[eia] errata issues

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

     I do not have strong feelings about either of these new errata rules.
Since JJ and Joel are opposed to Overwhelming Numbers, I'll join them and
vote no as well.  I'm with JJ when he says that Forcible Access through a
Major Power's home territory seems inappropriate.  However, I am in favor of
Forcible Access through controlled minors.  So I think JJ and I agree on
that one.  I also agree with JJ that we should scrap 12.8 (the requirement
that two major powers must be allies before they can grant voluntary
access).
    So it seems that JJ and I are in complete agreement on these issues.
However, at this point, I'm not sure it would be fair to go back and change
things with regard to British forces in Spain and Spanish forces in
Gibralter (especially after having seen JJ's crappy rolls).  But I'll stay
out of it and see if JJ and Danny can reach a mutual agreement on their own.
If they both agree on a way to handle the situation, then who am I to
second-guess?

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Uckelman" <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] errata rules


> Thus spake "Kyle H":
> [snip]
> >
> >     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
>
> One effect that Overwhelming Numbers would have is to increase casualties
> for the larger side. Trivial combats are resolved on the 5-2 table, which
> is better than the tables that most rounds of normal battles are resolved
> on. I haven't been able to think of a reason why being dramatically
> outnumbered should make your men that much more effective.
>
> On the other hand, it does make sense to me that a very small force would
> be able to slip away prior to combat. However, this would be moot in most
> circumstances, as a force outnumbered 5:1 would be likely to be wiped out
> in pursuit. And the defender has a chance to withdraw in a normal battle
> anyway.
>
> So I'm voting against Overwhelming Numbers.
>
> I'm not sure what I think about Forcible Access yet.
>
> --
> J.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>

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