My view is to continue playing it as it stands since it gives more flexibility
to the defending player to decide on his actions.
________________________________
From: eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:10:42 AM
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Something about rules
Hello all,
while we are waiting for Turkey/Prussia clean up files and Political phase, I
bring back this discussion raised by Tiron since the turn is starting again now
and we can decide on it if you wish.
Rules 7.5.1 and 7.5.1.1. are correct, as Tiron interprets them in the first
letter of this chain. We have been playing like this indeed.
Rules 7.3.2.1 and 7.3.6.2 are also correct as mentioned by Laertis, but we are
not only doing that while playing depot garrisons.
The missing piece of the rules that we need, is 7.3.7.1. To explain:
7.3.7.1 ENEMY CORPS OR CITY GARRISON IN AREA: If during movement a corps moves
into an area containing enemy corps not in a city, the corps must cease
movement and declare an attack. If enemy corps
and/or garrison factors are in a city the phasing corps may continue movement
or stop movement and besiege (see 7.5.4) or not, as the owning player desires.
The trick here is when this decision - whether the corps is inside the city or
outside - is performed. In the explicit garrison rules we play with the other
group with Tiron, it is always clear what is in and what is outside. But for
our games, we decided that this decision will be taken by the defending player
the moment a hostile corps enters its area. We did this for 2 reasons:
1. Less bookkeeping (otherwise we should note for every corps on the map
whether it is inside, or outside of a city at every time)
2. More tactical flexibility (allowing the defending player to make a decision
during an opponents turn)
For me it is also slightly more realistic, given that corps always knew an
enemy was coming due to scouts, and when placed in an area they had the
privelege to chose a location close to fortified cities in case they needed to
fall back. In any case this is something the rules allow.
Personally I am in favour of continuing to play like this, ie the decision of
where the corps is (inside/outside) to be taken during hostile movement. I am
not strongly in favour, I simply think it gives a bit more flexibility. You can
all vote and decide on it.
M.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:46 PM, Tiron
<strategija@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:strategija@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I fully agree that we should not alter rules mid turn, actuality I think we
should not change the rules of the game at all or as least as possible. We play
any game, from chess to EiA, because we start with the same set of rules on
both sides, we have the same understanding how the game can be played.
Having said that I am also fine if the group has it's own set of house rules or
interpretations, but I also think as a "relatively" I can not be expected to
know them. I made game decisions based on the rules as I can read them.
With Makis agreement I will change part of British naval turn to move the fleet
at Channel crossing to London and 2 British fleets blocking french port into
Channel Crossing.
On 2018-02-14 19:18, Makis Xiroyannis wrote:
Tiron feel free to change your naval where you think it is affected by this rule
Just arrived home and can have 1 hour or so wife-free, could we play on a bit
the western battles so that we proceed with the turn? I am not normally in a
hurry, but given that I will be packing tommorow evening, and traveling for 4
days, things will slow down
Turkish turn should not affect the west
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Makis Xiroyannis
<makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Like Yannis, I also remember many cases, and more importantly remember cases
were we LOST corps (instead of retreating into the city) so that the opponent
cannot move further. I have lost several corps this way, and the centrals too.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Yannis Sykamias
<ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I can certainly recall cases from our first war with France where we applied
this for corps thus allowing the attacker to continue its move.
I agree with Makis, it is not proper to apply any change in the middle of a
turn so we may proceed the turn while discussing on what is the proper way to
implement this action.
_____________________________
From: Laertes Papaspyrou
<bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bitoulis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 19:52
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Something about rules
To: <eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Regarding the rule under discussion, we play it as such for depot garrisons.
Not sure about corps.
I found the below rules :
7.3.2.1<http://7.3.2.1>: A corps must cease movement when it consumes its
movement
allowance or when it enters an area containing an unbesieged enemy corps
(not if the area contains only cossacks, freikorps, guerrillas and/or
garrisons).
7.3.6.2 GARRISONED DEPOT AREA: If an enemy depot is garrisoned, the
player controlling the garrison factors has the option of immediately
destroying the depot before the moving force chooses whether to leave the
area (if permissible) or to stay and ght. If the garrison does not elect to
destroy the depot and the phasing force chooses to stop its movement and
ght, the depot may be captured after land combat (see 7.3.6.1) and
destroyed or converted (but not used for supply this major power's
sequence-also see 7.5.2.14). If the garrison destroys the depot, the garrison
surrenders or all or part (if city cannot hold all-the part not moved to the
city will surrender) can be moved to an unbesieged friendly controlled or
vacant city in that same area, at the owning player's option.
So it seems you only get he option to continue moving when facing a depot
garrison. I think this how we have been playing by now.
________________________________
From: Makis Xiroyannis
<makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>>
To: eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 February 2018, 19:46
Subject: [eiagreek] Re: Something about rules
I don't have the rules in front of me but this is how we have been playing it
yes. I suggest we do not change it mid move even if you are correct. I would
also suggest that you change the part of your naval move that was jeopardised
due to playing differently.
'Re Turkey, I had hoped he would have posted so that you have an overall view
of things, but something is probably holding him up, so I would suggest we
continue with the Western front were Turkish actions are not very relevant.
On 14 Feb 2018 6:59 pm, "Tiron"
<strategija@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:strategija@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
During discussions with my allies it turned out that the group has played
before in one why I find unusual and it certainly compromises part of my naval
move.
I am told the corps can continue movement after initial battle is declared but
defender retreats into city.
I would like to note the rules here:
7.5.1 GENERAL RULES OF LAND COMBAT: If at the end of all movement of the
phasing major power, enemy forces (excluding guerillas-see 10.1.1.3) occupy the
same area as its corps, freikorps or cossacks, the phasing major power must
attack in those areas (also see 7.3.7 and 7.3.8).
7.5.1.1 DEFENDER RETIREMENT INTO CITY: Any forces or portion of forces upon
whom an attack is declared may immediately retire into any friendly controlled
or vacant, and unbesieged city in that area but not so as to exceed that city's
garrison capacity.
7.5.1 is clear, you complete your movement and anywhere you enter enemy area
and say Attack!
7.5.1.1. says after you said Attack! defender can retreat into city .
So the sequence should be like this
Movement -> Attack -> Retreat into city
I do not see where is says after retreating into city you go back to step 1.
On a side note, are we waiting for Turkish turn or we proceed with French
battles?