Rules interpretations

[Ragnar]

Originally posted by soapyfrog
What do you mean divisible? Do you mean in terms of my interpretation of 7.3.3.3.2? I mean 7.3.3.3.2 IS the rule that "allows" it, inasmuch as it is not a "division" of the corps more an explanation of it's capabilities.

My point exactly, 7.3.3.3.2 does not say any part of the corps is "split up", it merely states that the "army factors in such corps could also be a garrison"

IMO, since indeed 7.3.3.3.2 does not mention the location of the corps, you are able to argue that it might not need to be inside the city, but could be outside instead. However, I don't see any reference in 7.3.3.3.2 that would apply to only part of the corps. And I don't see any need for it either, since if any part of the corps can be both in and outside the city, all of it can. So IMO, your idea that a corps can be split up is *yet another* spin on 7.3.3.3.2 that you'll have to point me towards very clearly, for I don't see it.

Originally posted by soapyfrog
Bad... so unless otherwise stated you give control of the city to the corps in the area in the absence of a specific garrison.

Ok, fine. So now we'd need at least one additional statement or rather non-statement per corps in any city area. IMO this will not be on rare occasions, for it is quite common to have a corps outside a neutral-controlled city (which it could be garrisoning but might not be), but I don't think it affects our discussion.

Originally posted by soapyfrog
Er... whatever, point being, the forces in question are required to leave before a conflict occurs.

Incorrect. The forces in question are required to leave before a field conflict occurs. Please read 7.3.8.2-7.3.8.4 again. The declaration of a siege is NOT an attack by any stretch of the rules, so no forces would be required to leave.

And even if they where, rule 10.3.3. would still take effect on forces that are garrisoning the city. The surrender is upon announcement, which is made during movement, so by the time 7.3.8.4(leaving the area) comes along, any garrisoning forces have already been obliged to surrender per rule 10.3.3.

Originally posted by soapyfrog
The corps counter is by NO definition a "garrison" (and therefore a "field force"). It is only permitted to ACT AS a garrison by the provisions of 7.3.3.3.2.

So you claim it is a garrison for all purposes that benefit you, but none of the purposes that inconvenience you? Please show where 7.3.3.3.2 states that such corps are a garrison only for certain purposes and not others. I don't see it.

Originally posted by soapyfrog
The ability of a corps to act as a garrison regardless of it's position in or out of the city inherently gives it the ability to do all the things a garrison can do and yet still be considered "outside" the city for all other purposes required by the rules. My holy grail is 7.3.3.3.2!! [/B]

Let me re-iterate your reading of 7.3.3.3.2 sofar:
Corps are considered garrions of a city in their area unless announced otherwise for any purpose, but not those of all kinds of nasty side-effects like getting besieged and blockaded and what not..

Now, what is to stop anyone from resoning the following:
Corps are considered garrions of a city in their area unless announced otherwise for the purpose of of gettting besieged and blockaded, but not for any other like controlling the city or firing the port guns and the like.

Please show me how 7.3.3.3.2 (or any other rule) makes your reading more "true" to the rules than the other I just gave. You don't have to quote me the entire rulebook, just give me the portion that makes up your mind about these specific matters.

If a corps pulling double duty is considered a garrison for some, but not for other purposes, you have to show me a rule that distinguishes these "considered garrisons" from "actual garrisons" in that respect. You can't create the difference by sheer force of will.

To me it's not a matter that 7.3.3.3.2 is open to interpretation (for I agree it is) it's that IMO your interpretation is internally inconsistent.

[Ragnar]

Originally posted by Zen Mechanic
Firstly, anyone know of an online source of the rules? I won't be able to check a rulebook until either I get home or Wednesday, when I play Turkey again (thus the feudal references)

Try a Google on"Empires in Arms""+rules

That'll work fairly quickly. It's in word, covers only sections 1-12 and pretty much around everywhere you find EiA on the net.

Ragnar

[Ragnar]

Originally posted by Zen Mechanic
I therefore say that double-duty makes the most sense, especially dealing with month-long turns and a strategic game like EiA. The non-double-duty makes less sense, imo.

Phew, that was long. I hope I was clear

ZM

Well, I shortened it a little for you

I agree that double duty makes more sense for a strategic game. However, all strategic aspects of EiA lie in its diplomatic and economic system. All maneuvering, supply and other maters are every bit as tactical as any other tactical game I've ever seen. So your assumption is at least contestable. IMO, EiA is a game that combines strategic, diplomatic and tctical operations quite nicely, although the bulk of the rules (sections 5, 6 and 7) seems to deal largely with tactical issues lke movement , placement, supply and the like.

On the issue of some corps not being able to occupy some cities: That's entirely normal. The default way to take control is to detach a factor. 7.3.3.3.2 is merely an exception to this. Arguing that the exception must cover all possible cases and that any interpretation that does not conclude this is rediculous is a bit, er.. demanding.

IMO, the fact that non-regular-non-infantry corps cannot always enter a city or that if they do there is a price (any factor can be demobilized during reinforcements, so you could then enter if needed), is entirely reasonable.

These are special, irregular forces that simply cannot operate apart from their commans structure and musy be committed en masse. Ok, that's a little awkward in the case of guards, but remember, guard corps _can_ detach factors, so there's not really an issue there, just a price. Note that this problem also applies to minor forces, who cannot detach outside their own nation either.

Also, even double duty doesn't allow a 9 factor Feudal corps to garrison a 1 spire city. Rule 7.3.3.4 does not exempt corps pulling double duty from the count, so it still won't fit.

[Ragnar]

Originally posted by Capitaine After that, the counter cannot take any further action not permitted under the subsequent nonmovement phases of the game, as each counter must still be moved sequentially AND individually (7.3.2).

So, there. Take this for what you will. [/B]

I still don't see anything in 7.3.3 that requires a counter to be on the move. It just say that during your LMS, your corps can detach and absorb from cities and depots. There's some added requirements and exceptions, but the corps needing to be "on the move" doesn't seem to be one of them. Please explain why you add this requirement to the ones already listed (During your LMS, no enemy corps, friendly or vacant city, etc).

[Reknoy]

By the way, nice post, Capitaine. Shows how my knee-jerk rant was off base.

Getting to the rules/game issue at hand with double duty...

Let's say I'm one of the developers (a real stretch of the imagination - but let's imagine).

Would it be better to give corps the "double duty" power?

Why not make it such that corps can do both at the same time?

Answer: How many people ever employ any intentional strategy to take advantage of this? In all the years I've played, MAYBE I've seen something like this once or twice.

Corps are pretty scarce -- France will hardly be using even the XII corps to guard a port (apart from Toulon, maybe, and for other specific reasons and limited durations that matter more about guarding the area around the port). Further, even if corps can be the garrison while in the field, once they lose a field battle they have to leave that area. Makes dropping a garrison vital.

I think I even read a few posts from both sides that concur that garrisons are pretty much a "must have" in at least certain conditions.

From a "playability" standpoint, I don't see a lot of value in double duty.

Then you ask yourself, is it easier (and I don't know the answer to this) to simply nix the "double duty" notion and note that you have to have a garrison (either a factor or a corps that can fit into the city, etc.)?

I would guess that programming a function that would give the corps the added ZOC (like, every time someone runs the guns there is an added step: is there a corps in the area) would at least be a little more trouble.

If it's low on the play value, why bother?

Just thinking out loud.

Reknoy

p.s. In response to the corps that cannot detach and cannot fit into a particular city, even if the game prohibits double duty, then I think it's a matter of accepting that the feudal corps are not the same "corps" as the rest and therefore are subject to some disadvantages??

[baboune]

Online rules:
http://penguin.trew.se/EiA/rules/eiarules.html

very convenient...

[baboune]

the whole site is at:
http://penguin.trew.se/EiA/

Contians FAQ, erratas, etc..

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by Ragnar
IMO, since indeed 7.3.3.3.2 does not mention the location of the corps, you are able to argue that it might not need to be inside the city, but could be outside instead. However, I don't see any reference in 7.3.3.3.2 that would apply to only part of the corps. And I don't see any need for it either, since if any part of the corps can be both in and outside the city, all of it can. So IMO, your idea that a corps can be split up is *yet another* spin on 7.3.3.3.2 that you'll have to point me towards very clearly, for I don't see it.

The corps is not "splitting up", it is "acting as a garrison" without actually having to move inside the city. Is that clearer?

Incorrect. The forces in question are required to leave before a field conflict occurs. Please read 7.3.8.2-7.3.8.4 again. The declaration of a siege is NOT an attack by any stretch of the rules, so no forces would be required to leave.

Ah. I see where you are coming form now. 10.3.3 still presents no problem IMHO since the corps itself is not in garrison, as we have already discussed.

However even if you feel somehow that it was, the rule then requires the surrender of said corps, which is immediately returned (the corps counter and all it's factors) to the controlling player to be reinforcemed in the next step. I don't think that's a sensible way to play but you lose nothing really by doing it.

So you claim it is a garrison for all purposes that benefit you, but none of the purposes that inconvenience you? Please show where 7.3.3.3.2 states that such corps are a garrison only for certain purposes and not others. I don't see it.

Not so much benefit "me" since everyone benefits equally from an "easier" reading of the rules. And it's not like it's arbitrary either. The corps is assumed to be controlling the city in the area it's in. Work with that assumption (which is less an "assumption" and more "my interpretation of 7.3.3.3.2"... but both our interpretations seem to require SOME assumption) and you will have no trouble with the rules at any point.

I reiterate a lot of the problems you are bringing up in opposition to my interpretation are as a result of your thinking being "stuck" in YOUR interpretation. You are still thinking in terms of "detaching" when there is NO DETACHING, still thinking in terms of somehow "dividing" the corps between "two areas" when that is not what is happening.

Now, what is to stop anyone from resoning the following: Corps are considered garrions of a city in their area unless announced otherwise for the purpose of of gettting besieged and blockaded, but not for any other like controlling the city or firing the port guns and the like..

Well the Glossary 16.0 is clear on what constitutes a garrison, and 7.3.3.3.1 allows factors that are a part of a corps to "garrison" with out detaching (garrison the verb, allowing the corps to carry out all the same functions of a garrison, the noun). Reading it the opposite way might actually be impossible, but I'm sure even if it isn't it's a lot more trouble than it's worth.

Think about it: Is it easier? More sensible? Does it cause more problems than it solves?

If a corps pulling double duty is considered a garrison for some, but not for other purposes, you have to show me a rule that distinguishes these "considered garrisons" from "actual garrisons" in that respect. You can't create the difference by sheer force of will.

See above... the distinction is already there in the rules.

To me it's not a matter that 7.3.3.3.2 is open to interpretation (for I agree it is) it's that IMO your interpretation is internally inconsistent.

Alright and what was the inconsistency again? Inconsistent as in "doesn't work" or you think the interpretaton has to change based on diffierent circumstances? In both cases you are quite wrong.

You can play the game simply and easily and without conflict based on my interpretation of the rules. You dont have to suffer through nonsensical events like corps not being able to "fit" inside cities and thus being unable to controll them, cossacks magically teleporting into "vacant" cities under the noses of powerfull armies, fleets port raiding at will despite the presence of army forces containing undoubtedly more than enough trained artillerymen to man the guns...

What are the objections you have raised? 10.3.3... and even that isn't a problem, no matter which way you read it (although the "easier" way is again better).

I dunno... the so-called "double-duty" way is easier, requires less book keeping, and is definitely more elegant (produces less nonsensical situations) than the whole "required-detachment-or-move-in" thing.

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by Reknoy
Corps are pretty scarce -- France will hardly be using even the XII corps to guard a port (apart from Toulon, maybe, and for other specific reasons and limited durations that matter more about guarding the area around the port). Further, even if corps can be the garrison while in the field, once they lose a field battle they have to leave that area. Makes dropping a garrison vital.

This sounds like an argument for double duty, not agianst it.

Then you ask yourself, is it easier (and I don't know the answer to this) to simply nix the "double duty" notion and note that you have to have a garrison (either a factor or a corps that can fit into the city, etc.)?

How can it be easier to INCREASE complexity, reduce elegance, and introduce awkwardness?

I would guess that programming a function that would give the corps the added ZOC (like, every time someone runs the guns there is an added step: is there a corps in the area) would at least be a little more trouble.

It'd certainly be less trouble to program to give corps the automatic garrison ability, since you'd never need to track the state of a corps WRT 'in" or "out" of a city except in the event of a siege.

p.s. In response to the corps that cannot detach and cannot fit into a particular city, even if the game prohibits double duty, then I think it's a matter of accepting that the feudal corps are not the same "corps" as the rest and therefore are subject to some disadvantages??

Given that inability to detach or exchange is already a big disadvantage (and heck even ignoring that) does the added limitation of not being able to "fit" actually make ANY SENSE? I mean any sense at ALL? Either from a "realism" POV or a "game-logic" one?

[Chiteng]

I dont find someone pushing a rules interpetation to fullfill an agenda impressive. It is more honest to simply state your agenda.
This is the most useless argument I have seen in a long time.

How exactly would you be able to play France in the 1792
scenario with ANY chance of avoiding defeat, with this absurdity?

And I DO mean avoiding defeat. France will conquer NO ONE
in 1792.

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I dont find someone pushing a rules interpetation to fullfill an agenda impressive. It is more honest to simply state your agenda.
This is the most useless argument I have seen in a long time.

How exactly would you be able to play France in the 1792
scenario with ANY chance of avoiding defeat, with this absurdity?

And I DO mean avoiding defeat. France will conquer NO ONE
in 1792.

From your previous posts I assume you are talking about Ragnar/Reknoy/gdpsnake & co.?

Sorry wasn't clear...

[Reknoy]

I'm not sure who he his talking about.

Me, I was just trying to push the important element of the issue (playability for a game purpose).

Again, having not seen the issue itself arise in many years of playing EiA, I just thought it was a huge argument over something that

Besides, how does limiting the effect of a corps ability to pull double duty cause France to lose. Imo, Soap, he's referring to you.

If it is, in fact, easier to program the ability for a corps to pull double duty, why not then? I bet I could count on one hand the number of times it comes into play over a dozen games -- apart from the mundane "Hey guys, look! My Imperial Guard is covering the Naples land area AND providing superior garrisoning of the city, too!" "Ooooooh!" replies his buddies. I mean to say, my own strategy will be largely unchanged by something which is so readily subject to change (like, my corps is moving -- something they usually do a fair amount of when it counts).

So since Soap cares so much and if it's easy to make a part of the game, I guess it shouldn't be something anybody wastes their time on (at least, as opposed to making sure we get POLAND, for example).

On the issue of the corps that cannot detach, I disagree. Feudal corps get their own benefits (regeneration and the ability to "teleport") that make the negatives (even as it could include garrisoning a city) pretty bearable imo. But again, it matters little if the double duty piece were made a part of the PC game -- if I play Turkey I guarantee I won't have the "Feudal Garrison" strategy anytime soon.

From a "make sense" standpoint, I have employed this logic myself and try to keep it out of these arguments (I'm sure I've failed somewhere along the line). I don't personally believe it's reasonable to pick apart a rule because it doesn't appear to make sense. Otherwise, too many of these rules would be suspect imho. Not knowing the history, I cannot say if the Insurrection Corps would have provided a city's garrison. Likewise the Anatolian Feudal Cavalry corps. Or what about the French Artillery? Does it make sense that the Turkish Feudal Cavalry corps could stand around Marseilles and (though they know the terrain so well) make it into the city in time to fire French port guns?

Sorry for the rant, but I think there are more than a few topics for the "make sense" argument.

[Zen Mechanic]

Reknoy - I agree with you on a realism basis for firing port guns - I think a feudal cav. is very unlikely to have the knowledge to fire the guns (although they can if they're in the city...). Also, it may be hard for a corps to react in time to a ship attacking a port.

On a realism basis I find it ridiculous that an insurrection corps composed of local militia cannot take back their capital because their entire corps can't fit into the city for seige purposes.

Thus I think my current group's method of requiring an actual garrison to fire the guns and not requiring this to control a city for conquest/occupation reasons to be a good compromise.

[Reknoy]

Sounds good to me. Though I represent no group

[gdpsnake]

To ALL:
some questions.
A. Can units move into cities during the movement phase? (SOAPY, for one says no) Why? What prevents units from moving into a city in a movement phase?

B. 16.0 is clear "FACTORS MUST BE PRESENT TO CONTROL" If you argue (SOAPY/ZEN DO) that factors from his corps counter in an area are somehow special factors and can control without being present? FACTORS MUST BE PRESENT IN THE CITY TO CONTROL that's a rule you can't ignore just for convience. I say SHOW ME THE FACTORS IN THE CITY!

SOAPY/ZEN say the factors are in the corps counter and that all or some of those factors in his corps are ALSO in the city? Then which part is where when my corps marches in?
I say the part still in the city is prohibited from field combat. SOAPY/ZEN say "No" these factors are special and can 'exit' the city to fight. Why are these corps factors better than garrison factors and blessed with the ability to be two places at once? If corps factors "In" the city can run out and fight, why don't the combat rules allow ANY factors in a city to run out and fight? ZEN said "word reached the city so the men could respond."
So Napoleon couldn't also order the garrison factors out too? Sorry sir, we can't oblige you?!
IF the corps factors also act as garrison factors don't they have to follow the same rules as garrison factors for combat?.
How are the factors in a corps different. Aren't they all men? Don't they think? Do they not have leaders t give orders? So why would some be allowed to leave the city and fight a field battle but not others?

As to the argument "a player says so when he needs too" sounds more like "whichever is best for me" and not what "I DELIBERATELY intended upon moving into the area" (WHICH WOULD BE TO DELIBERATELY CONTROL/GARRISON THE CITY with FACTORS) NOT oh, "I want ALL the factors of my corps available, even those on this "special" control/garrison duty to fight so I can increase my power and not waste it by having to put part of it in the city."
Isn't that the point of a game primarily concerned with economics? How one apportions his 'power'?

C. Counters (other than corps) can also do "Double Duty" because of 7.3.3.3.1. (SOAPY argues this). So cossacks, friedcorps, guerillas can double duty as well. So where is that SINGLE cossack factor when I enter the area? In the city or area when I enter or both?!

D. IF double duty was INHERENT in the game design, why even have cities on the map? The rules could just allow for dropping off factors in an area. Cities would just be specks with a name like many other games. Why did the developers "fuss" with all this "city stuff" if factors could do double duty? Control would be by area with city specks and we'd have just another "area-based" movement and combat system.
NO, double duty is inherent in ALL THE other areas and cities (not depicted) on the map EXCEPT for those SPECIFICALLY PICTURED. WHY? Because these cities are different, represent a special feature of the area (like a capitol or major port) and require a method of control BEYOND double duty. That method is clearly spelled out in 16.0 as factors in the city and not factors in an area.

E. 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 never mention the location of theses counters. How can one assume the rule means these counters are "in an area?" Both rules come under the heading of 7.3.3.3 GARRISON FACTORS and clearly states "Garrison factors are placed on a city." I say this means sub-rules 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 allow these "counters" to ALSO act as garrisons IF in a city.

OVERALL, Proponents for double duty appear to indicate that one must have a double duty rule in order to accomplish some "purpose."

I.E. My Corps is too big to fit in the city so I need double duty. My corps is hundreds of guys - why can't I control the city?!
DUH, detach some factors - you do control the city.

I.E. My TU feudal corps is too big and I can't detach!
DUH, TU feudal corps are treated differently in the rules than other corps but they have advantages my corps can't do. IS THAT FAIR? ALL CORPS AIN'T IDENTICAL!
PLUS (Pay attention ZEN!!!) Very few cities CAN'T hold a TU feudal corps and is there ANY rule preventing the TU player from putting factors in those cities during set-up or reinforcement phases?! If they are that important.....

I.E. I need double duty because I can't move my units into the city in the movement phase, I can only detach/absorb into cities!
DOH! ONLY if you believe that units CAN'T MOVE INTO cities in the movement phase. This would be the only rational I've found so far to support double duty BUT I believe units CAN move into cities during the movement phase.
IF you believe they can't, sorry, guess you'll just have to wait for someone to attack you before you can get those unit counters in the city!!!!! I guess you could destroy them and rebuild them into your controlled cities........

I.E. I don't want to have to detach factors into the city because that 'depletes' the strength of my corps!
DUH, that's the whole point of the game. Managing your resources to obtain a positive result or overall victory.

I.E. (ASSUME you believe units may move into cities in the movement phase) I can't move my corps counter into the city! It's too big!
DUH, yes that's a rule but there's nothing stopping you from putting as much of the corps factors into the city as you want/CAN fit!

******REPLY honestly, even as a proponent of double duty, since I could lose a "house rule" die role and would want to play understanding this concept:"

1. Shouldn't Players be required to DELIBERATELY DEMONSTRATE thier intentions AS THEY MOVE as too whether their units are IN or OUT of cities BECAUSE the rules handle those units diffently in combat? Don't they do that for the other issues (I will roll for forage or I won't, I will seige or I won't etc.)

Doesn't it make more sense for players to demonstrate that intention by putting the units ON TOP OF the city symbol OR NOT to clearly INDICATE what they want those units to be doing at turn's end?

2. Does it make sense that some factors can be allowed to be two places at once when others can't? Or that these factors can fight when others in the same location (like the city) can't?
OR does it make more sense that factors are either OUTSIDE for a field battle OR INSIDE acting as a garrison and unavailable like other garrisoning factors? Why would some garrison factors be able to run out and fight and not all?

3. Does it make sense considering the IMPORTANCE of the cities that a player should demonstrate his INTENTION to control/garrison the city by putting actual visible factors into the city (NO DOUBT WHO CONTROLS/GARRISONS that city) or make his comment I control it whenever I wants.
OR does it make sense that the other players have to keep asking the double duty player if he controls it or not?
"So, Fred, did you mean to control that city during your turn? Because now it's the economic phase and your PSA will go down 3, not 2 OR did you want that income/manpower?"
"So Fred, it's my naval phase. Are you garrsioning that city or not?"

4. What happens when a "double duty" player (B) moves a corps into Denmark (Copenhagen Provence) that player (A) owned. A's units are not present or were destroyed so B states: "I can garrison this city now, hence I control this provence because Rule 7.3.3.3.2 says all or part MAY...."
Later, during the economic phase, Player B says "I have factors in the city so you can't collect income player A!"
Later, during step 7.7, two turns later Player B says "HOLD IT! My factors are no longer in the city because 7.3.3.3.2 says MAY and I choose that none are now there. The control flag does not change from Player A to me because I don't control the capitol. Denmark is now a neutral country since no major power controls it!"
Later, during the next political step, Player B says "I declare war On DENMARK!" {dice are rolled for control. Player B doesn't win, player C does.} next comes 4.6.3.1. Player C puts his free control marker and begins to set up the units. "Hold it Player C! Some on my factors are now INSIDE of Copenhagen according to 7.3.3.3.2 so you can't place any forces in the city!"

OR B doesn't declare war on Denmark. But in the Naval phase Player B says to any fleets that might try to enter the port "HOLD IT! My factors are now IN the city because 7.3.3.3.2 says may and I choose... so you must be attacked by the port guns."

I suppose this scenario is not exactly correct but I'm sure one can INVENT many possibilities inviting a double duty player to say "I'm in now, now I'm out! No, I'm out right now but could be in later!"
SO I ASK IS THIS REASONABLE?
Or is it more reasonable that during the movement phase, Player B had to put factors into the city that would remain throughout and never bring up such a possibility which is ENTIRELY LEGAL under the "double duty" play.


FRED, the double duty player always gets to answer: "Why, what ever is best for me right now is what I'm doing with that corps factors!"

OR DO YOU KEEP TRACK SEPERATELY on some paper somewhere every instance of double duty "he said he was here but not here...or was it here?"

AT LEAST ANSWER #4 PLEASE.

SNAKE

[gdpsnake]

ZEN,
You said:
"On a realism basis I find it ridiculous that an insurrection corps composed of local militia cannot take back their capital because their entire corps can't fit into the city for seige purposes."

How do you figure that?! Insurrection corps are limited to 18 factors and Vienna is a 20 factor city.
Maybe that's why the corps are limited to 18 factors?! So they can be in Vienna?!

Also, corps (and any other units) don't 'fit' into a city during a seige - they are outside. If you choose to assault, then some or all of your troops are "storming the city" from outside to inside as needed to win the fight. You don't need 100,000 troops to 'cram' into the city to beat 2,000 defenders and/or the city might be too small to even hold 100,000 troops!]

That's why the combat rules allow a winning assaulting player to "put/leave" some or all of your units (up to the factor capacity) in the city. If they all can't fit, then that part (units/counters of your choice) remains outside. If they all can fit, they all can be in.

Yes, there is an opportunity for a Turkish or Insurrection corps not to get to be in a city after the battle because the city is too small to hold all the factors of the corps counter.
HOWEVER, The size of the besieging force does not in any way prevent it from fighting and winning an assault or sieging any city of any size. The ONLY limitation is what can be in the city AFTER the battle.
BUT remember, these corps ARE DIFFERENT from any others and the rules treat them as such. It's just the penalty of their use. After all, there are several ADVANTAGES that other corps don't get. Do you say that these corps should get to do everything another Major Power (French) Corps can? If so, then I would say the French corps should be able to do anything these special corps can!
It would be like saying every corps counter in the game is the same but they clearly are not (different movement, morale, size, leadership, abilty to hold factor types, etc.)

Just for grins: Think of Insurrection corps (note the name INSURRECTION) as hugh mobs of angry peasants/middle class (some with horses) who 'rise up like guerillas' grab whatever they can and fight "the injustice!" But it's a mob mentality that doesn't split up or quiet down until the "injustice" is destroyed. They are not "Armies" or maybe even soldiers and the leaders are just charismatic enough to get the others to listen once and awhile. They hang together like gangs and if the whole mob can't 'fit' in a city they don't split up and instead run off to find more trouble.

TU Feudal corps are VERY tight knit CLOSED organizations of soldiers from a specific area! Would you, as a fuedal lord want your men to go under the command of anyone outside your 'influence' (say a RIVAL fuedal lord!) NO WAY DUDE! These are my men. I have an obligation/duty to the caliph?! to raise the troops but that doesn't mean I want a rival lord to get control of my peasant army levies! Hence, In my mind, no detachment. We stay together where we can control.

Back to the discussion:

In the "STORMING" example, the TU or AU folks go into and force the cities capitulation but the COMMANDER of these types of corps never allows his forces to divide up so he forms them ALL up inside the city or outside as he chooses best but NOT ALL inside if they couldn't fit.

This is one reason why I argue against 'double duty' These COMMANDER'S WOULD NOT ALLOW THE MEN in their CORPS ORGANIZATIONS to get "out of their sight" so to speak because he would lose control over them. The peasants/levies might just decide to 'not come back!" SO I find it doubtful that he would let units under his command go and garrison a city while the rest of the units were possibly moving 300 miles away elsewhere in the "area."
They might never get to the city but end up running away into neutral territory or joining the enemy! or better:
"Hey dude, once they're over the horizon, I'm outta here!"

This is reminescent of WELLINGTON'S FEARS about all the previous ALLIES of Napoleon that were fighting for him at WATERLOO. The 'disposition' of the troops says much about WELLINGTON'S NEED FOR CONTROL, EVEN OVER HIS OWN BRIGADE COMMANDERS! EVERYONE had to have SPECIFIC ORDERS ALMOST in person! NO ONE was allowed ANY INDEPENDENT ACTION! If brigade A was told to stay here and garrison this Chateau, by God! They did! And they didn't leave to go fight elsewhere either!

Why then, is it so hard for some to think that Wellington or other commanders would allow such a 'wide latitude' of operation of his unit commands that 'double duty' implies?
Wellington is but one example, how about the Russians? They constantly fought, even witheld troops WITHIN unit commands from other leaders due to jealousy, promotion opportunity, or the old possesion is 9/10ths of the law. NOBODY liked giving up control of any of their units.
HENCE groups of soldiers were for "formed up" specifically for garrison or stayed in the corps organization. They didn't do both.
HISTORY is filled with examples of Corps units that pulled garrison duties and were left at bridges, cities, whatever. They ALMOST NEVER took part in a day battle (CERTAINLY wasn't common like 'double duty' implies)! AND they didn't march back and forth from their garrison post either (CERTAINLY not like 'double duty' implies)! They stayed where they were put into garrison.

AGAIN, double duty is so counter to these concepts of garrison and troops organization/control. Heck, troops EVEN IN THE SAME battle had a hard time staying coordinated let alone coordinated over AN ENTIRE AREA represented in the game?

Is every battle fought next to the city in the area that every unit 'garrisoning' can be in the battle as well?" I find this concept untenable.

To me, double duty implies a hugh failure to recognize these VERY REAL issues of the era. Yes, some would be better at perfoming these actions (morale, situational awareness), but then you have to make up a lot of specific rules for specific corps whose specific commander could have died and ON and ON.

No one made such rules and I don't think the developers forsaw this whole issue with the way they wrote the rules (OBVIOUSLY, or we wouldn't be debating LOL!)

SNAKE

[Capitaine]

A. Can units move into cities during the movement phase? (SOAPY, for one says no) Why? What prevents units from moving into a city in a movement phase?

Yes, clearly. Rule 7.3.3 is entitled "Moving into Cities", along with "Detaching/Absorbing Factors--Garrisons". This provides ALL the basic rules for "moving" into cities. Rule 7.3.3, together with 7.3.3.3.2 make clear that a corps may, during this move, move its entirety (not detach factors resulting in removal of the corps counter) into garrison. Likewise, case 7.3.3.3.1 makes clear that cossacks, etc., can move at this same time to form a garrison. It is ESSENTIAL to embrace this interpretation because the parenthetical to case 7.3.3.4 says that "leaders may only be moved into a city with corps counters, although they may remain there--must remain there if the city is besieged--after the corps counters are eliminated." The use of the term "moved" implicitly means that corps may enter cities via the LMS.

soapy's rationale exists only to uphold his embrace of "double duty" come hell or high water.

B. 16.0 is clear "FACTORS MUST BE PRESENT TO CONTROL"

Agree with respect to "combat". Rule 10.3.2 states that "The nationality of a city garrison determines who controls the city for combat purposes, regardless of the major power formally controlling the province or minor country in which the city is located." So there are two aspects of "control" involved. Also, the siege resolution rules speak of a city's "capture" which does not necessarily mean "garrisoning". A successful siege combat, IMO, allows the besieger to detach a garrison (subject to 7.3.3 limitations) due to case 7.5.1.3. However, regardless of the garrison decision, the city is then controlled for political purposes by the conquering power. A city is controlled for combat purposes only via garrison. If it is not garrisoned, it is not "controlled" for combat purposes. It is "vacant".

And, indeed, for the "double duty" proponents, what does the actual substance of the oft-used term "vacant city" mean if your interpretation is correct? If a corps is in the area, according to you, it would be impossible to have a "vacant" city, no?

C. Counters (other than corps) can also do "Double Duty" because of 7.3.3.3.1.

Not only is this bogus "double duty" nonexistant for corps, it doesn't exist for any other counter either. There is NO WORD in the rules that even suggest such a broad concept was intended. Had this "double duty" theory been intended, you can imagine how differently the rules would've been written!

D. IF double duty was INHERENT in the game design, why even have cities on the map?

Again you are correct, you would not need cities as such on the map. Areas would be all that mattered and cities would only exist (and rules therefor) to show areas where ports existed and from which guns could be fired. It would be more akin to AH's "War & Peace", which is not, however, this game.

E. 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 never mention the location of these counters. How can one assume the rule means these counters are "in an area?"

Logically, you cannot possibly make that assumption (the corps referred to are in the area, not the city). But when has that ever stopped soapy from making such an assertion? Note that due to Rule 7.3.4, the reference to "vice versa" makes clear that "movement" from an area INTO a city was contemplated as well as "movement" from a city INTO an area. They are two DISCRETE locations in the game. They may not be fudged as some are trying to suggest.

[Zen Mechanic]

ZEN,
You said:
"On a realism basis I find it ridiculous that an insurrection corps composed of local militia cannot take back their capital because their entire corps can't fit into the city for seige purposes."

How do you figure that?! Insurrection corps are limited to 18 factors and Vienna is a 20 factor city.
Maybe that's why the corps are limited to 18 factors?! So they can be in Vienna?!

Note for the record that Vienna is in an area the Insurrection Corps can't move into - their capitals are the capitals of Hungary (ofen?), Military Border, Transylvania and Illyria. I'm pretty sure all or most of those are 3-spire capitals.

Also, corps (and any other units) don't 'fit' into a city during a seige - they are outside. If you choose to assault, then some or all of your troops are "storming the city" from outside to inside as needed to win the fight. You don't need 100,000 troops to 'cram' into the city to beat 2,000 defenders and/or the city might be too small to even hold 100,000 troops!]

That's why the combat rules allow a winning assaulting player to "put/leave" some or all of your units (up to the factor capacity) in the city. If they all can't fit, then that part (units/counters of your choice) remains outside. If they all can fit, they all can be in.

Sure, but according to a strict interpretation of the rules as you would interpret them, a full insurrection corps could not enter any of their capitals - to free them if, say, a ceded province or something. (this argument makes more sense with a 1-spire ottoman city, say the capital of tripolitania or cyrenaica (spelling is wrong sorry) as you could never capture these provinces with Feudals if they were left ungarrisoned - now that's dumb).

Yes, there is an opportunity for a Turkish or Insurrection corps not to get to be in a city after the battle because the city is too small to hold all the factors of the corps counter.
HOWEVER, The size of the besieging force does not in any way prevent it from fighting and winning an assault or sieging any city of any size. The ONLY limitation is what can be in the city AFTER the battle.
BUT remember, these corps ARE DIFFERENT from any others and the rules treat them as such. It's just the penalty of their use. After all, there are several ADVANTAGES that other corps don't get. Do you say that these corps should get to do everything another Major Power (French) Corps can? If so, then I would say the French corps should be able to do anything these special corps can!

That's not the point. The game makes them "special" to limit their capabilities - I think we can all agree on this. But what your rule says is that a full feudal corps could capture tunisia but not tripolitania. Does that make sense? No, no it does not. I'm arguing from a realism-standpoint here. These feudal corps are an attempt to model reality, if in an imperfect manner. I would like to see less "game" and more "reality" when I intrepret things.

Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Your interpretation of having to move into and out of cities is a perfectly acceptable interpretation but it has major reality problems, which I would think require a house rule to prevent (e.g. the conquering problem and maybe the port guns problem).

ZM

[gdpsnake]

SORRY SOAPY,

MY BAD TYPING: I meant 7.3.3.3 NOT 7.3.3 in this argument:

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No it doesn't, it talks about moving units into cities, and I do agree that you could interpret this to mean that corps can themselves mvoe into cities in this phase though it seem to be primarily referring to detaching factors etc. However this STILL does not conflict with my reading of the rules.

SNAKE

[Roads]

Originally posted by Ragnar

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...

Hey, I asked that exact question 7 pages earlier in this thread