism/) is in the city?

I'm really confused by your logic position changes now. Please refer to rules that specifically say things and not assume so much.

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 149

- 6/9/2003 6:51:31 AM

Ragnar

Posts: 45
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

[B]Capitaine, mon Capitaine ...[/B]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
Not "a presumption" my friend, but a hard and fast RULE of the GAME. See 7.4.1.1 "FORAGING PROCEDURE: A die is rolled for [I]each[/I] foraging corps [I]as it completes its movement...[/I]"
[/QUOTE]

Lies, most foul have left thy fingertips. :p

"7.4.1.1 FORAGING PROCEDURE: A die is rolled for each foraging corps as it completes movement.."

Thou seemest to have erroneously added a word to add credibility to thy viewpoint. "Ending movement" and "ending its movement" are very different things.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
Also pertinent is 7.3.1.4 "FORAGING WHILE MOVING: Although the rules are covered in the Supply Step, foraging (7.4.1) is performed while corps [I]are being moved[/I]."
[/QUOTE]
Sure, corps forage while they move, such is only common sense. The actual forage roll, however, is rolled during the supply step. This is merely a remark referring rather clumsily to the fact that the lowest forage value of all areas travelled must be taken as the base to roll against.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
Next? :cool:
[/QUOTE]

I believe we'll have to leave it here. If anything, it seems that whoever wrote the **** rulebook was somewhat confused about when to roll those dice. Why else would they have printed so many misleading rules? Does anyone have a "ADG Greg Pinder original" set of the rules for comparison? It might prove helpfull...

Ragnar

(in reply to gdpsnake)

Post #: 150