Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options
Originally posted by gdpsnake True but that is the definition of a Major Power and NOT a Major Power's Territory. As we discussed, we wish there was a definition of Major Power Territory.
Ummm Major Power's territory doesn't require a definition, if you have already defined what a Major Power consists of. In short any definition you give would be a tautology:
MAJOR POWER TERRITORY: The territory belonging to a Major Power.
It's actually pretty unambiguous, no definition for "Major Power Territory" is in fact, neccessary
I have a Q&A position to put to you formulating in my head, SNAKE. I just have to write it down. Sort of like you did on the other issue to good effect I think. Sorry to be tardy on this, but I do think what "soapy's side" (this time ) thinks is correct by the rules and all reasonable inferences thereto, including the definitions.
(N.B. This is not based on "what would happen in 'real life'!" -- something I think gamers do wrongly all too often -- but on the coherency of the rules themselves.)
CAPITAINE,
Actually, at one point, I agreed with SAOPY when he pointed out the definition as well but I asked the question just to confirm.
I was actually surprised the answer came back yes so I went back and reviewed all the rules again and fell back into the 'black hole' of doubt. I couldn't find rational either way that clinched a decision, including all your discussion.
The statements all through the rules are unclear as to "getting control," "maintaining control," "combat control," "Political control," etc. AND there is no clear definition as to what is Major Power territory or how such territory is "controlled". Is territory the same as province or an area for instance?
I also always assumed one only controlled cities, areas were not an issue.
For instance, 10.3 rules - cities without a garrison are controlled by the major power or minor controlling the territory. Does that meant the MP ever entered the city or do we slide back down the old "double duty" slope?
Do they mean the AREA (territory) containing the city or the Major Power or minor country's home nation (territory)?
Take Denmark as as example. Does that rule mean I own Denmark so all the cities in the "territory?" of Denmark (ALL it's areas/provinces) are mine except those that an enemy is occupying? (THIS is my interpretation - if you don't 'control' my Danish cities with factors, then it's STILL DANISH or French conquered or whatever depending on whom controls Copenhagen [with factors! LOL!]!) OR does it mean a corps in a single area (territory?) controls that city only? (I say NO because this would mean 'double duty')
If anything, the rule supports the need for garrison. I think physical occupation of a city gives control to a player who didn't ORIGINALLY OWN said 'territory.' I.E. France home nation is always French but can be 'controlled' for combat or political consideration with the PHYSICAL OCCUPATION of the cities of the provinces. Denmark is still Denmark territory even if conquered so a player MUST occupy the cities or the city (and hence the province) REMAINS in the hands of the Danes (if nuetral) or in the hands of a Major Power (Currently controlling Denmark).
That is also why the rules contain rules for creating other "conglomerates" like the Confederation of the Rhine. You NEVER conquer a minor in the sense that it disappears and becomes "French." The borders NEVER MOVE. In some instances, (AS was done in real life) a Major Power with enough 'clout' can try to create/redraw borders BUT only in certain cases.
That's why I want the developer to make a ruling because I believe only they can make it clear what was intended in terms of how the game is played. AND the developer (and I hope HR and GP both make a ruling!) should be well informed and not answer based on just what's presented.
One would hope, since Ross was in Australia, that they discussed the computer version and reviewed/read ALL the rules.
If we only get rulings based on what's presented, how can one ever be sure of the validt without sending the whole rule book?
I admit being frustrated somewhat because details like this NEED to be represented in the computer version. The requirement to garrison or not being just one issue which clearly affects game play.
Just my thoughts at this point. That's why I want some independent arguments to present for ruling and I'd like each of the "interested parties" to view and comment on the argument before it's sent so we won't have dissention after a ruling is made.
If you see my last post on the "Conquering a Minor County" thread, I think that makes clear that (a) there are two distinct types of control: combat and "formal"/political; and (b) control concerning the actions of the city are determined by the garrison nationality (IOW, if you have Prussians garrisoning a French-controlled city in a Minor Power, the Prussian player will decide, naturally, what the city actually does -- such as manning port guns, etc.); AND (c) an ungarrisoned city is controlled by the player with formal control, and the rules cited explicitly reference an "ungarrisoned minor country city" so that it's clear the rules contemplate, contra SNAKE's and Harry's notion, any minor country city (conquered or otherwise) being "controlled" by the major power controlling the territory/minor country FORMALLY/politically even w/o occupation of a minor country city, capitol or not.
