Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by Reknoy
How does a corps do this when it's too big to fit into a city -- unless you accept *shudder* soapy's argument that it can pull double duty.

You mean my interpretation that completely makes this not a problem and causes no other problems and fixes other "ambiguous" problems like corps acting as garrison for guns?

What problems are caused by corps being allowed to pull double duty? That I guess, is the key question. I can think of none, but I may be blinded by bias, so I will let other point them out.

*Edited for creative spelling techniques...

"A corps can form all or part of a garrison"
Yes, IF the corps is capable of 'fitting' into the city. If not and in the case of soapyfrog's guard example, the player must detach factors in his movement phase to garrison the city. The word 'can' implies 'if able.' More strategic considerations to ponder. The game is much more fun and interesting when a player must make such choices. Double duty detracts from such considerations.

One can easily determine in or out. Either the corps is on the city image or it is not, hence "in or out" without the need of book keeping. I've never had a problem but I suppose it could become 'hard to see' so just put a blank over the ones inside.

Soapyfrog, your entire argument rests on 7.3.3.2 which I still contest is a sub heading of 7.3.3.3 describing a garrison. There are literally dozens of other examples everywhere delineating the difference between a corps in or out of a city that defy the logic of a corps doing double duty. That's the whole point - Where does a player put his resources? Into a corps or into garrisons? If you allow double duty then you remove much of that headache by saying that every area's city is protected with a corps.

But is that the case, is a city protected?! Let's just be logical and consider the tactics and situations of the age.

A ship is either At SEA or IN PORT and can't be both. A man can't be in a city and outside at the same time. When the 'move' is complete, one is either in or out, not both. An area is many hundreds of square miles so the corps could be anywhere in camp or strung out along a road or it's in a few square miles of city. It would be akin to saying my fleets at sea are also in the port in case of attack.

No, these are the specific decisions a player must make. Do I go in or stay out? Do I detach factors because the corps counter is too big or worry about the size of the enemy's nearby forces and try to "keep all my eggs in one basket."

Yes, turns are a month long but would word reach a corps in the countryside before an enemy naval attack attacked my fleet in port in a day? How far away is the corps? Can men from a corps possibly 30 miles away run into the city and man the guns in one day when the enemy sails into the harbor? Perhaps, but I find the situation much more tactically interesting when players must decide in their turn. Gotta garrison IN the city if you want the guns to operate over the month long period.

In terms of land combat, one can always retreat part or all of a corps (if it fits) into a city before combat so areas with corps are basically "protected" anyway.

After all, a ship has time and could certainly sail into a port in a month but it's not allowed. Same reasoning in game terms. A man could certainly get to the city in a month but it's not allowed.

This ultimately creates the big problem for a player in his move. Whether to aborb/detach!!! Such are the choices a player must make which is why the sequence of play becomes much more important! I should've garrisoned to prevent that easy fleet attack!!! I shouldn't have detached those strength points, my corps could have won with 6 more factors in it!

Finally, in the period of the day, there were 'field armies' and garrisons. Field armies 'fought' and garrisons protected LOC's and supply. How one apportions his men between the two is a key element of the game and I believe the 'concept of double duty' detracts from play. That is the problem I see with double duty other than the rules as stated (Which we can't seem to agree completely on.....)

In any case, we need a few more players to chime in with their thoughts. We need a poll! Where are the other players!

It just might go your way unless one is given the option to move corps into areas OR cities on the game map (and in the computer code!) Perhaps cities should be their own "areas with factor limits" within an area as that is how I intrepret the rules and play the game.

In any case, soapyfrog, who is your favorite power? Should we assume "frog?" LOL!

SNAKE

Originally posted by gdpsnake
More strategic considerations to ponder. The game is much more fun and interesting when a player must make such choices. Double duty detracts from such considerations.

IMHO it's logistical minutiae, prone to be missed by absent-minded players, and a cause of unneccessary consternation and conflict. It's also inelegant and awkward, and again IMHO has no real place in a Strategic/operational boardgame.

One can easily determine in or out. Either the corps is on the city image or it is not, hence "in or out" without the need of book keeping. I've never had a problem but I suppose it could become 'hard to see' so just put a blank over the ones inside.

Ouch. You are a patient man...

Soapyfrog, your entire argument rests on 7.3.3.2 which I still contest is a sub heading of 7.3.3.3 describing a garrison. There are literally dozens of other examples everywhere delineating the difference between a corps in or out of a city that defy the logic of a corps doing double duty. That's the whole point - Where does a player put his resources? Into a corps or into garrisons? If you allow double duty then you remove much of that headache by saying that every area's city is protected with a corps.

Interpretation of 7.3.3.3.2 is indeed the whole issue between us. And you are spot on about removing the headache (not even much of it; all of it ). I like not having headaches, especially when they are not required by the rules!

But is that the case, is a city protected?! Let's just be logical and consider the tactics and situations of the age.

You don't think that a army "corps" billetted in an area would detach a battalion to man some fortifications vital to Imperial policy?

Anyway interesting discussion but I have to run will post more later.

P.S. Interestingly I am currently playing France (though it's not my favorite power!)

Soapyfrog,
I was pondering last night. I suppose the disagreement rests on this issue: Is the gameboard covered with areas, some of which contain cities (Much like other games that have hexes with cities in them) OR is the gameboard covered with areas, some of which contain sub-areas that are cities.

When I read the rules, I consider cities to be 'seperate areas' within an area. Hence rules for moving in and out or determining if units are in or out of the 'city areas.' To agree to 'double duty' would imply (like many other wargames) that each area is just a hex and some have cities.

Perhaps the 'process' developed by the programers will answer this question. Until then, I shall continue to play with cities as seperate areas that just happen to lie in larger areas and hope the programming reflects that.

Good luck with the French!
SNAKE

I love playing the French. Or the Prussians.

This is nice now that I am no longer actively participating in the discussion.

I am currently enjoying a modest amount of success in my game where Wynter is GMing. Right, Jeroen?

Ran into another old EiA buddy -- told him about this.

Another fanatic awaiting its arrival is born.

Originally posted by gdpsnake
rules, I consider cities to be 'seperate areas' within an area. Hence rules for moving in and out or determining if units are in or out of the 'city areas.' To agree to 'double duty' would imply (like many other wargames) that each area is just a hex and some have cities.

I agree we seem to have a certain philosophical differences about rules interpretation! Although I see what you are saying I don't see it (myself) supported in the rules as written.

I guess the main difficulty for me lies that it takes a lot of extra effort to play your way as well as createing extra rules to patch the holes (like the fact that you are not allowed to move into cities except in the enemy combat step).

I do prefer the "cleaner" interpretation our groups use (and it is definitely is easier for the computer game!)

No big deal; on the whole I think it unlikely that any two groups play precisely the same way!

Good luck with the French!

I'm going to need it. I face a coalition of 5 players right from the start (all but Turkey, and Turkey's got his own problems...).

My favorite country is Prussia...

Originally posted by gdpsnake
Soapyfrog,
I was pondering last night. I suppose the disagreement rests on this issue: Is the gameboard.................
SNAKE

Nothing against what you said Soapyfrog.

The whole issue is that ALL of these fights over the rules are really nothing until the game comes out or one of the beta testers breaks their secrecy oath. (No, I'm not suggesting that someone does.)

Can't we all wait and see how the game goes when it is released OR (hopefully) when more information is released by Matrix?

PS. I am suggesting that they release more information, btw. Wouldn't that be nice?

Originally posted by soapyfrog
Oh just as a note some of this is WRONG. (I hope you beta-land guys covered this, but if not I will clarify here).

A Corps is NOT specifically in a city or outside it. It is in fact present in both in and out of the city at all times unless it chooses to retreat inside the city exclusively due to enemy forces moving into the area, or unless there is an enemy garrison present in the city.

WRT to the specific question Corps being able to fire the guns in port defense, I quote the following rule:

"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 in garrison."

Soapyfrog, you're an idiot. There is no rule stating that a corps can be in- and outside the city at the same time. Rule 7.3.3.3.2 is a continuance of rule 7.3.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3. All of these together form a summation of what types of _counters_ can act as a garrison. 7.3.3.3 is explicit that garrisons are placed on top of the city (or depot ) symbol. So all that 7.3.3.3.2 says is that you can move a corps inside a city during your land move (and during reinforcements as well, as section 5 refers to section 7.3.3)

Now, I know this might not be very convincing to you, as you're already convinced of it's opposite, but there's a lot of corroborating evidence. Whenever the rules mention garrisons at all, they refer to them as factors inside the city. There are alkso several rules that exclude the possibility of a corps being both in- and outside the city.

-New corps must be placed _inside_ a city.
-When moving through any area you have access throug, you're usually prohibited from Garrisoning certain cities. If a corps can auto-garrison a city, that means all areas containing cities would be exempt from such access.

And finally, if a corps can do this, we have a very big clarity problem about control. IMO in a boardgame the board should show the state of the game. At least, EiA has no instuctions about keeping additional notes on who controls what, so I'll presume to say none are needed. Yet if a corps can do as you say, we run into problems. Look closely at rule 7.3.3.3.1. It uses the same syntax that 7.3.3.3.2 uses for corps to describe Cossacks and Guerillas. So, if you're correct about your interpretation of 7.3.3.3.2, the same conclusion must be applied to those. At least, I see no reason why it should not be. So, why do the rules not say what takes precedence, a Corps, or a Guerrilla factor in that area?

Then there's a lot of problems during sieges and conquest. Without your interpretation, it's pretty simple: if anyone is inside the city you want, you can siege it and it will be gone (10.3.3). So, according to you, your corps is in the cityarea, so it garrisons the city. According to 10.3.3 that garrison must surrender immediately if the city is besieged. So, are you willing to put your Guard in any enemy city area now? Anyone at war with that enemy could use your interpretation to destroy the corps. All they do is enter and lay siege. By your interpretation, that means all corps in that area must surrender. With the counters gone, how are you going to place your guards/cavalry? Right, as infantry.

Really, leave this concept of a corps being in 2 places at once and the game becomes a lot simpler and makes a lot more sense. I now apologize about the idiot remark, you're certainly not the first I meet to share that opinion, and you wouldn't be the first to be merely mistaken...

Ragnar

And as for general philosophy about EiA rules, it's best not to have one. I find it to be the primary cause of rules misinterpretations. I'll happily admit I've been wrong many times about many things in the past, and all because I assumed there to be a general principle or philosophy behind the rules.

The thing is: Maybe there was once, but even if so, you cannot assume that that philosophy was per se logical or rational. Surely it must have occured to any one that people and their ideas rarely are.

When finally considering Empires in Arms, it seems to me that there's a rule to cover every specific situation. A lot of times, slightly different circumstances lead to another (usually surprising) outcome.

Here's the most recent "thingy" I noticed:
When victorious in battle, you may convert the enemy depot to your own. Is that right? No it's not. You may only do this if there's no enemy forces left in the area. That seems a rather bogus demand, as you've just won a battle, so they've all been retreated or eliminated. However, guerillas don't have to fight, and if they don't fight they don't retreat... which is pretty interesting considering that guerillas cannot garrison depots..

IMO. there is no real "grand sceme". every rule was written for a very specific purpose and should never be taken as a sign towards some greater intent.

Ragnar Krempel

Ragnar:

Just my two cents, but I would consider using the "edit" function to delete the whole "idiot" reference from your last message.

From what I have read that you have written and messages that refer to you, you clearly have a presence in this space. As exasperated as I get from this game I try to always leave the personal attack stuff at home. I'm sure you do, too.

Ah, the wonders of editing.

Cheers!

Reknoy

Please look at rule 7.3.4 last sentence which states: "Moving from a city into its area (or vice-versa) expends no movement points.
Again, clearly units can be moved into and out of cities. The units mentioned are corps, cossacks, friekorps and guerillas.

Movement points are not used in combat and this rule is listed under movement so clearly corps don't move into cities strictly as a result of combat.

I also refer to 16.0 Glossary which defines a garrison as support for the claim that 7.3.3.3.2 is only a rule to allow 'another type' of garrison and is not a definitive argument for corps 'double duty.'

I concur with Ragnar concerning 'double duty' under rule 7.3.3.3.1. If corps can then these units could be in an area And be in a garrison.

Maybe we can find out from one of the original developers (where
ever they are!?)

Just more fuel for the debate.
SNAKE

I suppose we could email Harry Rowland on the subject... although AH made many changes to the rules after they bought the game from ADG, and actually I beleive this to be one of the major reaosns why the rules are in many places confused, and the terminology is not clear and consistent throughout.

Originally posted by Ragnar
Soapyfrog, you're an idiot.

No doubt

There is no rule stating that a corps can be in- and outside the city at the same time.

Except I beleive 7.3.3.3.2 says it, your opinion notwithstanding.

So all that 7.3.3.3.2 says is that you can move a corps inside a city during your land move (and during reinforcements as well, as section 5 refers to section 7.3.3)

It does not say that. You are making an assumption about something which is not explicitly stated.

There are alkso several rules that exclude the possibility of a corps being both in- and outside the city.

-New corps must be placed _inside_ a city.
-When moving through any area you have access throug, you're usually prohibited from Garrisoning certain cities. If a corps can auto-garrison a city, that means all areas containing cities would be exempt from such access.

These rules do not exclude the possibility of "double-duty"... there are many point in the rules where a corps is specified as being outside or inside (but not both). However whenever these particular and easily trackable conditions are not in effect, the corps can be pulling "double-duty".

And finally, if a corps can do this, we have a very big clarity problem about control. IMO in a boardgame the board should show the state of the game. At least, EiA has no instuctions about keeping additional notes on who controls what, so I'll presume to say none are needed. Yet if a corps can do as you say, we run into problems. Look closely at rule 7.3.3.3.1. It uses the same syntax that 7.3.3.3.2 uses for corps to describe Cossacks and Guerillas. So, if you're correct about your interpretation of 7.3.3.3.2, the same conclusion must be applied to those. At least, I see no reason why it should not be. So, why do the rules not say what takes precedence, a Corps, or a Guerrilla factor in that area?

Control is actually EASIER to show and track (i.e. requires zero extra bookkeeping or tricky counter placement) "my" way, since a corps in an ungarrisoned enemy city area is automatically assumed to be controlling the city, and you therefore don't have to remember whether it is in or out ("Darn the board got bumped ever so slightly... was this corps in the city or out, I can't remember..." or "You never stated that your corps was in the city, ha ha you fail to conquer Mecklenberg!"). Thus you can take one look at the map and control is automatically evident.

In the case of guerillas, if the guerilla were in the city then they would be beseiged by the corps... the only way that guerillas can co-exist without combat in the same area as a corps is if they are NOT in the city, and if a guerilla were to move into or be created in the same area as an enemy corps they would not be able to be inside the city anyway, since the city is already garrisonned by the enemy corps! It's really just less complicated.

So, according to you, your corps is in the cityarea, so it garrisons the city. According to 10.3.3 that garrison must surrender immediately if the city is besieged.

10.3.3. is quite clear in referring to garrisons (check the glossary) and not corps acting as garrisons by way of 7.3.3.3.2, and in any case it does not matter because any neutral corps in an area where an attack has been declared must either withdraw or DoW, so the situation you describe would never arise. But nice fishing attempt.

Really, leave this concept of a corps being in 2 places at once and the game becomes a lot simpler and makes a lot more sense. I now apologize about the idiot remark, you're certainly not the first I meet to share that opinion, and you wouldn't be the first to be merely mistaken...

Well again I protest that adding an extra layer of rules and being required to track the state of every corps at all times WRT to in or out of a city does not in anyway make the game simpler.

*Edit: Wow, the board orginally censored "d*mn"... how puritanical!

Personnally I'm with Soapy Frog on this - the logisitics are so much simpler if you don't have to worry about who is where. But it is very much an ambiguous issue.

Anyone have a copy of the ADG rules? It'd be interesting to know what was added by AH, for this issue in particular.

Control is actually EASIER to show and track (i.e. requires zero extra bookkeeping or tricky counter placement) "my" way, since a corps in an ungarrisoned enemy city area is automatically assumed to be controlling the city, and you therefore don't have to remember whether it is in or out

?ungarrisoned?, ?enemy? city area; 7.3.3.3.2 does not mention these things at all, you've just added them. In fact, you've mentioned the _only_ instance when "your" way would be easier. As soon as there's more than that single corps in the area, things already get confused. And you'd _still_ have to remember if it is in or outside, for if it's inside, that will definately affect your opponents' movement.

In the case of guerillas, if the guerilla were in the city then they would be beseiged by the corps... the only way that guerillas can co-exist without combat in the same area as a corps is if they are NOT in the city, and if a guerilla were to move into or be created in the same area as an enemy corps they would not be able to be inside the city anyway, since the city is already garrisonned by the enemy corps! It's really just less complicated.

There's no reason for a guerilla to be inside a city or for the corps to besiege it if they don't want to. Besides, the corps might not be allowed to besiege the city.

I don't think you're getting the problem. It's rather simple. Almost a joke: A Guerilla a Cossack and an Au corps are in the area of Barcelona, which is inside Catalonia which had been ceded to France. There's no garrison in the city. Now a Tu (not at war with any of these powers) fleet wants to enter the port. From whom does she need permission to enter if Tu already has access to Fr?

According to your interpretation of rule 7.3.3.3.2, all three units are now "acting" as garrison to the port. That gives them all control of it, so Tu would need permission of all three.

10.3.3. is quite clear in referring to garrisons (check the glossary) and not corps acting as garrisons by way of 7.3.3.3.2, and in any case it does not matter because any neutral corps in an area where an attack has been declared must either withdraw or DoW, so the situation you describe would never arise. But nice fishing attempt.

Well, since you took the bait. ...

Ok, I can accept THAT!

So... the same is true whenever any other rule mentions a garrison? Our argument is now moot. For the rules clearly do not give any powers to "Corps _acting_ as garrisons" anywhere, only to "garrisons". Are you starting to see my problem here? Either the corps is a garrison or it is not. You can't say it isn't when you don't like it. Off course, you could say the corps can _choose_ to act as a garrison, but that it doesn't have to.. Well, then we'd need a way to keep track of _that_, so that's where things get overcomplicated...

BTW: no attack was declared, just a siege.

Well again I protest that adding an extra layer of rules and being required to track the state of every corps at all times WRT to in or out of a city does not in anyway make the game simpler.

Strangely, we agree on the goal here: the awnser to this must be the simplest solution. I believe the simplest solution is the one where the control of a city is always clearly descernable by the the nationality of the counters on it's mapsymbol. You believe the simplest solution to be the one where there is the least need for players to bother themselves with such trivial matters as leaving a garrison.

But let's stick with the rules...
7.3.3.3 GARRISON FACTORS says that garrisons are "represente by counters of the appropriate type on the city or depot concerned"

7.3.3.3.2 tells us that a corps counter can be uses as a garrison. It just says "corps", but a corps is a counter (and nothing else) by definition. *I* would naturally assume that such a corps would be placed opn to of the depot or city as well. You think differently. My problem is why do you assume that 7.3.3.3 does not apply?

regards,
Ragnar

Originally posted by soapyfrog
I suppose we could email Harry Rowland on the subject... although AH made many changes to the rules after they bought the game from ADG, and actually I beleive this to be one of the major reaosns why the rules are in many places confused, and the terminology is not clear and consistent throughout.

Heck, I agree with that! Afaict, AH either did not play or understand the game a whole lot. If you systematically ignore everything AH ever added to the game, it becomes more logical. I've already come to the conclusion that the game is best played with only 50% of the optional rules and almost NONE of the errata (just those correcting the typos).

Originally posted by Road's
Personnally I'm with Soapy Frog on this - the logisitics are so much simpler if you don't have to worry about who is where. But it is very much an ambiguous issue.

Well, that's true. And I see a lot of games that have a houserule that gives a corps control of a city in its area if that city is empty and if there's no other powers' forces in that area. Mostly to help the Turk that can't detach factors from 3/4 of his corps.

I guess it depends on what you like more: complicated or simpler logistics. I think though, that it's better not to use such a rule either way. The game _does_ have complicated logistical issues that will creep up on and severely hurt you if you don't pay attention. Simplifying the most common of all of these will only lead players into such mistakes blindly.

7.3.3 carries the title:
"Moving into cities-Detaching/Absorbing factors-Garrisons"

Yet all of 7.3.3..* does not mention actual movement at all, it only describes detaching and garrisons. Because of this, I've come to see detaching and moving into a city as synonymous. There isn't any real difference if the factor leaves the corps then enters the city or if the corps enters the city to drop a factor anyway. Neither does it seem usefull to descern if a cossack entered a city using 0 movement points or if it detached itself into it from the area outisde. So IMO detaching is essentially a form of moving and movement in and out of cities and depots is the same as detaching.

Off course, if you don't have the same take on 7.3.3.3.2 as I , the above won't really fit into your views..

Could somone give a summary of what the question is?

How could you play the 1792 scenario if you DIDNT drop off
INF factors as you move? It is a crucial strategy.

But of course not feudal INF.

Soapy,
The rule 7.3.4, last line, clearly says "Movement from a city into its area (or vice-versa) costs no movement points. The units mentioned are CORPS, cossacks, friedcorps, and guerillas.

VICE-VERSA MEANS the opposite!!!! What other possible intrepretation could it mean!?

So it means movement from the area into its city!!!!!!!

MOVEMENT not COMBAT and it costs zero movement points. Movement points (even zero) are only expended in the movement phase - never combat! Plus the rule is a MOVEMENT RULE. Why would the writers put that here if they meant that corps could only enter a city as a result/during the combat phase?

It all makes sense and doesn't add any headache:
Zero movement is used for detaching/absorbing so whether the corps is in or out of the city makes no difference in game terms because the city would be friendly anyway to detach/absorb.
A city in an area containing only your corps is controlled in game terms because you moved into it without cost since no one else is there - visit the brothels perhaps?! (no need to state the fact of ownership, it's obvious in game terms. Also TU corps can control cities but can't drop off factors.)
Also, in game terms, no one can slip into your city by land or sea if you have a corps in the area regardless of any city garrison because they debark/move into the area and must cease all movement and declare an attack. If you only have units other than corps in the area and no garrison, then the attacker could move right into the city because they don't have to stop!
That's the whole point of garrisons - garrison wisely as was the case of the time period or lose your cities.

Ragnar, you are incorrect on the rule 7.3.3 section on detaching/absorbing. The rule DOES state it costs zero movement points to perform this action. Movement points are expended ONLY during the movement phase (even zero). In game terms, though, you are correct since it costs zero movement points you simply 'reapportion' your factors between units outside and inside DURING YOUR MOVEMENT PHASE of course.

Ragnar, I agree an ungarrison city belongs to whoever has the uncontested corps in the area.
As for your example (cossaks in spain!?) I assume the area was ceded and neither Spain, Russia or Austria had a land phase move since the ceding because if they did and any were at war with France then whoever moved last of the three (and who was at war) has control of the port/area now. (Corps don't stop movement for guerillas or cossacks and they don't stop for corps so anyone could enter the city for zero movement without having to decalre combat. If not and it's still a French ceded provence - this is the naval phase so the TU fleet only needs French permission. Although, the following land phase could change everything.
SO yes, of course, there are times when players must know who controls a city but it's always pretty easy to track in my opinion.

I think 7.3.4 is the smoking gun in my opinion on the issue of whether units, specifically corps, are IN or OUT of a city and not both. It never makes a difference unless there are opposing forces involved anyway.

Chiteng,
The original question basically concerned: "Are corps IN or OUT of cities at the end of one's move. Some believe they can do "double duty" and be both. Others, like me, say at the end of your move, your corps are either IN or OUT of the city (delineated by being in the area OR on top of the city picture[perhaps a problem for guys with thick fingers - main requirement to be a proctologist....]) and not both. After all, one mustn't stop if enemy corps are IN a city 7.3.7.1 and this movement rule says nothing about whether they are already besieged or not. In fact, it says the player could now beseige the corps in the city (implying it may not already be under seige) or move as the player chooses!
I believe this originated the discussion especially as it concerned being able to operate ones port defenses. Some say the corps in the area is sufficient while others, like me, say you either garrison the city or suffer the lack of guns - a corps in an area is not sufficient to "man the guns' so to speak. The discussion revolved around 7.3.3.3 and it's parts. I say that 7.3.3.3.2 simply says a corps can be all or part of a garrison if it's in the city so one need not detach factors. (A bad deal for TU feudal corps that would not be able to detach or corps with guards because guards would have to become regular infantry. This rule allows for those types of corps to garrison BUT they still have to be IN THE CITY! Otherwise, 7.3.3.3.1 would allow 'double duty' for cossacks, guerillas and friedcorps too! See the previous posts for the full accounts of both arguments.

But heck, it's still only opinion. We need more folks to chime in. See how many 'hanging chads' we get!

SNAKE