rule question

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

rule question

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 >> rule question

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

rule question - 7/20/2004 11:57:02 PM

wieschi

Posts: 59
Joined: 3/9/2003
From: Karlsruhe / Germany
Status: offline

hi all,
in my boardgame, i have a difficult situation:

russia and france are at war with england.
spain has an enforced peace with england.
spain, france and russian are allied and declared combined movement.

3 spanish, 3 french and 3 russian fleets located in le havre, together with 90.000 frenchies under napoleon.
of course, england blockade this port.

the 9 allied fleets wants to sail into the chanel to invade england.

and here is my question:

is it allowed for the english player to attack the whole stack or must he choose to attack the spanish, or the franco-russian stack ???

thanx for your responses.

(sorry for my english. i hope you understand what i want to say)

Post #: 1

RE: rule question - 7/21/2004 1:41:33 AM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

Well, no doubt you may get a lot of arguements here...

But as I remember reading numerous times, one of the exceptions in the rules.... states that a phasing player may attack a stack of another player's ships (not at war with), if it is involved with carrying, etc. of another country's units.

So, you got a stack of mixed units. You still are allowed to attack it and can bust up the Spain guy in this situation. Though, this will automaticaly put you at war with Spain hehe, but you do not need to declare it ahead of time in diplomacy phase though.

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

(in reply to wieschi)

Post #: 2

RE: rule question - 7/21/2004 1:53:56 AM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Wieschi:

Our implementation would allow combat with all nations in the current area that you are at war with so in your particular scenario, Great Britain would be allowed tp attack the French and Russian fleets.

Thank you

Marshall

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Pippin)

Post #: 3

RE: rule question - 7/21/2004 5:04:03 AM

oldtimer

Posts: 48
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

Marshall Ellis,

Marshall Ellis please read all the way through. At the end is a possible loophole that occurred to me while typing this answer that could be really bad.

You are partially correct in your answer, but in the AH - EIA rules page 13 rules 6.3.1.2 6.3.1.2.1, & 6.3.1.2.2 the rules state and I quote:

6.3.1.2 A stack may only attack another stack if at war with the major power owning that stack OR if at war with a major power owning corps being (or that could be) transported by fleets of that stack. In the latter case, the attacker's stack need NOT be at war with the major power owning the transporting fleets and if not, the attacker has the option to either:

*** my comment so England would attack Spain, Russia, & French fleets***

6.3.1.2.1: Attack WITHOUT a declaration of war (no political point loss for a declaration of war) although politcal points are still normally gained or lost for winning or losing the battle.

***my comment Spain would still be subject to attack and would suffer PP loss or gain, but no war would exist with England. Despite enforced peace ***

6.3.1.2.2: OR, IMMEDIATLY declare war (EVEN if operating under an enforced peace period, which CAN BE IGNORED in this case) and lose the requiste political points (see 4.2.1.1) for EACH seperate declaration of war. NO allies may be called with these declarations of war.

*** my comment England could at it's choosing declare war on Spain and be at war with Spain, France, & Russia, if England so decided. This would cost England 3 PP's for the declaration + any points for alliance or marriage. Spain could not call any other allies in its defense. ***

I think the rules quoted above are pretty clear on the situation. England can keep the peace with Spain, but sink Spanish ships; or declare war on Spain and sink Spanish ships.

In addition my interpretation is such that England MUST include the Spanish ships in the combat BECAUSE they COULD transport French corp and the stack is in combine movement.

Now this probably won't be an issue in the PC version because I believe Marshall Ellis pointed out in the past that in combine movement the corp or fleet fall under the ownership of the power that the fleet or corp are loaned to for the combine movement. Therefore the Russian, French, & Spanish fleets would ALL have to belong to one of the three major powers.

Therefore what they need to watch out for is if France and Russia loan the corp and fleets to SPAIN, that England can still attack the Spanish fleets because what is to prevent France and Russia to "LOAN" the corp to Spain in a combine movement then after the corp land in England, because England can't stop it, the next turn Spain gives control BACK to France and Russia. Now 90,000 French troops are in London because of a programming loophole.

Just a thought.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 4

RE: rule question - 7/21/2004 5:40:20 AM

ian77

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline

I agree with oldtimer, we certainly play that an attack upon the multi fleet stack is an attack upon all the fleets in the stack. England cannot just single out the french and russian ships for battle under our interpretation of 6.3.1.2.1 & 6.3.1.2.2 in wieschi's example.

(in reply to oldtimer)

Post #: 5

RE: rule question - 7/21/2004 5:24:48 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

I can see a potential problem if France and Russia loaned their fleets to Spain thus not inviting an interception roll from Gbr since Gbr is not at war with Spain ... My brain is twisted?!?!?!!??!

I'll have to plug this hole if I find one!
Let me attempt to simulate this....

Thanks

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to ian77)

Post #: 6

RE: rule question - 7/21/2004 6:19:57 PM

ardilla

Posts: 399
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Castellon, Spain
Status: offline

Yes, you have a problem.

The game should have to allow GB to attack for free or attack and declare war against SP
if SP is carring troops from another country that it is at war with GB.

Good luck and dont worry, we can wait a couple more weeks...but not too many!!!

_____________________________

Santiago y cierra Espa�a!!!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 7

RE: rule question - 7/21/2004 11:46:18 PM

ian77

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline

GB can still attack spain if carrying Fr & Rus units, and if Fr & Rus fleets are in stack, so it shouldnt be a problem. GB just has to decide if they want there attack to be a declaration of war on Spain or not.

(in reply to ardilla)

Post #: 8

RE: rule question - 7/22/2004 2:01:14 AM

von Curow

Posts: 89
Joined: 6/20/2000
From: Plymouth (Massachusetts)
Status: offline

Since when can you voluntarily loan corps/fleets to someone? Is this new for the computer game? Is there forced access in place? If not, Spain still can't land troops in England.

(in reply to ian77)

Post #: 9

RE: rule question - 7/22/2004 4:43:23 AM

oldtimer

Posts: 48
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

In another thread on Combine Movement, Marshall Ellis mentioned that their solution was that corp from one nation would be given to the other nation (like a corp on loan) for that turn of combine movement.

Therefore one nation would have to give control of the designated corp to another nation (they must be allied). Unlike EIA boardgame the two powers do not move at the same time, instead Russia may "give / loan" 3 corp to Spain and those 3 corp would all move during Spains turn and the remainder of Russia's corp would move during Russia's phase.

Now this was not to big an issue when all powers movement was to be executed at the same time. Now that MG has gone back to the original movement sequence this becomes an issue in many ways, not just the example above (the ships).

Example Russia and Spain declare combine move (both are at war with France). Russia has 8 corp in the area Spain has 1 corp. France has 4 corp in the area. France says they will move last.

Of the 8 Russian corp they combine move 3 of them with Spain. The remaining 5 Russian corp attack the French stack and the Russian leader has a better rating because they are not controlling as many corp as before. Now it is Spain's turn to move. The single Spanish corp and the 3 Russian corp (now considered Spanish for this turn) attack the French again.

One can now double attack a stack.

They need to retain the sequence of move because that is a HUGE advantage for France to help them take on all the other powers effectively. Making everyone move at the same time hurts France and in my opinion unbalances the game. They need to resolve the combined move issue.

Possible Solution. Have a screen where combine move is declared. Both powers MUST select each other to move with the other. Now both powers movement orders will be processed AT THE SAME TIME. Each nation will put in there movement orders. NOW if the two powers move the same in there turns that is great. It will also mean they need to coordinate their moves. Now when both end up stacked with a common enemy combat occurs. The power whos leader is controlling the stack would make the chit choice and all combat commands that may pertain to outflanking choices.

If the two powers do not submit the same movement commands well guess what, in war, orders get messed up and people turn the wrong way.

Now I don't know how Marshall Ellis would program this, but I figured that it might be worth looking at.

I wish I was on the Playtest group as do a lot of us. I've played a lot of EiA and believe it or not follow this thread very closely. I believe I know some of their playtesters (not well but I have gamed with them in the past by email - if they saw my name I think they would recognize me). I don't post a lot here unless I gleam something that could be a HUGE problem for the PC version.

Yes that last paragraph was a shameless plug to be a late commer playtester and I apologize for it, but I have dealt with A LOT of programmers and programs in my 20+ year career and have a knack of finding coding problems and developing solutions. I've also had extensive experience playing wargames. I would donate the time to help if it is requested, as well as purchase the game when completed. Not asking for anything other then being able to give of my time. I don't expect to be taken up on the offer and as I see potential issues pop up in here I will jump in.

(in reply to von Curow)

Post #: 10

RE: rule question - 7/22/2004 1:17:44 PM

ardilla

Posts: 399
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Castellon, Spain
Status: offline

I dont see it as a big deal Oldtimer.

Since you combine movement, you should loan all the spanish corps to the RU player and then he will move all together.

But, since you combine movement, you move one after eachother, so in this case, RU will move and then SP, but I guess that all the fightings will be resolved after both movements since they combined.

And of course, there must be better ways to do it, like asking the owner of the corps loaned if he/she agrees with his partner movement before everything occurs to avoid backstabbing (send somebodies else corps alone to fight Nappy p.e.!!)

Well, I trust MG and I think they are doing a very HARD work and I think they are doing it REALLY WELL.

Regards.

_____________________________

Santiago y cierra Espa�a!!!

(in reply to oldtimer)

Post #: 11

RE: rule question - 7/22/2004 11:34:06 PM

ian77

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Oldtimer, thanks for the info on the proposed combined movement loaning corps/fleet.
I think I am agreeing with you by saying that this notion of "loaning" is not the same as combined movement, and completely changes the mechanics of combined movement and opens up a huge area of, well to be blunt, cheating. (your example of the russian who loans three of his overstacked corps enabling consecutive four corps attacks on the same stack would be the tip of the iceberg)

Who would get the VPs? The owner of the corps or the "handler"? If still the owner as it is in the boardgame, why not have all allies lend their units to just one power and then beat up on whoever they liked taking it in turn to "handle" the combined army and in turn to declare war, thus only one of them would loose points for declaring a war that all three gain points for winning. If you make it that all the powers have to be at war in order to loan troops, then the example at the beginning of this thread could not happen because Spain and GB have an enforced Peace, though in the boardgame Spain can play the "nasty neutral" and help to transport GBs enemies, an agressive act, but not a declaration of war.

IMHO any move away from combined movement as it exists in the boardgame rules would seriously effect gameplay.

(in reply to oldtimer)

Post #: 12

RE: rule question - 8/11/2004 9:47:04 PM

mattbirra

Posts: 30
Joined: 8/10/2004
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT mate

(in reply to oldtimer)

Post #: 13