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
Yes! Another to add to the ranks of the "strict constructionists"!
(I assume by "once a corps moves into a city, it stays" means that if it ends the LMS inside, since it's a 0-cost move, it could move in and out many times before its move CEASED -- You begin moving another counter. But once its stops its move in or out of a city, that is where it is. )
All the folks have been super about explaining their rules, mostly patient and willing to hear "alternative lifestyles."
As a result, I believe the playtest team will help make this EIA "version" the best yet!
I hope more will speak up! We have several different methods of play issues already, all of which have some merit.
You mentioned naval interception and Insurrection corps modifications. Were there issues you and folks you played EIA with had over these rules? I'd like to hear them.
CHITENG,
***"What good is a corp if it doesnt defend the city in the area that
it is deployed in?"
I may not be able to answer this without sounding sarcastic so I apologize in advance.
The corp organization in the game is the key power projection unit for the land areas. The fact that I and others don't believe in double duty in no way detracts from the importance of this unit type. I restate again that a player can accomplish ANY goal, control ANY city, achieve ANY desired outcome without HAVING to have double duty. Everything is possible for ANY major power. You state the fact of double duty as if the game was "unplayable" without it. I don't see that.
***"On the scale of this game, you are saying that Nappy could
have simply walked around the Prussian Army in 1806 and occupied Dresden. I mean lets get real, each turn is ONE MONTH."
Yes, but that's not quite correct. You did not qualify this statement. Do you have a corps counter in the area? If you did, NO corps counter entering the area could then move into the city. It has to stop immediately. If you did not have a corps, then what would prevent a player from doing so?
If Dresden is that important, why didn't you garrison the city? That would prevent the OTHER units from bypassing the corps and moving into the city. But really, a cossack against a corp? How long will that last? But it is a nice RAID for economic manipulation, for a follow up naval move next turn, or (my favorite) a follow-up move by my corps into the area with the defender unable to retreat into the city.
A hard thing to swallow certainly but no different in terms of game mechanics than having a single strength point of mine in a city and me moving in as a relieving force. After all, under the seige combat rules, a single SP CAN stop a corps with a single die roll (opps, no asault for you buddy!) THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT IT'S MY MOVE PHASE SO YOU DON'T EVEN GET TO TRY AN ASSAULT. And this is GOOD because everyone gets a move phase in sequence (France anywhere) so you better have your ducks in line as you finish each of your moves! THIS is how the game represents the initiative of each country.
By using the same double duty logic (7.3.3.3.2 and 7.3.3.3.1), a cossack could be in the area doing double duty. Is that reasonable? Maybe, but the units and their abilities make much more sense to me without a DD rule.
***"What you keep calling 'double duty' is a logical abstraction of
the game reality. The enemy IS able to react to your moves."
Possibly and I'm willing to entertain the abstraction and would play that way if needed but I don't subscirbe to the notion that DD is a 'game reality' and MUST be played. Would you be willing to try a game without it?
I don't think, and I believe the length of this discussion on DD, proves that when all is said and done, neither "side" on the issue has proven the case esle all would be hitting their heads going "DOH!" So I think that makes the case that it's been "playtested" both ways and each way offers a unique set of problems for the player to overcome to achieve victory. If anything, the use of a double duty rule STRONGLY FAVORS FRANCE, much more so than any other power - see below:
"Aside from which your interpetation only effects Russia and Prussia"
No, Russia (cossacks), Spain (guerillas), Prussia (friedkorps), Austria (friedkorps/Insurrection) and Turkey (feudal corps) are all directly affected. Only the two "most dominant' powers, France and England are totally in the "plus" column benefit from double duty as it prevents these other units from exploiting openings.
Austria has a friedkorps but has two insurrection corps so they are hurt and helped (BUT the I corps are only good in a specific area and then only if Austria is invaded). Turkey is the only real negative as far as Feudal corps go BUT ONLY FOR ONE SPIRE CITIES AND ONLY IF THE feudal is 6-9 sp's.
***"See the games I have seen show me that France is dominant
ALREADY. We dont need to assist them."
DD clearly benefits the French player the MOST since the others have units that can make his life MORE difficult and he has no such units! England has their fleets (but a tiny army - size matters LOL!)! Take just a moment to visualize a game where the French player couldn't use DD.......How 'bout them cossacks/guerillas/friedcorps now?!
***"I have a freind that loves this game except.....he will only play England. He will not play if you use the corp command limits
and not if you use the 'Fleet slow down' rule.
Obviously this hands the game to England. His position is...
'those rules are not realistic'
But he is more than happy to use the Nappy degrades with age rule.
You cant please some people. In this example, he wants none
of the things that limit England, and all the things that limit other players. This type of player will lock up a game in rules disputes."
I agree with you of course on this completely. I would never loggerhead a game which is why I want to know up front. If we disagree, of course I accept a die roll. Playing a 'different way' is often enjoyable and presents different challenges.
GDP I am not even sure what your calling Double Duty.
To agree with any point using that term implicitly recognizes
that indeed such a concept exists. That isnt something
I am willing to do. We could of course ask The original designer
of the game. He will be at Origins and I suspect at Gencon.
Given the quality of his OTHER rules efforts, I am not surprised
there are questions.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
You mentioned naval interception and Insurrection corps modifications. Were there issues you and folks you played EIA with had over these rules? I'd like to hear them.
Snake
No, I was reffering to issues that were raised on Marshall's monthly updates regarding changes to the rulebook to facilitate PBEM system. Those will, as was said before, have to be under the strictes scrutiny by the testers, because IMHO, they impact the gameplay far more than this "Double duty corps" issue.
I assume you know I LIVE IN SAN ANTONIO!!!!!!!!! Home of the SPURS!!!!!
FOR ALL:
"Add to the end of 10.3.2.1. "If garrisons in the same city suddenly find themselves at war due to a declaration of war, immediately determine city control by trivial combat between the hostile garrison forces."
How does this official errata fit into the concept of double duty? While we are friendly, I can "also" be in the city garrisoning with all or part of my corps in the area. Now we are at war, what part of my corps is in the city for the trivial combat? Am I 'suddenly' all outside the city? If so, why?
I assume you know I LIVE IN SAN ANTONIO!!!!!!!!! Home of the SPURS!!!!!
I saw your location info and couldn't resist
FOR ALL:
"Add to the end of 10.3.2.1. "If garrisons in the same city suddenly find themselves at war due to a declaration of war, immediately determine city control by trivial combat between the hostile garrison forces."
How does this official errata fit into the concept of double duty? While we are friendly, I can "also" be in the city garrisoning with all or part of my corps in the area. Now we are at war, what part of my corps is in the city for the trivial combat? Am I 'suddenly' all outside the city? If so, why?
The rules on garrison nationality determining "control" for combat purposes makes double duty completely, 100% inconsistent with the rulebook. It's not just a "different interpretation", it's an entirely different game, made up to "streamline" something some players dislike about the rules as they stand.
There could be no possible way to "determine the nationality of the garrison" unless those troops actually are placed in the city and they are counted irrespective of other corps in the "area".
Thing is, when the computer handles all the disputes and bookkeeping, there is not even a colorable "annoyance" argument for the double duty crowd. It's just a preference of sloppy tactical play so they can focus on playing "Diplomacy" in the Napoleonic era.
)
