Re: [eia] errata rules

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I did forget to comment on something.  I am against using the overwhelming
numbers option, if  for no other reason than it would be awkward for us to
reveal our forces to figure out if overwhelming numbers exist, before
actually beginning to resolve the battle.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 11:50 AM
Subject: [eia] errata rules


>     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
>
>


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