Rules interpretations

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by gdpsnake
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?

I'm glad to let you move units into cities in the movement phase, even though it's not explicitly allowed b the rules, and has no importance by my reaidng of the rules.

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.

Ok but I think your wrong. And also it doesn't matter if the city has a garrsion or not if there is a corps in the area, since the exenmy troops movming in must either defeat that corps or it must be withdrawn inside the city before the enemy corps can do anything to the city. So whether the city is garrisoned or not is functionally irrelevant during the movement phase, unless you ascribe to your cossack manuever, something I would prohibit by my reading of the rules (as the city is "controlled" by the corps in the area).

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?

Becuase the rules explicitly state that garrison factors may not fight in field combats. If you think that's unreaosnable you can houserule it

IF the corps factors also act as garrison factors don't they have to follow the same rules as garrison factors for combat?

No because the CORPS as a whole is "field forces". And the difference between "garrison" and "field forces" is fairly explicit, even though it does not exclude the possibility that "field forces" are also acting as garrison.

"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."

Since this choice is not without it's risks and downsides, I hardly see how it is unreasonable.

So where is that SINGLE cossack factor when I enter the area? In the city or area when I enter or both?!

It doesn't matter. the rules nowhere require you to specify, and the cossack gets the same choices regardless if you end your move there: withdraw form the area, retreat inside the city, or fight. Note 7.3.7.2 does not specifiy the loaction of the cossack or freikorps 9probably becuase it doesn't matter )

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.

That is the assumption you seem to be making, and it is clearly no more or less valid than mine.

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.....

Turkey could not reinforce into those one-spire cities unless it free-stated them, and reinforced local troops there. Reinforcement prohibits you from reinforceing anything but corps on or adjacent to a depot that is part of a chain that orginates in a home country city outisde of your home country.

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.

Even if you could why would it be the only rationale to support double duty? And why is beleiveing you can move corps into cities less rationale than beleiving that some corps aren't allowed to occupy, controll or otherwise garrison a city because there are TOO MANY MEN IN IT???? It's so ludicrous I chuckle every single time I think of it.

TOWN FATHERS of BENGHAZI: "It's OK, we're safe, those stupid turks can't fit through the door!"
TURKS: "That's IT! Ismail! Disband the 6-9th regiments!"
TOWN FATHERS of BENGHAZI: "Oh no we're doomed!"

This is in fact the main rationale for double-duty. Using souble-duty avoids ludicrous situation like that, like stupid cossack tricks, and so on, from occuring, and incurs NO PROBLEMS from doing so.

So to sum up: The game gets more sensible, and nothing breaks!

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........

But if you use double-duty, it doesn't matter you don't HAVE to move the corps in to control the city, stop trying to find problems with my interpretation by using an example that is only important when using YOUR interpreation!!! Why would you EVER NEED to move a corps into a city, if you control it automatically by having the corps present?

It's am important point: The lack of a specific rule allowing you to move into cities in the movement phase IMPLIES that it is not important. Something so important would certainly have an explicit rule, no?

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.)

There is NO reason, NO benefit, to moving inside a city during movement if you assume a corps can control a city in an area without doing so, so again it is not important. In the rare case that a player would NOT WANT to control a city (and this seems quite gamey to me, but I would not disallow it) then he can certanly decline control!!!

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?

It does not matter. WHy should a player be forced to indicate something which is irrelevant especially when the indication will be, 100% of the time. that the corps will be in the area and not wholly inside the city (assuming you would even be allowed to do so).

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?

Yes, it's a CORPS, it's a mobile fighting unit with everything that attends it. It makes sense. (to ME anyway!)

NO DOUBT WHO CONTROLS/GARRISONS that city)

There is never any doubt. A corps in the area controls the city (if it is allowed to). In all my years no one has EVER been confused on this point.

It does not require any statement, it's just assumed, unless it's actively refused (which to be honest I have never ever seen happen).

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!")

Denmark could only revert to neutrality through Player A's position on the political chart, and I that event Player B would automatically control it because Player B has corps present.

Your secnario does not make sense anyway under any reading of the rules... minors do not require a continual garrsion in their capitol to stay conquered, and while I agree in theory Player B could decline to conquer it from Player A, I don't see how doing so would interrupt Player A's control over the minor anyway.

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!"

Denamrk could not possibly in any way shape or form have gone neutral in your scenario, so we are dealing with an illegal situation. Would you care to revise it?

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!"

You can invent any impossible scenario you like... but that hardly discredits ME

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?"

It would not be neccessary to note except in the exceedingly rare situation of a player declining control, which I would only allow becuase I am nice

So you actually REDUCE bookkeeping (less info to keep track of).

AT LEAST ANSWER #4 PLEASE.

I sincerely hope I did!

Lastly it seems you are trying to poke holes in my interpretation by two method:

A) trying to come up with things that would only be ridiculous if we were using YOUR interpretation for SOME things and MINE for others (e.g. aaah I can't move into a city in the movement phase! That's stupid!)
B) trying to paint far-fetched scenarios involving my interpretation such as having imaginary people constantly changing their minds about whether they want to control a city or not, thus somehow requireing the notation of ALL instances of corps controlling cities (instead of just noting the rare exceptions to the rule)

I don't know why it's so important to you to discredit the way I play, even though a multitude of games over a span of years have been played "my" way with nary a glitch. I have no doubt at all that you feel "your" way is BETTER (and certainly just as "glitch-free"), but I think it's a long shot to try and convince me that it's EASIER.

Ah, soon the computer game will answer some of our questions on this matter (since obviously the orginal rules-writers or the current developers won't!!! )

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by gdpsnake
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.

And I'd probably let you move into cities even though it's not explicitly stated, it's just there'd be no reason to if we were using my interpretation of the rules.

BTW, just so we're clear, if I joined a group that voted by any margin to go with YOUR reading, I would not quit over it. there just isn't THAT big a difference, finctionally, my reading is just simpler and requires less notation/fiddly counter placement (which is always the stuff that actually LEADS to conflict... "my corps was in the area" "no its clearly in the city I can keep moving" "no the board got bumped or something it's in the area!" blah blah blah)

[Zen Mechanic]

I'm only answering this because Snake specifically asked for an answer - I think we have all stated our positions, and are going to have to agree to disagree on how we like to resolve the rules ambiguities. But, let's give this a try.

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?

In reality there is (was) a huge difference between a city garrison and a corps. City garrisons did not venture far from the city, and were not equipped for doing this with wagons, supply trains and the like. Corps were specifically designed to be mobile. That is why I justify corps being able to control cities and do "double-duty", and why I suggest that garrisons cannot. Corps are fast-moving enough to retreat into a city if necessary, and fast-moving enough to re-group outside the city (100s of miles away for example) if the call is on to fight. A city garrison does not have the command/control nor mobility to do this.

Also note that garrisons CAN participate in filed combats (limited field combats) so they CAN leave their city to fight, but only when relieving a seige. This is because the battle is being fought at the city itself.

It's a strategic-level game - don't forget that each turn is a month long, and combat was fought during the day (not at night) and with a whole other set of restrictions not present in today's world.

You also have to know that even if the rules do say you need "factors" to occupy a city or what not that this rule is ambiguous when read with the other rules. My interpretation is used solely for realism and to avoid the issues which we've already discussed when you have to do things like specify where and when a corps is in a city. There are NO factors "partly in the city" and "partly in the field". Think of it this way: You don't know where they are. You can only find out when another land power moves into your space and you declare one or the other. Prior to that, they are everywhere and nowhere at the same time. They are moving to and from the city and the area all the time, in constant motion.

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'?

Let me ask you this question in response: why does the game allow you to declare if you withdraw into a city or stay and fight in the field after all the land movement is done? Isn't the game giving you the option to move into the city or stay in the field, whichever is most convenient for the defender? I say yes.

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?!

I think Soapy might be stretching things here, on a reality basis. From what I understand of the game cossacks/guerillas can only be in an area unless they're being beseiged, and that's how I'd play it.

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.

Double duty just allows you to (a) fire the guns and (b) control/conquer areas/cities that are empty of enemies. Does this really not make any sense to you? Cities and garrisons are very important, as Soapy has talked about before, and the game would be totally different without them, even with double duty.

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 argue that saying that a weaker (i.e. smaller) city can't be conquered (which it cannot be if it is EMPTY) by a full feudal corpse which COULD conquer it if you fought a seige battle OR if you were STRONGER (i.e. bigger) flies in the face of logic.

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!

None of these examples refute the point that double-duty fixes some strong irrationalities and has no game-breaking flaws, that I know of anyway. You still need to do all the things you list if you want to play the game in an intelligent fashion.

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?

No, I disagree. It is unnecessary under the rules for a CORPS to be in or out of a city in its own movement phase. The only time it matters is if an enemy corps moves into the area, if you want to fire port guns, or if you want to conquer something. It is irrelevant otherwise.

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?

Yes it does. See above for differences between city garrisons and corps historically. Garrisons are not equipped to move around, corps are.

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?"

This is easily solved - any time a corps is in an area it is also in the city. If you allow people to play games and not conquer a city if it is empty then make them declare that openly.

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?"

You quit playing with the idiot who is trying to do stupid things. Seriously, let's use some common sense. If you are in an area with a corps, and the city is empty, it is controlled by the corps for all purposes. If you control an area you put a control marker in the area (in the conquest phase). Don't forget that (say) a British Denmark could have zero factors in garrison - that doesn't mean that England has lost control over Denmark.

Double duty does three things:
1. allows you to fire port guns because the corps is garrisoning the city

2. allows you to conquer/control an area because the corps is garrisoning the city

3. prevents enemies from walking into a city if they are in the area (i.e. the cossack gambit).

That's all they do - if you conquer something you don't need to have factors in garrison.

WOW that was long - I hope I was clear and that this helps.

ZM

[Capitaine]

soapy, do remember that in a computer game, all the nit-picky stuff is done away with insofar as the code is strict and a player's failure to move a certain way, or not, is not subject to equivocation. It becomes part of the game to be thorough. That is a boon to all players, and adds a bit of Napoleon's own skill to the mix: Being sharper than his sloppy adversaries!

[gdpsnake]

ZEN,

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

You are correct, I bow and humbly beg forgiveness. Still it doesn't alter my interpretation of the seige combat example.

"full insurrection corps could not enter any of their capitals"

Yes, because they are insurrection corps and specifically prohibited from entering by the rules (ONLY if too large).
Also, since they only operate within HOME COUNTRY, one does not NEED FACTORS in the cities in home countries in order to CONTROL THE CITIES. YOU are perfectly allowed to make a deliberate decision to put other purchased factors into those cities in your next reinforcement phase (assuming the CORPS are good enough to stand their ground in any future field combat!)
AND NO, they or any part thereof can't retreat before combat into a city if they don't fit! (THE OPTION TO SPLIT factors at this time to other corps but the fuedal corps!) AFTER ALL, I SAY AGAIN, these are corps treated differently in the rules.

INSURECTION CORPS are NEVER faced with the need to worry about who controls their cities BECAUSE it's home country and ALWAYS CONTROLLED in the absence of enemy factors!

"But what your rule says is that a full feudal corps could capture tunisia but not tripolitania."

It's not MY RULE but THE RULES. AND it's not about capture, it's about control! ANY CORPS OF ANY SIZE COULD FIGHT A BATTLE AGAINST ANY CITY!. The Feudal corps just couldn't be in Tripolitania after the battle because the city can't hold the whole corps organization (assuming you are still over 5 factors).

AND NO, feudal corps cannot control one spire cities. That's why a TU player DELIBERATELY needs to use at least one of his other corps(that CAN detach) if he wants to create the OTTOMAN EMPIRE or control these type cities.

THIS FACT IN NO WAY JUSTIFIES 'DOUBLE DUTY' BECAUSE THE GAME ALLOWS PERFECTLY LEGAL/LOGICAL METHODS TO OBTAIN CONTROL WITHOUT A DOUBLE DUTY CONCEPT.
What, we MUST have double duty to make it somehow easier for the AU or TU player or ANY OTHER PLAYER?
BECAUSE that's the only argument double duty palyers have made to me so far.
You, as an AU or TU are not prohibited from controlling ANY CITY ON THE MAP. Just because you can't always use a feudal or Insurrection corps to do it is not justification for double duty.

AND FINALLY 5.2.4 ALLOWS A PLAYER TO DEMOBILIZE THESE CORPS SO YOU CAN MAKE THEM AS SMALL AS YOU NEED TO USE AS YOU WILL.

AGAIN, I SAY A DELIBERATE ACT (demobilizing 5.2.4) ON THE PART OF A PLAYER TO USE HIS RESOURCES TO ACCOMPLISH HIS GOALS and clearly allows players within the framework of the rules TO ACCOMPLISH WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO WITHOUT MANDATING SOME "DOUBLE DUTY" REQUIREMENT IN ORDER TO PLAY!

OMG!!!!! DON'T TELL OUR WIVES/GIRLFRIENDS but we all just agreed "Size does matter!" LOL!

SNAKE:eek:

[gdpsnake]

SOAPY,
You just said:

"No because the CORPS as a whole is "field forces". And the difference between "garrison" and "field forces" is fairly explicit, even though it does not exclude the possibility that "field forces" are also acting as garrison."

OK so explain that in conjunction with 16.0 definition of a field force "...NOT IN A CITY..."

If the corps is wholly field forces then by definition of a field force NONE of it's factors are in the city, hence no control, or garrison ability.
Now you aren't arguing double duty, just that a corps in an area controls the area and by definition controls the city. A fact disputed by 16.0 definitions and nowhere does it say anything about controlling areas, only cities.

You now say units can move into cities in the movement phase because it doesn't matter?!
I say it matters GREATLY since it adds more to the rational of 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3.2 meaning units in cities.

AND because certain units need not stop for each other so I CAN SLIP MY UNITS past your corps into an empty city. You saying this is absurd, guerillas or cossacks COULD NEVER slip by my corps?

I still say, garrison or lose the city! If it's important enough, then a player should apportion appropriate forces to protect his cities (put actual units in the cities).
THIS DELIBERATE apportioning is a key game element given limited resources to do everything you want.

THAT"S WHY SOME AREAS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS (they have city/ports or capitols!)

I ask you to pause for one moment and consider this:
Think of a game played without any double duty. Everyone would have to work a slightly more deliberate plan to achieve victory (demobilize feudal corps to fit in one spire cities, put factors in important cities capitols, manage resources to flesh out the right corps in the right place, keep depots garrisoned to prevent raiding cossacks or guerillas, and so on and so forth).

You already say there's enough of that in the game but is that justification for double duty? Just to 'ease' the burden? EVERYTHING CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT DOUBLE DUTY even with the TU player.

If you want your feudal corps to fit in one spire cities, demobilize. If you don't than live with your decision. Same for Insurrection corps arguments.

If you want to control the city of Copenhagen or man the port guns of Brest, put some factors in them!

Sure there would be fewer factors for 'corps duty' but isn't that what the game is all about, ULTIMATELY managing your resources to achieve your goals. Makes those factors you spend in economic manipulation a wee bit more costly eh!?

SNAKE

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by gdpsnake
INSURECTION CORPS are NEVER faced with the need to worry about who controls their cities BECAUSE it's home country and ALWAYS CONTROLLED in the absence of enemy factors!

Except in the case of a ceded insurrection province.

"But what your rule says is that a full feudal corps could capture tunisia but not tripolitania."

It's not MY RULE but THE RULES. AND it's not about capture, it's about control! ANY CORPS OF ANY SIZE COULD FIGHT A BATTLE AGAINST ANY CITY!. The Feudal corps just couldn't be in Tripolitania after the battle because the city can't hold the whole corps organization (assuming you are still over 5 factors).

Well THE RULES are not wholly clear, and *I* for one choose to follow the interpretation that causes less problems!

And it is again kinda silly that the Feudal could fight a siege battle but not be able to take control of the city afterwards.

AND FINALLY 5.2.4 ALLOWS A PLAYER TO DEMOBILIZE THESE CORPS SO YOU CAN MAKE THEM AS SMALL AS YOU NEED TO USE AS YOU WILL.

And that's logical to you? Better than just saying they can control the city by dint of 7.3.3.3.2?

OMG!!!!! DON'T TELL OUR WIVES/GIRLFRIENDS but we all just agreed "Size does matter!"

LOL!

[gdpsnake]

ZEN,
You can only find out when another land power moves into your space and you declare one or the other.

THIS IS my biggest grip of double duty. A player can declare when they are in or out anytime!!!!!
INSTEAD of a deliberate act to state I HAVE FIELD FORCES IN THE AREA (definition of field force here)

OR I HAVE A GARRISON FORCE HERE!

OR I HAVE SOME IN THE FIELD AND SOME IN THE CITY (which couldn't participate in the field)

Many say double duty 'simplifies the play" I don't see how with players having to declare where their forces are at any point in time.

"They are moving to and from the city and the area all the time, in constant motion. "

BUt the battles are only a day long?! If they are everywhere and anywhere, where are they in relationship to (waterloo) when the battle begins that morning. They all magically appear there?

"Let me ask you this question in response: why does the game allow you to declare if you withdraw into a city or stay and fight in the field after all the land movement is done? Isn't the game giving you the option to move into the city or stay in the field, whichever is most convenient for the defender? I say yes."

I agree. It is a deliberate act to avoid the field battle but doesn't justify double duty in the movement phase.

By your argument here and above, I can say your corps is All over the place BUT not in the city the moment in My movement phase I move my cossack past the corps counter in the area and into your 'empty city.' NOW my corps enter the area with vengence!
OOPS, now you can't retreat before combat. Darn, wish I had left some men (factors) in that city!
OR are the guns manned on that day the fleet arrives in your port or are they running around somewhere.

To avoid that, double duty must allow players to KEEP changing their minds about when their "CORPS factors" are in the city or not?! back to #4 that you answered.

"If you are in an area with a corps, and the city is empty, it is controlled by the corps for all purposes"

SORRY ZEN, this IS A DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE 16.0 definition of control. You don't have the rules available right? So here's that definition and some others:

16.0 CONTROLLED (FRIENDLY) CITY/PORT-A CONTROLLED CITY/PORT IS ANY VACANT CITY/PORT IN THAT MAJOR POWER'S TERRITORY , OR ANY CITY/PORT IN WHICH THAT MAJOR POWER HAS FACTORS, WHETHER BESEIGED OR NOT.

FIELD FORCES- LAND FORCES EXCLUDING GUERILLAS(UNLESS ATTACKING) NOT IN A CITY OR PORT

GARRISONS-REGULAR INFANTRY, COSSACK, FRIEDCORPS, GUERILLA OR MILITIA FACTORS WHICH ARE NOT PART OF A CORPS, AND ARE PLACED IN A CITY, PORT OR ON A DEPOT

So you see, the actual location of the factors is key to the argument of double duty. Did you not say they can't be in both places at the same time but are constantly moving around?
So if double duty is allowed, then a player must keep stating where they are at the moment and whichever is most beneficial (have your cake and eat it too!)

Hence my silly #4 discussion which isn't so silly now, is it. As too gaming idiots? Perhaps, but many an idiot has been proven right in the errata (you've never been wrong?!)
AND TECHNICALLY, what's wrong with #4

"If you control an area you put a control marker in the area (in the conquest phase). Don't forget that (say) a British Denmark could have zero factors in garrison - that doesn't mean that England has lost control over Denmark."

Not entirely true, read 7.7 and 4.6.3.1 when you can.

AND YES, England loses control because 16.0 requires factors in the city for control of the capitol of DENMARK!!!!!!

SNAKE

[gdpsnake]

TO ALL AS THEY CHEER!

I guess I've said everything about double duty. If those who play that way are not convinved then we roll a die. I don't deny you can play the game either way, just that IMHO it plays 'better' without needing some double duty rule.

We shall find out in time. I shall certainly pursue the developers (read find and pester) until I get an answer that humbles or raises my spirits on the issue.

I don't think we should count on the computer code to resolve this or any other issue since the code can be rewritten to do either method as we playtest. At least until the "final product" is out or the code writers tell us to shut up!
Wouldn't we all like to think, however, that the code represents the correct interpretaion and not be forced to play double duty or not in a computer game we think ought to be the other way? Better to have the original designers chime in. Certainly they have been notified [copyright laws] that the game is going 'computer' and will therefore be available for issues concerning their product. I hope so!

Let the games begin!

SNAKE

[soapyfrog]

I will cease to address the double-duty issue. I feel it has all been said and all questions have been answered satisfactorily. We are now arguing semantics that are not central to the issue.

Gdpsnake, you continue to think that under the "double-duty" interpretation you would not for some reason want to detach garrisons. I don't rightly understand your logic on this point, or why playing it "your" way is somehow "more tactically interesting". All I can say is that garrisoning is widely used in our games, and for all the right reasons.

However:

Originally posted by gdpsnake
AND YES, England loses control because 16.0 requires factors in the city for control of the capitol of DENMARK!!!!!!

Are you implying here that if I do not continually garrison the capitals of my minors that they will go neutral?

By my reading of the rules a previously conquered Denmark is a conquered minor or free state of the Power that conquered it, which makes it part of it's territory (a Major Power is considered to encompass all of it's home nation plus controlled minors). This means that as long as Copenhagen does not contain enemy factors, it is considered British controlled (it is a city within the Major Power's territory and so does not require a garrison for control purposes).

Denmark CANNOT go neutral in the scenario you have outlined.

[Ragnar]

Originally posted by soapyfrog
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.

Hmm..

7.3.3.3.2: Corps may form all or part of a city garrison without detaching army factors, so that any types of army factors in such corps could also be a garrison.

I think can see you halfway on this. You might say that the cops is merely "forming" a city garrison. It's pretty clear what that action does to its army factors, though: they ARE a garrison. The rule says so literally.

Originally posted by soapyfrog
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.

Err, that is incorrect. Corps counters of forces that surrender do NOT come as part of the surrender, as they do not have to be returned: "4.4.6.1 PRISONER EXCHANGE: All surrendered factors and captured leaders are mutually exchanged."

Originally posted by soapyfrog
The corps is assumed to be controlling the city in the area it's in.

It would be easier if you'd refrain from drawing conclusions. The only thing stated literally in the rules is what 7.3.3.3.2 says, and it does not mention control. Control _could_ be a result of this.

Originally posted by soapyfrog
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.

But we cannot do that since it's not in rule 7.3.3.3.2. You seem to be reasoning backwards. You assume a corps controls an empty city then you assume that 7.3.3.3.2 is about that. Problem: it's not, it's about corps as city garrisons, as that's what it actually says.

Originally posted by soapyfrog
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.

Actually, I'm not. Throughout this part of the discussion I have assumed that the city and the area are one and that it does not matter where the corps is(unless besieged). However, there is still a difference between a corps that is using 7.3.3.3.2 and one that is not. 7.3.3.3.2 clearly assigns a property to a corps. The fact that that property is not (may not be) its location does not mean the property is without consequences.

Originally posted by soapyfrog
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, llowing the corps to carry out all the same functions of a garrison, the noun).

If you'll read my full quote of 7.3.3.3.2 above, you'll see that the verb is not used, only the noun. Please stop being so darn inaccurate about your rules quotations. It's only a waste of time and space. (well ok, an additional waste of time and space )

Originally posted by soapyfrog
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.

I'll gladly agree that an opposite reading is impossible and that indeed, the use of the noun instead of the verb indicates that the corps doing this isn't just carrying out the duties of a garrison, but in fact is a garrison (or at least its factors are).

Originally posted by soapyfrog
Think about it: Is it easier? More sensible? Does it cause more problems than it solves?

Only about half the time. Not really (but "sense" is a very relative term). Yes it does.

Originally posted by soapyfrog
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.

Inconsistent would be when something you've assumed in reading is in contradiction with something else in the rules that is not open to an alternate interpretation. I've never said that your way of _playing_ doesn't work. I know it does, as I've used it myself a few times. I'm just trying to get you to realise that it's not an interpretation, but a houserule that you've come up with. Hence my frequent demands for actual rules quotations to back up your awnsers. Every time I ask, I initially get a reply that's the equivalent of "just because it is so".

Originally posted by soapyfrog
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"

It's a game. If the rules say that's how it works then that's how it works. Hence this is not a good argument to decide the validity of an interpretation on. It's an excellent argument for forming a houserule, though.

Originally posted by soapyfrog
What are the objections you have raised?

I dunno... the so-called "double-duty" way is easier, requires less book keeping

Sofar, we have only one, namely that you agree it's possible for a corps to NOT use 7.3.3.3.2 and thus be ONLY in the field. Suppose there are 5 inf corps outside a city and only one is pulling double duty. How would I be able to see which of the five? You'd have to attach a note to 4 of the corps stating they aren't using 7.3.3.3.2.

But as soon as I get a clear awnser out of you on a few other topics, there will be more problems, I assure you. I have to know what it is you believe before we can actually start to discuss its merits. Sofar, we're sitll in the stage of resolving minor rules misreadings on your part..

[Ragnar]

Originally posted by Capitaine
It becomes part of the game to be thorough. That is a boon to all players, and adds a bit of Napoleon's own skill to the mix: Being sharper than his sloppy adversaries!

In fact, to qoute the master himself:
-"Amateurs discuss strategies and tactics, professionals discuss logistics and supplies."

I believe this holds well in EiA. The only edge you can create in combat is created by what corps you can bring into the field and how. I lost many a battle unnecessarily. With a little mor effort, I _could_ have that extra 0.1 morale I needed to hold firm until I wiped them out..

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by Ragnar
Err, that is incorrect. Corps counters of forces that surrender do NOT come as part of the surrender, as they do not have to be returned: "4.4.6.1 PRISONER EXCHANGE: All surrendered factors and captured leaders are mutually exchanged."

Actually 10.3.3 says "These surrendered army factors and corps are automatically 'exchanged' and automatically returned to the map as reinforcements during the surrendered forces's next Army Reinforcement Step."

So that would seem to definitively include the corps counter... and probably exactly because you would otherwise would wind up with very expensive infantry if a guard or cavalry corps were unlucky enough to be caught in this situation.

As for the rest... if you feel I've made enough "assumptions" that I am using a houserule, then fine. The more complex way, IMHO, requires a number of equivalent assumptions... so it's all one to me. I prefer the more elegant solution.

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by Ragnar
The only edge you can create in combat is created by what corps you can bring into the field and how.

Bah... I win my battles by psionically divining my opponent's chit before-hand and making sure he uses the "special forage die"

[gdpsnake]

Between SOAPY and Ragnar

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Err, that is incorrect. Corps counters of forces that surrender do NOT come as part of the surrender, as they do not have to be returned: "4.4.6.1 PRISONER EXCHANGE: All surrendered factors and captured leaders are mutually exchanged."


SOAPY + RAGNAR, 4.4.6.1 is clear on prisoner exchange because a player can never "capture" corps counters. All the factors and leaders can be captured and the corps counter organization (and hence the counter) dissolves (returned to the player card) and may be reconstituted with new leaders/factors (returned to the board).

7.5.2.10.3.6 A force must surrender (all army factors and leaders in the force become prisoners)
7.5.4.1.3.5 ALSO says all surviving army factors and leaders are surrendered (not corps)

Am I missing something? Is there mention of a "Corps surrendering" somewhere?

EDIT: AH I just saw the post referring to 10.3.3.
I don't know if this invalidates what I just said or not because it is a specific case referring to NEUTRAL GARRISONS IN ENEMY TERRITORY.
BUT it seems to me, the rule is saying. "Hey, TU and AU are in the same city (not allies but partying together as agreed on by the players). France is at war with AU but not TU and begins a seige of said city. ALL of the TU force is "Repatriated" inmmediately before ANY combat occurs. {OK turks, we ain't at war so you can leave before I kill all the AU's [temporary surrender or exit under a flag of truce?}. The Turks have to march away and so return in the reinforcement phase.

ALTERNATIVELY, I suppose the Turk could decline and in doing so, be declaring war on France (with all it's implications)

SNAKE

[Reknoy]

10.3.3 refers to a special condition whereby "neutral" forces have to "surrender" once a siege is announced in a city they occupy - similar to the issue that arises when an enemy corps declares an attack on a stack of corps containing enemy and neutral corps.

It's for one type of occurence -- not prisoner exchange (for which, I believe, you are right on the money).

Reknoy

[gdpsnake]

ZEN,
You never answered me at least as I read your previous postings.

Can units move into cities during the movement phase?

SNAKE

[soapyfrog]

GDPSNAKE:
You never properly supported you contention that Britain would lose control over a previously conquered Denmark simply because it had no factors in the capital of Copenhagen...

And we agree that 10.3.3 is a special case in which a corps counter is "captured"... but it must be immediately returned along with the troops. In any other case corps counters are not "captured".

[Capitaine]

And someone please add an explanation for why, pursuant to 7.3.4, they provide for all units IN cities to "move" from them, AND use the term "vice versa" when referring to "movement cost". Movement points are only relevant in the LMS, so construing the rules to prevent moving INTO cities yet not FROM them renders entire rules provisions meaningless. That is a major no-no in the rules that pertain to language/document interpretation.

[Ragnar]

Originally posted by Capitaine
And someone please add an explanation for why, pursuant to 7.3.4, they provide for all units IN cities to "move" from them, AND use the term "vice versa" when referring to "movement cost".

For the purpose of keeping the faith, double dutyists consider this a typo. They maintain that corps cannot enter a city of their own volation. Off course they do, for the've explaned the rule that allows that as something else...