Re: [eia] battle of Bordeaux: British withdrawal roll

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Well, I am slowly working my way through over 60 EIA-related emails that 
have accumulated in my Inbox over the past couple days.  So, as far as I 
know, the issue may already have been decided, and I just haven't read that 
far yet.  However, even though no one asked for it, I'm going to voice an 
opinion that is in agreement with Mike's.  One of the guiding principles of 
the game (as I understand it) is that Political Points are awarded for the 
defeat of a corps in battle.  I don't think the Overwhelming Numbers rule 
should be read in a way that overrides that principle.

My 2 cents,

kdh

P.S.  Is this one of those oddball rules that comes from "The General"?  If 
so, I would have voted against its inclusion had I been a player at the 
beginning of this campaign.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "MICHAEL P GORMAN" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] battle of Bordeaux: British withdrawal roll


> Having read this rule and the trivial combat rules a few times, I'm not 
> sure.
>
> At first I was going to say that since this replaces a battle normally 
> worth political points, the exception clause in 7.5.3.5 would apply and a 
> battle worth victory points is not lowered in value by replacing it with a 
> trivial combat.
>
> But that clause indicates it applies only when a voluntary substitution is 
> made and the overwhelming numbers option makes a point to emphasize that 
> it is a mandatory trivial combat.
>
> However, all other examples of trivial combats that are worth zero points 
> are situations where one side has no corps present at the battle which 
> fits with the general field battle idea that corps have to be involved for 
> points to be scored.  This also follows in siege battles where unless a 
> corps is involved or a city is fortified, it's worth no points to defeat 
> the garrison.
>
> So I guess the question is, is overwhelming numbers an example of a normal 
> trivial combat worth no points.  Or is it an example of a field battle 
> being turned into a trivial combat where agreement by the the parties is 
> mandatory but they still are considered to have agreed to the change.
>
>
> I'm also rather perplexed at how this rule works.  Since forces aren't 
> revealed in a standard field battle until after operational possbilities 
> are revealed and withdrawal checks are made, how are you supposed to know 
> you have 5:1 odds before you've already started a normal field battle? 
> Having already made a failed withdrawal check, do the British forces get 
> another chance to withdraw now that we reveal forces and potentially learn 
> that the odds are officially greater than 5:1 and we need to apply the 
> optional rule that says the defender has a chance to withdraw before the 
> battle on a strategic die roll?  Even though in all cases this rule 
> applies, that should already have been an option for the defender.  So, 
> finding out that the odds are so bad, does the defender now get a second 
> chance to withdraw?
>
> This rule seems to expect that both corp identity and corps strength are 
> public.  But that is clearly not the case in the normal rules.  We've 
> added corps strength being secret, but corps identity is normally secret 
> and thus mandates the reveal forces step that otherwise wouldn't have to 
> exist.  So how will this rule ever be used until after almost every step 
> skipped in a trivial combat has already happened and the withdrawal option 
> given in the rule has already been used or set aside by the defender?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Jaffe <billj@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, May 14, 2007 8:58 am
> Subject: Re: [eia] battle of Bordeaux: British withdrawal roll
> To: 'public list for an Empires in Arms game' <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> However, that makes it a trivial combat at overwhelming odds, and no
>> PPs are
>>  awarded, right?
>>
>>  Bill Jaffe
>>  Wargaming since Tactics (1958), and playing 18xx since 1829
>>  billj@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia 

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