Harry Rowland ANSWERS!

[gdpsnake]

HELLO TO ALL,

Here is the copy of the E-mail from Harry Rowland, Designer of EIA.

Greetings,
My name is Gary Pickett and I've been chosen as a playtester for Matrix Games's computer version of the popular Empire in Arms game.

I wrote to Beth to find an E-mail address to address some of the issues several of the players have been having concerning some aspects of the game.

We couldn't come to an agreement, so I decided to "go to the source" hoping Harry Rowland or Greg Pinder could shed some light. The rule used are the 1986 Avalon Hill version with errata.


1. 7.3.4 MOVEMENT FROM CITIES. "...Moving from a city into its area (or vice-versa) expends no movement points."

The proponents for "yes" say this is evidence since it's written in the movement rules and discusses expending movement points (of zero).

The proponents for "no" say this only pertains to the combat phase after combat.

So, may units move into cites during the movement phase?

HR> Yes.

2. These two rules are listed under 7.3.3.3 GARRISON FACTORS:
7.3.3.3.1 "Cossack, freikorps and guerilla factors (guerillas may not garrison depots) may also be used to form all or part of a city or depot garrison."
7.3.3.3.2 "Corps may form all or part of a city garrison without detaching army factors, so that any type of army factors in such corps could also be a garrison."

Some argue these rules allow the concept of "Double Duty." That is, a corps or unit in an area can also be the garrison for the city (or a depot garrison). In other words, the city is empty but the corps or units in the area are also the city garrison for port gun firing, control, preventing movement into the city, etc.

Others argue these rules were intended to allow these units to be garrisons when already located (only) in the city. That is, a corps in an area with an empty city can't man port guns in the city, a cossack could move "past" the corps into the empty city, a corps could move "past" a cossack in the area and enter the city or detach into the city, etc.

So, do these rules allow a "double duty" concept or are they written to allow corps and other units to be garrisons when located in the city?

HR> They can't do double duty. Any unit is either in a city or in the surrounding countryside. However when an enemy corps enters an area, the corps or other units in the area can retire into the city if they can fit. If your corps/units do not retire, the enemy units still have to drive your forces away before you can siege or occupy empty cities in the area.


3. 7.3.2 LAND MOVEMENT PROCEDURE: Each counter is moved individually.
7.3.2.1: A corps must cease movement when it consumes its movement allowance..."

Some argue this means that a corps could not detach/absorb factors (a zero move) after consuming its movement allowance. I.E. zero moves in the last area entered if the last area cost all the remaining movement.

Others say units can always do zero cost moves even after zero is reached.

So, can units continue to perform "zero cost moves" after all movement allowance is consumed?

HR> Yes.


4. Most agree a conquered minor is considered the major power's territory.

So, do conquered minor countries need to be garrisoned?

HR> Yes I think, but is it possible pls to forward the relevant rules to me for a definitive ruling?


These were the main points argued and you can review the arguments in the Matrix Games forum on EIA. Any information you can offer would be appreciated so that the computer version of EIA is both fun and represents the original design intent of the game.

Is ADG going to the Ohio convention this month?

HR> Due to work and family committments I will be unable to attend this year. However we are intending to have an agent for us attend.

Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG

PS I have forwarded this to Greg for his tuppence where appropriate.

Sincerely,
Gary Pickett
GDPSNAKE on the matrix forums


TO ALL,
I hope this helps clarify some issues. I will return to HR the applicable rules regarding the garrison of minors.

CHEERS

SNAKE

[Reknoy]

Gary. let me be the first to say, WOW!

Very cool. I must print this off and save it.

Thanks.

[Capitaine]

Well done, SNAKE! I'm glad to see you asked about the "cease movement" issue, even though I conceded it was not a possible interpretation after all due to the combat rules for advancing to a city after combat or defender retirement to the city.

If you write him again, it would be interesting to hear what he says about "moving individually". Once a counter is moved, and ceases its movement (by proceeding to move another one AND resolving any applicable foraging results to the just finished moving corps), it cannot thereafter have its move "reopened", even for "zero cost" moves. That is my belief from the letter of the rules, and I see nothing that would preclude or warrant deviating from that individual, sequential order of movement.

Capitaine

[Reknoy]

Actually, I hope he asks this as well. While your reading of it makes sense, Cap, I have played otherwise (not that you can't be creative enough to effect a very similar result -- i.e., by way of shuffling that is).

Reknoy

[soapyfrog]

I did suspect that this might be the offical answer...

I'd still be interested to know how he feels about Feudal and Insurrection Corps which are too large to "fit" inside certain cities, thus allowing for the possibility that they could not control said cities despite being able to do things like siege assaults.

Also I'd be interested to find out how he feels about cossacks "sneaking" past corps in the field to capture vacant cities in the same area.

These are both "oddities" that I feel the rules should address.

On the point of minor countries requiring continual garrison in their capital, IMHO the rules as written are pretty clear on that so I think he is answering of the cuff on this point... or at least I hope so, because the rules actually do not cover that eventuality at all... e.g. when does a minor country that is not garrisoned return to neutral status? In the minor country control step? At the instant it is not garrisoned? In the conquest step? After one turn of no garrison? There are simple no rules to make reference to.

So gdpsnake et al, you are correct, I am incorrect, on the ability of moving into cities during movement and the inability of corps to act as garrison without being IN the city. Victory is yours. Now my "interpretation" must be officially moved to the status of "houserule"

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by Capitaine
If you write him again, it would be interesting to hear what he says about "moving individually". Once a counter is moved, and ceases its movement (by proceeding to move another one AND resolving any applicable foraging results to the just finished moving corps), it cannot thereafter have its move "reopened", even for "zero cost" moves. That is my belief from the letter of the rules, and I see nothing that would preclude or warrant deviating from that individual, sequential order of movement.

I didn't think this was up for debate? Once you have completed a corps' move you cannot "go back to it" later for any reason.

In short you are correct... but I don't remember anyone arguing against that.

[Reknoy]

In the groups that I have played in, as long as the conditions are there (room in a city, etc.), a stack of corps can exchange infantry factors at a junction point.

The point is, you can typically manipulate individual corps movement to achieve the same result, so why make the contrivance? Since it's all zero move, why not move the stack to one place (one corps at a time, of course) and make the exchange(s)?

Anyway, I'm not sure if that was something that came from a concerted attempt to read the rule and make an exact determination -- rather something that seemed common sense.

Again, I think you can usually obtain similar results no matter how you play it, but it would be nice to know.

Reknoy

[gdpsnake]

SOAPY,

You said: Also I'd be interested to find out how he feels about cossacks "sneaking" past corps in the field to capture vacant cities in the same area.

As much as I hate to admit, I think he answered this.

"If your corps/units do not retire, the enemy units still have to drive your forces away before you can siege or occupy empty cities in the area."

I assumed this meant that one may not "slip past" enemy units in an area to occupy an empty city. One must "drive off" the enemy in combat. The double duty, therefore applies more to preventing the use of port guns and controlling a city with factors.

I see this as perfectly logical, that a corps could prevent such a move for all the reasons discussed in the post "that never ends!" LOL!.

I don't see it as "clear cut" that a cossack, for example, could stop a corps. I shall ask a clarified question.

I have reasked the garrison question on minor countries as I also believe he answered off the cuff.

I think the "movement rule" is clear about finishing a unit's move (even zero moves) before starting another unit; however, the issue is applicable since one could argue to:
"move a corps to an area with another corps (not moved yet) exchange factors and then move the (unmoved) corps thereby moving factors many times over (the old chaining factors issue).

I would hope the 'computer version' gives each unit and factor a movement allowance at the beggining of the phase that can't be exceeded. That might be tough though it would certainly solve the Naval Movement problem since they don't have factors that detach/absorb and I always assumed the transfer of 'ships' happened as a result of combat or transfer when stacks (determined at the VERY beginning of the naval phase) were INITIALLY selected for move. I.E. before I move this 'stack' I reallocate 'ships' as desired and never during a move. I.E. I move into this port and pick up "ships." Fleets could be picked up (and lose some movement) but not ships in the fleet.
AM I wrong on this one? I couldn't find specific 'transfer rules' for ship strength factors.

I shall ask this question of land movement.

Hope he's a patient man! LOL!

SNAKE

[pfnognoff]

Originally posted by gdpsnake
SOAPY,

You said: Also I'd be interested to find out how he feels about cossacks "sneaking" past corps in the field to capture vacant cities in the same area.

As much as I hate to admit, I think he answered this.

"If your corps/units do not retire, the enemy units still have to drive your forces away before you can siege or occupy empty cities in the area."

I assumed this meant that one may not "slip past" enemy units in an area to occupy an empty city. One must "drive off" the enemy in combat. The double duty, therefore applies more to preventing the use of port guns and controlling a city with factors.

Still not clear enough. Corps counters can't sneak by enemy corps to enter city or go on to some neighbouring area, that's clear.
Cossack/freikorps counters, as per special rule, can continue on to the neighbouring area, that's also clear.
Still not clear, is the city itself neighbouring area that does not consume movement, allowing to sneak by, or is it same area, not allowing cossaks to sneak by.

Originally posted by gdpsnake
I would hope the 'computer version' gives each unit and factor a movement allowance at the beggining of the phase that can't be exceeded. That might be tough though it would certainly solve the Naval Movement problem since they don't have factors that detach/absorb and I always assumed the transfer of 'ships' happened as a result of combat or transfer when stacks (determined at the VERY beginning of the naval phase) were INITIALLY selected for move. I.E. before I move this 'stack' I reallocate 'ships' as desired and never during a move. I.E. I move into this port and pick up "ships." Fleets could be picked up (and lose some movement) but not ships in the fleet.
AM I wrong on this one? I couldn't find specific 'transfer rules' for ship strength factors.

It would be nice to track each factor/ship. There was this type of rule in EiH, if I'm not mistaken.

Branko

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by pfnognoff
Still not clear enough. Corps counters can't sneak by enemy corps to enter city or go on to some neighbouring area, that's clear.
Cossack/freikorps counters, as per special rule, can continue on to the neighbouring area, that's also clear.
Still not clear, is the city itself neighbouring area that does not consume movement, allowing to sneak by, or is it same area, not allowing cossaks to sneak by.

Exactly my concern.

[Chiteng]

I am not surprised. MR Howland wrote excrable rules
for WIF and its various modules.

One off the cuff answer is hardly definitive.
He must be made aware of the context.

[Hoplosternum]

Chiteng,

While I agree that WIF is not always clear there are worse written sets of rules. EU anyone?

Having said that Harry Rowland has often caused problems in the WIF community with off the cuff rulings but they usually get sorted out later on. Unlike EiA, WiF has been updated repeatedly and some of the potential problems have been sorted (double dipping on Strat bombing, does a Paratrooper have to be stacked with an ATR throughout the phase to be Paradropped etc.) Although each new version seems to create a few more

I once played a PBEM EU game and one of the players was the game designer. His off the cuff rulings (and that game really needs them) were not too good. Sometimes completely contradicting the written rules! I am not convinced HRs will be much better but sometimes when rules could be read either way any ruling is good

[woody2069a]

Could you ask him how to interpret a battle in the blockade box?
Facts -
1805 April
I am currently playing Great Britain
The Russian player has won 3 or 4 of the last 4 games.
In April I chose to move last in the Naval Phase.
The Russian and the French sailed their fleets (with 4 Corps) to the Hull Blockade Box.
There are no British soldiers in port and no British ships in the Blockade Box.
The British had returned to Yarmouth to reorganize by moving last in the sea phase.
I missed they had fleets at maximum range.
I attacked the F/R and won the battle.
F/R claims that because we fought in the sea area their invasion cab not be stopped.
Details and a link to a discussion started yesterday.
They had about 116 ships
Great Britain attacked them with 108 British and Portuguese ships, Commanded by Lord Nelson.
Great Britain caused the Franco-Russian Fleet to lose 26 ships from their Battle Worthy Fleet.
The Fra-Rus caused the British to lose 22 ships from our Battle Worthy Fleet.
All VP adjustments were preformed.

At that point the Fra-Rus informed me that they would not be going to a port and Great Britain had to move their fleet to either the Sea Yarmouth or Edinburgh.
At which point they would start landing troops.
In almost 40 years of play I have never seen anything like this.

My experience is that the loser heads for a friendly port with the victors in Hot Pursuit.
Another party stated they were correct for fleets coming out with Corps loaded, but not for fleets that sailed from as far away as Russia. That was my assumption also, both as a game player and as a Military Veteran. Not going to allow an invasion because it’s bed time. Am I right or wrong?

I had the game frozen the game at that point and said I was going to post this to Board Game Geek.
If I’m wrong I will live with it, if not please comment on this very long post

[pzgndr]

Could you ask him how to interpret a battle in the blockade box?
...
My experience is that the loser heads for a friendly port with the victors in Hot Pursuit.

AFAIK, Harry Rowland made only two posts here back in 2007: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/sear ... 4&sr=posts You might have better luck trying to contact him directly via ADG.

As for naval battles - whether they are in open sea, interceptions, or in a blockade box - they are all resolved the same way. The original rules are pretty clear (italicized for emphasis):

6.3.4.1 DETERMINING VICTORY: A side that does not lose all of its ships and also loses less ships than the other side wins a naval combat and the other side loses it. If both sides have surviving ships and losses were equal, the side that attacked loses the naval combat and the other side wins it. If a side loses all of its ships but loses less ships than the other side a naval combat is a draw (this can happen in port combats).

6.3.5 NAVAL RETREAT AND PURSUIT: The survivors of one side in a naval combat must retreat. Retreat moves are always made before pursuit moves and the retreat and pursuit moves of one naval combat must be made before the next naval combat is resolved.

6.3.5.1 SEA AREA RETREATS AND PURSUITS: The naval combat loser retreats all fleets that were in the combat to the one nearest unblockaded friendly (including an ally's port, with access permission and if the loser wishes to use it) port within seven movement points (losing player's choice if more than one possible port is equally close). Some, none or all of the victorious fleet(s) may pursue to follow the losing fleets and blockade that port.

The only real diiference in the Matrix Games version is that there are no naval pursuits. But the game will most certainly retreat the loser as defined as losing more ships. Hope this helps.