rule 7.3.6.1 and 7.3.6.2
Moderator: MOD_EIA
-
John Umber
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 8:17 pm
- Location: Sweden
Actually, there isn't much of a difference, except that an "area" encompasses more than just the "field". The area encompasses both the field AND any cities. I'd say the area = field + cities; field = area - cities.
If you don't believe there's a difference between area and field, then I believe you'd be one of those wacky, zany "double duty" fanatics! :p
If you don't believe there's a difference between area and field, then I believe you'd be one of those wacky, zany "double duty" fanatics! :p
-
John Umber
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 8:17 pm
- Location: Sweden
Area versus field.
The trouble with double duty never came up on any of the games I played. I suspect this was because no one tried to bypass the logical control of the area. If you have corps in the area, you must pass them on the way to the city. Only way to do this is by battle or by ROP. I never got any cossacks burning the depot when there is corps in the area. Hmm, that could be because they are always garrissoned...
Field is in MY opinion just the battle field, where the battle is held. Area is the whole lot. Which is by the way what you are saying...
The only time it was interresting was when there was a newly conquered area (Copenhagen) by the Russians and the Brittish sent troops by way of the sea. The Russians claimed the port gun should fire and the Brittish claimed there should be a garrisson in Copenhagen city proper to fire the guns... The discussion ended with Brittish troops beaching next to the city...
The trouble with double duty never came up on any of the games I played. I suspect this was because no one tried to bypass the logical control of the area. If you have corps in the area, you must pass them on the way to the city. Only way to do this is by battle or by ROP. I never got any cossacks burning the depot when there is corps in the area. Hmm, that could be because they are always garrissoned...
Field is in MY opinion just the battle field, where the battle is held. Area is the whole lot. Which is by the way what you are saying...
The only time it was interresting was when there was a newly conquered area (Copenhagen) by the Russians and the Brittish sent troops by way of the sea. The Russians claimed the port gun should fire and the Brittish claimed there should be a garrisson in Copenhagen city proper to fire the guns... The discussion ended with Brittish troops beaching next to the city...
John Umber
Actually John, "field" means that a counter is (a) not garrisoning a city; (b) not besieged; and (c) not besieging a city. It's a meaningful distinction b/c being "in the area" could mean all of the above. A counter in the "field" IS in the area proper, but a, b and c above do not apply.
Likewise, a counter subject to a, b and c IS in the area, but isn't in the field. Again, a meaningful distinction.
"Field" situation and "city" situation. Why is this difficult to grasp?
Likewise, a counter subject to a, b and c IS in the area, but isn't in the field. Again, a meaningful distinction.
"Field" situation and "city" situation. Why is this difficult to grasp?
Strange then that the movement rules speak only of "areas" and also briefly of "cities" in regards to detaching garrisons. It never mentions "field" during movement. Why I wonder? In FACT, in rule 7.3.4 MOVEMENT FORM CITIES it states that forces may move OUT of a city and INTO the surrounding AREA!
So either
1) cities are another type of "area", seperate and distinct from the area they are in (which I beleive was gdpsnake's contention, supported by 7.3.4), or,
2) cities are an integral part of the area as you are describing (this is my and other "double-duty" proponent's contention), but specific movement into the "city" or remaining in the "field" is simply not relevant, except where combat demands it be specified (in the event of battle or siege), and 7.3.4 is simply a mechanism for beseiged corps to return to the area in general as opposed to the city specifically post siege.
So you are actually arguing somewhat on the double duty side, but adding a bunch of distictions and definition WRT what constitutes "area", "field", "city" and how they interact despite having no real support form the rules as written.
I would submit that:
An "Area" is the whole area incluing the city
A "City" is just the city part of the area
A "Field Combat" is a battle occuring in an area outside the city involving chit choice.
A "Limited Field Combat" is a battle encompasses the whole area including the city and involves chit choice.
And so on.
A "Field" (used in the manner you use it, i.e. detached from the word "combat" and not used to describe a specific type of battle) is something never mentioned or defined within the rules...
So either
1) cities are another type of "area", seperate and distinct from the area they are in (which I beleive was gdpsnake's contention, supported by 7.3.4), or,
2) cities are an integral part of the area as you are describing (this is my and other "double-duty" proponent's contention), but specific movement into the "city" or remaining in the "field" is simply not relevant, except where combat demands it be specified (in the event of battle or siege), and 7.3.4 is simply a mechanism for beseiged corps to return to the area in general as opposed to the city specifically post siege.
So you are actually arguing somewhat on the double duty side, but adding a bunch of distictions and definition WRT what constitutes "area", "field", "city" and how they interact despite having no real support form the rules as written.
I would submit that:
An "Area" is the whole area incluing the city
A "City" is just the city part of the area
A "Field Combat" is a battle occuring in an area outside the city involving chit choice.
A "Limited Field Combat" is a battle encompasses the whole area including the city and involves chit choice.
And so on.
A "Field" (used in the manner you use it, i.e. detached from the word "combat" and not used to describe a specific type of battle) is something never mentioned or defined within the rules...
-
John Umber
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 8:17 pm
- Location: Sweden
<Yawn> Wrong again, soapy.A "Field" (used in the manner you use it, i.e. detached from the word "combat" and not used to describe a specific type of battle) is something never mentioned or defined within the rules...
16.0 GLOSSARY
Field Forces -- Land forces excluding guerillas (unless attacking) not in a city or port.
So much for "field" not being in the rules. Also see rule 10.1.2.2.2. Soapy, when you go about making scathing denials and pronouncements, it might help if you actually read the rules and did some research, rather than just talk off the top of your head. At least I cite to rule provisions. I don't "invent" terms, concepts ("double duty", e.g.) or rules in general. Some do. :rolleyes:
"Field Forces" is used in the same way "Field battle" is.
The fact is there is no specific special region called "Field"... it is mentioned nowhere in movement, or even in combat. A "Field Force" is just as it is defined... forces outside a city (and therefore in the area). A "Field Battle" is one particular type of battle that occurs outside a city, and a "Limited Field Battle" includes the city also, so really you are just inventing your distinctions.
Where do you get this thing called "Field"? Where do the movement rules distinguish between "field" (your term) and Area or City?
The term "Field" is used NOWHERE in the rule book as a specific location that you could actually move to.
There is only Area and City.
As for 10.1.2.2.2, what does that have to do with anything? Illuminate me.
The fact is there is no specific special region called "Field"... it is mentioned nowhere in movement, or even in combat. A "Field Force" is just as it is defined... forces outside a city (and therefore in the area). A "Field Battle" is one particular type of battle that occurs outside a city, and a "Limited Field Battle" includes the city also, so really you are just inventing your distinctions.
Where do you get this thing called "Field"? Where do the movement rules distinguish between "field" (your term) and Area or City?
The term "Field" is used NOWHERE in the rule book as a specific location that you could actually move to.
There is only Area and City.
As for 10.1.2.2.2, what does that have to do with anything? Illuminate me.
But you've made no point!
If you contend that a city is an integral part of an area then that argues in effect for double duty, becuase the mvoement rules speak only of areas (which would include cities) and cities (which is a specific place inside an area)...
The anti-double-duty proponents have always maintained that the city is actually a seperate area (this allowing the cossack exploit).
Your ven diagram should look like a big circle labelled "area" with a smaller circle inside labelled "city", what you are calling "field" would be the "area outside the city".
The rules at no point describe this seperate place called "field".
And you still haven't mentioned how 10.1.2.2.2 in any way supports your claim!
If you contend that a city is an integral part of an area then that argues in effect for double duty, becuase the mvoement rules speak only of areas (which would include cities) and cities (which is a specific place inside an area)...
The anti-double-duty proponents have always maintained that the city is actually a seperate area (this allowing the cossack exploit).
Your ven diagram should look like a big circle labelled "area" with a smaller circle inside labelled "city", what you are calling "field" would be the "area outside the city".
The rules at no point describe this seperate place called "field".
And you still haven't mentioned how 10.1.2.2.2 in any way supports your claim!
Soapy, a "Field Force" implicitly requires a "force" to be in the "field". If you don't GET that, then you're beyond hope. "Field Force" is DEFINED by WHERE a force is located. Therefore, the PLACE the force is defined as being located MUST be the "field". See? To find out what comprises "field", see the definition of "Field Force".
A city IS a separate area. From the field. It IS in the same area, though, as the definition of Field Force also implies.
What your obscure, hidden angle on all this is I have no idea. As for having "a point", I believe that was stated much earlier, but you chose to focus on arguing nomenclature of various game locations.
A city IS a separate area. From the field. It IS in the same area, though, as the definition of Field Force also implies.
What your obscure, hidden angle on all this is I have no idea. As for having "a point", I believe that was stated much earlier, but you chose to focus on arguing nomenclature of various game locations.
Oh Capitaine, mon Capitaine:
I am not looking to create bad blood here but you are using a leap of logic to define something that is not referenced in the rules.
Field Force is indeed defined as a force in a given location. That location is the area, outside of the city... NOT the "field" unless you are PERSONALLY defining "field" (as it is not defined or referenced AS A LOCATION anywhere in the rules) as being "the area, outside the city".
In movement you always move forces to or through areas or cities, with never a mention of "field". Ditto combat... the combat either takes place ouside the city or inside the city.
That a "field force" is a force in an area outside of a city, or a "field battle" a battle that takes place outside a city, does not automatically make the area outside the city "the field". This is the leap of logic you have made... and I understand it, insofar as "the field" is EiA slang for "the area, outside the city"... but it is not explicitly defined in the rules.
You and I agree that cossacks should not be able to do their tricky thing that gdpsnake claims they can do. You and I BOTH contend that the city is an intrinsic part of an area.
For me this helps indicate that when a corps is in an area it can (as I have previously argued) control the city without being entirely inside it (the corps is in the area, which the city is an intrinsic part of).
However it can easily be interpreted (as it has by gdpsnake and others) that the city is seperate from the area, and that in fact your ven diagram would have the "city" circle outside the "area" circle, connected by a 0-cost movement line. This is the death-knell of double-duty, so I was ocnfused that you suggested that only a double-duty proponent would say that this interpretation is correct.
IMHO it cannot be conclusively proved one way or the other, but either way, there are not three regions in your hypothetical ven-diagram, there are only two.
I hope this helps explain why I am being so hard-headed on this point.
I am not looking to create bad blood here but you are using a leap of logic to define something that is not referenced in the rules.
Field Force is indeed defined as a force in a given location. That location is the area, outside of the city... NOT the "field" unless you are PERSONALLY defining "field" (as it is not defined or referenced AS A LOCATION anywhere in the rules) as being "the area, outside the city".
In movement you always move forces to or through areas or cities, with never a mention of "field". Ditto combat... the combat either takes place ouside the city or inside the city.
That a "field force" is a force in an area outside of a city, or a "field battle" a battle that takes place outside a city, does not automatically make the area outside the city "the field". This is the leap of logic you have made... and I understand it, insofar as "the field" is EiA slang for "the area, outside the city"... but it is not explicitly defined in the rules.
You and I agree that cossacks should not be able to do their tricky thing that gdpsnake claims they can do. You and I BOTH contend that the city is an intrinsic part of an area.
For me this helps indicate that when a corps is in an area it can (as I have previously argued) control the city without being entirely inside it (the corps is in the area, which the city is an intrinsic part of).
However it can easily be interpreted (as it has by gdpsnake and others) that the city is seperate from the area, and that in fact your ven diagram would have the "city" circle outside the "area" circle, connected by a 0-cost movement line. This is the death-knell of double-duty, so I was ocnfused that you suggested that only a double-duty proponent would say that this interpretation is correct.
IMHO it cannot be conclusively proved one way or the other, but either way, there are not three regions in your hypothetical ven-diagram, there are only two.
I hope this helps explain why I am being so hard-headed on this point.
Here's the issue right here: You AREN'T moving through cities. As we argued so thoroughly, the move into a city is a "zero cost" move. Also, there is no reason for a force moving through an area also to move "through" a city (although it may wish to detach factors, at zero cost, for a garrison).In movement you always move forces to or through areas or cities, with never a mention of "field". Ditto combat... the combat either takes place ouside the city or inside the city.
Think of the "area" as the generic "square" or "hex" of another game. If you have certain "locations" within a square in another game, you typically have no room to place the counter on that location, as it takes up the entire square.
In EiA, you CAN place counters in different places w/in the area (square). A counter placed in the city/port of an area is in the "city/port". A counter placed outside the city/port of an area is "in the field", and is a field force.
The best analogy I can show you is "Squad Leader". In that game, although not area movement, there are numerous locations within each hex. A unit on the second story of a building is "in the hex", but is not on the ground.
Likewise, the "area" in EiA is the "square" that measures movement. You can call the noncity part of the area just the area if you like, but since a counter that is not in the city/port is called a "field force", it makes more sense to say that the force is in the "field" part of the area.
If anyone has "War and Peace" handy, which also has city "locations" w/in a hex, I'm sure a similar distinction is made.
Personally, I think most of the misconceptions in EiA have to do with the fact that some areas are so big that you can place counters at different places in an area; not just stack them and treat location "theoretically".
soapy, if you really have the bee in your bonnet to deny that a "field force" has nothing to do with "the field", and has no connection with the location it has in the area, fine. I'm just not that keen on continuing on this current tack when I'm just trying to make something a little bit more "clear" for game purposes.
(I think SNAKE has felt compelled to argue that the city and area are totally "separate" b/c you maintained they were one and the same -- not even different locations for any practical purpose. Unless you paid additional MP's to enter a city, and cities were not entirely within the the "square" by which movement in the game is measured, I don't see how anyone can say a city is NOT "in" an area. Whatever...)
Eh what? I clearly argued that a field force IS defined by it's location... i.e. forces not in a city or port.Originally posted by Capitaine
soapy, if you really have the bee in your bonnet to deny that a "field force" has nothing to do with "the field", and has no connection with the location it has in the area, fine. I'm just not that keen on continuing on this current tack when I'm just trying to make something a little bit more "clear" for game purposes.
The location "not in a city or port" is not defined as being "the field" anywhere in the rules.
All my arguments are above, that you choose to ignore or misinterpret is your business.
Ok... Here follows my contention, which I suppose I will have to spell out:(I think SNAKE has felt compelled to argue that the city and area are totally "separate" b/c you maintained they were one and the same -- not even different locations for any practical purpose. Unless you paid additional MP's to enter a city, and cities were not entirely within the the "square" by which movement in the game is measured, I don't see how anyone can say a city is NOT "in" an area. Whatever...)
a) a corps (friekorps cossack whatever) can be in an area with no specified location, as per the movement rules. This is the normal state of affairs and the area does include the city intrinsically.
b) a corps can be in an area and inside the city therein. This can occur due to combat as we have discussed previously, and some people (including the designer
) that a corps can also move there during movement.c) a corps can be in an area and NOT in the city. This can occur due to an enemy force being in the city, or the force not being allowed to control the city for other reasons.
If you play without double duty you'd have to ignore (a) which is easy enough, and then imagine there are some extra rules permitting entry into cities and requiring specific locations to be noted during movement in the rules... slightly harder.
Now you could (as you have essentially done) define the "area not in the city or port" as "the field" but the rules do not do this at any point... even less would be the idea of the third circle in your ven diagram called "field"... which would imply that it would be possible to be in the area but neither in the "field" nor the "city".
I'd like to make a point.
Example:
---
A stack of units (a large army) moves into the province of Magdeburg. This stack of units is considered to be anywhere /everywhere inside the province,but NOT inside the city of Magdeburg? An extra move is needed to enter the city????
---
That doesn't make sense at all.
For a strategic level game, that is plain stupid. This army would have spent far less energy and time entering this city than it would by traveling to the north of the city of Magdeburg when it entered the province from the south.
I dare say that this argument shouldn't be called "double duty". It should be called "the stupid extra move argument." This game is at the strategic level at monthly turns. How can anyone say exactly where within the province the components of these armies are? Are they in the northern, southern, eastern, or western part of the province? Yes, but not in a relatively tiny city????????
It was pointed out above that this crazy argument only exists because of cossacks and friekorps. Why such small units are represented at the strategic level is beyond me. At this level, without them, this stupid argument wouldn't ever exist!
---
A stack of units (a large army) moves into the province of Magdeburg. This stack of units is considered to be anywhere /everywhere inside the province,but NOT inside the city of Magdeburg? An extra move is needed to enter the city????
---
That doesn't make sense at all.
For a strategic level game, that is plain stupid. This army would have spent far less energy and time entering this city than it would by traveling to the north of the city of Magdeburg when it entered the province from the south.
I dare say that this argument shouldn't be called "double duty". It should be called "the stupid extra move argument." This game is at the strategic level at monthly turns. How can anyone say exactly where within the province the components of these armies are? Are they in the northern, southern, eastern, or western part of the province? Yes, but not in a relatively tiny city????????
It was pointed out above that this crazy argument only exists because of cossacks and friekorps. Why such small units are represented at the strategic level is beyond me. At this level, without them, this stupid argument wouldn't ever exist!
Vive l'Empereur!
Tondu, recall one thing here mon ami: Although the game is strategic and each turn is one month, no one knows how much of that time is spent in actual movement or maneuver. It is highly, highly abstracted.
IMO, the more planning required of the player regarding his movement, the more realistic b/c moving an army across several provinces was a pretty stiff chore. While you could say that a counter has an entire month to move from x to y, it could be that the unit is sitting on its duff for 3 weeks and finally rouses itself to move in that last week.
In such gaming abstractions, particularly at this level, trying to determine what a unit could do under RL circumstances is a bit of a canard.
Once forces move into contact in the same area, one might suggest that we are now dealing with a matter of days, not a whole month. Once the action is forced, time compresses and the tactical elements assert themselves. This is one big reason I believe those idiotic cossack/freikorps strategems are not allowed (and thus lead to no problem to the game): Unless they were required to attack any/all enemy "field forces" (enemy forces in the "field", for soapy's benefit ) they could do those zany maneuvers some here claim are okay. But they cannot, b/c they cannot "sneak" into a vacant city w/o attacking enemy forces present in that city's area "in the field" (or field forces, if it is absolutely preferable) in the final area in which they stop.
IMO, the more planning required of the player regarding his movement, the more realistic b/c moving an army across several provinces was a pretty stiff chore. While you could say that a counter has an entire month to move from x to y, it could be that the unit is sitting on its duff for 3 weeks and finally rouses itself to move in that last week.
In such gaming abstractions, particularly at this level, trying to determine what a unit could do under RL circumstances is a bit of a canard.
Once forces move into contact in the same area, one might suggest that we are now dealing with a matter of days, not a whole month. Once the action is forced, time compresses and the tactical elements assert themselves. This is one big reason I believe those idiotic cossack/freikorps strategems are not allowed (and thus lead to no problem to the game): Unless they were required to attack any/all enemy "field forces" (enemy forces in the "field", for soapy's benefit
) they could do those zany maneuvers some here claim are okay. But they cannot, b/c they cannot "sneak" into a vacant city w/o attacking enemy forces present in that city's area "in the field" (or field forces, if it is absolutely preferable) in the final area in which they stop.I knew your "double duty" angle was there somewhere, soapy. Just glad actually to see it. Disagree w/ your a, b, c analysis -- namely (a) -- b/c it's not necessary under the rules, and YOU DON'T need "extra" rules to compensate. But THAT is why I see you are so worked up about actually defining the "field" in the term "field force". A method to your madness, as it were. Actually makes the cossack/freikorps B.S. moves illusory as they always were. W/o that problem, your "double duty" position becomes all the weaker.
Edit: Oh yeah, the "Venn diagram" I tried to describe might not be possible to construct given the difficulty of using circles to make the point in this case. Maybe not a good vehicle to use on second thought. However, I still submit that a city IS entirely "in" an area, and that the space NOT comprising the city/port is, by default, the "field" of the area. That is implicit from the definition of "field force" and other references to "field forces" in the rules. BTW, I have not combed the rules for an actual reference to the term "field" used alone. I don't think it's necessary b/c it only needs to come up regarding the issues you've concocted and not to play the game as the rules are read according to their natural, unartful rendering.
Edit: Oh yeah, the "Venn diagram" I tried to describe might not be possible to construct given the difficulty of using circles to make the point in this case. Maybe not a good vehicle to use on second thought. However, I still submit that a city IS entirely "in" an area, and that the space NOT comprising the city/port is, by default, the "field" of the area. That is implicit from the definition of "field force" and other references to "field forces" in the rules. BTW, I have not combed the rules for an actual reference to the term "field" used alone. I don't think it's necessary b/c it only needs to come up regarding the issues you've concocted and not to play the game as the rules are read according to their natural, unartful rendering.