Re: [eia] [escrow] Battle of Florence, October 1807

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Just to help clarify things a bit so that everyone understands where
everyone else is coming from, Mike is basing his understanding on the rules
found inside the rulebook while Joel is basing his interpretation on the
wording found on the Political Point Chart on the back cover of the rule
book.  There it it says:
"-1/2 (to a maximum of '-3'):  Lost by the loser for each of *his* corps
participating on a field or limited field combat's losing side."  (my
emphasis)
This is the wording that seems to support garrisons not having to lose
anything when they lose a combat (because the owner of the garrison, if
different from the owner of the corps, has no corps in the battle).  So in
essence, the wording on the back cover is different from the wording inside
the book.
    So Joel's view isn't crazy, but I do not think it is consistent with
what we have decided in the past.  I believe we are *forced* to go against
Joel's interpretation by a previous house rule that we established on this
very issue.  Long ago, when a coalition force of British and Spanish troops
was fighting the Russians in/near St. Petersburg, we encountered essentially
the same wording difficulties.  Exactly who gains and loses political points
after a battle with multiple parties on one or both sides?  At the time we
decided that all the parties on one side gain the full amount if they win,
and they lose the full amount if they lose.  (That is, we were siding with
the wording inside the rulebook against the wording on the back cover.)
    Since that was our house rule decision earlier in the game, it would be
inconsistent for us to make a different ruling now that only applies to
garrisons.  If garrisons are in, then they are in all the way, win or lose.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 1:29 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] [escrow] Battle of Florence, October 1807


> At 05:50 PM 2/7/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >Not Florence, Turin, of course.
> >
> >BTW, I assume that the garrison/PP issue, at least for a victory, is
> >resolved and that Austria, Britain, and Turkey each gain +1 PP for the
> >relief of Florence ?
> >
> >On the question of whether a garrison-only owner should lose PPs in the
> >event of a defeat, we seem to have 3 (Kyle, J.J., Jim) who say that he
> >should lose PPs, and 1 so far (Joel) who says he should not lose any.
> >Please correct and excuse me if I have misrepresented anyone.  What do
the
> >rest of you (Everett, Danny, Mike) think about it ?
> >
> >-JJY
>          As far as I can see, everyone on the losing side loses political
> points and everyone on the winning side gains them.  So unless a garrison
> is not considered to be on a side, I would think having a garrison there
> makes you part of the battle and thus a party to the gained or lost points
> from being there.  Trivial combats and garrison attacks make a point of
> being an exception to the field combat political point losses but relief
> battles follow the same rules as normal field battles and there is no
> mention at all of whether or not you have a corps present in determining
if
> you are a part of the winning or losing side.
>          I can't find the rule saying that a defender with just a garrison
> loses no points.  Trivial combats cause no political point changes when
one
> side is entirely garrison, but that's different from a garrison and a
corps
> fighting together on one side.  As far as I can find, the entire rule for
> this is 7.5.2.10.1.3 and it uses one declaration for both the victor and
> the loser, each corps on the defeated side causes a half a political point
> gain or loss.  A relief battle specifically involves political point
> changes and specifically allows garrison factors in the city to
> participate.  So it seems clear that they are considered part of the
battle.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

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