Matrix Games Forums

you get a victory point for a successfull attack on a fortress, or city with a corps inside.

in our current game, we had the following situation:

My troops besieges the city of Amsterdam (no fortress). In Amsterdam their are some garrisons and the dutch corps.
In the first month I breeches the walls, but lost the following battle. My counterpart disbanded the corps and some garrisons.
The next month (only garrisons in the city) I won the battle.

My counterpart said, that I don`t get the victory point, because in the month I take the city, their was no corps.
Is this right?

First off: I think you mean Political Point and not Victory Point.

Second: I don't believe you can disband a corp that is currently being besieged.

I will check on this in the rulebook and try to get back to you.

Ryta is right.
It's in rule 7.3.3 and 7.3.3.1

Originally posted by ABP
Ryta is right.
It's in rule 7.3.3 and 7.3.3.1

thanks APB!

okay, it`s clear that you can`t disband a corps currently being besieged.

the question is, if I can disband a corps after a successfull defend.


for example:

5 I in the corps, 5 I in garrison.

toal losses are 7 I for the city.
I take 5 losses out of the corps and 2 losses from the garrison.
After this, the corps is empty, and I take it from the map.

The next month the attacker is successfull, but their is no corps to gain the political point.

Yes, you can empty a corps through combat damage.

To throw a situation back in the group.
What if a 'cunning' player moves all but one factor out of the besieged corps, then rolls for foraging, has to lose one factor due to foraging and takes that factor from the corps.
Now the corps is empty and he can remove it.
Correct?

Jeroen.

Actually, a corps is necessary for a political point ONLY if the city is NOT a fortress (one or more fleches on its picture).

"7.5.4.1.4 Political Points For Siege Assault Combat Winners: If the assaulted city contains a corps and/or is a 'fortress' (has one or more fleches), the defender gets one political point if the besieger loses ... and the besieger gets one political point if the city is captured. ... No political points are ever lost on either side, regardless of the outcome, and none are gained if the city has no corps and/or is not a fortress."

Originally posted by Wynter
Yes, you can empty a corps through combat damage.

To throw a situation back in the group.
What if a 'cunning' player moves all but one factor out of the besieged corps, then rolls for foraging, has to lose one factor due to foraging and takes that factor from the corps.
Now the corps is empty and he can remove it.
Correct?

Jeroen.

Can you really detach factors from a corps that is inside a city? I think the rules are unclear on whether this can be done.

I agree with Road's. Actually, the rules expressly prohibit such a move but "logic" suggests perhaps it should be allowed. However, due to the "gamey" nature of the reason for doing that, then I think the letter of the rules should be obeyed:

7.3.3 MOVING INTO CITIES--DETACHING/ABSORBING FACTORS--GARRISONS: During a major power's Land Movement Step, any non-artillery, non-feudal or non-insurrection corps may detach factors as garrisons at, or absorb army factors from, depots and/or unbesieged (emphasis added) friendly or vacant cities by reducing or increasing its strength, if the capacity is there.

The requirement that the city be "unbesieged" in order for a corps to detach/absorb would seem to be due to the inability to make the "move" through the besieging force. However, the rules don't carve out any exception for corps already insided a besieged city. Since the only reason for doing what is suggested is to avoid giving the opponent a political gain due to the absence of a corps (assuming no fortress), the "unbesieged" requirement for detachment should be strictly enforced, IMO.

I completely agree with this assessment, it is to prevent a gamey move.

Originally posted by Capitaine
I agree with Road's. Actually, the rules expressly prohibit such a move but "logic" suggests perhaps it should be allowed. However, due to the "gamey" nature of the reason for doing that, then I think the letter of the rules should be obeyed:

7.3.3 MOVING INTO CITIES--DETACHING/ABSORBING FACTORS--GARRISONS: During a major power's Land Movement Step, any non-artillery, non-feudal or non-insurrection corps may detach factors as garrisons at, or absorb army factors from, depots and/or unbesieged (emphasis added) friendly or vacant cities by reducing or increasing its strength, if the capacity is there.

The requirement that the city be "unbesieged" in order for a corps to detach/absorb would seem to be due to the inability to make the "move" through the besieging force. However, the rules don't carve out any exception for corps already insided a besieged city. Since the only reason for doing what is suggested is to avoid a political loss due to the absence of a corps (assuming no fortress), the "unbesieged" requirement for detachment should be strictly enforced, IMO.

you can't apply a rule for movement to a post-combat removal of a corps. the fact that you can not empty your corps into a garrison and remove it in your movement phase has *no* bearing on what you do with your combat losses. If you choose to take the losses out of your corps (and you are specifically allowed to take losses from wherever you desire), and your corps is emptied by the losses, then that corps disappears.

Timothy, if you read the posts carefully, transferring factors from corps-inside-city during movement to the city garrison was posited. In that case, it is a movement issue, and is precluded by the cited rule.

Reading is fundamental. :p

What if a 'cunning' player moves all but one factor out of the besieged corps, then rolls for foraging, has to lose one factor due to foraging and takes that factor from the corps.