RE: [eia] battles involving allied garrisons

["James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    No JJ, that is not what I'm saying.  I think that 7.5.2.10.1.3 implies
that *all* victors gain and *all* defeated lose PP.  It does not specify
that a major power must have corps present to gain or lose PP.



-----Original Message-----
From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
J.J. Young
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 8:41 PM
To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
Subject: Re: [eia] battles involving allied garrisons


So this would mean that an ally with only a garrison in a battle risks
nothing; they will gain PPs if their side wins, but they will not lose PPs
if their side loses ?  I don't think that's going to be very popular with
most of us, including me.  My vote is for the garrison's owner to be
involved in the PPs, win or lose.  If more of the group prefers that the
garrison's owner never be involved in the PPs, I can live with that.  Either
would be preferable (for me) to what you're proposing, Jim, if I understand
it correctly.  As I reread what you wrote, I'm less sure I understand.  Can
you correct me where I'm wrong ?

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 1:13 AM
Subject: RE: [eia] battles involving allied garrisons


> Here is my opinion:  I personally agree with Kyle that if an ally is not
> contributing to the political points up for grabs then they should not
reap
> the benefits.  However, only the corps on the *losing* side are used to
> calculate PP.
>     Having said that, 7.5.2.10.1.3., says that the victor (should this
also
> say victors?) now gains PP and the loser loses them.  This implies to me
> that *all* victors involved gain PP and that is my vote.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> J.J. Young
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 5:57 PM
> To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
> Subject: Re: [eia] battles involving allied garrisons
>
>
> Mike and I seem to agree that yes, an ally with only a garrison involved
in
> a field or limited field combat should still be included in the PP losses
or
> gains for the battle.  Kyle disagrees.
>
> All three of us seem to agree that a besieged city garrison should be able
> to help a relieving force, whether the garrison's owner has combined
> movement with the reliever or not.
>
> So we need some other opinions, especially on point #1, to firm up how we
> will handle this sort of thing, which is about to pop up and may very well
> happen again.
>
> -JJY
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>
> To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 5:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [eia] battles involving allied garrisons
>
>
> >
> > > 1.)  Does my garrison's participation in the battle involve GB in
> > political
> > > point losses or gains for the battle ?
> > >
> > > The heart of this question is, do all the allies involved in a field
or
> > > limited field battle receive/lose PPs, or just the ones with _corps_
in
> > the
> > > battle ?  My first impression is that if there are anyone's corps
> involved
> > > on both sides in the battle, then everyone with _factors_ involved,
not
> > just
> > > corps, should be included in the PP losses or gains.  Be everyone
might
> > not
> > > agree.
> > >
> >
> >     I definitely disagree.  If you have no corps in the battle, then you
> > have no effect on the political points that are up for grabs in the
> battle.
> > If you do not contribute a corps and are therefore not influencing the
> > number of political points that could be gained or lost, I don't see how
> you
> > could claim political points if your side wins the battle.
> >
> > > 2.)  Would my garrison be allowed to participate in the relief battle
if
> I
> > > did not have combined movement with the relievers ?
> > >
> >
> >     My instinct is that you would not have to be combined with the
> relievers
> > to fight with them.  The rules allow that armies may attempt to
reinforce
> > each other even when the two forces have not combined movement, so I
> assume
> > that garrisons can assist a land battle even if the forces in question
> have
> > not combined movement.
> >
> > > Obviously, question #2 would not apply in the case of a depot
garrison,
> > > which could only be involved in a defensive battle, and so would
> > definitely
> > > be able to fight.
> > >
> >
> >     I don't think a situation like this would ever come up for a depot
> > garrison, because it will have either won its trivial combat, it will
have
> > lost and been destroyed, or it will have fallen back into a city in the
> same
> > area.  There would never be an occasion when there would be a relief
> battle
> > involving a depot garrison, as far as I can tell.
> >
> > kdh
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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