Re: [eia] battles involving allied garrisons

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

OK.  I guess we agree, then.  Sorry I misread what you were saying.

-JJY

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:51 PM
Subject: RE: [eia] battles involving allied garrisons


>     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
>
>


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