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  4 5 6 7 [8]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 6/11/2003 3:58:25 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		When will it end?

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 211
- 6/11/2003 4:09:47 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]When will it end? [/B][/QUOTE]
When they release this darn game! :D

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 212
- 6/11/2003 4:20:15 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		You two make the Bismark thread look good.
It is obvious that GDP has lots of bizzare rule interpetations that none of the rest of us either share or WANT to share.

Its like is said, What good is a corp if it doesnt protect the city
in the area its in?

What is its purpose?

At some point you must realize that he isnt going to change his opinion and you end the argument.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 213
- 6/11/2003 4:44:42 AM   
gdpsnake

 

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

Let's realize the rules are not well written, almost like the playtesters made a lot of assumptions about what they thought was obvious. We can at least agree on that.

So let's not get picky and just look at 7.3.4, the last sentence, and read what it says again.

"MOVING FROM A CITY INTO THE AREA (OR VICE VERSA) EXPENDS NO MOVEMENT POINTS"

IMHO, the authors were aware that units can move into cities, as we all are.

The argument is whether they move in during the movement phase, the combat phase or both phases.

I say yes for both phases because the rule is in the MOVEMENT PHASE section of the rules format not the combat phase. The combat phase also has rules "moving" units about so to speak.
I say Yes because why would the rules need to state a movement allowance cost if they didn't refer to the movement phase.
I say yes because if units can be in cities, (A fact not disputed) what in the world prevents them from doing so in the movement phase?
I say yes because of 7.3.3.4 and the note about leader movement, also in the movement phase.

You say no, because the movement rules only mention areas so this vice versa refers to ONLY combat moves.
Do you have other "NO's" I don't mean to slight you here.

Remember, we aren't talking exclusively about corps. The question was ANY UNITS! So the correct answer means that NO units can move into the cities in the movement phase OR all units can. (We all agree detach/absorb is not on the table here, only units with movement allowance.)

Your argument also ALMOST REQUIRES a double duty interpretation while mine does not.

In my mind, both issues are closely related and no one has found a "smoking gun" to definitively answer.

So we agree to disagree for the above reasons. I can't "prove I'm definitively correct" any more than you can. Saying something is doesn't make it so. Back to the rules being sloppy (Heck, Harry did start writing them at age 13! LOL!)

As I mentioned in another post, I tracked down Rowland and Pinder so maybe they can shed some light if they choose to answer my mail or even remember what they wrote in 1983 LOL!

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 214
- 6/11/2003 4:56:13 AM   
gdpsnake

 

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

"It is obvious that GDP has lots of bizzare rule interpetations that none of the rest of us either share or WANT to share."

Am I the only one? I dont think so.

As to the rest of your statement:

Maybe I'm bizzare or maybe not, I'm looking to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as SOAPY/ZEN have done on some issues. Nothing wrong with that in my mind. I'm just Zealous about playtesting this game THE BEST I CAN and I want to hear EVERYTHING so I'll understand if/when I see it. Learning and playing, learning and playing....

As I could say the same of you, why don't we just keep the forum focused on the discussions and leave out such statements. Such a comment is beneath you , my friend.

EDIT: I would like to add that all of us should be committed to producing the finest possible computer version of this game for the customer who buys it. All the Snakes, Chitengs, Soapys, Zens, Capitaines, Reknoys and Ragnars out there. If we don't put forward our best efforts as a team to make this goal a reality, then we are performing a disservice to Ross and the folks at Matrix.
If we don't try to pick every possible brain for their interpretations (and I've listened carefully every time, believe me) and hunt for every possible chink in the armor then we could let "bugs" filter into the process and everyone hates buggy games RIGHT!? We all have our horror stories. Do we want this one to be one as well?
Believe me, if mine is the ONLY bizzare interpretation, it won't make it out the door. It's a TEAM effort and we all play a part in moulding the product even if just a customer.
So I don't see anything wrong with being stubborn. The ultimate tests of any game success are 1. PLAYABILITY and 2. FUN!
We should therfore be openminded about everyone's definition of how the game CAN/MIGHT be played.
AFTER ALL, MY way or YOUR way may both work well OR neither might work in the computer game but how will you know My way does/does not work or if YOUR way does or does not unless you know about BOTH ways and the COMPLETE rational behind them.
Double duty may be great for a board game but does it fly in a computer version and vice versa (LOL! Soryy I had to say it!) I've NEVER played, ever heard of double duty before so I want to know all about it and how folks think it works in the rules down to the last dotted I so I play it/test it in every possible situation in the time alloted along with every other interpretation.
It should all come out in the wash as far as Playabilty and FUN, should it not?
Soapy's double duty, I don't "see it" but I'm willing to try it on for size.
The movement rules Capitaine mentioned? I'm willing to use them and see....
Zen's TU corps, and all the rest.
They wouldn't even be on my radar if we weren't discussing them.

How about you?

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 215
- 6/11/2003 6:54:01 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by gdpsnake
[B]CHITENG,

"It is obvious that GDP has lots of bizzare rule interpetations that none of the rest of us either share or WANT to share."

Am I the only one? I dont think so.

As to the rest of your statement:

Maybe I'm bizzare or maybe not, I'm looking to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as SOAPY/ZEN have done on some issues. Nothing wrong with that in my mind. I'm just Zealous about playtesting this game THE BEST I CAN and I want to hear EVERYTHING so I'll understand if/when I see it. Learning and playing, learning and playing....

As I could say the same of you, why don't we just keep the forum focused on the discussions and leave out such statements. Such a comment is beneath you , my friend.

EDIT: I would like to add that all of us should be committed to producing the finest possible computer version of this game for the customer who buys it. All the Snakes, Chitengs, Soapys, Zens, Capitaines, Reknoys and Ragnars out there. If we don't put forward our best efforts as a team to make this goal a reality, then we are performing a disservice to Ross and the folks at Matrix.
If we don't try to pick every possible brain for their interpretations (and I've listened carefully every time, believe me) and hunt for every possible chink in the armor then we could let "bugs" filter into the process and everyone hates buggy games RIGHT!? We all have our horror stories. Do we want this one to be one as well?
Believe me, if mine is the ONLY bizzare interpretation, it won't make it out the door. It's a TEAM effort and we all play a part in moulding the product even if just a customer.
So I don't see anything wrong with being stubborn. The ultimate tests of any game success are 1. PLAYABILITY and 2. FUN!
We should therfore be openminded about everyone's definition of how the game CAN/MIGHT be played.
AFTER ALL, MY way or YOUR way may both work well OR neither might work in the computer game but how will you know My way does/does not work or if YOUR way does or does not unless you know about BOTH ways and the COMPLETE rational behind them.
Double duty may be great for a board game but does it fly in a computer version and vice versa (LOL! Soryy I had to say it!) I've NEVER played, ever heard of double duty before so I want to know all about it and how folks think it works in the rules down to the last dotted I so I play it/test it in every possible situation in the time alloted along with every other interpretation.
It should all come out in the wash as far as Playabilty and FUN, should it not?
Soapy's double duty, I don't "see it" but I'm willing to try it on for size.
The movement rules Capitaine mentioned? I'm willing to use them and see....
Zen's TU corps, and all the rest.
They wouldn't even be on my radar if we weren't discussing them.

How about you?

SNAKE [/B][/QUOTE]

I have repeatedly asked the same basic question and gotten no responce.

What good is a corp if it doesnt defend the city in the area that
it is deployed in?

On the scale of this game, you are saying that Nappy could
have simply walked around the Prussian Army in 1806 and occupied Dresden. I mean lets get real, each turn is ONE MONTH.

Of course the Corp covers the city in its area.

What you keep calling 'double duty' is a logical abstraction of
the game reality. The enemy IS able to react to your moves.

Aside from which your interpetation only effects Russia and Prussia.

I have a freind that loves this game except.....he will only play
England. He will not play if you use the corp command limits
and not if you use the 'Fleet slow down' rule.

Obviously this hands the game to England. His position is...
'those rules are not realistic'

But he is more than happy to use the Nappy degrades with age rule.

You cant please some people. In this example, he wants none
of the things that limit England, and all the things that limit other players. This type of player will lock up a game in rules disputes.


See the games I have seen show me that France is dominant
ALREADY. We dont need to assist them.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 216
- 6/11/2003 7:41:44 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]When will it end? [/B][/QUOTE]

Good question.:p

_____________________________


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

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 217
- 6/11/2003 3:55:18 PM   
pfnognoff


Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		What my group used to interpret this is as follows:

Corps (if permited by its size) can move inside the city during movement. If it does so, it remains inside for the duration of the current turn, and it can't stop the enemy passing through the same area. If it stays outside of the city it can stop the enemy, and during combat it can withdraw inside. Of course if it stays out it can't fire harbour guns.

When you argue this you should remember that the area in EiA is quite large, and the best defensive positions for the field battle are probably not close to the city (especially if the city is harbour because one would not like to fight the battle with the sea at his back). If you want to fight the field battle, and at the same time shoot at the enemy ships trying to sneak in the harbour, you can detach 1 factor to garison the city itself, while the rest stay out.

Branko

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 218
- 6/11/2003 10:12:55 PM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		Bless you for chiming in Pfnognoff.

This is pretty much the way I believe the game is played. Others disagree so.......

You have just stepped into the Twilight Zone! LOL!

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 219
- 6/12/2003 2:46:36 AM   
pfnognoff


Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Well, I had to take a chance :D

This type of discussion is what use to drive my group of EiA fanatics crazy. Every single loophole has a long history of different interpretations. Even Michael's EiH had long nighmare threads on the yahoo forum on all sorts of things.
I guess for PC version with all the things they will modify (like naval interceptions, insurection corps...) for the PBEM we will just wait and see the final release...

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 220
- 6/12/2003 3:44:47 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		Yes! Another to add to the ranks of the "strict constructionists"! :D

(I assume by "once a corps moves into a city, it stays" means that if it ends the LMS inside, since it's a 0-cost move, it could move in and out many times before its move CEASED -- You begin moving another counter. But once its stops its move in or out of a city, that is where it is. :) )

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 221
- 6/12/2003 4:24:22 AM   
gdpsnake

 

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

Yes,

All the folks have been super about explaining their rules, mostly patient and willing to hear "alternative lifestyles."

As a result, I believe the playtest team will help make this EIA "version" the best yet!

I hope more will speak up! We have several different methods of play issues already, all of which have some merit.

You mentioned naval interception and Insurrection corps modifications. Were there issues you and folks you played EIA with had over these rules? I'd like to hear them.

Snake

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 222
- 6/12/2003 5:24:04 AM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline 		CHITENG,
***"What good is a corp if it doesnt defend the city in the area that
it is deployed in?"

I may not be able to answer this without sounding sarcastic so I apologize in advance.
The corp organization in the game is the key power projection unit for the land areas. The fact that I and others don't believe in double duty in no way detracts from the importance of this unit type. I restate again that a player can accomplish ANY goal, control ANY city, achieve ANY desired outcome without HAVING to have double duty. Everything is possible for ANY major power. You state the fact of double duty as if the game was "unplayable" without it. I don't see that.

***"On the scale of this game, you are saying that Nappy could
have simply walked around the Prussian Army in 1806 and occupied Dresden. I mean lets get real, each turn is ONE MONTH."

Yes, but that's not quite correct. You did not qualify this statement. Do you have a corps counter in the area? If you did, NO corps counter entering the area could then move into the city. It has to stop immediately. If you did not have a corps, then what would prevent a player from doing so?

If Dresden is that important, why didn't you garrison the city? That would prevent the OTHER units from bypassing the corps and moving into the city. But really, a cossack against a corp? How long will that last? But it is a nice RAID for economic manipulation, for a follow up naval move next turn, or (my favorite) a follow-up move by my corps into the area with the defender unable to retreat into the city.
A hard thing to swallow certainly but no different in terms of game mechanics than having a single strength point of mine in a city and me moving in as a relieving force. After all, under the seige combat rules, a single SP CAN stop a corps with a single die roll (opps, no asault for you buddy!) THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT IT'S MY MOVE PHASE SO YOU DON'T EVEN GET TO TRY AN ASSAULT. And this is GOOD because everyone gets a move phase in sequence (France anywhere) so you better have your ducks in line as you finish each of your moves! THIS is how the game represents the initiative of each country.

By using the same double duty logic (7.3.3.3.2 and 7.3.3.3.1), a cossack could be in the area doing double duty. Is that reasonable? Maybe, but the units and their abilities make much more sense to me without a DD rule.

***"What you keep calling 'double duty' is a logical abstraction of
the game reality. The enemy IS able to react to your moves."

Possibly and I'm willing to entertain the abstraction and would play that way if needed but I don't subscirbe to the notion that DD is a 'game reality' and MUST be played. Would you be willing to try a game without it?
I don't think, and I believe the length of this discussion on DD, proves that when all is said and done, neither "side" on the issue has proven the case esle all would be hitting their heads going "DOH!" So I think that makes the case that it's been "playtested" both ways and each way offers a unique set of problems for the player to overcome to achieve victory. If anything, the use of a double duty rule STRONGLY FAVORS FRANCE, much more so than any other power - see below:

"Aside from which your interpetation only effects Russia and Prussia"

No, Russia (cossacks), Spain (guerillas), Prussia (friedkorps), Austria (friedkorps/Insurrection) and Turkey (feudal corps) are all directly affected. Only the two "most dominant' powers, France and England are totally in the "plus" column benefit from double duty as it prevents these other units from exploiting openings.
Austria has a friedkorps but has two insurrection corps so they are hurt and helped (BUT the I corps are only good in a specific area and then only if Austria is invaded). Turkey is the only real negative as far as Feudal corps go BUT ONLY FOR ONE SPIRE CITIES AND ONLY IF THE feudal is 6-9 sp's.

***"See the games I have seen show me that France is dominant
ALREADY. We dont need to assist them."

DD clearly benefits the French player the MOST since the others have units that can make his life MORE difficult and he has no such units! England has their fleets (but a tiny army - size matters LOL!)! Take just a moment to visualize a game where the French player couldn't use DD.......How 'bout them cossacks/guerillas/friedcorps now?!

***"I have a freind that loves this game except.....he will only play England. He will not play if you use the corp command limits
and not if you use the 'Fleet slow down' rule.

Obviously this hands the game to England. His position is...
'those rules are not realistic'

But he is more than happy to use the Nappy degrades with age rule.

You cant please some people. In this example, he wants none
of the things that limit England, and all the things that limit other players. This type of player will lock up a game in rules disputes."

I agree with you of course on this completely. I would never loggerhead a game which is why I want to know up front. If we disagree, of course I accept a die roll. Playing a 'different way' is often enjoyable and presents different challenges.

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 223
- 6/12/2003 7:42:28 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		GDP I am not even sure what your calling Double Duty.

To agree with any point using that term implicitly recognizes
that indeed such a concept exists. That isnt something
I am willing to do. We could of course ask The original designer
of the game. He will be at Origins and I suspect at Gencon.

Given the quality of his OTHER rules efforts, I am not surprised
there are questions.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 224
- 6/12/2003 1:51:14 PM   
pfnognoff


Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by gdpsnake
[B]PFNOGNOFF

You mentioned naval interception and Insurrection corps modifications. Were there issues you and folks you played EIA with had over these rules? I'd like to hear them.

Snake [/B][/QUOTE]

No, I was reffering to issues that were raised on Marshall's monthly updates regarding changes to the rulebook to facilitate PBEM system. Those will, as was said before, have to be under the strictes scrutiny by the testers, because IMHO, they impact the gameplay far more than this "Double duty corps" issue.

GO NETS!!! ;)

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 225
- 6/12/2003 8:56:16 PM   
gdpsnake

 

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

GO NETS!!!

I assume you know I LIVE IN SAN ANTONIO!!!!!!!!! Home of the SPURS!!!!!

FOR ALL:

"Add to the end of 10.3.2.1. "If garrisons in the same city suddenly find themselves at war due to a declaration of war, immediately determine city control by trivial combat between the hostile garrison forces."

How does this official errata fit into the concept of double duty? While we are friendly, I can "also" be in the city garrisoning with all or part of my corps in the area. Now we are at war, what part of my corps is in the city for the trivial combat? Am I 'suddenly' all outside the city? If so, why?

SNAKE

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 226
- 6/12/2003 9:37:31 PM   
pfnognoff


Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by gdpsnake
[B]Pfnognoff,

GO NETS!!!

I assume you know I LIVE IN SAN ANTONIO!!!!!!!!! Home of the SPURS!!!!![/B][/QUOTE]
I saw your location info and couldn't resist :D

[QUOTE][B]FOR ALL:

"Add to the end of 10.3.2.1. "If garrisons in the same city suddenly find themselves at war due to a declaration of war, immediately determine city control by trivial combat between the hostile garrison forces."

How does this official errata fit into the concept of double duty? While we are friendly, I can "also" be in the city garrisoning with all or part of my corps in the area. Now we are at war, what part of my corps is in the city for the trivial combat? Am I 'suddenly' all outside the city? If so, why? [/B][/QUOTE]
Good question.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 227
- 6/12/2003 9:37:41 PM   
Capitaine

 

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

The rules on garrison nationality determining "control" for combat purposes makes double duty completely, 100% inconsistent with the rulebook. It's not just a "different interpretation", it's an entirely different game, made up to "streamline" something some players dislike about the rules as they stand.

There could be no possible way to "determine the nationality of the garrison" unless those troops actually are placed in the city and they are counted irrespective of other corps in the "area".

Thing is, when the computer handles all the disputes and bookkeeping, there is not even a colorable "annoyance" argument for the double duty crowd. It's just a preference of sloppy tactical play so they can focus on playing "Diplomacy" in the Napoleonic era.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 228
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
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

1.234