[eia] condensed garrison issues in votable format

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    In this email I have attempted to clarify and condense the issues I
mentioned in my previous email into a format that can be voted on easily.

ISSUE 1A:  GARRISON MIGRATION.  Can factors from a pre-existing city
garrison become part of a depot garrison at the time that a new depot is
created in the same area?
    - The rules seem to say NO.  (For example, see 7.3.4.)
    - In the past, we have said YES.
    - My recommendation is YES.

ISSUE 1B:  DEFAULTS?  If we say YES to Issue 1A, should we come up with
default assumptions regarding whether a city garrison migrates when a new
depot is created?
    - The rules have no bearing on this issue.
    - In the past, we have had a default (city garrison becomes depot
garrison), but that default would not have a clear application in all cases.
(See previous email for a discussion of difficult cases.)
    - My recommendation is NO; depot creators must explicitly decide which
(if any) city garrison factors become depot garrison factors.  Depot
creators are to be prompted if necessary to make these decisions.

ISSUE 1C:  CASE-BY-CASE DEFAULTS.  If we say YES to Issue 1B, what will the
defaults be for each of the distinct cases mentioned in my previous email?
(See below.)
    - The rules have no bearing on this issue.
    - Past experience is inapplicable.
    - I have no recommendation.

ISSUE 2A: CAN CORPS BURN DEPOTS?  If an ungarrisoned depot and a corps of
the same nationality are in the same area when an enemy corps arrives, does
the corps have the option of burning the depot (as if the corps were a depot
garrison)?
    - The rules seem to say NO.  (See 7.3.3.3.1, 7.3.3.3.2, 7.3.6.1, and
7.3.6.2.)
    - In the past, we have said YES.
    - My recommendation is YES.

ISSUE 2B:  HOW ABOUT ALLIED OR CONTROLLED MINOR FREE STATE CORPS?  If we say
YES to Issue 2A, can allied or minor free state corps burn ungarrisoned
friendly depots?
    - The rules have no direct bearing on this issue, but indirectly they
seem to indicate NO.  (See 7.3.3.5.1 and 7.3.3.5.2.)
    - I believe that in the past we have said YES.
    - My recommendation is YES.

ISSUE 2C:  OWNER PERMISSION.  If we say YES to Issue 2B, can an allied corps
burn an ungarrisoned friendly depot without first obtaining permission from
the depot owner (assuming that the depot owner has no forces present in the
area)?
    - The rules have no bearing on this issue.
    - Past experience is not applicable.
    - My recommendation is YES.

ISSUE 3A:  BESIEGED SUPPLY.  Does each besieged corps and each besieged
garrison within the same city have to roll *separately* against the city's
besieged supply value?
    - The rules are ambiguous on this issue depending on one's
interpretation of the wording.  (See 7.4.5 and 7.4.5.1.)
    - In the past, we have said YES.
    - My recommendation is NO.

ISSUE 3B:  DISTINGUISHING GARRISONS.  If we say YES to Issue 2A, do garrison
factors of different (but allied or controlled minor free state)
nationalities count as separate garrisons?
    - The rules do not address this issue.
    - Past experience is not applicable.
    - My recommendation is NO.

    I hope this format makes the issues clear enough for people to form
opinions about and vote on.  If there is anyone who believes that one or
more of these issues should *not* be voted on, please respond and explain
why not.

kdh


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 7:16 PM
Subject: [eia] Need help understanding how garrisons work.


>     {WARNING:  This is a longish rules discussion which I will try to
> condense in a subsequent email.  Read only if you are very bored.}
>
>     As you may recall, my first garrison rules question involved whether
> city garrisons should be allowed to "migrate" to become depot garrisons.
If
> I understood JJ's response correctly, he thinks that when a depot is
created
> in a space that contains a city garrison, the default assumption should be
> that the city garrison *does* in fact migrate out to the depot unless the
> depot creator instructs otherwise (or unless otherwise prohibited by the
> rules).  I think that position makes sense, and I endorse it.  (Is there
> anyone who is opposed to this interpretation, or who would like to reserve
> judgement and delay a final decision?)
>     However, the more I read about garrisons, the more questions I have.
> First of all, what will we do if a depot is created in an area that
contains
> more than 10 city garrison factors?  (7.3.3.5 limits depot garrisons to no
> more than 10 factors.)  Below I have listed 4 different cases of
increasing
> complexity, and it is not clear what our default assumption should be
> (especially in the latter cases).
>
> CASE 1:  Paris city garrison contains 12 inf. factors when depot is
created.
>
> CASE 2:  Strasbourg city garrison contains 6 inf. factors and 6 mil.
factors
> when depot is created.
>
> CASE 3:  Amsterdam city garrison contains 6 French inf. factors and 6
Dutch
> inf. factors when the depot is created (and Holland is under French
> control).
>
> CASE 4:  Vienna city garrison contains 6 Austrian inf. and 6 Prussian inf.
> factors when the depot is created.
>
>     In Case 1, where we have a homogeneous garrison, the default
assumption
> seems obvious: 10 factors go out and 2 stay in.  In Case 2, where we have
a
> heterogeneous garrison, I'm not sure what the default assumption should
be.
> I can see myself preferring different things under different
circumstances.
> The same goes for Cases 3 and 4.  I'm starting to think that we should
only
> have a default assumption for homogeneous garrisons numbering fewer than
10
> factors.  Otherwise, we should prompt the phasing player for specific
> instructions regarding how many and which garrison factors migrate to the
> depot.
>
>     This issue brings up some other questions I have.  7.4.5 reads that
> "besieged garrisons and corps *must* check for supply by the foraging
> method, using the *city* supply value...."  In the past, we have
interpreted
> that language to mean that *each* besieged garrison and *each* besieged
> corps rolls separately for forage.  [I have always thought that the
language
> in 7.4.5.1 indicates otherwise.  It says, "Instead, for every *full* 5
army
> factors in the besieged city (regardless of whether the factors are part
of
> a corps or merely a garrison) '+1' is added to the die, to a maximum of
> '+2'.  *For example, a city with 5-9 army factors would have '+1' added to
> the die roll.  No other modifiers apply."  To me this indicates that all
the
> factors in the city are added together and one roll is made *regardless*
of
> the number of distinct corps or garrisons within the besieged city.  But I
> was outvoted.]  If we are going to stick with our previous interpretation,
> then I am wondering what counts as a separate garrison (that must make a
> separate forage roll).  For example, I assume that in Case 2 there is only
1
> garrison despite the heterogeneous garrison composition.  But what about
> cases 3 and 4?  Are these cases in which there are 2 separate garrisons
that
> must roll separately, or should we understand these cases to involve only
> one multi-national garrison (that rolls only once)?  [Notice that these
> issues become irrelevant if we use my interpretation of the besieged
supply
> rules.  But we can do whatever people want.]
>
>      Another question:  can a corps in the same area as a depot do the
same
> things that a depot garrison would do?  In the past I have assumed that it
> could.  So for instance, if a corps and a depot of the same nationality
are
> in the same space, and an enemy corps attacks, I have always assumed that
> the corps can choose to burn the depot as if it were a depot garrison.
> However, this assumption is not supported in the rules.  7.3.3.3.2
> specifies, "Corps may form all or part of a city garrison without
detaching
> army factors..." but it says nothing about corps being all or part of a
> depot garrison.  And the rules regarding whether a player is able to burn
a
> depot depend on whether the depot is considered to be "garrisoned" or not.
> (See 7.3.6.)  So it seems that by the written rules, corps do not have the
> option of burning a depot when enemy troops arrive, only garrison factors
> can do that.  Personally, I think corps should be allowed to burn friendly
> depots when enemy corps arrive, just like a depot garrison.  However, if
we
> allow corps to act in the same way that a depot garrison is allowed to
act,
> does that mean all friendly corps can do so, including allied and minor
> country corps?  7.3.3.5.1 and 7.3.3.5.2 specify that depot garrisons must
be
> of the same major power as the depot and can only be composed of minor
free
> state factors within the borders of the minor free state.  To be honest,
I'd
> be willing to scrap these restrictions altogether, but if people want to
> keep them, I'd at least want to allow that allied corps and minor country
> corps can burn a friendly depot at their discretion.
>
>     So there are many places where I really am not sure I understand what
> the rules intend, and there are some cases where I think I understand what
> the rules intend but disagree.  I guess what that means is that I am
> essentially doing is proposing House Rules for consideration.  I think
what
> I'll do next is try to collect and clarify all these issues and put them
> into a vote-able format to make things a bit easier on people.  I'll send
> that out very soon...
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia