Trival note about rule book

Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options

Moderator: MOD_EIA

Post Reply
Dancing Bear
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:16 pm

Trival note about rule book

Post by Dancing Bear »

Hi all

this is likely just be a trival misprint in the rules, but the Rule 9.3.1 says that in the event of a tie, the intercepting (phasing) force losses. Surely this is the non-phasing player, because the intercepting force can not be the phasing force. The way the game is set up the intercepting force losses ties. I suspect the rules should read the intercepting (non-phasing) player losses in the event of a tie.

Also on the subject of the naval rules, the handy summary table (14.5) at the back should likely indicate that blockading forces automatically get wind guage, not just fleets attacking ports.

DB
Dancing Bear
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:16 pm

RE: Trival note about rule book

Post by Dancing Bear »

Does anyone recall if what the original EIA rules say about fleets leaving a blockade box into a blockading force. Are they the ones they start the combat. and would lose ties?
pzgndr
Posts: 3704
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Delaware

RE: Trival note about rule book

Post by pzgndr »

Got it.  Marshall can confirm and I'll get it into the v1.08 updated manual.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
ndrose
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:07 pm

RE: Trival note about rule book

Post by ndrose »

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

Does anyone recall if what the original EIA rules say about fleets leaving a blockade box into a blockading force. Are they the ones they start the combat. and would lose ties?

I don't see anything in the rules that addresses this narrowly (maybe I missed something), but (to confirm what you wrote earlier) the intercepting force is generally considered the attacker and so loses ties; and blockades are called automatic interceptions. That would imply to me that the blockader is the attacker and loses ties, but as I say maybe I overlooked a specific exception for that case.
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: Trival note about rule book

Post by Jimmer »

In the original rules, the phasing player in a BB combat is considered the attacker, and must therefore win the encounter. In other words, blockader wins ties. This is different from other interceptions, where the intercepter loses ties. There was a separate rule covering it (6.2.3.2.1).

However, this was worded badly in the rules. So, they had an example at the end of the rulebook that made it clear.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
Dancing Bear
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:16 pm

RE: Trival note about rule book

Post by Dancing Bear »

Hi Jimmer
I'm not sure if this is right. Where does it say that the fleet trying to run the blockade is the attacker?
Dancing Bear
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:16 pm

RE: Trival note about rule book

Post by Dancing Bear »

Thanks pzgndr
ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Got it.  Marshall can confirm and I'll get it into the v1.08 updated manual.
ndrose
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:07 pm

RE: Trival note about rule book

Post by ndrose »

Jimmer, can you quote the relevant example? 6.2.3.2.1 just says that the phasing fleet has to win the combat in order to move out of port, but it doesn't say whether equal casualties count as winning or losing, which is the question.
User avatar
Marshall Ellis
Posts: 5630
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Trival note about rule book

Post by Marshall Ellis »

I will update the in-game manual!
Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


Post Reply

Return to “Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815”