Re: [eia] battle of Bordeaux: British withdrawal roll, overwhelming odds and trivial combats

["Bill Jaffe" <billj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I see the siege rules as rewarding primarily "fletches", which are
fortifications that make a city more important from a POLITICAL point. The
reason having a corps present is added is because the loss of an entire
corps formation in a siege would be politically newsworthy, just as the fall
of Lille or some of the other principalities. I actually would house rule
that a 2 or more fletch city, or 4 or 5 spire city always causes PP to be at
stake, even in a surrender. But I don't know if that would be unbalancing.

Clearly, most overwhelming odds situations are more about a small force left
behind to hinder the movement of a large force, rather than these where 1
mid-sized corps of 8 or 10 faces a 1 point militia-based corps.

However, I do see this as not changing the way the rule reads - you are
forced to trivial combat, so 7.5.3.5 doesn't apply, and there are no PPs
awarded.

Bill Jaffe
Wargaming since Tactics (1958), and playing 18xx since 1829
billj@xxxxxxxxxxx
 

-----Original Message-----
From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
MICHAEL P GORMAN
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:40 PM
To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
Subject: Re: [eia] battle of Bordeaux: British withdrawal roll, overwhelming
odds and trivial combats

I do not see it as a clear statement that the overwhelming odds should alter
the point value of a battle and the more I read, the more it strikes me as a
fundamental violation of the game's internal logic that it possibly could
mean that.

There is exactly one case where a trivial combat does not grant victory
points.  That is when one side has no corps.  The exception to the no
victory points covers all cases where both sides have corps present at the
battle that are possible in the normal rules.

What is bothering me is that it is possible for both sides to have corps
present at a battle without points being granted for that battle.  Siege
rules make no consideration to the size of a corps in a city garrison.  If a
city has a one factor corps and 24 garrison factors in an unfortified city,
that one factor corps makes the whole battle worth a point.  It doesn't
matter what the odds are.  100 factors besieging a one factor corps get a
victory point since there is a corps present on both sides.

I'm not comfortable with the overwhelming odds rules creating an exception
to the case that corps on both sides makes a battle worth points without
explicitly stating that exception since it seems like a violation of a
fundamental concept of the game.  Corps are what the game is about.  The
smallest corps is worth something and the biggest garrison is worth nothing
on the point track.  That is consistently true at all points of the rules.
That I should set aside that base concept without it being explicitly stated
seems improbable to me and I'm very uncomfortable with it since it feels
like I'm breaking a central tenet of the game.

I can understand at some level saying, this battle is so paltry it shouldn't
be worth anything.  But why isn't that also the case in sieges then?  Why
isn't there a point where a garrison is so big it is worth points?  At a 5
tower city you can have a force bigger than any national corps could
possibly hold, but since it's all garrison factors, it doesn't matter, it's
worth nothing.  But put 1 factor in a corps in that city and suddenly the
battle is worth a point even though the battle went from a real fight, to a
walk over.  So the logic that an overwhelming odds battle is too minor to be
worth points isn't sustained anywhere else in the game.  It's not treated as
a valid argument.  

All that matters anywhere else is was there a corps present.  That's it.  If
the answer is yes, it's points.  If it's no, then it's not.  There is only
one exception anywhere, a fortified city, the only fight without a corps
that you can get points on, it's a big exception and it's explicitly stated.

So I think the overwhelming odds rule has to be read as mandating that the
commanders choose to resolve a field or limited field battle by trivial
combat and not a standard trivial combat since it does not state that it is
an exception to a universal rule of corps = points.
_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia


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