Michael Gorman on 30 Jul 2002 07:32:03 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[eia] Re: fed up

        The bulk of this post is me pissed off a Kyle for accusing me of making up the rules.  I am aggressive and in his face because he called me full of shit with nothing to back it up.  I do use tons of rules to back up every point I make so it may be a worthwhile email to read as it does give rules citations for every part of what I have claimed is written in the rules. 

        At this point I'm starting to wonder if the electronic copy of the rules I have is simply not the same as the printed copy because you guys are pulling out house rules that are exactly what the rules state and citing things as being straight out of the rules that don't exist in my copy.  I may have to borrow Everett or Joel's copy sometime and compare them to mine.

        This is the end of me being nice and conciliatory

        I figure the easiest way to go over my stand is to do what Kyle asked and cut and paste a bunch of rules into an email so I can read them aloud as it were. Enemy Corps or City Garrison In Area: If during movement a corps moves into an area containing enemy corps not in a city, the corps {must} cease movement and declare an attack. If enemy corps and/or garrison factors are in a city the phasing corps may continue movement or stop movement and besiege (see 7.5.4) or not, as the owning player desires. If he decides to besiege the enemy corps and forages for supply, the foraging die roll is not reduced due to unconsumed movement points (see 7.3.2). If any friendly forces in an area besiege enemy forces then {all} friendly forces in that area (except depot garrisons) must besiege the enemy forces.

        If there is a corps in an area not in a city, you must cease movement no matter what.  Seems pretty clear from this part.  AS the only time a corps is ever noted as being in a city anywhere in the rules is while it is under siege or right after a siege ends and before it gets a chance to move, this rule seems to stand quite well and is not a house rule. Garrisoned Depot Area: If an enemy depot is garrisoned, the player controlling the garrison factors has the option of immediately destroying the depot {before} the moving force chooses whether to leave the area (if permissible) or to stay and fight. If the garrison does not elect to destroy the depot and the phasing force chooses to stop its movement and fight, the depot may be captured {after} land combat (see and destroyed or converted (but not used for supply this major power's sequence---also see If the garrison destroys the depot, the garrison surrenders or all or part (if the city cannot hold all---the part not moved to the city will surrender) can be moved to an unbesieged friendly controlled or vacant city in that same area, at the owning player's option.

        This is the rule I claimed Kyle's proposal reversed in order to save one email.  The part about the garrison deciding if it will burn the depot before the corps declares if it will continue moving does indeed appear to be the exact opposite of :

* if the corps stops movement, the garrison may destroy the depot and
retire to the city, if it fits (Those factors that do not fit inside the
city must surrender.)

This would place the decision after the corps decides whether or not it will move. It will indeed save one email, but I still maintain that it will not save enough time to make the change worthwhile.

* for each corps that enters such a space, if it is foraging for
supply, it must send two supply options in the land phase orders - one for
if the defender decides to retire and the other if the defender does not.
(If the phasing player forgets to do this, then it is his problem if, after
he has already rolled for forage, he is required to lose more factors
because the defender chose to retire, thereby negatively modifying the
forage rolls.)

        How will this rule cause attackers to not know their available forces and give the defender the ability to decide if they should retire into the city based on how many attackers they will kill with that decision?  Well, there will be two sets of orders already sitting in front of the defender and assuming they have basic math skills, they can add up foraging losses if they remain out of the city and foraging losses if they force the attacker to give up spare movement points.  They will then know exactly how many factors they can cause the attacker to lose by forcing a siege.    The attacker will not know how many forces they will have available to them as they will not know which forage orders the defender will allow them to use until after the movement phase is complete.
        As the forage decisions will now no longer be complete until during the combat rules, the movement and combat phases are now mixed together as all foraging is to be determined at the end of each unit's movement. Foraging Procedure: A die is rolled for {each} foraging corps as it completes movement (but {after} resolving any 7.3.8 procedures that may be caused by its movement). This die roll is modified as in, if any modifiers apply. The modified die result is then compared with the forage value of the area with the {lowest} forage value of all the areas passed through or stopped in, not counting the area in which the corps started (unless the corps did not move and remained in one area), during its Land Movement Step. If the modified die result is equal to or less than this forage value, there is no effect. For {each} modified die point above the forage value, the corps must lose one army factor.

But the attacker will not be able to determine the modifiers to the foraging roll until after the combat phase has begun if the defender gets to decide what modifiers apply after the combat phase has begun.

On to my fabrication of the rules.  Most of this seems to be that in the absence of a rule declaring a situation to be an exception, I assume it is not an exception. Unused Movement Points: For each movement point the corps did not use, one is subtracted from the die. Exception: The die is not modified due to unused movement points if the corps is besieging or plans to besiege enemy forces in the area.

The word plan in this rule indicates strongly that you will have the choice of besieging or not besieging.  The forage rules allow that you may plan to or not to besiege an enemy force.  What rule do you have that states you must besiege?  I have a rule that says I don't have to, where is yours that says I must.

7.5.4 Sieges: These represent the surrounding and reduction of garrisoned enemy cities. A major power's corps may besiege any occupied city in territory controlled by a major power or minor neutral with which it is at war or any city occupied by enemy troops wherever it is located. Guerillas, freikorps and cossacks may only conduct sieges in conjunction with friendly corps. Depot garrisons may never take part in sieges. The forces besieging a city are the "besiegers", and the garrison inside the city are the "defenders". A phasing force that just attacked and {won} a field or trivial combat in an area may then besiege an enemy city in that same area {if} all corps in the phasing force used depot (regular, sea and/or invasion) supply and/or did not use unused movement points to modify a foraging roll (see

Note the word MAY before then besiege.  While this covers sieges after field battles, it seems to assume that you do not have to besiege the enemy forces in the city whether they be garrison or corps.  Combined with the rule that you get to plan to siege or not to siege, this seems a strong case that you may enter an area with an enemy controlled city and choose to not besiege that city.

As to it being normal supply.

7.4.5 Besieged Supply: Unless eligible for sea or invasion supply, besieged garrisons and corps {must} check for supply by the foraging method, using the {city} supply value (which equals the number of spires in the city picture) rather than the forage value of the area containing the city.

This states that you use siege supply only while you are besieged.  No where does it say you use siege supply if there is an enemy corps in the area of the city.  As an enemy corps in the area is not listed as an exception to normal supply rules, I see no reason to decide it is an exception.  Unless you have a rule that declares an exception to the normal rules for this case, I propose that there is no such rule and I therefore should follow the normal rules. Besieging Forces: Besieging forces may live off regular supply or forage. If they forage they are considered to have spent their {full} movement allowance before dicing for supply and use the area supply value and normal modifiers. This occurs even if it is the first Turn of the siege.

While this requires sieging rules for the attacker from turn one, it doesn't say anything about requiring the attacker to launch a siege.  It merely says that you have to use besieging supply rules on the first turn of a siege.  It would seem to support the earlier statements that you must plan to be able to lay a siege during the forage phase and cannot decide if you will be able to do so during the combat phase.

What kind of battle is it if an unbesieged force leaves a city and enters the surrounding area?

7.5.1 General Rules of Land Combat: If at the end of all movement of the phasing major power , enemy forces (excluding guerillas---see occupy the same {area} as its corps, freikorps or cossacks, the phasing major power {must} attack in those areas (also see 7.3.7 and 7.3.8). The phasing side is the "attacker" and the non-phasing side is the "defender". Defender Retirement Into City: Any forces or portion of forces upon whom an attack is declared may immediately retire into any friendly controlled or vacant, and unbesieged city in that area but not so as to exceed the city's garrison capacity. Garrison Attack Combats: These simulate a city garrison attacking the besiegers and are resolved similarly to siege assault combats. If the defending garrison of a portion thereof (all defending factors do not have to be used) chooses to attack, the defending major power uses the "5-1" ocmbat table and the besieger (who must use all available factors) uses the "5-2" combat table on the Combat Resolution Chart for a maximum of three rounds (garrison attack ombats never last more than one "day") with no modifications for terrain, leaders, or cavalry superiority. There are no pursuits and these combats cannot be reinforced. Relieving Force---Limited Field Combats: If the besieged force attacks with the help of "relieving forces" ({i.e.}, external corps that enter the area from another area) or such relieving forces attack without assistance from any part (all besieged factors do not have to be used) of the besieged force, a "limited" field combat instead of a defender attack combat is fought. Limited field combats are fought at the same time as field and trivial combats ({i.e.}, before any siege assault of defender attack combats). A limited field combat is a normal field combat (use all normal field combat rules) that may not exceed one "day" (three combat rounds) in length and uses the following special rules:

These seem the relevant clauses.  The corps in the city is not under siege and has moved out into the area.  It ends movement in the presence of an enemy force and must declare an attack.  Should it be a limited field combat or garrison attack?  Well, let's see.  these both require there to be a siege.  As there is no siege, they do not happen.  Therefore, as this situation is not considered an unusual combat situation, you should use the normal combat rules.  Again, in the absence of a rule declaring this situation odd, why treat it as odd?

Can the outside force become the inside force?  Why, yes.  If you decide to leave the city empty, they can move in.  Why not, it's empty.  You don't want them to be able to move into the city?  Then don't leave the stupid thing empty!  If you want the city, try defending it.  It takes all of one factor to stop a force of any size, so it's not like the rules make it hard on you.

If you don't like this, you can propose to CHANGE the rules to something else.  If you can find the rule that says to not follow the normal rules, then we'll use that exception.  Otherwise, my claim is not that the situation is covered, my claim is that the situation is not considered an exceptional circumstance and therefore you use the normal rules.  The rules tons of exceptions to the normal combat rules, if you want to claim you are finding a normal exception, then point out the rules for it.  Otherwise, don't try to sell me some crap that because you want it to be an exception, the absence of a rule that agrees with you means I'm making stuff up.  If there is nothing saying it is an exception, then you should first try to use the normal rules and as far as I can see, they work just fine.  There is no problem at all in just treating this great and difficult situation as a normal case for the movement and combat rules.

As I'm sure Kyle will jump at anything I missed, I'll let him tell me which case I missed and then I'll cut and paste more rules in so he can read them from my email rather than in his paper copy.

Now, if you want to shoot down what I'm claiming, send me back a post telling me where the rules make your case and
I'll read them over.  There are more than enough pages to the rules that I would not be at all shocked to find out I missed something.  But if you want to say I missed something, then you'd better be able to point out what it is and not whine that I'm making it up since the rule you want isn't written down.

Yes, I am pissed at you Kyle.  You just accused me of making up the rules and you had better be able to back that claim up.  You want to say I'm cheating and making this game up, then you better have your rules lined up because I will be back in your face if you don't.

I've presented my case.  Let's see yours.