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

["Mel Chin" <mchin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Bill, there shouldn't be any PPs awarded for overwhelming
combats.

Mel

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Jaffe" <billj@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'public list for an Empires in Arms game'" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] battle of Bordeaux: British withdrawal roll,overwhelming
odds and trivial combats


> 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
>


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