[eia] errata rules

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    I agree with JJ that the loser of a trivial combat between 2 garrisons
must surrender.  But what if both garrisons break in the same round of
combat (as seems likely in this case)?  In that case, there would be no
"loser."  So I'm not sure what would happen.  But my suggestion is that
since the Spanish garrison is in enemy territory, it should be treated as
the "attacker" as in a land combat.  And if the trivial combat ends in a
draw, then the surviving Spanish garrison factor should be repatriated to
the nearest city.  But that's just a suggestion.  [However, if you continue
reading this email, you will see that this entire discussion is moot
according to the errata rules.]

    By the way, I was looking through some of the errata rules, and was
surprised to find that they had already resolved some issues that we had
talked quite a bit about.  For instance, here's the resolution of a question
that Everett brought up recently:

8.5.4 [I]: Only _available_ (currently off the map) fleet and corps counters
may be purchased as "new" counters.  Counters currently on the mapboard may
_not_ be purchased to be available for immediate return to play as "new"
counters should they be eliminated.

Here's the resolution to a debate that JJ and I had a long time ago (and JJ
was right, of course, as I've already conceded).

7.5.2.11.2 [I]: If a leader is used for a reinforcing force, one or more
counters may be left behind, if desired.

   Here's another clarification that would have stopped one of our debates
before it got started:

7.3.5 [Add to the end]: If an area contains a friendly port that is
besieged,
counters may be considered to be disembarked directly into the port (if
there
is room) or into the port's area, as the controlling player desires.

So this makes it clear that the disembarking troops have a choice of
unloading into the besieged city or unloading into the surrounding area.
That's what we decided, so all is well on that count.

    Remember our long debate about how to handle neutral forces that
suddenly find themselves in foreign territory without an access agreement?
Well, here's what the errata rules say about that:

10.3.1.2.1.3 [A]: Neutral forces that previously had access in territory
that
has changed control (i.e., due to reconquest or ceding) can be given
voluntary
access under any new conditions granted by the new controlling major power
(unconditional access _must_ be given if peace condition C.5 applies between
the involved major powers).  If no access is given or available, the neutral
forces must be handled as with force repatriation (see 4.4.6.2 and/or option
12.4).

This resolution is in line with what I had been thinking.  If you don't have
an access agreement, then you should be forced to leave foreign territory.
We had sort of settled on the position that the only way to remove forces
that had been previously granted access was via a declaration of war, but
the errata rule above seems to indicate otherwise.  Since we are not using
rule 12.4, this errata rule would indicate that such forces must be
repatriated.  The relevance of this rule to our current game situation is
that the Spanish garrison at Gibralter should have been repatriated, and the
British depots in Spain should have been removed as soon as the alliance was
broken by GB.
    At this point, it would not be difficult to go back and correct these
mistakes, if we want to.  This would make the trivial combat at Gibralter
moot and it would allow Spain to use its original set of land orders (rather
than the orders as amended).  In addition, Portugal would gain another
garrison factor (for the one that was decommissioned at San Sabastian).  I
am in favor of fixing this set of errors since it is so easy to do.

    Here's one that would have mattered last turn:

7.3.1.2 FORCE MARCHING [C]: Corps may increase their movement allowance by
one
movement point by "force marching."  Cossacks, freikorps, guerillas, cavalry
corps and disembarking corps may not be force marched.

This rule specifies that cavalry corps cannot force march.  This would have
prevented the Austrian Light Infantry from reaching Piacenza last turn.
But, unfortunately for me, it's too late to go back and fix this mistake.
    Much to my chagrin, the errata rules also specify that if Hanover is
missing from the Kingdom of Westphalia/Confederation of the Rhine, then
Hanoverian troops cannot be used by the controller of those kingdoms.

11.3.2.3 [Add to the end]: If Hanover is _not_ part of the Kingdom of
Westphalia, Hanoverian army factors are not available for use by the Kingdom
of Westphalia.

11.5.2.3 [Add to the end]: If Hanover and/or Bavaria are _not_ part of the
Confederation of the Rhine, their army factors are not available for use by
the Confederation of the Rhine.

That kind of stinks, as it makes possession of Hanover crucial to the useful
functioning of those 2 Kingdoms.

    There are two brand new sets of rules in the errata which I think we
should debate before we decide to include them.  The first new rule is
called "Forcible Access" and it reads as follows:

10.3.4 FORCIBLE ACCESS [A]: If a major power is denied voluntary access or
denied desired access conditions, its land forces may still be moved into or
through desired areas by using "forcible access," as follows:

10.3.4.1 [A]: Forcible access operates under the same restrictions as access
through neutral minor countries (see 10.3.1.1).

10.3.4.2 [A]: A phasing major power loses one political point per Turn for
_each_ major power's territories in which forcible access is used.  _For
example, during a Turn, French counters are moved through some Bavarian and
Saxon areas using forcible access.  France loses one political points if
both
these minor countries are controlled by Prussia, but loses two political
points if Bavaria is Austrian-controlled and Saxony is Prussian-controlled_.

10.3.4.3 [A]: The major power controlling territory in which forcible access
occurs may, if desired, _immediately_ declare war and lose the requisite
political points for _each_ separate declaration on any or all of the major
powers using forcible access in its territory, unless prevented by
limitation
in 4.2.2.1.  This chance to declare war is repeated each time a counter
using
forcible access is moved.  If war is declared, allies may be called as in
4.3.

    The second new rule is called "Overwhelming Numbers" and it reads as
follows:

12.3.10 [A]: OVERWHELMING NUMBERS: Field or limited field combats where one
side has a 5:1 or better ratio in strength factors _must_ be resolved using
trivial combat.  EXCEPTION: An outnumbered _defender_ may attempt to
withdraw
before the trivial combat by rolling the commander's strategic rating or
less.

Again, I'm not sure whether we should go with either of these rules.  All
the rest of the errata rules, I'm happy to treat as official.  However, I
think Forcible Access and Overwhelming Numbers should be debated prior to
being accepted as official.  (If it makes any difference, the writers of
these errata place Overwhelming Numbers in chapter 12, making it an optional
rule.  But they place Forcible Access in chapter 10, making it a core
miscellaneous rule.)

Go Buckeyes, beat Michigan!

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] [escrow] September 1807 Declarations of War


> 7.5.3.4 says, "Depot garrisons cannot retreat and and losing survivors
that
> break must surrender if not eliminated by pursuit."
>
> I think the same applies to a garrison fighting another inside a city.  It
> cannot retreat, so must surrender if broken.  This isn't ironclad, but
it's
> my opinion.
>
> -JJY
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
> To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 8:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [eia] [escrow] September 1807 Declarations of War
>
>
> >     I thought I had seen this somewhere before.  I'm glad that Everett
> found
> > it.
> >     So it looks like it'll be a dice battle!  Whoever gets to 2.0 morale
> > first wins.  But what happens if they both break in the same round?  My
> > guess is that, in that case, the Spanish garrison should be repatriated.
> > This suggestion follows the model of the Spanish being the "attackers"
and
> > the Portuguese being the "defenders" of a land combat.  However, this
may
> be
> > completely wrong, and I'm willing to be enlightened by anyone else who
> > thinks they know what would happen in that case.
> >
> > kdh
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Everett E. Proctor" <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 1:16 AM
> > Subject: Re: [eia] [escrow] September 1807 Declarations of War
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2.)  There are 2 garrison factors in Gibraltar which are now at war
with
> > > each other.  Should this be resolved by repatriation of the Spanish 1
M,
> > or
> > > by a trivial combat between the garrisons ? (personally, I think the
> > latter
> > > interpretation is correct, although I can't find a rule about it).
> >
> > >From the errata (http://www.grognard.com/errata1/emparms.txt):
> >
> > 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."
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eia mailing list
> > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eia mailing list
> > eia@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

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